U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts on Friday called for a response from a Virginia school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The answer is very simple.

FCPS should just eliminate all the newly introduced proxy-to-race factors such as geographic quota and experienced factors. One would argue it's not that difficult to administer a test. But given the laziness of FCPS admins, I don't think they would administer one.

No the tests are proxies too is the problem.

Hmmm that's the definition of racism. Are you implying URMs can't do well in tests?

Given that they have less access to boutique expensive test prep opportunities because on balance they tend to have fewer resources, yes. Underrepresented groups (like, for example, poor Asians) can’t afford to send their kids to these companies to get a leg up on exams.

However, "poor Asians" are doing extremely well on the entrance exam for the Stuyvesant. They don;t have money for classes or tutors so they study with a book. Almost all the Asian admittees are "poor". Another inconvenient truth.

Stuyvesant is not TJ. A much higher percentage of the total applicants going for Stuy are low-income. Many of the wealthier kids applying for the NY elite public schools list others as their preference.

Bottom line is almost no poor Asians got in under the previous process and under the new process they were the biggest beneficiaries. More poor Asians admitted than total Black and total Hispanic students.

Can you tell us where you are getting information on poor Asians benefiting from the new process? Is it the totally discredited FARMS self-identification?

Citation from an official source where that information was discredited?

Whoever made the original claim has burden of proof.

The original, tactless claim came in response to a citation of the facts released after the admissions process was complete. The claim challenging those facts has the burden of proof.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The answer is very simple.

FCPS should just eliminate all the newly introduced proxy-to-race factors such as geographic quota and experienced factors. One would argue it's not that difficult to administer a test. But given the laziness of FCPS admins, I don't think they would administer one.

No the tests are proxies too is the problem.

Hmmm that's the definition of racism. Are you implying URMs can't do well in tests?

Given that they have less access to boutique expensive test prep opportunities because on balance they tend to have fewer resources, yes. Underrepresented groups (like, for example, poor Asians) can’t afford to send their kids to these companies to get a leg up on exams.

However, "poor Asians" are doing extremely well on the entrance exam for the Stuyvesant. They don;t have money for classes or tutors so they study with a book. Almost all the Asian admittees are "poor". Another inconvenient truth.

Stuyvesant is not TJ. A much higher percentage of the total applicants going for Stuy are low-income. Many of the wealthier kids applying for the NY elite public schools list others as their preference.

Bottom line is almost no poor Asians got in under the previous process and under the new process they were the biggest beneficiaries. More poor Asians admitted than total Black and total Hispanic students.

Hahahahaha That's your response - Stuyvesant is not TJ? You should just give it up if that's all you have. Inconvenient Truth!

Yes. They are different schools that exist in completely different economic spaces.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The answer is very simple.

FCPS should just eliminate all the newly introduced proxy-to-race factors such as geographic quota and experienced factors. One would argue it's not that difficult to administer a test. But given the laziness of FCPS admins, I don't think they would administer one.

No the tests are proxies too is the problem.

Hmmm that's the definition of racism. Are you implying URMs can't do well in tests?

Given that they have less access to boutique expensive test prep opportunities because on balance they tend to have fewer resources, yes. Underrepresented groups (like, for example, poor Asians) can’t afford to send their kids to these companies to get a leg up on exams.

However, "poor Asians" are doing extremely well on the entrance exam for the Stuyvesant. They don;t have money for classes or tutors so they study with a book. Almost all the Asian admittees are "poor". Another inconvenient truth.

Stuyvesant is not TJ. A much higher percentage of the total applicants going for Stuy are low-income. Many of the wealthier kids applying for the NY elite public schools list others as their preference.

Bottom line is almost no poor Asians got in under the previous process and under the new process they were the biggest beneficiaries. More poor Asians admitted than total Black and total Hispanic students.

Hahahahaha That's your response - Stuyvesant is not TJ? You should just give it up if that's all you have. Inconvenient Truth!

Yes. They are different schools that exist in completely different economic spaces.

+1 and with different alternatives for elite schools in the area!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The answer is very simple.

