$24 billion NYC public schools only accepted 7 black students (of 895) to top magnet high schoool

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“This is actually tricky -
Admission to Stuyvesant is determined by a single test avail to all middle school students in NYC.There are no soft criteria-no interviews,no legacy favoritism, no strings to be pulled. It’s all abt test score which determines if you can handle academics.”

- Stephanie Ruhle, MSNBC

Maggie Haberman, NYT, quoted Ruhle to say:
“White students generally have more means with which to prep for this test, some doing it for years. Yes it’s a test, no it is not an equal playing field.”

I’m not sure why Maggie used white when Asians are the ones dominating this system.

The simple truth is that Asian relative overperformance demonstrates that “discrimination” is not a significant driver of outcomes on this sort of test. It has always been a very inconvenient truth for those who insist all groups are equally talented, generally ignored because of that inconvenience, and because Asians didn’t seem to want to make a big issue out of it. Now there is a critical mass of Asians who are going to resist getting shafted in the name of diversity. Will be interesting to see how that all works out.

You think it's a level playing field? So it's just pure talent that is being compared by these tests?

um yeah. There are poor and middle class asian kids who are getting in. That throws out race and SES as an excuse

Many of the Chinese kids I knew at Stuy were straight up poor by NYC standards. Their parents worked very menial jobs in Chinatown and Flushing. Some worked to help support their families, and many took on tons of responsibility at an early age because their parents knew no English.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“This is actually tricky -
Admission to Stuyvesant is determined by a single test avail to all middle school students in NYC.There are no soft criteria-no interviews,no legacy favoritism, no strings to be pulled. It’s all abt test score which determines if you can handle academics.”

- Stephanie Ruhle, MSNBC

Maggie Haberman, NYT, quoted Ruhle to say:
“White students generally have more means with which to prep for this test, some doing it for years. Yes it’s a test, no it is not an equal playing field.”

I’m not sure why Maggie used white when Asians are the ones dominating this system.

The simple truth is that Asian relative overperformance demonstrates that “discrimination” is not a significant driver of outcomes on this sort of test. It has always been a very inconvenient truth for those who insist all groups are equally talented, generally ignored because of that inconvenience, and because Asians didn’t seem to want to make a big issue out of it. Now there is a critical mass of Asians who are going to resist getting shafted in the name of diversity. Will be interesting to see how that all works out.

You think it's a level playing field? So it's just pure talent that is being compared by these tests?

um yeah. There are poor and middle class asian kids who are getting in. That throws out race and SES as an excuse

So all of those poor and MC kids had the same upbringing? Same home environment? Same school environment - are they are the same schools?

This doesn't break down the SES by race so we don't know how the scores map to race AND SES.

[Anonymous]

The number of white students is [also] declining as well. A growing majority of seats occupied by (largely low income) Asian American students. The media focusing on “rich WHITE” students is a red herring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“This is actually tricky -
Admission to Stuyvesant is determined by a single test avail to all middle school students in NYC.There are no soft criteria-no interviews,no legacy favoritism, no strings to be pulled. It’s all abt test score which determines if you can handle academics.”

- Stephanie Ruhle, MSNBC

Maggie Haberman, NYT, quoted Ruhle to say:
“White students generally have more means with which to prep for this test, some doing it for years. Yes it’s a test, no it is not an equal playing field.”

I’m not sure why Maggie used white when Asians are the ones dominating this system.

The simple truth is that Asian relative overperformance demonstrates that “discrimination” is not a significant driver of outcomes on this sort of test. It has always been a very inconvenient truth for those who insist all groups are equally talented, generally ignored because of that inconvenience, and because Asians didn’t seem to want to make a big issue out of it. Now there is a critical mass of Asians who are going to resist getting shafted in the name of diversity. Will be interesting to see how that all works out.

You think it's a level playing field? So it's just pure talent that is being compared by these tests?

um yeah. There are poor and middle class asian kids who are getting in. That throws out race and SES as an excuse

So all of those poor and MC kids had the same upbringing? Same home environment? Same school environment - are they are the same schools?

This doesn't break down the SES by race so we don't know how the scores map to race AND SES.

I believe that 90 percent of the FARMS students at Stuy are Asians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The number of white students is [also] declining as well. A growing majority of seats occupied by (largely low income) Asian American students. The media focusing on “rich WHITE” students is a red herring.

Because it wouldn't look good to pick on lower income Asian American students. But, if you look at the recent college scandal, the ***majority*** of folks accused are wealthy and white.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“This is actually tricky -
Admission to Stuyvesant is determined by a single test avail to all middle school students in NYC.There are no soft criteria-no interviews,no legacy favoritism, no strings to be pulled. It’s all abt test score which determines if you can handle academics.”

