Has the Coalition for TJ (or any other groups) considered another lawsuit?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suspect that if the C4TJ types keep screaming about “discrimination” even though Asian kids are still admitted at a higher rate than average and have just as many students as ever before that FCPS will eventually just scrap TJ.

Or they will stop discriminating.

I guess they can stop screaming about it right now since there is no discrimination.

It's like you don't understand what structural racism is.

It’s like you are ignoring the acceptance rates and enrollment numbers.

No discrimination.

You can be over-represented and discriminated against. In this case the discrimination is BECAUSE of the over-representation.
Get a clue

The admissions process is race-blind.
The acceptance rate for Asian students is higher than average.
Asian students make up a huge majority of the students enrolled.
The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ is at a near all-time high.
The group that saw the most gains were Asian students from low-income families.

The "admissions policy does not disparately impact Asian American students."

There are real, serious issues with race and discrimination in the world. This is not one of them.

Grandfather clauses were race blind. Facially neutral criteria can be racist.
Over-representation is the reason for the discrimination. If asians weren't over-represented, nobody would have wanted to change the admissions criteria.

The group that saw the largest gain were white kids, the wealthiest group in fairfax.

The change in admission policy absolutely has a disparate impact on asians.

This is definitely one of the serious issues with racism in this world. The fact that it doesn't bother people like you is even more evidence that this is a serious issue.

No reasonable person would call it discrimination. There are groups who actually could legitimately claim discrimination and disparate impact by admissions - and they aren't Asian students.

And yet all the evidence from the Harvard SFFA case says otherwise.
If you don't think asians were discriminated against then you are lying to yourself.

The issue wasn't Asian overrepresentation; it was the underrepresentation of other groups. They wanted to expand access to more kids, not exclude anyone. That's why they added seats. If they simply wanted to get rid of Asian students then they wouldn't have changed the number of seats. There are just as many Asian students enrolled as ever before.

There are fewer asians and the percentage of asians (AND ONLY ASIANS) in the entering class plummeted. Black enrollment went up, hispanic enrollment went up, white enrollment went up. This was by design.

Again:
- The admissions process is race-blind.
- The acceptance rate for Asian students is higher than average.
- Asian students make up a huge majority of the students enrolled.
- The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ is at a near all-time high.
- The group that saw the most gains were Asian students from low-income families.

Judge: "admissions policy does not disparately impact Asian American students."

Arlington Heights analysis is pretty clear on how this case should have been decided.

That judge doesn't understand disparate impact. By their reckoning disparate impact cannot apply to any group that is over-represented.
Supreme Court Justice: "The Fourth Circuit’s decision is based on a theory that is flagrantly wrong and should not be allowed to stand."
"What the Fourth Circuit majority held, in essence, is that intentional racial discrimination is constitutional so long as it is not too severe. This reasoning is indefensible, and it cries out for correction."

Harvard admissions is a different beast and not comparable. TJ admissions is race blind.

The number of Asian students enrolled in TJ has not significantly changed. No reasonable person, or non-corrupt justice, would believe this is "harm":

And yet before the change in admissions the number of asian students enrolled was steadily increasing every year.
After the change it dropped while all other races rose.
This was the intended consequence of the change.
That is discrimination.

The argument seems to be that asians are over-represented so it's OK to discriminate against them a little bit (and you get to decide how much is a little bit).

Once again, there was a finding of intentional discrimination at trial.
The appellate court said that there was no harm because asians were still over-represented.
That is a pretty clear error of law.

That's completely wrong. Asians make up the majority of the school. The selection process is race blind. Acceptances mirror applications by demographic cohort within a few percent meaning that their process treats everyone about the same. Asian environment before and after the change is about the same and the largest beneficiary of the change were low income agents. The court was correct when they asserted there was no arm done.

Asians went from 70%+ to 50%+ of the admitted students.
This was the intended result of the change in admissions process.
This is why you are not disputing the fact that there was intentional racial discrimination in developing the new admissions process.

You can be race blind and still be discriminatory. See literacy tests and grandfather clauses
You can be over-represented and still be discriminated against. See discrimination against blacks in baseball AFTER Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier.

You are no different than any of the racists from generations past. Most racists thinks their particular brand of racism is virtuous.

I am racist and classist. I don't think TJ, a public high school program serving an extremely diverse area, should be 100% of any one particular race or filled almost entirely by kids from wealthy feeder schools. Sue me.

Given that there are just as many Asian students at TJ as ever before demonstrates that there was no harm by adding additional seats for kids who didn't attend wealthy feeder schools.

All of this "outrage" reminds me of men's ridiculous calls of "discrimination" when women were first admitted to college. Probably pushed by a bunch of RWNJs back then too.

That's pretty much all we need to know about you.

You are admitting to want to manipulate results to achieve particular racial results.
You would howl if actual RWNJ tried to manipulate racial results a different way.
But you are actually no different.
You just think your version of racism is admirable and their version is deplorable.

Asians are not asking for any racial favors, they are asking you to disregard their race.

I get it, you feel threatened by the rapidly increasing share of seats that asians seem to be occupying every year so you point to the low number of black kids being admitted and upend the admissions process to halt the increase in asian admissions while increasing black admissions by 9 students a year... out of 550. Meanwhile the white admissions increase by 54 out of that 550. That is a more comfortable ratio for some people.

You also seem to want to manipulate the criteria so that it favors your desired outcome and return to a system where only students from wealthy feeders had a real shot at admission. The data from the current process shows that selection mirrors applications. That roughly 18% give take a few points of those who apply regardless of race get in which seems like it is actually fair unlike the old process which was increasingly gamed by those with means.

Your insistence that selection should mirror applications and the like is social engineering. Asian people come here because of the school system, even if it means living in a 200 square foot basement for a family of four. Other races who have been here for generations prioritize space or sports, etc. The distribution of academic performance is not evenly distributed. Perhaps in the general population, but definitely not in this region. That is the problem. Have a less random way of selecting the top students. One can add students who you think are deserving as well. But at least have the first filter not so random.

It's not insistence. It's what the data showed.

And this is social engineering given the distribution of GPAs, test scores, etc. of the broader population at FCPS.

There is no social engineering that's just fake news. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide a citation.

Anybody that was paying attention during the hearings knows that it was all about race.

#fakenews

Here is a video of the sort of public comments we had during the hearings.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rWdIXuYFqA

The admissions change was about race.

Some emotional people made these claims, but they could not show any harm done. There was no evidence to support this theory. In the end, even the far-right SCOTUS wouldn't touch this case due to a lack of credible evidence.

1) The process is race-blind.
2) the largest beneficiaries of the change were low-income Asians
3) Asian enrollment is at a historic high.
4) The school remains majority Asian.

Yup. No discrimination.

Who do you think you're fooling

It's not invidious racism but they changed the admissions process to alter the racial composition of the school.

They added seats to give opportunities to kids who don’t attend wealthy feeder schools. There are just as many Asian kids enrolled as before. No discrimination.

The entire point of the admissions change was to create diversity that 'reflected the diversity in the county'

If that was the only goal they wouldn’t have added seats and would have just done a basic lottery with no criteria to apply.

The real problem was that 90% of the applicants selected were coming from 2 or 3 wealthy feeders where parents could afford prep to game the process, and they had to address this and better serve all county residents, not just the children with wealthy parents.

Yup. And that’s why they gave every MS across the county an allotment of seats. So all kids have a shot.

Giving unqualified kids a "shot" is not doing anyone any favors.

Fortunately that never happened. The kids getting a shot are the very top students from each school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there data somewhere to back this claim?

2) the largest beneficiaries of the change were low-income Asians

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/221280.P.pdf
page 16
[i]"Nevertheless, in the 2021 application cycle, Asian American students attending middle schools historically underrepresented at TJ saw a sixfold increase in offers, and the number of low-income Asian American admittees to TJ increased to 51 — from a mere one in 2020."


Other groups saw large increases, but not “sixfold”.

This is called data scraping.

You look for some subset of data that makes your conclusions right.

The discrimination against asians is no less because some asian subgroups increased and other asian subgroups decreased.
The number of asians getting in was reduced despite the trajectory of asians being admitted was an increase pretty much every year since the school opened.
You could just as easily claim that there was no anti-asian discrimination because the number of asian ELLs tripled, or the number of mongolian kids quintupled, etc.
Ultimately the dsicrimination was directed at asians and the number of asians went down.

