Did the Takoma MS magnet got MORE white this year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the county's top-secret illegal agenda was to increase diversity in the magnets, they failed miserably since it's still 75%+ White and Asian.

Yes. It is a failure in multiple dimensions. But at least they successfully reduced the Asian "over-representation," Discerning public should think more carefully whether this kind of divisive policy and social engineering is good for anyone.

Cohort method appears to be a big win for the county since it helps more kids achieve while reducing bussing costs.

https://theblackandwhite.net/59776/news/boe-holds-community-meeting-addresses-staffing-new-curriculum-mental-health/

At least on of these strong-peer-cohort middle school pricipal is on the record saying the new classes won't be much different.

Seriously? Nardi is the principal who has kids running around using the N*word and heiling Hitler.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
and you are perfectly ok with that, but never would be ok with any policy that discriminates against blacks. Who exactly is racist here?

MCPS is discriminating against people based on where they live, which in this case, is a proxy for race because most of the rejected students with top scores happen to be white/asian on the western side.

MCPS wanted more URM in the magnets, so they widened the testing net. Perfectly fine and acceptable. But if those students could get in without having to lower the threshold, then why change the testing, why stop reporting median test scores of accepted students, why look at "peer cohort" which disproportionately affects students from the western side? They couldn't figure out a way to increase URM admittance rate without having to change something.

Any policy which gives favor to one side over the other is not a fair policy. Remember the policy the US had about favoring European immigrants over others, like Asians? Some of the Trump supporters want to bring back this policy, which is favoring one location over another. Wouldn't you agree that was not a fair policy? Yet somehow MCPS policy of favoring one group based on location over the other is ok to you.

I can't believe you're comparing MCPS looking at peer cohort in the home middle school, on the one hand, to the current presidential administration favoring immigrants from Norway over immigrants from Nigeria, on the other. That's really something.

The comparison is about unfair policies, favoring one location over the other, but on a smaller scale in MCPS' case. The fact that you can't see that is something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:well. kids may as well learn about affirmative action over merit earlier than later. it's the liberal way.

Do you have any evidence to support this claim about affirmative action or is this just a case of sour grapes?

It's a case of feeling like a victim, I think. And sometimes people who feel like victims actually are victims; but sometimes they aren't.

so no to evidence yes to sour grapes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:well. kids may as well learn about affirmative action over merit earlier than later. it's the liberal way.

Do you have any evidence to support this claim about affirmative action or is this just a case of sour grapes?

Evidence is everywhere if you had a reason to pay attention. In the last year or so, most major newspaper had one or more sympathetic piece on Asian American's students' fight against college admission discrimination. Here is one example.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-uncomfortable-truth-about-affirmative-action-and-asian-americans

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yes. It is a failure in multiple dimensions. But at least they successfully reduced the Asian "over-representation," Discerning public should think more carefully whether this kind of divisive policy and social engineering is good for anyone.

You're using "social engineering" as a synonym for "bad". Why?

Adding the downcounty magnets was social engineering. Adding the upcounty magnets was social engineering. The previous admissions policy was social engineering. This admissions policy is social engineering. Adding a magnet for the Cold Spring kids would be social engineering. Getting rid of the magnets would be social engineering. Whatever MCPS does is social engineering, inherently. The only way to get rid of government social engineering is to get rid of government. Which I don't advocate; do you?

Racist redlining was social engineering. Systematic denial of housing loans is social engineering. The fact that a Black college grad has about the same employment prospects as a white high school grad is social engineering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
BOTTOM LINE the top 2.5% of 4000 (2018 application pool) beats out the top 16% of 600 (2017 application pool)

BUT BUT 4000 kids selected to test because of high grades and test scores isn't the same as the 600 kids selected by their parents!!

I didn't know half of the down county students have high grades and test scores. I might have believed you if they only tested 1000 or 1500. A whole 50% of kids?

They should probably do universal testing to shut-up the Cold Spring whiners.