- Stephanie Ruhle, MSNBC

Maggie Haberman, NYT, quoted Ruhle to say:
“White students generally have more means with which to prep for this test, some doing it for years. Yes it’s a test, no it is not an equal playing field.”

I’m not sure why Maggie used white when Asians are the ones dominating this system.

The simple truth is that Asian relative overperformance demonstrates that “discrimination” is not a significant driver of outcomes on this sort of test. It has always been a very inconvenient truth for those who insist all groups are equally talented, generally ignored because of that inconvenience, and because Asians didn’t seem to want to make a big issue out of it. Now there is a critical mass of Asians who are going to resist getting shafted in the name of diversity. Will be interesting to see how that all works out.

You think it's a level playing field? So it's just pure talent that is being compared by these tests?

um yeah. There are poor and middle class asian kids who are getting in. That throws out race and SES as an excuse

I'd guess that the home lives of most poor black/Latino kids are pretty different from those of poor kids with Asian immigrant parents. For example, I'd imagine that the level of trauma exposure would be a lot higher in the former.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“This is actually tricky -
Admission to Stuyvesant is determined by a single test avail to all middle school students in NYC.There are no soft criteria-no interviews,no legacy favoritism, no strings to be pulled. It’s all abt test score which determines if you can handle academics.”

- Stephanie Ruhle, MSNBC

Maggie Haberman, NYT, quoted Ruhle to say:
“White students generally have more means with which to prep for this test, some doing it for years. Yes it’s a test, no it is not an equal playing field.”

I’m not sure why Maggie used white when Asians are the ones dominating this system.

The simple truth is that Asian relative overperformance demonstrates that “discrimination” is not a significant driver of outcomes on this sort of test. It has always been a very inconvenient truth for those who insist all groups are equally talented, generally ignored because of that inconvenience, and because Asians didn’t seem to want to make a big issue out of it. Now there is a critical mass of Asians who are going to resist getting shafted in the name of diversity. Will be interesting to see how that all works out.

You think it's a level playing field? So it's just pure talent that is being compared by these tests?

um yeah. There are poor and middle class asian kids who are getting in. That throws out race and SES as an excuse

Many of the Chinese kids I knew at Stuy were straight up poor by NYC standards. Their parents worked very menial jobs in Chinatown and Flushing. Some worked to help support their families, and many took on tons of responsibility at an early age because their parents knew no English.

My neighbor is Chinese, she was a doctor in China. She qualifies for the MPDU in MoCo because the US does not recognize her degree and she does not work as a doctor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would be curious to see the number of each racial group that applied... or are students selected from the entire NYC public school pool without needing to opt in?

Couldn't find this year's info, but the data from last year is here, and I'm sure it's quite similar:
https://www.chalkbeat.org/posts/ny/2018/03/07/few-black-and-hispanic-students-receive-admissions-offers-to-new-york-citys-top-high-schools-again/

Here are the percentage of test-takers who were admitted to Stuyvesant:

Native American 2.69%
Asian 6.96%
Black 0.17%
Latino 0.42%
White 2.94%
Multiracial 8.58%
Unknown 4.29%

I haven't looked at the link, but without knowing how each group did on the test, these percentages are meaningless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“This is actually tricky -
Admission to Stuyvesant is determined by a single test avail to all middle school students in NYC.There are no soft criteria-no interviews,no legacy favoritism, no strings to be pulled. It’s all abt test score which determines if you can handle academics.”

- Stephanie Ruhle, MSNBC

Maggie Haberman, NYT, quoted Ruhle to say:
“White students generally have more means with which to prep for this test, some doing it for years. Yes it’s a test, no it is not an equal playing field.”

I’m not sure why Maggie used white when Asians are the ones dominating this system.

The simple truth is that Asian relative overperformance demonstrates that “discrimination” is not a significant driver of outcomes on this sort of test. It has always been a very inconvenient truth for those who insist all groups are equally talented, generally ignored because of that inconvenience, and because Asians didn’t seem to want to make a big issue out of it. Now there is a critical mass of Asians who are going to resist getting shafted in the name of diversity. Will be interesting to see how that all works out.