That is what the court concluded, not me. I don't have that data.

We do have TJ enrollment. The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ after the change has been greater than almost all other years in the school's history.

The trial court, the finder of fact, found that there was intentional discrimination.
The circuit court's opinion is so bad that is actually drew a very rare dissent when SCOTUS denied cert.
Do you know how rarely a denial of cert has a dissent attached?

A dissent from two corrupt, partisan hacks only gives the circuit court’s opinion more credit.

Exactly when the case was put in front of a real judge it was laughed out of court for a lack of evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there data somewhere to back this claim?

2) the largest beneficiaries of the change were low-income Asians

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/221280.P.pdf
page 16
[i]"Nevertheless, in the 2021 application cycle, Asian American students attending middle schools historically underrepresented at TJ saw a sixfold increase in offers, and the number of low-income Asian American admittees to TJ increased to 51 — from a mere one in 2020."


Other groups saw large increases, but not “sixfold”.

This is called data scraping.

You look for some subset of data that makes your conclusions right.

The discrimination against asians is no less because some asian subgroups increased and other asian subgroups decreased.
The number of asians getting in was reduced despite the trajectory of asians being admitted was an increase pretty much every year since the school opened.
You could just as easily claim that there was no anti-asian discrimination because the number of asian ELLs tripled, or the number of mongolian kids quintupled, etc.
Ultimately the dsicrimination was directed at asians and the number of asians went down.

That is what the court concluded, not me. I don't have that data.

We do have TJ enrollment. The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ after the change has been greater than almost all other years in the school's history.

The trial court, the finder of fact, found that there was intentional discrimination.
The circuit court's opinion is so bad that is actually drew a very rare dissent when SCOTUS denied cert.
Do you know how rarely a denial of cert has a dissent attached?

A dissent from two corrupt, partisan hacks only gives the circuit court’s opinion more credit.

No, no it doesn't.
SCOTUS dissents from denial of cert are rare and telegraphs what the likely outcome of an actual case would have been if cert had been granted.
The disparate impact analysis of the 4th circuit inn the TJ case was embarrassingly bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suspect that if the C4TJ types keep screaming about “discrimination” even though Asian kids are still admitted at a higher rate than average and have just as many students as ever before that FCPS will eventually just scrap TJ.

Or they will stop discriminating.

I guess they can stop screaming about it right now since there is no discrimination.

It's like you don't understand what structural racism is.

It’s like you are ignoring the acceptance rates and enrollment numbers.

No discrimination.

You can be over-represented and discriminated against. In this case the discrimination is BECAUSE of the over-representation.
Get a clue

The admissions process is race-blind.
The acceptance rate for Asian students is higher than average.
Asian students make up a huge majority of the students enrolled.
The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ is at a near all-time high.
The group that saw the most gains were Asian students from low-income families.

The "admissions policy does not disparately impact Asian American students."

There are real, serious issues with race and discrimination in the world. This is not one of them.

Grandfather clauses were race blind. Facially neutral criteria can be racist.
Over-representation is the reason for the discrimination. If asians weren't over-represented, nobody would have wanted to change the admissions criteria.

The group that saw the largest gain were white kids, the wealthiest group in fairfax.

The change in admission policy absolutely has a disparate impact on asians.

This is definitely one of the serious issues with racism in this world. The fact that it doesn't bother people like you is even more evidence that this is a serious issue.

No reasonable person would call it discrimination. There are groups who actually could legitimately claim discrimination and disparate impact by admissions - and they aren't Asian students.

And yet all the evidence from the Harvard SFFA case says otherwise.
If you don't think asians were discriminated against then you are lying to yourself.

The issue wasn't Asian overrepresentation; it was the underrepresentation of other groups. They wanted to expand access to more kids, not exclude anyone. That's why they added seats. If they simply wanted to get rid of Asian students then they wouldn't have changed the number of seats. There are just as many Asian students enrolled as ever before.

There are fewer asians and the percentage of asians (AND ONLY ASIANS) in the entering class plummeted. Black enrollment went up, hispanic enrollment went up, white enrollment went up. This was by design.

Again:
- The admissions process is race-blind.
- The acceptance rate for Asian students is higher than average.
- Asian students make up a huge majority of the students enrolled.
- The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ is at a near all-time high.
- The group that saw the most gains were Asian students from low-income families.

Judge: "admissions policy does not disparately impact Asian American students."

Arlington Heights analysis is pretty clear on how this case should have been decided.

That judge doesn't understand disparate impact. By their reckoning disparate impact cannot apply to any group that is over-represented.
Supreme Court Justice: "The Fourth Circuit’s decision is based on a theory that is flagrantly wrong and should not be allowed to stand."
"What the Fourth Circuit majority held, in essence, is that intentional racial discrimination is constitutional so long as it is not too severe. This reasoning is indefensible, and it cries out for correction."

Harvard admissions is a different beast and not comparable. TJ admissions is race blind.

The number of Asian students enrolled in TJ has not significantly changed. No reasonable person, or non-corrupt justice, would believe this is "harm":

And yet before the change in admissions the number of asian students enrolled was steadily increasing every year.
After the change it dropped while all other races rose.
This was the intended consequence of the change.
That is discrimination.

The argument seems to be that asians are over-represented so it's OK to discriminate against them a little bit (and you get to decide how much is a little bit).

Once again, there was a finding of intentional discrimination at trial.
The appellate court said that there was no harm because asians were still over-represented.
That is a pretty clear error of law.

That's completely wrong. Asians make up the majority of the school. The selection process is race blind. Acceptances mirror applications by demographic cohort within a few percent meaning that their process treats everyone about the same. Asian environment before and after the change is about the same and the largest beneficiary of the change were low income agents. The court was correct when they asserted there was no arm done.

Asians went from 70%+ to 50%+ of the admitted students.
This was the intended result of the change in admissions process.
This is why you are not disputing the fact that there was intentional racial discrimination in developing the new admissions process.

You can be race blind and still be discriminatory. See literacy tests and grandfather clauses
You can be over-represented and still be discriminated against. See discrimination against blacks in baseball AFTER Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier.

You are no different than any of the racists from generations past. Most racists thinks their particular brand of racism is virtuous.

I am racist and classist. I don't think TJ, a public high school program serving an extremely diverse area, should be 100% of any one particular race or filled almost entirely by kids from wealthy feeder schools. Sue me.

Given that there are just as many Asian students at TJ as ever before demonstrates that there was no harm by adding additional seats for kids who didn't attend wealthy feeder schools.

All of this "outrage" reminds me of men's ridiculous calls of "discrimination" when women were first admitted to college. Probably pushed by a bunch of RWNJs back then too.

That's pretty much all we need to know about you.

You are admitting to want to manipulate results to achieve particular racial results.
You would howl if actual RWNJ tried to manipulate racial results a different way.
But you are actually no different.
You just think your version of racism is admirable and their version is deplorable.

Asians are not asking for any racial favors, they are asking you to disregard their race.

I get it, you feel threatened by the rapidly increasing share of seats that asians seem to be occupying every year so you point to the low number of black kids being admitted and upend the admissions process to halt the increase in asian admissions while increasing black admissions by 9 students a year... out of 550. Meanwhile the white admissions increase by 54 out of that 550. That is a more comfortable ratio for some people.

You also seem to want to manipulate the criteria so that it favors your desired outcome and return to a system where only students from wealthy feeders had a real shot at admission. The data from the current process shows that selection mirrors applications. That roughly 18% give take a few points of those who apply regardless of race get in which seems like it is actually fair unlike the old process which was increasingly gamed by those with means.

Your insistence that selection should mirror applications and the like is social engineering. Asian people come here because of the school system, even if it means living in a 200 square foot basement for a family of four. Other races who have been here for generations prioritize space or sports, etc. The distribution of academic performance is not evenly distributed. Perhaps in the general population, but definitely not in this region. That is the problem. Have a less random way of selecting the top students. One can add students who you think are deserving as well. But at least have the first filter not so random.

It's not insistence. It's what the data showed.

And this is social engineering given the distribution of GPAs, test scores, etc. of the broader population at FCPS.

There is no social engineering that's just fake news. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide a citation.

Anybody that was paying attention during the hearings knows that it was all about race.

#fakenews

Here is a video of the sort of public comments we had during the hearings.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rWdIXuYFqA

The admissions change was about race.