FCPS should just eliminate all the newly introduced proxy-to-race factors such as geographic quota and experienced factors. One would argue it's not that difficult to administer a test. But given the laziness of FCPS admins, I don't think they would administer one.

No the tests are proxies too is the problem.

Hmmm that's the definition of racism. Are you implying URMs can't do well in tests?

Given that they have less access to boutique expensive test prep opportunities because on balance they tend to have fewer resources, yes. Underrepresented groups (like, for example, poor Asians) can’t afford to send their kids to these companies to get a leg up on exams.

However, "poor Asians" are doing extremely well on the entrance exam for the Stuyvesant. They don;t have money for classes or tutors so they study with a book. Almost all the Asian admittees are "poor". Another inconvenient truth.

Stuyvesant is not TJ. A much higher percentage of the total applicants going for Stuy are low-income. Many of the wealthier kids applying for the NY elite public schools list others as their preference.

Bottom line is almost no poor Asians got in under the previous process and under the new process they were the biggest beneficiaries. More poor Asians admitted than total Black and total Hispanic students.

Can you tell us where you are getting information on poor Asians benefiting from the new process? Is it the totally discredited FARMS self-identification?

Citation from an official source where that information was discredited?

Whoever made the original claim has burden of proof.

The original, tactless claim came in response to a citation of the facts released after the admissions process was complete. The claim challenging those facts has the burden of proof.

*factless

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The answer is very simple.

FCPS should just eliminate all the newly introduced proxy-to-race factors such as geographic quota and experienced factors. One would argue it's not that difficult to administer a test. But given the laziness of FCPS admins, I don't think they would administer one.

No the tests are proxies too is the problem.

Hmmm that's the definition of racism. Are you implying URMs can't do well in tests?

Given that they have less access to boutique expensive test prep opportunities because on balance they tend to have fewer resources, yes. Underrepresented groups (like, for example, poor Asians) can’t afford to send their kids to these companies to get a leg up on exams.

However, "poor Asians" are doing extremely well on the entrance exam for the Stuyvesant. They don;t have money for classes or tutors so they study with a book. Almost all the Asian admittees are "poor". Another inconvenient truth.

Stuyvesant is not TJ. A much higher percentage of the total applicants going for Stuy are low-income. Many of the wealthier kids applying for the NY elite public schools list others as their preference.

Bottom line is almost no poor Asians got in under the previous process and under the new process they were the biggest beneficiaries. More poor Asians admitted than total Black and total Hispanic students.

Hahahahaha That's your response - Stuyvesant is not TJ? You should just give it up if that's all you have. Inconvenient Truth!

Yes. They are different schools that exist in completely different economic spaces.

Yes they are different schools. They even have different school names. They are even in different states.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The answer is very simple.

FCPS should just eliminate all the newly introduced proxy-to-race factors such as geographic quota and experienced factors. One would argue it's not that difficult to administer a test. But given the laziness of FCPS admins, I don't think they would administer one.

No the tests are proxies too is the problem.

Hmmm that's the definition of racism. Are you implying URMs can't do well in tests?

Given that they have less access to boutique expensive test prep opportunities because on balance they tend to have fewer resources, yes. Underrepresented groups (like, for example, poor Asians) can’t afford to send their kids to these companies to get a leg up on exams.

However, "poor Asians" are doing extremely well on the entrance exam for the Stuyvesant. They don;t have money for classes or tutors so they study with a book. Almost all the Asian admittees are "poor". Another inconvenient truth.

Stuyvesant is not TJ. A much higher percentage of the total applicants going for Stuy are low-income. Many of the wealthier kids applying for the NY elite public schools list others as their preference.

Bottom line is almost no poor Asians got in under the previous process and under the new process they were the biggest beneficiaries. More poor Asians admitted than total Black and total Hispanic students.

Hahahahaha That's your response - Stuyvesant is not TJ? You should just give it up if that's all you have. Inconvenient Truth!

Yes. They are different schools that exist in completely different economic spaces.

Yes they are different schools. They even have different school names. They are even in different states.