They aren't whining about universal screening. You are either being deliberately obtuse, or just plain dumb.

But I agree, they should've always been doing universal screening. That's not being debated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
and you are perfectly ok with that, but never would be ok with any policy that discriminates against blacks. Who exactly is racist here?

MCPS is discriminating against people based on where they live, which in this case, is a proxy for race because most of the rejected students with top scores happen to be white/asian on the western side.

MCPS wanted more URM in the magnets, so they widened the testing net. Perfectly fine and acceptable. But if those students could get in without having to lower the threshold, then why change the testing, why stop reporting median test scores of accepted students, why look at "peer cohort" which disproportionately affects students from the western side? They couldn't figure out a way to increase URM admittance rate without having to change something.

Any policy which gives favor to one side over the other is not a fair policy. Remember the policy the US had about favoring European immigrants over others, like Asians? Some of the Trump supporters want to bring back this policy, which is favoring one location over another. Wouldn't you agree that was not a fair policy? Yet somehow MCPS policy of favoring one group based on location over the other is ok to you.

I can't believe you're comparing MCPS looking at peer cohort in the home middle school, on the one hand, to the current presidential administration favoring immigrants from Norway over immigrants from Nigeria, on the other. That's really something.

The comparison is about unfair policies, favoring one location over the other, but on a smaller scale in MCPS' case. The fact that you can't see that is something.

I have now officially arrived at the point of can't even.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yes. It is a failure in multiple dimensions. But at least they successfully reduced the Asian "over-representation," Discerning public should think more carefully whether this kind of divisive policy and social engineering is good for anyone.

You're using "social engineering" as a synonym for "bad". Why?

Adding the downcounty magnets was social engineering. Adding the upcounty magnets was social engineering. The previous admissions policy was social engineering. This admissions policy is social engineering. Adding a magnet for the Cold Spring kids would be social engineering. Getting rid of the magnets would be social engineering. Whatever MCPS does is social engineering, inherently. The only way to get rid of government social engineering is to get rid of government. Which I don't advocate; do you?

Racist redlining was social engineering. Systematic denial of housing loans is social engineering. The fact that a Black college grad has about the same employment prospects as a white high school grad is social engineering.

No, that's not social engineering, that's the result of social engineering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:well. kids may as well learn about affirmative action over merit earlier than later. it's the liberal way.

Do you have any evidence to support this claim about affirmative action or is this just a case of sour grapes?

Evidence is everywhere if you had a reason to pay attention. In the last year or so, most major newspaper had one or more sympathetic piece on Asian American's students' fight against college admission discrimination. Here is one example.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-uncomfortable-truth-about-affirmative-action-and-asian-americans

There is not one villainous Man or System that controls all college admissions and MCPS magnet tests. An article about college admissions decisions has nothing to do with MCPS magnet admissions procedures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yes. It is a failure in multiple dimensions. But at least they successfully reduced the Asian "over-representation," Discerning public should think more carefully whether this kind of divisive policy and social engineering is good for anyone.

You're using "social engineering" as a synonym for "bad". Why?

Adding the downcounty magnets was social engineering. Adding the upcounty magnets was social engineering. The previous admissions policy was social engineering. This admissions policy is social engineering. Adding a magnet for the Cold Spring kids would be social engineering. Getting rid of the magnets would be social engineering. Whatever MCPS does is social engineering, inherently. The only way to get rid of government social engineering is to get rid of government. Which I don't advocate; do you?

After reading this thread, the group complaining about imagined slights are privileged and self-absorbed and lack sufficient empathy to see how they might even benefit from these changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yes. It is a failure in multiple dimensions. But at least they successfully reduced the Asian "over-representation," Discerning public should think more carefully whether this kind of divisive policy and social engineering is good for anyone.

You're using "social engineering" as a synonym for "bad". Why?