Some emotional people made these claims, but they could not show any harm done. There was no evidence to support this theory. In the end, even the far-right SCOTUS wouldn't touch this case due to a lack of credible evidence.

1) The process is race-blind.
2) the largest beneficiaries of the change were low-income Asians
3) Asian enrollment is at a historic high.
4) The school remains majority Asian.

Yup. No discrimination.

Who do you think you're fooling

It's not invidious racism but they changed the admissions process to alter the racial composition of the school.

They added seats to give opportunities to kids who don’t attend wealthy feeder schools. There are just as many Asian kids enrolled as before. No discrimination.

The entire point of the admissions change was to create diversity that 'reflected the diversity in the county'

If that was the only goal they wouldn’t have added seats and would have just done a basic lottery with no criteria to apply.

The real problem was that 90% of the applicants selected were coming from 2 or 3 wealthy feeders where parents could afford prep to game the process, and they had to address this and better serve all county residents, not just the children with wealthy parents.

Yup. And that’s why they gave every MS across the county an allotment of seats. So all kids have a shot.

Giving unqualified kids a "shot" is not doing anyone any favors.

Fortunately that never happened. The kids getting a shot are the very top students from each school.

40 students from the class of 2025 returned to their base school before the start of their sophomore year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there data somewhere to back this claim?

2) the largest beneficiaries of the change were low-income Asians

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/221280.P.pdf
page 16
[i]"Nevertheless, in the 2021 application cycle, Asian American students attending middle schools historically underrepresented at TJ saw a sixfold increase in offers, and the number of low-income Asian American admittees to TJ increased to 51 — from a mere one in 2020."


Other groups saw large increases, but not “sixfold”.

This is called data scraping.

You look for some subset of data that makes your conclusions right.

The discrimination against asians is no less because some asian subgroups increased and other asian subgroups decreased.
The number of asians getting in was reduced despite the trajectory of asians being admitted was an increase pretty much every year since the school opened.
You could just as easily claim that there was no anti-asian discrimination because the number of asian ELLs tripled, or the number of mongolian kids quintupled, etc.
Ultimately the dsicrimination was directed at asians and the number of asians went down.

That is what the court concluded, not me. I don't have that data.

We do have TJ enrollment. The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ after the change has been greater than almost all other years in the school's history.

The trial court, the finder of fact, found that there was intentional discrimination.
The circuit court's opinion is so bad that is actually drew a very rare dissent when SCOTUS denied cert.
Do you know how rarely a denial of cert has a dissent attached?

A dissent from two corrupt, partisan hacks only gives the circuit court’s opinion more credit.

Exactly when the case was put in front of a real judge it was laughed out of court for a lack of evidence.

That's not what happened
The trial court found itnentional discrimination
The circuit court found that there was no disparate ipact because asians are still over-represented.
This is such an inept analysis that almost nobody that understands disparate impact thinks this is good law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suspect that if the C4TJ types keep screaming about “discrimination” even though Asian kids are still admitted at a higher rate than average and have just as many students as ever before that FCPS will eventually just scrap TJ.

Or they will stop discriminating.

I guess they can stop screaming about it right now since there is no discrimination.

It's like you don't understand what structural racism is.

It’s like you are ignoring the acceptance rates and enrollment numbers.

No discrimination.

You can be over-represented and discriminated against. In this case the discrimination is BECAUSE of the over-representation.
Get a clue

The admissions process is race-blind.
The acceptance rate for Asian students is higher than average.
Asian students make up a huge majority of the students enrolled.
The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ is at a near all-time high.
The group that saw the most gains were Asian students from low-income families.

The "admissions policy does not disparately impact Asian American students."

There are real, serious issues with race and discrimination in the world. This is not one of them.

Grandfather clauses were race blind. Facially neutral criteria can be racist.
Over-representation is the reason for the discrimination. If asians weren't over-represented, nobody would have wanted to change the admissions criteria.

The group that saw the largest gain were white kids, the wealthiest group in fairfax.

The change in admission policy absolutely has a disparate impact on asians.

This is definitely one of the serious issues with racism in this world. The fact that it doesn't bother people like you is even more evidence that this is a serious issue.

No reasonable person would call it discrimination. There are groups who actually could legitimately claim discrimination and disparate impact by admissions - and they aren't Asian students.

And yet all the evidence from the Harvard SFFA case says otherwise.
If you don't think asians were discriminated against then you are lying to yourself.

The issue wasn't Asian overrepresentation; it was the underrepresentation of other groups. They wanted to expand access to more kids, not exclude anyone. That's why they added seats. If they simply wanted to get rid of Asian students then they wouldn't have changed the number of seats. There are just as many Asian students enrolled as ever before.

There are fewer asians and the percentage of asians (AND ONLY ASIANS) in the entering class plummeted. Black enrollment went up, hispanic enrollment went up, white enrollment went up. This was by design.

Again:
- The admissions process is race-blind.
- The acceptance rate for Asian students is higher than average.
- Asian students make up a huge majority of the students enrolled.
- The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ is at a near all-time high.
- The group that saw the most gains were Asian students from low-income families.

Judge: "admissions policy does not disparately impact Asian American students."

Arlington Heights analysis is pretty clear on how this case should have been decided.

That judge doesn't understand disparate impact. By their reckoning disparate impact cannot apply to any group that is over-represented.
Supreme Court Justice: "The Fourth Circuit’s decision is based on a theory that is flagrantly wrong and should not be allowed to stand."
"What the Fourth Circuit majority held, in essence, is that intentional racial discrimination is constitutional so long as it is not too severe. This reasoning is indefensible, and it cries out for correction."

Harvard admissions is a different beast and not comparable. TJ admissions is race blind.

The number of Asian students enrolled in TJ has not significantly changed. No reasonable person, or non-corrupt justice, would believe this is "harm":

And yet before the change in admissions the number of asian students enrolled was steadily increasing every year.
After the change it dropped while all other races rose.
This was the intended consequence of the change.
That is discrimination.

The argument seems to be that asians are over-represented so it's OK to discriminate against them a little bit (and you get to decide how much is a little bit).

Once again, there was a finding of intentional discrimination at trial.
The appellate court said that there was no harm because asians were still over-represented.
That is a pretty clear error of law.

That's completely wrong. Asians make up the majority of the school. The selection process is race blind. Acceptances mirror applications by demographic cohort within a few percent meaning that their process treats everyone about the same. Asian environment before and after the change is about the same and the largest beneficiary of the change were low income agents. The court was correct when they asserted there was no arm done.

Asians went from 70%+ to 50%+ of the admitted students.
This was the intended result of the change in admissions process.
This is why you are not disputing the fact that there was intentional racial discrimination in developing the new admissions process.

You can be race blind and still be discriminatory. See literacy tests and grandfather clauses
You can be over-represented and still be discriminated against. See discrimination against blacks in baseball AFTER Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier.

You are no different than any of the racists from generations past. Most racists thinks their particular brand of racism is virtuous.

I am racist and classist. I don't think TJ, a public high school program serving an extremely diverse area, should be 100% of any one particular race or filled almost entirely by kids from wealthy feeder schools. Sue me.

Given that there are just as many Asian students at TJ as ever before demonstrates that there was no harm by adding additional seats for kids who didn't attend wealthy feeder schools.

All of this "outrage" reminds me of men's ridiculous calls of "discrimination" when women were first admitted to college. Probably pushed by a bunch of RWNJs back then too.

That's pretty much all we need to know about you.

You are admitting to want to manipulate results to achieve particular racial results.
You would howl if actual RWNJ tried to manipulate racial results a different way.
But you are actually no different.
You just think your version of racism is admirable and their version is deplorable.

Asians are not asking for any racial favors, they are asking you to disregard their race.

I get it, you feel threatened by the rapidly increasing share of seats that asians seem to be occupying every year so you point to the low number of black kids being admitted and upend the admissions process to halt the increase in asian admissions while increasing black admissions by 9 students a year... out of 550. Meanwhile the white admissions increase by 54 out of that 550. That is a more comfortable ratio for some people.

You also seem to want to manipulate the criteria so that it favors your desired outcome and return to a system where only students from wealthy feeders had a real shot at admission. The data from the current process shows that selection mirrors applications. That roughly 18% give take a few points of those who apply regardless of race get in which seems like it is actually fair unlike the old process which was increasingly gamed by those with means.

