Is Peter Stuyvesant having the same problems as TJ?

[Anonymous]

Let le warn all of you: after SCOTUS hands down the SFFA v. Harvard decision, colleges will be even more blatant practicing economic and geographical discrimination. UC has been punishing students from “rich” zip codes for years. It wouldn’t surprise me at all that a poor white or Asian kid might get preferential treatment over an upper middle class Black kid from an African immigrant family. FYI, the immigrant ethnic group that has the highest % of PhDs is not Indian or Chinese—it’s Nigerian.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let le warn all of you: after SCOTUS hands down the SFFA v. Harvard decision, colleges will be even more blatant practicing economic and geographical discrimination. UC has been punishing students from “rich” zip codes for years. It wouldn’t surprise me at all that a poor white or Asian kid might get preferential treatment over an upper middle class Black kid from an African immigrant family. FYI, the immigrant ethnic group that has the highest % of PhDs is not Indian or Chinese—it’s Nigerian.

You chose to segregate your kid into a rich zip code instead of having a little bravery & making the best of an economically diverse school. Kids & families in economically diverse schools should be rewarded for not being so fearful.

[Anonymous]

You shouldn’t be able to flee to the suburbs, leaving the city kids behind, and get off scot-free in college admissions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let le warn all of you: after SCOTUS hands down the SFFA v. Harvard decision, colleges will be even more blatant practicing economic and geographical discrimination. UC has been punishing students from “rich” zip codes for years. It wouldn’t surprise me at all that a poor white or Asian kid might get preferential treatment over an upper middle class Black kid from an African immigrant family. FYI, the immigrant ethnic group that has the highest % of PhDs is not Indian or Chinese—it’s Nigerian.

Good. Kids shouldn’t be punished in admissions for where they went to high school. They had literally no control over that 99% of the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let le warn all of you: after SCOTUS hands down the SFFA v. Harvard decision, colleges will be even more blatant practicing economic and geographical discrimination. UC has been punishing students from “rich” zip codes for years. It wouldn’t surprise me at all that a poor white or Asian kid might get preferential treatment over an upper middle class Black kid from an African immigrant family. FYI, the immigrant ethnic group that has the highest % of PhDs is not Indian or Chinese—it’s Nigerian.

We live in a diverse neighborhood and my kids attend a high farms high school (one of the ones people on this board tell people to avoid). They're doing well, and I'm fine with that result.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m sure I’ll be really sorry I asked this, but what “problems” is TJ having?

As far as I can tell as an outsider, the "problem" is that TJ realized it's a public school and is taking steps to find and include smart Black and brown students who had previously been overlooked, perhaps because their test scores aren't as good or because their parents didn't know how to best position then from early childhood. DCUM parents think that is ruining the school because it is taking spots away from their brilliant children.

OK, this is what I suspected. Thank you for confirming so I can avoid wasting any more time on this thread.

+1

Trash thread

[Anonymous]

I don’t think a lot of people get it. Even before the Harvard case more and more colleges were already getting away from using race as an explicit factor, but were trending towards “socioeconomic” factors in college admissions. Some state schools like UC and U. Mich were doing it because of states’ ban on AA. But there is no ban on using “socioeconomic” factors.

A friend of mine is a law firm partner in an upscale area of San Diego. His own family was first generation immigrants from Eastern Europe and he grew up in a not-so-good area of NYC. He’s the typical American Dream success story—pulled himself up from bootstraps, worked hard and got an education. But he’s the one who told me that UC looks at applicant’s zip code and practices economic and geographic discrimination, even for in-state. Why should children be punished because their parents are hard working, successful, and live in a nice neighborhood?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m sure I’ll be really sorry I asked this, but what “problems” is TJ having?

Where everyone is annoyed at the amount of asians. That’s also an issue at Stuyvesant IIRC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think a lot of people get it. Even before the Harvard case more and more colleges were already getting away from using race as an explicit factor, but were trending towards “socioeconomic” factors in college admissions. Some state schools like UC and U. Mich were doing it because of states’ ban on AA. But there is no ban on using “socioeconomic” factors.

A friend of mine is a law firm partner in an upscale area of San Diego. His own family was first generation immigrants from Eastern Europe and he grew up in a not-so-good area of NYC. He’s the typical American Dream success story—pulled himself up from bootstraps, worked hard and got an education. But he’s the one who told me that UC looks at applicant’s zip code and practices economic and geographic discrimination, even for in-state. Why should children be punished because their parents are hard working, successful, and live in a nice neighborhood?