It's fascinating that no poor Asians got in under the previous system but under the new system they were the biggest beneficiaries!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The answer is very simple.

FCPS should just eliminate all the newly introduced proxy-to-race factors such as geographic quota and experienced factors. One would argue it's not that difficult to administer a test. But given the laziness of FCPS admins, I don't think they would administer one.

No the tests are proxies too is the problem.

Hmmm that's the definition of racism. Are you implying URMs can't do well in tests?

Given that they have less access to boutique expensive test prep opportunities because on balance they tend to have fewer resources, yes. Underrepresented groups (like, for example, poor Asians) can’t afford to send their kids to these companies to get a leg up on exams.

However, "poor Asians" are doing extremely well on the entrance exam for the Stuyvesant. They don;t have money for classes or tutors so they study with a book. Almost all the Asian admittees are "poor". Another inconvenient truth.

Stuyvesant is not TJ. A much higher percentage of the total applicants going for Stuy are low-income. Many of the wealthier kids applying for the NY elite public schools list others as their preference.

Bottom line is almost no poor Asians got in under the previous process and under the new process they were the biggest beneficiaries. More poor Asians admitted than total Black and total Hispanic students.

Hahahahaha That's your response - Stuyvesant is not TJ? You should just give it up if that's all you have. Inconvenient Truth!

Yes. They are different schools that exist in completely different economic spaces.

Yes they are different schools. They even have different school names. They are even in different states.

It's fascinating that no poor Asians got in under the previous system but under the new system they were the biggest beneficiaries!

If this is true, then it's hard to claim that this policy is anti-asian especially since they are still the largest group in these programs by a huge margin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The answer is very simple.

FCPS should just eliminate all the newly introduced proxy-to-race factors such as geographic quota and experienced factors. One would argue it's not that difficult to administer a test. But given the laziness of FCPS admins, I don't think they would administer one.

No the tests are proxies too is the problem.

Hmmm that's the definition of racism. Are you implying URMs can't do well in tests?

Given that they have less access to boutique expensive test prep opportunities because on balance they tend to have fewer resources, yes. Underrepresented groups (like, for example, poor Asians) can’t afford to send their kids to these companies to get a leg up on exams.

However, "poor Asians" are doing extremely well on the entrance exam for the Stuyvesant. They don;t have money for classes or tutors so they study with a book. Almost all the Asian admittees are "poor". Another inconvenient truth.

Stuyvesant is not TJ. A much higher percentage of the total applicants going for Stuy are low-income. Many of the wealthier kids applying for the NY elite public schools list others as their preference.

Bottom line is almost no poor Asians got in under the previous process and under the new process they were the biggest beneficiaries. More poor Asians admitted than total Black and total Hispanic students.

Hahahahaha That's your response - Stuyvesant is not TJ? You should just give it up if that's all you have. Inconvenient Truth!

Yes. They are different schools that exist in completely different economic spaces.

Yes they are different schools. They even have different school names. They are even in different states.

It's fascinating that no poor Asians got in under the previous system but under the new system they were the biggest beneficiaries!

If this is true, then it's hard to claim that this policy is anti-asian especially since they are still the largest group in these programs by a huge margin.

This claim is made on the basis of FARMS statistics. This metric was self reported last year. The question was poorly worded and everyone could respond with a “yes”. Many followed the “spirit” of the question and not the “letter” of the question and responded with a no. Many others said yes. Unlike other years, FARMS last year was not a representative metric of poverty. Braband claimed the new process gave greater access to lower income kids based on this flawed data. This was either stupidity on the part of the School Board or a cynical plan of manipulation (more likely the latter). You can search for this issue on this forum.

So the claim about greater access to lower income kids is in the same category as “largest crowds came to my inauguration” - utter BS

[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:The answer is very simple.

FCPS should just eliminate all the newly introduced proxy-to-race factors such as geographic quota and experienced factors. One would argue it's not that difficult to administer a test. But given the laziness of FCPS admins, I don't think they would administer one.

No the tests are proxies too is the problem.

Hmmm that's the definition of racism. Are you implying URMs can't do well in tests?