Your insistence that selection should mirror applications and the like is social engineering. Asian people come here because of the school system, even if it means living in a 200 square foot basement for a family of four. Other races who have been here for generations prioritize space or sports, etc. The distribution of academic performance is not evenly distributed. Perhaps in the general population, but definitely not in this region. That is the problem. Have a less random way of selecting the top students. One can add students who you think are deserving as well. But at least have the first filter not so random.

It's not insistence. It's what the data showed.

And this is social engineering given the distribution of GPAs, test scores, etc. of the broader population at FCPS.

There is no social engineering that's just fake news. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide a citation.

Anybody that was paying attention during the hearings knows that it was all about race.

#fakenews

Here is a video of the sort of public comments we had during the hearings.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rWdIXuYFqA

The admissions change was about race.

Some emotional people made these claims, but they could not show any harm done. There was no evidence to support this theory. In the end, even the far-right SCOTUS wouldn't touch this case due to a lack of credible evidence.

1) The process is race-blind.
2) the largest beneficiaries of the change were low-income Asians
3) Asian enrollment is at a historic high.
4) The school remains majority Asian.

Yup. No discrimination.

Who do you think you're fooling

It's not invidious racism but they changed the admissions process to alter the racial composition of the school.

They added seats to give opportunities to kids who don’t attend wealthy feeder schools. There are just as many Asian kids enrolled as before. No discrimination.

The entire point of the admissions change was to create diversity that 'reflected the diversity in the county'

If that was the only goal they wouldn’t have added seats and would have just done a basic lottery with no criteria to apply.

The real problem was that 90% of the applicants selected were coming from 2 or 3 wealthy feeders where parents could afford prep to game the process, and they had to address this and better serve all county residents, not just the children with wealthy parents.

Yup. And that’s why they gave every MS across the county an allotment of seats. So all kids have a shot.

Giving unqualified kids a "shot" is not doing anyone any favors.

Fortunately that never happened. The kids getting a shot are the very top students from each school.

40 students from the class of 2025 returned to their base school before the start of their sophomore year.

Link?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there data somewhere to back this claim?

2) the largest beneficiaries of the change were low-income Asians

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/221280.P.pdf
page 16
[i]"Nevertheless, in the 2021 application cycle, Asian American students attending middle schools historically underrepresented at TJ saw a sixfold increase in offers, and the number of low-income Asian American admittees to TJ increased to 51 — from a mere one in 2020."


Other groups saw large increases, but not “sixfold”.

This is called data scraping.

You look for some subset of data that makes your conclusions right.

The discrimination against asians is no less because some asian subgroups increased and other asian subgroups decreased.
The number of asians getting in was reduced despite the trajectory of asians being admitted was an increase pretty much every year since the school opened.
You could just as easily claim that there was no anti-asian discrimination because the number of asian ELLs tripled, or the number of mongolian kids quintupled, etc.
Ultimately the dsicrimination was directed at asians and the number of asians went down.

That is what the court concluded, not me. I don't have that data.

We do have TJ enrollment. The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ after the change has been greater than almost all other years in the school's history.

The trial court, the finder of fact, found that there was intentional discrimination.
The circuit court's opinion is so bad that is actually drew a very rare dissent when SCOTUS denied cert.
Do you know how rarely a denial of cert has a dissent attached?

A dissent from two corrupt, partisan hacks only gives the circuit court’s opinion more credit.

No, no it doesn't.
SCOTUS dissents from denial of cert are rare and telegraphs what the likely outcome of an actual case would have been if cert had been granted.
The disparate impact analysis of the 4th circuit inn the TJ case was embarrassingly bad.

They aren’t “rare” and obviously anything coming from those two corrupt clowns should be ignorance.

[Anonymous]

Ignored ^

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suspect that if the C4TJ types keep screaming about “discrimination” even though Asian kids are still admitted at a higher rate than average and have just as many students as ever before that FCPS will eventually just scrap TJ.

Or they will stop discriminating.

I guess they can stop screaming about it right now since there is no discrimination.

It's like you don't understand what structural racism is.

It’s like you are ignoring the acceptance rates and enrollment numbers.

No discrimination.

You can be over-represented and discriminated against. In this case the discrimination is BECAUSE of the over-representation.
Get a clue

The admissions process is race-blind.
The acceptance rate for Asian students is higher than average.
Asian students make up a huge majority of the students enrolled.
The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ is at a near all-time high.
The group that saw the most gains were Asian students from low-income families.

The "admissions policy does not disparately impact Asian American students."

There are real, serious issues with race and discrimination in the world. This is not one of them.

Grandfather clauses were race blind. Facially neutral criteria can be racist.
Over-representation is the reason for the discrimination. If asians weren't over-represented, nobody would have wanted to change the admissions criteria.

The group that saw the largest gain were white kids, the wealthiest group in fairfax.

The change in admission policy absolutely has a disparate impact on asians.

This is definitely one of the serious issues with racism in this world. The fact that it doesn't bother people like you is even more evidence that this is a serious issue.

No reasonable person would call it discrimination. There are groups who actually could legitimately claim discrimination and disparate impact by admissions - and they aren't Asian students.

And yet all the evidence from the Harvard SFFA case says otherwise.
If you don't think asians were discriminated against then you are lying to yourself.

The issue wasn't Asian overrepresentation; it was the underrepresentation of other groups. They wanted to expand access to more kids, not exclude anyone. That's why they added seats. If they simply wanted to get rid of Asian students then they wouldn't have changed the number of seats. There are just as many Asian students enrolled as ever before.

There are fewer asians and the percentage of asians (AND ONLY ASIANS) in the entering class plummeted. Black enrollment went up, hispanic enrollment went up, white enrollment went up. This was by design.

Again:
- The admissions process is race-blind.
- The acceptance rate for Asian students is higher than average.
- Asian students make up a huge majority of the students enrolled.
- The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ is at a near all-time high.
- The group that saw the most gains were Asian students from low-income families.

Judge: "admissions policy does not disparately impact Asian American students."

Arlington Heights analysis is pretty clear on how this case should have been decided.

That judge doesn't understand disparate impact. By their reckoning disparate impact cannot apply to any group that is over-represented.
Supreme Court Justice: "The Fourth Circuit’s decision is based on a theory that is flagrantly wrong and should not be allowed to stand."
"What the Fourth Circuit majority held, in essence, is that intentional racial discrimination is constitutional so long as it is not too severe. This reasoning is indefensible, and it cries out for correction."

Harvard admissions is a different beast and not comparable. TJ admissions is race blind.

The number of Asian students enrolled in TJ has not significantly changed. No reasonable person, or non-corrupt justice, would believe this is "harm":

And yet before the change in admissions the number of asian students enrolled was steadily increasing every year.
After the change it dropped while all other races rose.
This was the intended consequence of the change.
That is discrimination.

The argument seems to be that asians are over-represented so it's OK to discriminate against them a little bit (and you get to decide how much is a little bit).

Once again, there was a finding of intentional discrimination at trial.
The appellate court said that there was no harm because asians were still over-represented.
That is a pretty clear error of law.

That's completely wrong. Asians make up the majority of the school. The selection process is race blind. Acceptances mirror applications by demographic cohort within a few percent meaning that their process treats everyone about the same. Asian environment before and after the change is about the same and the largest beneficiary of the change were low income agents. The court was correct when they asserted there was no arm done.

Asians went from 70%+ to 50%+ of the admitted students.
This was the intended result of the change in admissions process.
This is why you are not disputing the fact that there was intentional racial discrimination in developing the new admissions process.

You can be race blind and still be discriminatory. See literacy tests and grandfather clauses
You can be over-represented and still be discriminated against. See discrimination against blacks in baseball AFTER Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier.

You are no different than any of the racists from generations past. Most racists thinks their particular brand of racism is virtuous.

I am racist and classist. I don't think TJ, a public high school program serving an extremely diverse area, should be 100% of any one particular race or filled almost entirely by kids from wealthy feeder schools. Sue me.

Given that there are just as many Asian students at TJ as ever before demonstrates that there was no harm by adding additional seats for kids who didn't attend wealthy feeder schools.

All of this "outrage" reminds me of men's ridiculous calls of "discrimination" when women were first admitted to college. Probably pushed by a bunch of RWNJs back then too.

That's pretty much all we need to know about you.

