Court: TJ's New Admission Policy Does Not Discriminate

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Suppose TJ did what Loudoun did and put in a maximum quota per school for admissions, or even stronger, each middle school gets the same number of students.

Would that be considered racial discrimination?

Potentially. The problem for FCPS is that various important people were on record as saying the new admissions policy was explicitly to reduce the number of Asians. If they'd implemented school-based quotas with a nudge-nudge wink-wink, they'd likely be in the clear.

The folks who are on record talking about this were referring to the Merit Lottery. Brabrand is on record talking about the policies' impacts in a fairly ham-handed and clumsy way, and the School Board members are on record talking about what a tone-deaf idiot he was and how stupid the Merit Lottery proposal was.

Those same receipts do not exist with respect to the policy that was eventually adopted, a subtle but important point that the bad-faith actors at C4TJ conveniently gloss over.

This is a really important point and changes the whole tone of the "tj papers".

Yes, but it's mostly just fiction cooked up to sew grievance.

What does this mean? To sew together a grievance? To patch up a problem between people?

What is the point here? Who is it that is sewing and what are they sewing together?

This was uncalled for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Suppose TJ did what Loudoun did and put in a maximum quota per school for admissions, or even stronger, each middle school gets the same number of students.

Would that be considered racial discrimination?

Potentially. The problem for FCPS is that various important people were on record as saying the new admissions policy was explicitly to reduce the number of Asians. If they'd implemented school-based quotas with a nudge-nudge wink-wink, they'd likely be in the clear.

The folks who are on record talking about this were referring to the Merit Lottery. Brabrand is on record talking about the policies' impacts in a fairly ham-handed and clumsy way, and the School Board members are on record talking about what a tone-deaf idiot he was and how stupid the Merit Lottery proposal was.

Those same receipts do not exist with respect to the policy that was eventually adopted, a subtle but important point that the bad-faith actors at C4TJ conveniently gloss over.

This is a really important point and changes the whole tone of the "tj papers".

Yes, but it's mostly just fiction cooked up to sew grievance.

What does this mean? To sew together a grievance? To patch up a problem between people?

What is the point here? Who is it that is sewing and what are they sewing together?

This was uncalled for.

Huh? I don’t understand who is being referred to here, so I asked. What am I missing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Vomit. This whole page is what a bought-and-paid for agenda looks like.

Whether or not the current system is legally valid by technicality, it doesn't change the fact that the trigger for the change was "too many Asians." It doesn't change the fact that if people are worried about prepping, a heavily essay-based admissions process is easy to prep. It doesn't change the fact that some talented kids will find themselves with fewer legitimate ways to distinguish themselves. It doesn't change the fact that an across-the-board push away from merit will make it hard for kids to use merit as an defense mechanism against favoritism.

Even if you do support the changes, the one-sidedness of this discussion is irrational and unhealthy.

What about the fact that Black and Latino kids have been kept out for years? and people are upset now that a few more of them are starting to get in, but there are groups of people that are throwing a fit about that.

The worst part about it is that there are more white kids getting in too, except there is no outrage about them. They just want the those extra spots back that the Black and Latino kids picked up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Vomit. This whole page is what a bought-and-paid for agenda looks like.

Whether or not the current system is legally valid by technicality, it doesn't change the fact that the trigger for the change was "too many Asians." It doesn't change the fact that if people are worried about prepping, a heavily essay-based admissions process is easy to prep. It doesn't change the fact that some talented kids will find themselves with fewer legitimate ways to distinguish themselves. It doesn't change the fact that an across-the-board push away from merit will make it hard for kids to use merit as an defense mechanism against favoritism.

Even if you do support the changes, the one-sidedness of this discussion is irrational and unhealthy.

Since that isn't a fact, your whole point is moot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As an Asian, I agree admissions policy had to change. The only question is how to do it in a thoughtful manner. Not the rush job in the middle of a pandemic seeking to ride the George Floyd outrage.

Both left and right talk nonsense on this topic. The middle ground has been lost in this.

So what is the middle ground? Enlighten us

How about keep the MS quotas, but drop experience factors/YS bump. And maybe add an additional essay that is more Engineering/Science related?

Oh yeah, we have to keep the YS kids out of there for sure.

What is YS?

Young scholar. Once of the criteria is being a minority, so it's a backdoor way to use race

It has nothing to do with race.

https://www.fcps.edu/academics/elementary/advanced-academic-programs/young-scholars

It looks like they scrubbed the website, but they weren't thorough:

"Young Scholars is:

Designed to identify and nurture students with high academic potential who may face additional barriers to access and success in Advanced Academic Programs (AAP) and courses. This may include students who are the first in their family to attend college in the U.S., English language learners, students who are economically disadvantaged, and students who are twice exceptional.
A strategy to increase access to rigor found in:
The FCPS strategic plan.
The Closing the Achievement Gap framework.
*Twice exceptional, English Learners, Black, Hispanic or economically vulnerable"
https://www.fcps.edu/node/44243

That is interesting that they removed that from the website as it is clearly racial. I wonder if they used that as a proxy in the new process.