You'd expect a kid whose family has resources to have a more substantial application that a kid whose family did not have resources. People seem really upset that being UMC is not a protected class

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think a lot of people get it. Even before the Harvard case more and more colleges were already getting away from using race as an explicit factor, but were trending towards “socioeconomic” factors in college admissions. Some state schools like UC and U. Mich were doing it because of states’ ban on AA. But there is no ban on using “socioeconomic” factors.

A friend of mine is a law firm partner in an upscale area of San Diego. His own family was first generation immigrants from Eastern Europe and he grew up in a not-so-good area of NYC. He’s the typical American Dream success story—pulled himself up from bootstraps, worked hard and got an education. But he’s the one who told me that UC looks at applicant’s zip code and practices economic and geographic discrimination, even for in-state. Why should children be punished because their parents are hard working, successful, and live in a nice neighborhood?

Why should children be punished because they live in a bad neighborhood? They had no say in that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think a lot of people get it. Even before the Harvard case more and more colleges were already getting away from using race as an explicit factor, but were trending towards “socioeconomic” factors in college admissions. Some state schools like UC and U. Mich were doing it because of states’ ban on AA. But there is no ban on using “socioeconomic” factors.

A friend of mine is a law firm partner in an upscale area of San Diego. His own family was first generation immigrants from Eastern Europe and he grew up in a not-so-good area of NYC. He’s the typical American Dream success story—pulled himself up from bootstraps, worked hard and got an education. But he’s the one who told me that UC looks at applicant’s zip code and practices economic and geographic discrimination, even for in-state. Why should children be punished because their parents are hard working, successful, and live in a nice neighborhood?

Your rich white law partner friend could’ve afforded to live anywhere & chose to live in a rich, segregated neighborhood.

State schools exist to serve the entire state. That means having students from the entire state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think a lot of people get it. Even before the Harvard case more and more colleges were already getting away from using race as an explicit factor, but were trending towards “socioeconomic” factors in college admissions. Some state schools like UC and U. Mich were doing it because of states’ ban on AA. But there is no ban on using “socioeconomic” factors.

A friend of mine is a law firm partner in an upscale area of San Diego. His own family was first generation immigrants from Eastern Europe and he grew up in a not-so-good area of NYC. He’s the typical American Dream success story—pulled himself up from bootstraps, worked hard and got an education. But he’s the one who told me that UC looks at applicant’s zip code and practices economic and geographic discrimination, even for in-state. Why should children be punished because their parents are hard working, successful, and live in a nice neighborhood?

Are you calling poor people lazy? GTFO

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure what "problem" the OP was referring to, but I heard this year's college admission results are much worse comparing to prior years. These students were admitted to TJ before the "reform" FWIW.

College admission results have been more unpredictable i recent years for many reasons. It's not because of the high school someone goes to.

Actually going to TJ or highly ranked magnet or Big 3 prep is a DISadvantage. Colleges do a lot of economic balancing and geographic balancing. I would say it’s even more insidious than racial balancing.

You're delusional. Look at the big 3 college admissions and compare them to any random public school. Do you want to compare TJ results with all those super advantaged poor kids at MVHS?

The fact of life is that any bottom feeder at Big 3 is academically superior to the valedictorian of a “random” public HS.

So delusional. Fortunately, college admissions offices do look beyond the school name and often realize how mediocre Biff and Muffy truly are.

[Anonymous]

Rich people lobby against rezoning & redistricting schools and against multifamily housing so they can have their 5% FARMs schools located 1 mile from 85% FARMs schools. Then they wonder why colleges want geographic & economic diversity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think a lot of people get it. Even before the Harvard case more and more colleges were already getting away from using race as an explicit factor, but were trending towards “socioeconomic” factors in college admissions. Some state schools like UC and U. Mich were doing it because of states’ ban on AA. But there is no ban on using “socioeconomic” factors.

A friend of mine is a law firm partner in an upscale area of San Diego. His own family was first generation immigrants from Eastern Europe and he grew up in a not-so-good area of NYC. He’s the typical American Dream success story—pulled himself up from bootstraps, worked hard and got an education. But he’s the one who told me that UC looks at applicant’s zip code and practices economic and geographic discrimination, even for in-state. Why should children be punished because their parents are hard working, successful, and live in a nice neighborhood?

Oh, I get it, and I absolutely love it.