You are admitting to want to manipulate results to achieve particular racial results.
You would howl if actual RWNJ tried to manipulate racial results a different way.
But you are actually no different.
You just think your version of racism is admirable and their version is deplorable.

Asians are not asking for any racial favors, they are asking you to disregard their race.

I get it, you feel threatened by the rapidly increasing share of seats that asians seem to be occupying every year so you point to the low number of black kids being admitted and upend the admissions process to halt the increase in asian admissions while increasing black admissions by 9 students a year... out of 550. Meanwhile the white admissions increase by 54 out of that 550. That is a more comfortable ratio for some people.

You also seem to want to manipulate the criteria so that it favors your desired outcome and return to a system where only students from wealthy feeders had a real shot at admission. The data from the current process shows that selection mirrors applications. That roughly 18% give take a few points of those who apply regardless of race get in which seems like it is actually fair unlike the old process which was increasingly gamed by those with means.

Your insistence that selection should mirror applications and the like is social engineering. Asian people come here because of the school system, even if it means living in a 200 square foot basement for a family of four. Other races who have been here for generations prioritize space or sports, etc. The distribution of academic performance is not evenly distributed. Perhaps in the general population, but definitely not in this region. That is the problem. Have a less random way of selecting the top students. One can add students who you think are deserving as well. But at least have the first filter not so random.

It's not insistence. It's what the data showed.

And this is social engineering given the distribution of GPAs, test scores, etc. of the broader population at FCPS.

There is no social engineering that's just fake news. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide a citation.

Anybody that was paying attention during the hearings knows that it was all about race.

#fakenews

Here is a video of the sort of public comments we had during the hearings.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rWdIXuYFqA

The admissions change was about race.

Some emotional people made these claims, but they could not show any harm done. There was no evidence to support this theory. In the end, even the far-right SCOTUS wouldn't touch this case due to a lack of credible evidence.

1) The process is race-blind.
2) the largest beneficiaries of the change were low-income Asians
3) Asian enrollment is at a historic high.
4) The school remains majority Asian.

Yup. No discrimination.

Who do you think you're fooling

It's not invidious racism but they changed the admissions process to alter the racial composition of the school.

They added seats to give opportunities to kids who don’t attend wealthy feeder schools. There are just as many Asian kids enrolled as before. No discrimination.

The entire point of the admissions change was to create diversity that 'reflected the diversity in the county'

If that was the only goal they wouldn’t have added seats and would have just done a basic lottery with no criteria to apply.

The real problem was that 90% of the applicants selected were coming from 2 or 3 wealthy feeders where parents could afford prep to game the process, and they had to address this and better serve all county residents, not just the children with wealthy parents.

Yup. And that’s why they gave every MS across the county an allotment of seats. So all kids have a shot.

Giving unqualified kids a "shot" is not doing anyone any favors.

Fortunately that never happened. The kids getting a shot are the very top students from each school.

40 students from the class of 2025 returned to their base school before the start of their sophomore year.

Link?

The math was done by folks on this site a couple of years ago. I think they looked at population between september and may; then a look at sophomore population minus froshmores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there data somewhere to back this claim?

2) the largest beneficiaries of the change were low-income Asians

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/221280.P.pdf
page 16
[i]"Nevertheless, in the 2021 application cycle, Asian American students attending middle schools historically underrepresented at TJ saw a sixfold increase in offers, and the number of low-income Asian American admittees to TJ increased to 51 — from a mere one in 2020."


Other groups saw large increases, but not “sixfold”.

This is called data scraping.

You look for some subset of data that makes your conclusions right.

The discrimination against asians is no less because some asian subgroups increased and other asian subgroups decreased.
The number of asians getting in was reduced despite the trajectory of asians being admitted was an increase pretty much every year since the school opened.
You could just as easily claim that there was no anti-asian discrimination because the number of asian ELLs tripled, or the number of mongolian kids quintupled, etc.
Ultimately the dsicrimination was directed at asians and the number of asians went down.

That is what the court concluded, not me. I don't have that data.

We do have TJ enrollment. The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ after the change has been greater than almost all other years in the school's history.

The trial court, the finder of fact, found that there was intentional discrimination.
The circuit court's opinion is so bad that is actually drew a very rare dissent when SCOTUS denied cert.
Do you know how rarely a denial of cert has a dissent attached?

A dissent from two corrupt, partisan hacks only gives the circuit court’s opinion more credit.

No, no it doesn't.
SCOTUS dissents from denial of cert are rare and telegraphs what the likely outcome of an actual case would have been if cert had been granted.
The disparate impact analysis of the 4th circuit inn the TJ case was embarrassingly bad.

They aren’t “rare” and obviously anything coming from those two corrupt clowns should be ignorance.

Of courser it's rare.
Just google it.


Here is an article about a sotomayor diseent to a denial of cert calling it "very rare"

"It is very rare for a Justice to issue a dissent when the Court denies cert, "
https://thedig.howard.edu/all-stories/justice-sotomayor-issues-dissent-reaction-denial-cert-petition-filed-howard-law-civil-rights-clinic

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there data somewhere to back this claim?

2) the largest beneficiaries of the change were low-income Asians

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/221280.P.pdf
page 16
[i]"Nevertheless, in the 2021 application cycle, Asian American students attending middle schools historically underrepresented at TJ saw a sixfold increase in offers, and the number of low-income Asian American admittees to TJ increased to 51 — from a mere one in 2020."


Other groups saw large increases, but not “sixfold”.

This is called data scraping.

You look for some subset of data that makes your conclusions right.

The discrimination against asians is no less because some asian subgroups increased and other asian subgroups decreased.
The number of asians getting in was reduced despite the trajectory of asians being admitted was an increase pretty much every year since the school opened.
You could just as easily claim that there was no anti-asian discrimination because the number of asian ELLs tripled, or the number of mongolian kids quintupled, etc.
Ultimately the dsicrimination was directed at asians and the number of asians went down.

That is what the court concluded, not me. I don't have that data.

We do have TJ enrollment. The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ after the change has been greater than almost all other years in the school's history.

The trial court, the finder of fact, found that there was intentional discrimination.
The circuit court's opinion is so bad that is actually drew a very rare dissent when SCOTUS denied cert.
Do you know how rarely a denial of cert has a dissent attached?

A dissent from two corrupt, partisan hacks only gives the circuit court’s opinion more credit.

No, no it doesn't.
SCOTUS dissents from denial of cert are rare and telegraphs what the likely outcome of an actual case would have been if cert had been granted.
The disparate impact analysis of the 4th circuit inn the TJ case was embarrassingly bad.

They aren’t “rare” and obviously anything coming from those two corrupt clowns should be ignorance.

Of courser it's rare.
Just google it.


Here is an article about a sotomayor diseent to a denial of cert calling it "very rare"

"It is very rare for a Justice to issue a dissent when the Court denies cert, "
https://thedig.howard.edu/all-stories/justice-sotomayor-issues-dissent-reaction-denial-cert-petition-filed-howard-law-civil-rights-clinic

I guess issuing 5 in one day is "rare"? OK...
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/110722zor_8m58.pdf

Anything coming from those two corrupt clowns should be ignored. Period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suspect that if the C4TJ types keep screaming about “discrimination” even though Asian kids are still admitted at a higher rate than average and have just as many students as ever before that FCPS will eventually just scrap TJ.

Or they will stop discriminating.

I guess they can stop screaming about it right now since there is no discrimination.

It's like you don't understand what structural racism is.

It’s like you are ignoring the acceptance rates and enrollment numbers.

No discrimination.

You can be over-represented and discriminated against. In this case the discrimination is BECAUSE of the over-representation.
Get a clue

The admissions process is race-blind.
The acceptance rate for Asian students is higher than average.
Asian students make up a huge majority of the students enrolled.
The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ is at a near all-time high.
The group that saw the most gains were Asian students from low-income families.

The "admissions policy does not disparately impact Asian American students."

There are real, serious issues with race and discrimination in the world. This is not one of them.

Grandfather clauses were race blind. Facially neutral criteria can be racist.
Over-representation is the reason for the discrimination. If asians weren't over-represented, nobody would have wanted to change the admissions criteria.

The group that saw the largest gain were white kids, the wealthiest group in fairfax.

The change in admission policy absolutely has a disparate impact on asians.

This is definitely one of the serious issues with racism in this world. The fact that it doesn't bother people like you is even more evidence that this is a serious issue.