[Anonymous]

The trigger for the change was the rampant test buying and cheating which they had to stop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Suppose TJ did what Loudoun did and put in a maximum quota per school for admissions, or even stronger, each middle school gets the same number of students.

Would that be considered racial discrimination?

Potentially. The problem for FCPS is that various important people were on record as saying the new admissions policy was explicitly to reduce the number of Asians. If they'd implemented school-based quotas with a nudge-nudge wink-wink, they'd likely be in the clear.

The folks who are on record talking about this were referring to the Merit Lottery. Brabrand is on record talking about the policies' impacts in a fairly ham-handed and clumsy way, and the School Board members are on record talking about what a tone-deaf idiot he was and how stupid the Merit Lottery proposal was.

Those same receipts do not exist with respect to the policy that was eventually adopted, a subtle but important point that the bad-faith actors at C4TJ conveniently gloss over.

This is a really important point and changes the whole tone of the "tj papers".

Yes, but it's mostly just fiction cooked up to sew grievance.

What does this mean? To sew together a grievance? To patch up a problem between people?

What is the point here? Who is it that is sewing and what are they sewing together?

This was uncalled for.

Huh? I don’t understand who is being referred to here, so I asked. What am I missing?

Oh, you're not just mocking someone for a typo?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The trigger for the change was the rampant test buying and cheating which they had to stop.

Define rampant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The trigger for the change was the rampant test buying and cheating which they had to stop.

Define rampant.

Dp

If the test is prone to being bought or cheated on, then it doesn’t matter if 5% of the people have it, or 50%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The trigger for the change was the rampant test buying and cheating which they had to stop.

Define rampant.

Dp

If the test is prone to being bought or cheated on, then it doesn’t matter if 5% of the people have it, or 50%.

Yeah, they want to keep cheating because they are the ones with the advantage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The trigger for the change was the rampant test buying and cheating which they had to stop.

Define rampant.

Dp

If the test is prone to being bought or cheated on, then it doesn’t matter if 5% of the people have it, or 50%.

Yeah, they want to keep cheating because they are the ones with the advantage.

One of the many centers doing this took out an ad in the paper claiming that 30% of the TJ freshman class had gone to their center and included student names. Now if just one center had 30% of the students, I'd expect the actual number to be closer to 90%. Basically if you didn't have advanced access to the test questions, you had almost no chance of competing or being selected with that process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The trigger for the change was the rampant test buying and cheating which they had to stop.

Define rampant.

Dp

If the test is prone to being bought or cheated on, then it doesn’t matter if 5% of the people have it, or 50%.

Yeah, they want to keep cheating because they are the ones with the advantage.

One of the many centers doing this took out an ad in the paper claiming that 30% of the TJ freshman class had gone to their center and included student names. Now if just one center had 30% of the students, I'd expect the actual number to be closer to 90%. Basically if you didn't have advanced access to the test questions, you had almost no chance of competing or being selected with that process.

Just because they had a high success rate, doesn’t mean they were cheating.

I still stand by my original point that “ If the test is prone to being bought or cheated on, then it doesn’t matter if 5% of the people have it, or 50%.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The trigger for the change was the rampant test buying and cheating which they had to stop.

Define rampant.

Dp

If the test is prone to being bought or cheated on, then it doesn’t matter if 5% of the people have it, or 50%.

Yeah, they want to keep cheating because they are the ones with the advantage.

One of the many centers doing this took out an ad in the paper claiming that 30% of the TJ freshman class had gone to their center and included student names. Now if just one center had 30% of the students, I'd expect the actual number to be closer to 90%. Basically if you didn't have advanced access to the test questions, you had almost no chance of competing or being selected with that process.

Just because they had a high success rate, doesn’t mean they were cheating.

I still stand by my original point that “ If the test is prone to being bought or cheated on, then it doesn’t matter if 5% of the people have it, or 50%.”

It was not a high success rate. There were many more students who went there and did not get in. The success rate was closer to 10%, less than the general application acceptance rate.

Someone else posted on here a link to a coaching centre claiming an 80% success rate, ostensibly to complain about how unfair it was, but it was likely just to advertise it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The trigger for the change was the rampant test buying and cheating which they had to stop.

Define rampant.

Dp

If the test is prone to being bought or cheated on, then it doesn’t matter if 5% of the people have it, or 50%.

Yeah, they want to keep cheating because they are the ones with the advantage.

One of the many centers doing this took out an ad in the paper claiming that 30% of the TJ freshman class had gone to their center and included student names. Now if just one center had 30% of the students, I'd expect the actual number to be closer to 90%. Basically if you didn't have advanced access to the test questions, you had almost no chance of competing or being selected with that process.

Just because they had a high success rate, doesn’t mean they were cheating.

I still stand by my original point that “ If the test is prone to being bought or cheated on, then it doesn’t matter if 5% of the people have it, or 50%.”

It was way more than 50%, and although you may not care about cheating, the school board did so changed the selection criteria accordingly.

[Anonymous]

Let's demolish racial discrimination in school admissions - only days till the ruling!