Given that they have less access to boutique expensive test prep opportunities because on balance they tend to have fewer resources, yes. Underrepresented groups (like, for example, poor Asians) can’t afford to send their kids to these companies to get a leg up on exams.

However, "poor Asians" are doing extremely well on the entrance exam for the Stuyvesant. They don;t have money for classes or tutors so they study with a book. Almost all the Asian admittees are "poor". Another inconvenient truth.

Stuyvesant is not TJ. A much higher percentage of the total applicants going for Stuy are low-income. Many of the wealthier kids applying for the NY elite public schools list others as their preference.

Bottom line is almost no poor Asians got in under the previous process and under the new process they were the biggest beneficiaries. More poor Asians admitted than total Black and total Hispanic students.

Hahahahaha That's your response - Stuyvesant is not TJ? You should just give it up if that's all you have. Inconvenient Truth!

Yes. They are different schools that exist in completely different economic spaces.

Yes they are different schools. They even have different school names. They are even in different states.

It's fascinating that no poor Asians got in under the previous system but under the new system they were the biggest beneficiaries!

If this is true, then it's hard to claim that this policy is anti-asian especially since they are still the largest group in these programs by a huge margin.

This claim is made on the basis of FARMS statistics. This metric was self reported last year. The question was poorly worded and everyone could respond with a “yes”. Many followed the “spirit” of the question and not the “letter” of the question and responded with a no. Many others said yes. Unlike other years, FARMS last year was not a representative metric of poverty. Braband claimed the new process gave greater access to lower income kids based on this flawed data. This was either stupidity on the part of the School Board or a cynical plan of manipulation (more likely the latter). You can search for this issue on this forum.

So the claim about greater access to lower income kids is in the same category as “largest crowds came to my inauguration” - utter BS

Are you calling Asians liars?

[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:The answer is very simple.

FCPS should just eliminate all the newly introduced proxy-to-race factors such as geographic quota and experienced factors. One would argue it's not that difficult to administer a test. But given the laziness of FCPS admins, I don't think they would administer one.

No the tests are proxies too is the problem.

Hmmm that's the definition of racism. Are you implying URMs can't do well in tests?

Given that they have less access to boutique expensive test prep opportunities because on balance they tend to have fewer resources, yes. Underrepresented groups (like, for example, poor Asians) can’t afford to send their kids to these companies to get a leg up on exams.

However, "poor Asians" are doing extremely well on the entrance exam for the Stuyvesant. They don;t have money for classes or tutors so they study with a book. Almost all the Asian admittees are "poor". Another inconvenient truth.

Stuyvesant is not TJ. A much higher percentage of the total applicants going for Stuy are low-income. Many of the wealthier kids applying for the NY elite public schools list others as their preference.

Bottom line is almost no poor Asians got in under the previous process and under the new process they were the biggest beneficiaries. More poor Asians admitted than total Black and total Hispanic students.

Hahahahaha That's your response - Stuyvesant is not TJ? You should just give it up if that's all you have. Inconvenient Truth!

Yes. They are different schools that exist in completely different economic spaces.

Yes they are different schools. They even have different school names. They are even in different states.

It's fascinating that no poor Asians got in under the previous system but under the new system they were the biggest beneficiaries!

If this is true, then it's hard to claim that this policy is anti-asian especially since they are still the largest group in these programs by a huge margin.

This claim is made on the basis of FARMS statistics. This metric was self reported last year. The question was poorly worded and everyone could respond with a “yes”. Many followed the “spirit” of the question and not the “letter” of the question and responded with a no. Many others said yes. Unlike other years, FARMS last year was not a representative metric of poverty. Braband claimed the new process gave greater access to lower income kids based on this flawed data. This was either stupidity on the part of the School Board or a cynical plan of manipulation (more likely the latter). You can search for this issue on this forum.

So the claim about greater access to lower income kids is in the same category as “largest crowds came to my inauguration” - utter BS

Are you calling Asians liars?

I am pointing to a flaw in the process that has been highlighted by many. I will let your prejudices lead you to your conclusions.