No reasonable person would call it discrimination. There are groups who actually could legitimately claim discrimination and disparate impact by admissions - and they aren't Asian students.

And yet all the evidence from the Harvard SFFA case says otherwise.
If you don't think asians were discriminated against then you are lying to yourself.

The issue wasn't Asian overrepresentation; it was the underrepresentation of other groups. They wanted to expand access to more kids, not exclude anyone. That's why they added seats. If they simply wanted to get rid of Asian students then they wouldn't have changed the number of seats. There are just as many Asian students enrolled as ever before.

There are fewer asians and the percentage of asians (AND ONLY ASIANS) in the entering class plummeted. Black enrollment went up, hispanic enrollment went up, white enrollment went up. This was by design.

Again:
- The admissions process is race-blind.
- The acceptance rate for Asian students is higher than average.
- Asian students make up a huge majority of the students enrolled.
- The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ is at a near all-time high.
- The group that saw the most gains were Asian students from low-income families.

Judge: "admissions policy does not disparately impact Asian American students."

Arlington Heights analysis is pretty clear on how this case should have been decided.

That judge doesn't understand disparate impact. By their reckoning disparate impact cannot apply to any group that is over-represented.
Supreme Court Justice: "The Fourth Circuit’s decision is based on a theory that is flagrantly wrong and should not be allowed to stand."
"What the Fourth Circuit majority held, in essence, is that intentional racial discrimination is constitutional so long as it is not too severe. This reasoning is indefensible, and it cries out for correction."

Harvard admissions is a different beast and not comparable. TJ admissions is race blind.

The number of Asian students enrolled in TJ has not significantly changed. No reasonable person, or non-corrupt justice, would believe this is "harm":

And yet before the change in admissions the number of asian students enrolled was steadily increasing every year.
After the change it dropped while all other races rose.
This was the intended consequence of the change.
That is discrimination.

The argument seems to be that asians are over-represented so it's OK to discriminate against them a little bit (and you get to decide how much is a little bit).

Once again, there was a finding of intentional discrimination at trial.
The appellate court said that there was no harm because asians were still over-represented.
That is a pretty clear error of law.

That's completely wrong. Asians make up the majority of the school. The selection process is race blind. Acceptances mirror applications by demographic cohort within a few percent meaning that their process treats everyone about the same. Asian environment before and after the change is about the same and the largest beneficiary of the change were low income agents. The court was correct when they asserted there was no arm done.

Asians went from 70%+ to 50%+ of the admitted students.
This was the intended result of the change in admissions process.
This is why you are not disputing the fact that there was intentional racial discrimination in developing the new admissions process.

You can be race blind and still be discriminatory. See literacy tests and grandfather clauses
You can be over-represented and still be discriminated against. See discrimination against blacks in baseball AFTER Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier.

You are no different than any of the racists from generations past. Most racists thinks their particular brand of racism is virtuous.

I am racist and classist. I don't think TJ, a public high school program serving an extremely diverse area, should be 100% of any one particular race or filled almost entirely by kids from wealthy feeder schools. Sue me.

Given that there are just as many Asian students at TJ as ever before demonstrates that there was no harm by adding additional seats for kids who didn't attend wealthy feeder schools.

All of this "outrage" reminds me of men's ridiculous calls of "discrimination" when women were first admitted to college. Probably pushed by a bunch of RWNJs back then too.

That's pretty much all we need to know about you.

You are admitting to want to manipulate results to achieve particular racial results.
You would howl if actual RWNJ tried to manipulate racial results a different way.
But you are actually no different.
You just think your version of racism is admirable and their version is deplorable.

Asians are not asking for any racial favors, they are asking you to disregard their race.

I get it, you feel threatened by the rapidly increasing share of seats that asians seem to be occupying every year so you point to the low number of black kids being admitted and upend the admissions process to halt the increase in asian admissions while increasing black admissions by 9 students a year... out of 550. Meanwhile the white admissions increase by 54 out of that 550. That is a more comfortable ratio for some people.

You also seem to want to manipulate the criteria so that it favors your desired outcome and return to a system where only students from wealthy feeders had a real shot at admission. The data from the current process shows that selection mirrors applications. That roughly 18% give take a few points of those who apply regardless of race get in which seems like it is actually fair unlike the old process which was increasingly gamed by those with means.

Your insistence that selection should mirror applications and the like is social engineering. Asian people come here because of the school system, even if it means living in a 200 square foot basement for a family of four. Other races who have been here for generations prioritize space or sports, etc. The distribution of academic performance is not evenly distributed. Perhaps in the general population, but definitely not in this region. That is the problem. Have a less random way of selecting the top students. One can add students who you think are deserving as well. But at least have the first filter not so random.

It's not insistence. It's what the data showed.

And this is social engineering given the distribution of GPAs, test scores, etc. of the broader population at FCPS.

There is no social engineering that's just fake news. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide a citation.

Anybody that was paying attention during the hearings knows that it was all about race.

#fakenews

Here is a video of the sort of public comments we had during the hearings.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rWdIXuYFqA

The admissions change was about race.

Some emotional people made these claims, but they could not show any harm done. There was no evidence to support this theory. In the end, even the far-right SCOTUS wouldn't touch this case due to a lack of credible evidence.

1) The process is race-blind.
2) the largest beneficiaries of the change were low-income Asians
3) Asian enrollment is at a historic high.
4) The school remains majority Asian.

Yup. No discrimination.

Who do you think you're fooling

It's not invidious racism but they changed the admissions process to alter the racial composition of the school.

They added seats to give opportunities to kids who don’t attend wealthy feeder schools. There are just as many Asian kids enrolled as before. No discrimination.

The entire point of the admissions change was to create diversity that 'reflected the diversity in the county'

If that was the only goal they wouldn’t have added seats and would have just done a basic lottery with no criteria to apply.

The real problem was that 90% of the applicants selected were coming from 2 or 3 wealthy feeders where parents could afford prep to game the process, and they had to address this and better serve all county residents, not just the children with wealthy parents.

Yup. And that’s why they gave every MS across the county an allotment of seats. So all kids have a shot.

Giving unqualified kids a "shot" is not doing anyone any favors.

Fortunately that never happened. The kids getting a shot are the very top students from each school.

40 students from the class of 2025 returned to their base school before the start of their sophomore year.

Link?

The math was done by folks on this site a couple of years ago. I think they looked at population between september and may; then a look at sophomore population minus froshmores.

So you don't have any supporting data?

Where are the froshmore #s?

FWIW, Class of 2021 had a large # of turnover.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there data somewhere to back this claim?

2) the largest beneficiaries of the change were low-income Asians

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/221280.P.pdf
page 16
[i]"Nevertheless, in the 2021 application cycle, Asian American students attending middle schools historically underrepresented at TJ saw a sixfold increase in offers, and the number of low-income Asian American admittees to TJ increased to 51 — from a mere one in 2020."


Other groups saw large increases, but not “sixfold”.

This is called data scraping.

You look for some subset of data that makes your conclusions right.

The discrimination against asians is no less because some asian subgroups increased and other asian subgroups decreased.
The number of asians getting in was reduced despite the trajectory of asians being admitted was an increase pretty much every year since the school opened.
You could just as easily claim that there was no anti-asian discrimination because the number of asian ELLs tripled, or the number of mongolian kids quintupled, etc.
Ultimately the dsicrimination was directed at asians and the number of asians went down.

That is what the court concluded, not me. I don't have that data.

We do have TJ enrollment. The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ after the change has been greater than almost all other years in the school's history.

The trial court, the finder of fact, found that there was intentional discrimination.
The circuit court's opinion is so bad that is actually drew a very rare dissent when SCOTUS denied cert.
Do you know how rarely a denial of cert has a dissent attached?

A dissent from two corrupt, partisan hacks only gives the circuit court’s opinion more credit.

No, no it doesn't.
SCOTUS dissents from denial of cert are rare and telegraphs what the likely outcome of an actual case would have been if cert had been granted.
The disparate impact analysis of the 4th circuit inn the TJ case was embarrassingly bad.

They aren’t “rare” and obviously anything coming from those two corrupt clowns should be ignorance.

Of courser it's rare.
Just google it.


