U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts on Friday called for a response from a Virginia school
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
You are going to have to provide a rational justification for that counter-intuitive thought. Given that human civilization progression has been one where children do better than their parents by leveraging the additional resources provided by their parents, it's natural and logical to not penalize children for the resources they receive from their parents. |
Anonymous
"Increased access" would involve supporting an admissions process that resulted in less than one percent of admitted students coming from economically disadvantaged backgrounds.... .... against the backdrop of a ubiquitous nine-figure TJ prep complex that costs thousands of dollars for entry and claims overwhelmingly effective results. |
Anonymous
This point isn't even under contention. Asians were denied constitutional fair access under the new policy. The only thing in question is whether the government had a compelling public interest in that action against the strict scrutiny standard. Demonstrated racist intent is why the FCPS board received a smackdown from a federal judge. Even the 4th circuit of appeals does not disagree with this point, simply that the assessment of racist intent was flawed. It is complicated, you need to do some research and learn the relevant issues before posting further. |
Anonymous
DP but I'll jump in here. The previous admissions process provided an enormous advantage to parents who prioritized crafting their kid's childhood completely around TJ admissions from a very young age. What that means is that students who didn't have the good fortune to be born into a family with parents who prioritized TJ were penalized for the circumstances of their birth in the admissions process. Reducing or eliminating that advantage is not penalizing those students who had the good fortune to be born into a family that prioritizes educational prestige. |
Anonymous
That's circular logic. You are criticizing an application process for providing "increased access" to Asians and using the result of the process as the proof of so-called increased access. You, too, would have only been accepted into TJ based on "experience factors". |
Anonymous
Cite the passage from Heytens' concurrence where he acknowledges that Asians were denied constitutional fair access. Please, for all of our benefit. |
Anonymous
I will buy what you are selling if you can show me that the rest of constitutionality is actually “ The percentages of each demographic that were eventually admitted for Class of 2025 tracked very well with the percentage of applicants from each of those demographics, suggesting a process that resulted in significantly MORE fair access than existed previously.” If so, it’s really not complicated. And should not have invited scrutiny from the Chief Justice among others. May be you have a pithy solution to world hunger? The temperature today is less than the seasonal average. We have solved glibsl warming. Agreed? |
Anonymous
I don't see how you can type that non ironically. How is "reducing" and "eliminating" not "penalizing"? |
Anonymous
No, the point under contention is whether or not the denial was constitutional. So far one district court judge says no, two circuit judges say most likely yes, and one says most likely no. |
Anonymous
Nope. My point is not about the previous process providing increased access to Asians. It's about the previous process providing increased access to families that had the resources and motivation to mold their children's entire childhood around the TJ admissions process. There isn't anything circular about my logic. The application fee was a problem. The exam that worked well for a year until the prep companies caught up to it was a problem. And the results were in the numbers. |
Anonymous
Because we're talking about an unearned advantage. Reducing these advantages is more or less akin to forcing all runners to start a race from the same point, rather than continuing to allow some kids to start the race 50 yards ahead because their parents put them there. |
Anonymous
If you're so worried about countering these advantages, then trying to build a better TJ admissions mousetrap is an awfully noisy way to try and address them. Ultimately, it does more to negate the benefits of growing up under favorable circumstances than it does to avoid the costs of growing up under unfavorable ones. But it makes some people feel like they've stuck it to the Asian parents who prioritized education, so here we are. |
Anonymous
+1000 excellent point. The old admissions process granted huge advantages to kids who knew what types of questions were going to be on the exam and who had participated in the STEM activities that were deemed appropriate by the admissions office. |
Anonymous
On what objective and legally defensible basis you make the argument “ It's about the previous process providing increased access to families that had the resources and motivation to mold their children's entire childhood around the TJ admissions process.”. You would never make tag sweeping statement on hearsay, would you? And we dongg TJ stereotype, do we? |
Anonymous
The county did build a better mouse trap that worked as advertised. If anything, this version was a compromise. A lottery will equalize things even more, but the people upset with this system will be enraged even more by that move. |