[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:The answer is very simple.

FCPS should just eliminate all the newly introduced proxy-to-race factors such as geographic quota and experienced factors. One would argue it's not that difficult to administer a test. But given the laziness of FCPS admins, I don't think they would administer one.

No the tests are proxies too is the problem.

Hmmm that's the definition of racism. Are you implying URMs can't do well in tests?

Given that they have less access to boutique expensive test prep opportunities because on balance they tend to have fewer resources, yes. Underrepresented groups (like, for example, poor Asians) can’t afford to send their kids to these companies to get a leg up on exams.

However, "poor Asians" are doing extremely well on the entrance exam for the Stuyvesant. They don;t have money for classes or tutors so they study with a book. Almost all the Asian admittees are "poor". Another inconvenient truth.

Stuyvesant is not TJ. A much higher percentage of the total applicants going for Stuy are low-income. Many of the wealthier kids applying for the NY elite public schools list others as their preference.

Bottom line is almost no poor Asians got in under the previous process and under the new process they were the biggest beneficiaries. More poor Asians admitted than total Black and total Hispanic students.

Hahahahaha That's your response - Stuyvesant is not TJ? You should just give it up if that's all you have. Inconvenient Truth!

Yes. They are different schools that exist in completely different economic spaces.

Yes they are different schools. They even have different school names. They are even in different states.

It's fascinating that no poor Asians got in under the previous system but under the new system they were the biggest beneficiaries!

If this is true, then it's hard to claim that this policy is anti-asian especially since they are still the largest group in these programs by a huge margin.

This claim is made on the basis of FARMS statistics. This metric was self reported last year. The question was poorly worded and everyone could respond with a “yes”. Many followed the “spirit” of the question and not the “letter” of the question and responded with a no. Many others said yes. Unlike other years, FARMS last year was not a representative metric of poverty. Braband claimed the new process gave greater access to lower income kids based on this flawed data. This was either stupidity on the part of the School Board or a cynical plan of manipulation (more likely the latter). You can search for this issue on this forum.

So the claim about greater access to lower income kids is in the same category as “largest crowds came to my inauguration” - utter BS

Are you calling Asians liars?

DP - I'm calling everyone liars. The question should not be a judgment call.

[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:The answer is very simple.

FCPS should just eliminate all the newly introduced proxy-to-race factors such as geographic quota and experienced factors. One would argue it's not that difficult to administer a test. But given the laziness of FCPS admins, I don't think they would administer one.

No the tests are proxies too is the problem.

Hmmm that's the definition of racism. Are you implying URMs can't do well in tests?

Given that they have less access to boutique expensive test prep opportunities because on balance they tend to have fewer resources, yes. Underrepresented groups (like, for example, poor Asians) can’t afford to send their kids to these companies to get a leg up on exams.

However, "poor Asians" are doing extremely well on the entrance exam for the Stuyvesant. They don;t have money for classes or tutors so they study with a book. Almost all the Asian admittees are "poor". Another inconvenient truth.

Stuyvesant is not TJ. A much higher percentage of the total applicants going for Stuy are low-income. Many of the wealthier kids applying for the NY elite public schools list others as their preference.

Bottom line is almost no poor Asians got in under the previous process and under the new process they were the biggest beneficiaries. More poor Asians admitted than total Black and total Hispanic students.

Hahahahaha That's your response - Stuyvesant is not TJ? You should just give it up if that's all you have. Inconvenient Truth!

Yes. They are different schools that exist in completely different economic spaces.

Yes they are different schools. They even have different school names. They are even in different states.

It's fascinating that no poor Asians got in under the previous system but under the new system they were the biggest beneficiaries!

If this is true, then it's hard to claim that this policy is anti-asian especially since they are still the largest group in these programs by a huge margin.

This claim is made on the basis of FARMS statistics. This metric was self reported last year. The question was poorly worded and everyone could respond with a “yes”. Many followed the “spirit” of the question and not the “letter” of the question and responded with a no. Many others said yes. Unlike other years, FARMS last year was not a representative metric of poverty. Braband claimed the new process gave greater access to lower income kids based on this flawed data. This was either stupidity on the part of the School Board or a cynical plan of manipulation (more likely the latter). You can search for this issue on this forum.