Here is an article about a sotomayor diseent to a denial of cert calling it "very rare"

"It is very rare for a Justice to issue a dissent when the Court denies cert, "
https://thedig.howard.edu/all-stories/justice-sotomayor-issues-dissent-reaction-denial-cert-petition-filed-howard-law-civil-rights-clinic

I guess issuing 5 in one day is "rare"? OK...
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/110722zor_8m58.pdf

Anything coming from those two corrupt clowns should be ignored. Period.

You literally picked the one week that had so many dissents issued that scotusblog wrote and article about how unusual it was:
https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/11/denials-of-review-in-five-cases-draw-dissents-from-various-justices/

Something like 10% of denials of cert have a dissent filed by a justice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suspect that if the C4TJ types keep screaming about “discrimination” even though Asian kids are still admitted at a higher rate than average and have just as many students as ever before that FCPS will eventually just scrap TJ.

Or they will stop discriminating.

I guess they can stop screaming about it right now since there is no discrimination.

It's like you don't understand what structural racism is.

It’s like you are ignoring the acceptance rates and enrollment numbers.

No discrimination.

You can be over-represented and discriminated against. In this case the discrimination is BECAUSE of the over-representation.
Get a clue

The admissions process is race-blind.
The acceptance rate for Asian students is higher than average.
Asian students make up a huge majority of the students enrolled.
The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ is at a near all-time high.
The group that saw the most gains were Asian students from low-income families.

The "admissions policy does not disparately impact Asian American students."

There are real, serious issues with race and discrimination in the world. This is not one of them.

Grandfather clauses were race blind. Facially neutral criteria can be racist.
Over-representation is the reason for the discrimination. If asians weren't over-represented, nobody would have wanted to change the admissions criteria.

The group that saw the largest gain were white kids, the wealthiest group in fairfax.

The change in admission policy absolutely has a disparate impact on asians.

This is definitely one of the serious issues with racism in this world. The fact that it doesn't bother people like you is even more evidence that this is a serious issue.

No reasonable person would call it discrimination. There are groups who actually could legitimately claim discrimination and disparate impact by admissions - and they aren't Asian students.

And yet all the evidence from the Harvard SFFA case says otherwise.
If you don't think asians were discriminated against then you are lying to yourself.

The issue wasn't Asian overrepresentation; it was the underrepresentation of other groups. They wanted to expand access to more kids, not exclude anyone. That's why they added seats. If they simply wanted to get rid of Asian students then they wouldn't have changed the number of seats. There are just as many Asian students enrolled as ever before.

There are fewer asians and the percentage of asians (AND ONLY ASIANS) in the entering class plummeted. Black enrollment went up, hispanic enrollment went up, white enrollment went up. This was by design.

Again:
- The admissions process is race-blind.
- The acceptance rate for Asian students is higher than average.
- Asian students make up a huge majority of the students enrolled.
- The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ is at a near all-time high.
- The group that saw the most gains were Asian students from low-income families.

Judge: "admissions policy does not disparately impact Asian American students."

Arlington Heights analysis is pretty clear on how this case should have been decided.

That judge doesn't understand disparate impact. By their reckoning disparate impact cannot apply to any group that is over-represented.
Supreme Court Justice: "The Fourth Circuit’s decision is based on a theory that is flagrantly wrong and should not be allowed to stand."
"What the Fourth Circuit majority held, in essence, is that intentional racial discrimination is constitutional so long as it is not too severe. This reasoning is indefensible, and it cries out for correction."

Harvard admissions is a different beast and not comparable. TJ admissions is race blind.

The number of Asian students enrolled in TJ has not significantly changed. No reasonable person, or non-corrupt justice, would believe this is "harm":

And yet before the change in admissions the number of asian students enrolled was steadily increasing every year.
After the change it dropped while all other races rose.
This was the intended consequence of the change.
That is discrimination.

The argument seems to be that asians are over-represented so it's OK to discriminate against them a little bit (and you get to decide how much is a little bit).

Once again, there was a finding of intentional discrimination at trial.
The appellate court said that there was no harm because asians were still over-represented.
That is a pretty clear error of law.

That's completely wrong. Asians make up the majority of the school. The selection process is race blind. Acceptances mirror applications by demographic cohort within a few percent meaning that their process treats everyone about the same. Asian environment before and after the change is about the same and the largest beneficiary of the change were low income agents. The court was correct when they asserted there was no arm done.

Asians went from 70%+ to 50%+ of the admitted students.
This was the intended result of the change in admissions process.
This is why you are not disputing the fact that there was intentional racial discrimination in developing the new admissions process.

You can be race blind and still be discriminatory. See literacy tests and grandfather clauses
You can be over-represented and still be discriminated against. See discrimination against blacks in baseball AFTER Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier.

You are no different than any of the racists from generations past. Most racists thinks their particular brand of racism is virtuous.

I am racist and classist. I don't think TJ, a public high school program serving an extremely diverse area, should be 100% of any one particular race or filled almost entirely by kids from wealthy feeder schools. Sue me.

Given that there are just as many Asian students at TJ as ever before demonstrates that there was no harm by adding additional seats for kids who didn't attend wealthy feeder schools.

All of this "outrage" reminds me of men's ridiculous calls of "discrimination" when women were first admitted to college. Probably pushed by a bunch of RWNJs back then too.

That's pretty much all we need to know about you.

You are admitting to want to manipulate results to achieve particular racial results.
You would howl if actual RWNJ tried to manipulate racial results a different way.
But you are actually no different.
You just think your version of racism is admirable and their version is deplorable.

Asians are not asking for any racial favors, they are asking you to disregard their race.

I get it, you feel threatened by the rapidly increasing share of seats that asians seem to be occupying every year so you point to the low number of black kids being admitted and upend the admissions process to halt the increase in asian admissions while increasing black admissions by 9 students a year... out of 550. Meanwhile the white admissions increase by 54 out of that 550. That is a more comfortable ratio for some people.

You also seem to want to manipulate the criteria so that it favors your desired outcome and return to a system where only students from wealthy feeders had a real shot at admission. The data from the current process shows that selection mirrors applications. That roughly 18% give take a few points of those who apply regardless of race get in which seems like it is actually fair unlike the old process which was increasingly gamed by those with means.

Your insistence that selection should mirror applications and the like is social engineering. Asian people come here because of the school system, even if it means living in a 200 square foot basement for a family of four. Other races who have been here for generations prioritize space or sports, etc. The distribution of academic performance is not evenly distributed. Perhaps in the general population, but definitely not in this region. That is the problem. Have a less random way of selecting the top students. One can add students who you think are deserving as well. But at least have the first filter not so random.

It's not insistence. It's what the data showed.

And this is social engineering given the distribution of GPAs, test scores, etc. of the broader population at FCPS.

There is no social engineering that's just fake news. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide a citation.

Anybody that was paying attention during the hearings knows that it was all about race.

#fakenews

Here is a video of the sort of public comments we had during the hearings.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rWdIXuYFqA

The admissions change was about race.

Some emotional people made these claims, but they could not show any harm done. There was no evidence to support this theory. In the end, even the far-right SCOTUS wouldn't touch this case due to a lack of credible evidence.

1) The process is race-blind.
2) the largest beneficiaries of the change were low-income Asians
3) Asian enrollment is at a historic high.
4) The school remains majority Asian.

Yup. No discrimination.

Who do you think you're fooling

It's not invidious racism but they changed the admissions process to alter the racial composition of the school.

They added seats to give opportunities to kids who don’t attend wealthy feeder schools. There are just as many Asian kids enrolled as before. No discrimination.

The entire point of the admissions change was to create diversity that 'reflected the diversity in the county'

If that was the only goal they wouldn’t have added seats and would have just done a basic lottery with no criteria to apply.

The real problem was that 90% of the applicants selected were coming from 2 or 3 wealthy feeders where parents could afford prep to game the process, and they had to address this and better serve all county residents, not just the children with wealthy parents.

Yup. And that’s why they gave every MS across the county an allotment of seats. So all kids have a shot.

Giving unqualified kids a "shot" is not doing anyone any favors.

Fortunately that never happened. The kids getting a shot are the very top students from each school.

40 students from the class of 2025 returned to their base school before the start of their sophomore year.

Link?

The math was done by folks on this site a couple of years ago. I think they looked at population between september and may; then a look at sophomore population minus froshmores.

So you don't have any supporting data?

Where are the froshmore #s?

FWIW, Class of 2021 had a large # of turnover.

I just can't be bothered to dig it up. It's somewhere on this site.