Adding the downcounty magnets was social engineering. Adding the upcounty magnets was social engineering. The previous admissions policy was social engineering. This admissions policy is social engineering. Adding a magnet for the Cold Spring kids would be social engineering. Getting rid of the magnets would be social engineering. Whatever MCPS does is social engineering, inherently. The only way to get rid of government social engineering is to get rid of government. Which I don't advocate; do you?

Racist redlining was social engineering. Systematic denial of housing loans is social engineering. The fact that a Black college grad has about the same employment prospects as a white high school grad is social engineering.

No, that's not social engineering, that's the result of social engineering.

True. The broader point is that folks act like residential housing patters happened by magic. They didn't. Deliberate and ongoing policy choices have created significant inequities that can be seen in housing and educational segregation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yes. It is a failure in multiple dimensions. But at least they successfully reduced the Asian "over-representation," Discerning public should think more carefully whether this kind of divisive policy and social engineering is good for anyone.

You're using "social engineering" as a synonym for "bad". Why?

Adding the downcounty magnets was social engineering. Adding the upcounty magnets was social engineering. The previous admissions policy was social engineering. This admissions policy is social engineering. Adding a magnet for the Cold Spring kids would be social engineering. Getting rid of the magnets would be social engineering. Whatever MCPS does is social engineering, inherently. The only way to get rid of government social engineering is to get rid of government. Which I don't advocate; do you?

After reading this thread, the group complaining about imagined slights are privileged and self-absorbed and lack sufficient empathy to see how they might even benefit from these changes.

If you think one or two "enriched" classes is the same as a whole magnet program, then you are clueless about how a magnet program works. If MCPS brought the exact same program to the western side, then I would agree with you. But they aren't doing that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:well. kids may as well learn about affirmative action over merit earlier than later. it's the liberal way.

Do you have any evidence to support this claim about affirmative action or is this just a case of sour grapes?

Evidence is everywhere if you had a reason to pay attention. In the last year or so, most major newspaper had one or more sympathetic piece on Asian American's students' fight against college admission discrimination. Here is one example.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-uncomfortable-truth-about-affirmative-action-and-asian-americans

There is not one villainous Man or System that controls all college admissions and MCPS magnet tests. An article about college admissions decisions has nothing to do with MCPS magnet admissions procedures.

That is just it. It is not one man or one college or one public school system. Asian American students and parents felt discriminated in college admission and now they felt discriminated in magnet school admission. Just because they are high achieving as a cohort? So they have to endure all kinds of stereotype? Just because they "over represented" their share of population. Previous posters have demonstrated they are disproportionately represented in the NMSF, in all kinds of academic competition, in PARCC and AP 5s. It seems only natural that they should be over represented in the county's academic programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
If you think one or two "enriched" classes is the same as a whole magnet program, then you are clueless about how a magnet program works. If MCPS brought the exact same program to the western side, then I would agree with you. But they aren't doing that.

I think that two special classes is only one class less than the number of magnet classes in the magnet program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:well. kids may as well learn about affirmative action over merit earlier than later. it's the liberal way.

Do you have any evidence to support this claim about affirmative action or is this just a case of sour grapes?

Evidence is everywhere if you had a reason to pay attention. In the last year or so, most major newspaper had one or more sympathetic piece on Asian American's students' fight against college admission discrimination. Here is one example.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-uncomfortable-truth-about-affirmative-action-and-asian-americans

There is not one villainous Man or System that controls all college admissions and MCPS magnet tests. An article about college admissions decisions has nothing to do with MCPS magnet admissions procedures.

That is just it. It is not one man or one college or one public school system. Asian American students and parents felt discriminated in college admission and now they felt discriminated in magnet school admission. Just because they are high achieving as a cohort? So they have to endure all kinds of stereotype? Just because they "over represented" their share of population. Previous posters have demonstrated they are disproportionately represented in the NMSF, in all kinds of academic competition, in PARCC and AP 5s. It seems only natural that they should be over represented in the county's academic programs.

Exactly. It's statistics.

This group is damned if they do and damned if they don't. They work hard and put in a lot of effort, only to be told they did too well, so they will be penalized for their too much efforts.