So the claim about greater access to lower income kids is in the same category as “largest crowds came to my inauguration” - utter BS

Are you calling Asians liars?

DP - I'm calling everyone liars. The question should not be a judgment call.

Of all the arguments put forth by the “reformers” this one is the most specious. Would love to see what stats they cite to make their case in court.

[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:The answer is very simple.

FCPS should just eliminate all the newly introduced proxy-to-race factors such as geographic quota and experienced factors. One would argue it's not that difficult to administer a test. But given the laziness of FCPS admins, I don't think they would administer one.

No the tests are proxies too is the problem.

Hmmm that's the definition of racism. Are you implying URMs can't do well in tests?

Given that they have less access to boutique expensive test prep opportunities because on balance they tend to have fewer resources, yes. Underrepresented groups (like, for example, poor Asians) can’t afford to send their kids to these companies to get a leg up on exams.

However, "poor Asians" are doing extremely well on the entrance exam for the Stuyvesant. They don;t have money for classes or tutors so they study with a book. Almost all the Asian admittees are "poor". Another inconvenient truth.

Stuyvesant is not TJ. A much higher percentage of the total applicants going for Stuy are low-income. Many of the wealthier kids applying for the NY elite public schools list others as their preference.

Bottom line is almost no poor Asians got in under the previous process and under the new process they were the biggest beneficiaries. More poor Asians admitted than total Black and total Hispanic students.

Hahahahaha That's your response - Stuyvesant is not TJ? You should just give it up if that's all you have. Inconvenient Truth!

Yes. They are different schools that exist in completely different economic spaces.

Yes they are different schools. They even have different school names. They are even in different states.

It's fascinating that no poor Asians got in under the previous system but under the new system they were the biggest beneficiaries!

If this is true, then it's hard to claim that this policy is anti-asian especially since they are still the largest group in these programs by a huge margin.

This claim is made on the basis of FARMS statistics. This metric was self reported last year. The question was poorly worded and everyone could respond with a “yes”. Many followed the “spirit” of the question and not the “letter” of the question and responded with a no. Many others said yes. Unlike other years, FARMS last year was not a representative metric of poverty. Braband claimed the new process gave greater access to lower income kids based on this flawed data. This was either stupidity on the part of the School Board or a cynical plan of manipulation (more likely the latter). You can search for this issue on this forum.

So the claim about greater access to lower income kids is in the same category as “largest crowds came to my inauguration” - utter BS

Are you calling Asians liars?

DP - I'm calling everyone liars. The question should not be a judgment call.

Of all the arguments put forth by the “reformers” this one is the most specious. Would love to see what stats they cite to make their case in court.

The number of low-income students is irrelevant. It may come up tangentially in the case but I am not sure any of the conservative judges will give it serious consideration. The liberal justices will of course make a big deal out of it because it's an irrelevant red-herring.

[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:The answer is very simple.

FCPS should just eliminate all the newly introduced proxy-to-race factors such as geographic quota and experienced factors. One would argue it's not that difficult to administer a test. But given the laziness of FCPS admins, I don't think they would administer one.

No the tests are proxies too is the problem.

Hmmm that's the definition of racism. Are you implying URMs can't do well in tests?

Given that they have less access to boutique expensive test prep opportunities because on balance they tend to have fewer resources, yes. Underrepresented groups (like, for example, poor Asians) can’t afford to send their kids to these companies to get a leg up on exams.

However, "poor Asians" are doing extremely well on the entrance exam for the Stuyvesant. They don;t have money for classes or tutors so they study with a book. Almost all the Asian admittees are "poor". Another inconvenient truth.

Stuyvesant is not TJ. A much higher percentage of the total applicants going for Stuy are low-income. Many of the wealthier kids applying for the NY elite public schools list others as their preference.

Bottom line is almost no poor Asians got in under the previous process and under the new process they were the biggest beneficiaries. More poor Asians admitted than total Black and total Hispanic students.