Do you have a link to the "large # of turnover" for the class of 2021? Was it COVID related?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suspect that if the C4TJ types keep screaming about “discrimination” even though Asian kids are still admitted at a higher rate than average and have just as many students as ever before that FCPS will eventually just scrap TJ.

Or they will stop discriminating.

I guess they can stop screaming about it right now since there is no discrimination.

It's like you don't understand what structural racism is.

It’s like you are ignoring the acceptance rates and enrollment numbers.

No discrimination.

You can be over-represented and discriminated against. In this case the discrimination is BECAUSE of the over-representation.
Get a clue

The admissions process is race-blind.
The acceptance rate for Asian students is higher than average.
Asian students make up a huge majority of the students enrolled.
The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ is at a near all-time high.
The group that saw the most gains were Asian students from low-income families.

The "admissions policy does not disparately impact Asian American students."

There are real, serious issues with race and discrimination in the world. This is not one of them.

Grandfather clauses were race blind. Facially neutral criteria can be racist.
Over-representation is the reason for the discrimination. If asians weren't over-represented, nobody would have wanted to change the admissions criteria.

The group that saw the largest gain were white kids, the wealthiest group in fairfax.

The change in admission policy absolutely has a disparate impact on asians.

This is definitely one of the serious issues with racism in this world. The fact that it doesn't bother people like you is even more evidence that this is a serious issue.

No reasonable person would call it discrimination. There are groups who actually could legitimately claim discrimination and disparate impact by admissions - and they aren't Asian students.

And yet all the evidence from the Harvard SFFA case says otherwise.
If you don't think asians were discriminated against then you are lying to yourself.

The issue wasn't Asian overrepresentation; it was the underrepresentation of other groups. They wanted to expand access to more kids, not exclude anyone. That's why they added seats. If they simply wanted to get rid of Asian students then they wouldn't have changed the number of seats. There are just as many Asian students enrolled as ever before.

There are fewer asians and the percentage of asians (AND ONLY ASIANS) in the entering class plummeted. Black enrollment went up, hispanic enrollment went up, white enrollment went up. This was by design.

Again:
- The admissions process is race-blind.
- The acceptance rate for Asian students is higher than average.
- Asian students make up a huge majority of the students enrolled.
- The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ is at a near all-time high.
- The group that saw the most gains were Asian students from low-income families.

Judge: "admissions policy does not disparately impact Asian American students."

Arlington Heights analysis is pretty clear on how this case should have been decided.

That judge doesn't understand disparate impact. By their reckoning disparate impact cannot apply to any group that is over-represented.
Supreme Court Justice: "The Fourth Circuit’s decision is based on a theory that is flagrantly wrong and should not be allowed to stand."
"What the Fourth Circuit majority held, in essence, is that intentional racial discrimination is constitutional so long as it is not too severe. This reasoning is indefensible, and it cries out for correction."

Harvard admissions is a different beast and not comparable. TJ admissions is race blind.

The number of Asian students enrolled in TJ has not significantly changed. No reasonable person, or non-corrupt justice, would believe this is "harm":

And yet before the change in admissions the number of asian students enrolled was steadily increasing every year.
After the change it dropped while all other races rose.
This was the intended consequence of the change.
That is discrimination.

The argument seems to be that asians are over-represented so it's OK to discriminate against them a little bit (and you get to decide how much is a little bit).

Once again, there was a finding of intentional discrimination at trial.
The appellate court said that there was no harm because asians were still over-represented.
That is a pretty clear error of law.

That's completely wrong. Asians make up the majority of the school. The selection process is race blind. Acceptances mirror applications by demographic cohort within a few percent meaning that their process treats everyone about the same. Asian environment before and after the change is about the same and the largest beneficiary of the change were low income agents. The court was correct when they asserted there was no arm done.

Asians went from 70%+ to 50%+ of the admitted students.
This was the intended result of the change in admissions process.
This is why you are not disputing the fact that there was intentional racial discrimination in developing the new admissions process.

You can be race blind and still be discriminatory. See literacy tests and grandfather clauses
You can be over-represented and still be discriminated against. See discrimination against blacks in baseball AFTER Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier.

You are no different than any of the racists from generations past. Most racists thinks their particular brand of racism is virtuous.

I am racist and classist. I don't think TJ, a public high school program serving an extremely diverse area, should be 100% of any one particular race or filled almost entirely by kids from wealthy feeder schools. Sue me.

Given that there are just as many Asian students at TJ as ever before demonstrates that there was no harm by adding additional seats for kids who didn't attend wealthy feeder schools.

All of this "outrage" reminds me of men's ridiculous calls of "discrimination" when women were first admitted to college. Probably pushed by a bunch of RWNJs back then too.

That's pretty much all we need to know about you.

You are admitting to want to manipulate results to achieve particular racial results.
You would howl if actual RWNJ tried to manipulate racial results a different way.
But you are actually no different.
You just think your version of racism is admirable and their version is deplorable.

Asians are not asking for any racial favors, they are asking you to disregard their race.

I get it, you feel threatened by the rapidly increasing share of seats that asians seem to be occupying every year so you point to the low number of black kids being admitted and upend the admissions process to halt the increase in asian admissions while increasing black admissions by 9 students a year... out of 550. Meanwhile the white admissions increase by 54 out of that 550. That is a more comfortable ratio for some people.

You also seem to want to manipulate the criteria so that it favors your desired outcome and return to a system where only students from wealthy feeders had a real shot at admission. The data from the current process shows that selection mirrors applications. That roughly 18% give take a few points of those who apply regardless of race get in which seems like it is actually fair unlike the old process which was increasingly gamed by those with means.

Your insistence that selection should mirror applications and the like is social engineering. Asian people come here because of the school system, even if it means living in a 200 square foot basement for a family of four. Other races who have been here for generations prioritize space or sports, etc. The distribution of academic performance is not evenly distributed. Perhaps in the general population, but definitely not in this region. That is the problem. Have a less random way of selecting the top students. One can add students who you think are deserving as well. But at least have the first filter not so random.

It's not insistence. It's what the data showed.

And this is social engineering given the distribution of GPAs, test scores, etc. of the broader population at FCPS.

There is no social engineering that's just fake news. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide a citation.

Anybody that was paying attention during the hearings knows that it was all about race.

#fakenews

Here is a video of the sort of public comments we had during the hearings.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rWdIXuYFqA

The admissions change was about race.

Some emotional people made these claims, but they could not show any harm done. There was no evidence to support this theory. In the end, even the far-right SCOTUS wouldn't touch this case due to a lack of credible evidence.

1) The process is race-blind.
2) the largest beneficiaries of the change were low-income Asians
3) Asian enrollment is at a historic high.
4) The school remains majority Asian.

Yup. No discrimination.

Who do you think you're fooling

It's not invidious racism but they changed the admissions process to alter the racial composition of the school.

They added seats to give opportunities to kids who don’t attend wealthy feeder schools. There are just as many Asian kids enrolled as before. No discrimination.

The entire point of the admissions change was to create diversity that 'reflected the diversity in the county'

If that was the only goal they wouldn’t have added seats and would have just done a basic lottery with no criteria to apply.

The real problem was that 90% of the applicants selected were coming from 2 or 3 wealthy feeders where parents could afford prep to game the process, and they had to address this and better serve all county residents, not just the children with wealthy parents.

Yup. And that’s why they gave every MS across the county an allotment of seats. So all kids have a shot.

Giving unqualified kids a "shot" is not doing anyone any favors.

Fortunately that never happened. The kids getting a shot are the very top students from each school.

40 students from the class of 2025 returned to their base school before the start of their sophomore year.

Link?

The math was done by folks on this site a couple of years ago. I think they looked at population between september and may; then a look at sophomore population minus froshmores.

So you don't have any supporting data?

Where are the froshmore #s?

FWIW, Class of 2021 had a large # of turnover.

I just can't be bothered to dig it up. It's somewhere on this site.

Do you have a link to the "large # of turnover" for the class of 2021? Was it COVID related?

From enrollment data by grade and month on FCPS website.

Class of 2021: By the fall of 2019 (preCOVID), they lost a net of 26 kids after 9th & 10th plus the 25 who initially declined
admit -> BOY 9th -> EOY 9th -> BOY 10th -> EOY 10th -> BOY 11th
490 465 462 449 444 439

Class of 2020 lost a net of 13 by the same point, plus the 24 who initially declined.