No you didn't |
Of course this isn't true. But it won't stop you from repeating this nonsense. |
Asians are the only racial group[ thaty saw a decline in admissions. |
Anyone know about TJ curriculum changes happening right now? More APs instead of existing courses and less required courses…. |
You mean, Asian students from affluent families. The Asian students from low-income families saw the biggest increase in representation. |
When you data scrape subsets of data to find a subset that supports your argument, you have a weak argument. We measure racial discrimination along racial lines and you are using a subset of a racial group that has seen an increase. The racial group that saw the largest increase were white students. The only group that saw a decrease were asian students. This was by design. |
Since we are talking about the analysis in the court case — the justices called out the low-income students as highest beneficiaries — the group in the class of 2025 that saw the largest absolute increase was Hispanic students. If we look at percentages, Hispanic and black students also saw huge increases in representation. If we also look at actual enrollment and yield, we see that white students didn’t have the largest increase, even though they make up the plurality. They just aren’t as interested in TJ - lower application and acceptance rates. |
Are you talking about AP Seminar and AP Human Geography? If so, they would just be an option to replace English 10 HN and World History. |
Circuit court judges are not called justices. They were looking for reasons to avoid acknowledging the racial discrimination. When you analyze racial discrimination, you look at the racial group, you don't pore over the data until you find some subset of that discriminated group that did better than average. If we are talking about racial discrimination in admissions, we look at admissions data, not matriculation data. |
Again, the group in the class of 2025 that saw the largest absolute increase was Hispanic students. If we look at percentages, Hispanic and black students saw huge increases in representation. Before the change, the admission rate for black students was 25% of the admission rate for Asian students. Then, went up to 75% after the change. Still less than the 80% guideline. The disparate impact for black students has lessened significantly but still remains after the change. |
White admits went from 86 in the last year of the old system to 140 last year. An increase of 54 Hispanic admits went from 16 the last uear of the old system to 41. An increase of 25 If we are talking about discrimination in the admissions process, we don't care how many kids accept and attend, we are [/b]ONLY[/b] concerns about admission statistics, not yield. And you still don't understasnd disparate impact. |
LOL. Speaking of “data scraping”… White families DGAF about TJ. As demonstrated by application and yield numbers. You are deflecting from the relevant math on disparate impact. The admissions change lessened the disparate impact of black students. (from 25% of the Asian rate to 75%, still below 80% guideline). The fact is…there is better representation from kids across the county at TJ today. All MSs, more kids from economically-disadvantaged families, more black and Hispanic kids, more girls, etc. |
So by your explanation this admissions change is nothing but racial percentage manipulation. |
Anyway, hasta la vista Bonita. |
Disparity /= disparate impact. Of course white families want TJ. They don't want the work and competition that comes with it. If you think the TJ mission is to collect a racially and economically representative sample of students from across Fairfax, then the new system does that better. If you think the TJ mission is to collect the best and brightest students, then the new system is pretty bad. |