Hahahahaha That's your response - Stuyvesant is not TJ? You should just give it up if that's all you have. Inconvenient Truth!

Yes. They are different schools that exist in completely different economic spaces.

Yes they are different schools. They even have different school names. They are even in different states.

It's fascinating that no poor Asians got in under the previous system but under the new system they were the biggest beneficiaries!

If this is true, then it's hard to claim that this policy is anti-asian especially since they are still the largest group in these programs by a huge margin.

This claim is made on the basis of FARMS statistics. This metric was self reported last year. The question was poorly worded and everyone could respond with a “yes”. Many followed the “spirit” of the question and not the “letter” of the question and responded with a no. Many others said yes. Unlike other years, FARMS last year was not a representative metric of poverty. Braband claimed the new process gave greater access to lower income kids based on this flawed data. This was either stupidity on the part of the School Board or a cynical plan of manipulation (more likely the latter). You can search for this issue on this forum.

So the claim about greater access to lower income kids is in the same category as “largest crowds came to my inauguration” - utter BS

Are you calling Asians liars?

I am pointing to a flaw in the process that has been highlighted by many. I will let your prejudices lead you to your conclusions.

The claim was that the new system let more poor Asian kids into TJ. The response was that people lied on the application. The obvious implication is that whoever said that thinks the Asians who checked the FARMs box are lying

[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:The answer is very simple.

FCPS should just eliminate all the newly introduced proxy-to-race factors such as geographic quota and experienced factors. One would argue it's not that difficult to administer a test. But given the laziness of FCPS admins, I don't think they would administer one.

No the tests are proxies too is the problem.

Hmmm that's the definition of racism. Are you implying URMs can't do well in tests?

Given that they have less access to boutique expensive test prep opportunities because on balance they tend to have fewer resources, yes. Underrepresented groups (like, for example, poor Asians) can’t afford to send their kids to these companies to get a leg up on exams.

However, "poor Asians" are doing extremely well on the entrance exam for the Stuyvesant. They don;t have money for classes or tutors so they study with a book. Almost all the Asian admittees are "poor". Another inconvenient truth.

Stuyvesant is not TJ. A much higher percentage of the total applicants going for Stuy are low-income. Many of the wealthier kids applying for the NY elite public schools list others as their preference.

Bottom line is almost no poor Asians got in under the previous process and under the new process they were the biggest beneficiaries. More poor Asians admitted than total Black and total Hispanic students.

Hahahahaha That's your response - Stuyvesant is not TJ? You should just give it up if that's all you have. Inconvenient Truth!

Yes. They are different schools that exist in completely different economic spaces.

Yes they are different schools. They even have different school names. They are even in different states.

It's fascinating that no poor Asians got in under the previous system but under the new system they were the biggest beneficiaries!

If this is true, then it's hard to claim that this policy is anti-asian especially since they are still the largest group in these programs by a huge margin.

This claim is made on the basis of FARMS statistics. This metric was self reported last year. The question was poorly worded and everyone could respond with a “yes”. Many followed the “spirit” of the question and not the “letter” of the question and responded with a no. Many others said yes. Unlike other years, FARMS last year was not a representative metric of poverty. Braband claimed the new process gave greater access to lower income kids based on this flawed data. This was either stupidity on the part of the School Board or a cynical plan of manipulation (more likely the latter). You can search for this issue on this forum.

So the claim about greater access to lower income kids is in the same category as “largest crowds came to my inauguration” - utter BS

Are you calling Asians liars?

DP - I'm calling everyone liars. The question should not be a judgment call.

Of all the arguments put forth by the “reformers” this one is the most specious. Would love to see what stats they cite to make their case in court.

The number of low-income students is irrelevant. It may come up tangentially in the case but I am not sure any of the conservative judges will give it serious consideration. The liberal justices will of course make a big deal out of it because it's an irrelevant red-herring.

The conservative justices will issue a per curiam order without comment, if anything. There is no chance that a court that has routinely eviscerated disparate impact as a legal concept will endorse it is a written signed opinion.