You think it's a level playing field? So it's just pure talent that is being compared by these tests?

um yeah. There are poor and middle class asian kids who are getting in. That throws out race and SES as an excuse

I'd guess that the home lives of most poor black/Latino kids are pretty different from those of poor kids with Asian immigrant parents. For example, I'd imagine that the level of trauma exposure would be a lot higher in the former.

and why is that, shouldn't we be addressing that instead of saying everything is racist?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“This is actually tricky -
Admission to Stuyvesant is determined by a single test avail to all middle school students in NYC.There are no soft criteria-no interviews,no legacy favoritism, no strings to be pulled. It’s all abt test score which determines if you can handle academics.”

- Stephanie Ruhle, MSNBC

Maggie Haberman, NYT, quoted Ruhle to say:
“White students generally have more means with which to prep for this test, some doing it for years. Yes it’s a test, no it is not an equal playing field.”

I’m not sure why Maggie used white when Asians are the ones dominating this system.

The simple truth is that Asian relative overperformance demonstrates that “discrimination” is not a significant driver of outcomes on this sort of test. It has always been a very inconvenient truth for those who insist all groups are equally talented, generally ignored because of that inconvenience, and because Asians didn’t seem to want to make a big issue out of it. Now there is a critical mass of Asians who are going to resist getting shafted in the name of diversity. Will be interesting to see how that all works out.

You think it's a level playing field? So it's just pure talent that is being compared by these tests?

um yeah. There are poor and middle class asian kids who are getting in. That throws out race and SES as an excuse

I'd guess that the home lives of most poor black/Latino kids are pretty different from those of poor kids with Asian immigrant parents. For example, I'd imagine that the level of trauma exposure would be a lot higher in the former.

and why is that, shouldn't we be addressing that instead of saying everything is racist?

The definition of institutional racism is to create an institution that has barriers for 1 race and not others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“This is actually tricky -
Admission to Stuyvesant is determined by a single test avail to all middle school students in NYC.There are no soft criteria-no interviews,no legacy favoritism, no strings to be pulled. It’s all abt test score which determines if you can handle academics.”

- Stephanie Ruhle, MSNBC

Maggie Haberman, NYT, quoted Ruhle to say:
“White students generally have more means with which to prep for this test, some doing it for years. Yes it’s a test, no it is not an equal playing field.”

I’m not sure why Maggie used white when Asians are the ones dominating this system.

The simple truth is that Asian relative overperformance demonstrates that “discrimination” is not a significant driver of outcomes on this sort of test. It has always been a very inconvenient truth for those who insist all groups are equally talented, generally ignored because of that inconvenience, and because Asians didn’t seem to want to make a big issue out of it. Now there is a critical mass of Asians who are going to resist getting shafted in the name of diversity. Will be interesting to see how that all works out.

You think it's a level playing field? So it's just pure talent that is being compared by these tests?

um yeah. There are poor and middle class asian kids who are getting in. That throws out race and SES as an excuse

I'd guess that the home lives of most poor black/Latino kids are pretty different from those of poor kids with Asian immigrant parents. For example, I'd imagine that the level of trauma exposure would be a lot higher in the former.

and why is that, shouldn't we be addressing that instead of saying everything is racist?

Are you okay paying for wraparound services for poor black/Latino kids in NY? Because apparently you're not okay with taking their backgrounds and barriers into consideration when applying to competitive high schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“This is actually tricky -
Admission to Stuyvesant is determined by a single test avail to all middle school students in NYC.There are no soft criteria-no interviews,no legacy favoritism, no strings to be pulled. It’s all abt test score which determines if you can handle academics.”

- Stephanie Ruhle, MSNBC

Maggie Haberman, NYT, quoted Ruhle to say:
“White students generally have more means with which to prep for this test, some doing it for years. Yes it’s a test, no it is not an equal playing field.”

I’m not sure why Maggie used white when Asians are the ones dominating this system.

The simple truth is that Asian relative overperformance demonstrates that “discrimination” is not a significant driver of outcomes on this sort of test. It has always been a very inconvenient truth for those who insist all groups are equally talented, generally ignored because of that inconvenience, and because Asians didn’t seem to want to make a big issue out of it. Now there is a critical mass of Asians who are going to resist getting shafted in the name of diversity. Will be interesting to see how that all works out.

You think it's a level playing field? So it's just pure talent that is being compared by these tests?

um yeah. There are poor and middle class asian kids who are getting in. That throws out race and SES as an excuse

I'd guess that the home lives of most poor black/Latino kids are pretty different from those of poor kids with Asian immigrant parents. For example, I'd imagine that the level of trauma exposure would be a lot higher in the former.

and why is that, shouldn't we be addressing that instead of saying everything is racist?

The definition of institutional racism is to create an institution that has barriers for 1 race and not others.

?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“This is actually tricky -
Admission to Stuyvesant is determined by a single test avail to all middle school students in NYC.There are no soft criteria-no interviews,no legacy favoritism, no strings to be pulled. It’s all abt test score which determines if you can handle academics.”

- Stephanie Ruhle, MSNBC

Maggie Haberman, NYT, quoted Ruhle to say:
“White students generally have more means with which to prep for this test, some doing it for years. Yes it’s a test, no it is not an equal playing field.”

I’m not sure why Maggie used white when Asians are the ones dominating this system.

The simple truth is that Asian relative overperformance demonstrates that “discrimination” is not a significant driver of outcomes on this sort of test. It has always been a very inconvenient truth for those who insist all groups are equally talented, generally ignored because of that inconvenience, and because Asians didn’t seem to want to make a big issue out of it. Now there is a critical mass of Asians who are going to resist getting shafted in the name of diversity. Will be interesting to see how that all works out.

You think it's a level playing field? So it's just pure talent that is being compared by these tests?

um yeah. There are poor and middle class asian kids who are getting in. That throws out race and SES as an excuse

Many of the Chinese kids I knew at Stuy were straight up poor by NYC standards. Their parents worked very menial jobs in Chinatown and Flushing. Some worked to help support their families, and many took on tons of responsibility at an early age because their parents knew no English.

My neighbor is Chinese, she was a doctor in China. She qualifies for the MPDU in MoCo because the US does not recognize her degree and she does not work as a doctor.

For every one of those examples, there are more examples of under educated Asian immigrants working low level jobs whose kids do well in school.

Many Asian immigrants see education as a means to get out of poverty for their children (and the rest of the family), so they are heavily invested in their children's education. That's all it is. That's all it comes down to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“This is actually tricky -
Admission to Stuyvesant is determined by a single test avail to all middle school students in NYC.There are no soft criteria-no interviews,no legacy favoritism, no strings to be pulled. It’s all abt test score which determines if you can handle academics.”

- Stephanie Ruhle, MSNBC

Maggie Haberman, NYT, quoted Ruhle to say:
“White students generally have more means with which to prep for this test, some doing it for years. Yes it’s a test, no it is not an equal playing field.”

I’m not sure why Maggie used white when Asians are the ones dominating this system.

The simple truth is that Asian relative overperformance demonstrates that “discrimination” is not a significant driver of outcomes on this sort of test. It has always been a very inconvenient truth for those who insist all groups are equally talented, generally ignored because of that inconvenience, and because Asians didn’t seem to want to make a big issue out of it. Now there is a critical mass of Asians who are going to resist getting shafted in the name of diversity. Will be interesting to see how that all works out.

You think it's a level playing field? So it's just pure talent that is being compared by these tests?

um yeah. There are poor and middle class asian kids who are getting in. That throws out race and SES as an excuse

I'd guess that the home lives of most poor black/Latino kids are pretty different from those of poor kids with Asian immigrant parents. For example, I'd imagine that the level of trauma exposure would be a lot higher in the former.

Why do you say that? Lots of gang violence, human trafficking, prostitution, extortion, etc. in poor Chinese communities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“This is actually tricky -
Admission to Stuyvesant is determined by a single test avail to all middle school students in NYC.There are no soft criteria-no interviews,no legacy favoritism, no strings to be pulled. It’s all abt test score which determines if you can handle academics.”

- Stephanie Ruhle, MSNBC

Maggie Haberman, NYT, quoted Ruhle to say:
“White students generally have more means with which to prep for this test, some doing it for years. Yes it’s a test, no it is not an equal playing field.”

I’m not sure why Maggie used white when Asians are the ones dominating this system.

The simple truth is that Asian relative overperformance demonstrates that “discrimination” is not a significant driver of outcomes on this sort of test. It has always been a very inconvenient truth for those who insist all groups are equally talented, generally ignored because of that inconvenience, and because Asians didn’t seem to want to make a big issue out of it. Now there is a critical mass of Asians who are going to resist getting shafted in the name of diversity. Will be interesting to see how that all works out.

You think it's a level playing field? So it's just pure talent that is being compared by these tests?

um yeah. There are poor and middle class asian kids who are getting in. That throws out race and SES as an excuse

So all of those poor and MC kids had the same upbringing? Same home environment? Same school environment - are they are the same schools?

This doesn't break down the SES by race so we don't know how the scores map to race AND SES.

I believe that 90 percent of the FARMS students at Stuy are Asians.

Wow, that is a pretty amazing success story for one group.