Waitlisted at TJ - now what?

[Anonymous]

Heard that they released 2nd round of waitpool today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we re-label this thread as “so called adults, fighting over nothing..while their kids are just fine, enjoying HS”

Yes, sure, the changes doubled the number of URM and gave many low-income students opportunities that they were previously denied, but overall it's had little to no impact on anything. I read this thread as a few parents jockeying for an advantage at the expense of the public.

If you believe in entitlement to dole then you resent anyone that works hard. Nobody is asking for anything "at the expense of the public". The ask is to have a process that gives everyone an equal opportunity to public goods. The argument that "overrepresentation" of Asians is solely due to unfair advantages arising from cheating is not just dubious but nefarious.

Just because the new process doubled the URMs does not make the process fair. The end does not justify the means. Or else we can all dispense street justice.

But it was much more fair than the previous process since it gave all students a fair shot not just those at wealthy schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we re-label this thread as “so called adults, fighting over nothing..while their kids are just fine, enjoying HS”

Yes, sure, the changes doubled the number of URM and gave many low-income students opportunities that they were previously denied, but overall it's had little to no impact on anything. I read this thread as a few parents jockeying for an advantage at the expense of the public.

If you believe in entitlement to dole then you resent anyone that works hard. Nobody is asking for anything "at the expense of the public". The ask is to have a process that gives everyone an equal opportunity to public goods. The argument that "overrepresentation" of Asians is solely due to unfair advantages arising from cheating is not just dubious but nefarious.

Just because the new process doubled the URMs does not make the process fair. The end does not justify the means. Or else we can all dispense street justice.

But it was much more fair than the previous process since it gave all students a fair shot not just those at wealthy schools.

The standard cannot be that it was better than the previous one. Or else we can keep defending “separate but equal” as better than overt discrimination.

The previous process was broken. We are not defending that process. But the new one is discriminatory as well. It did not have to be implemented with haste during the pandemic. Proper consultation and change management would have resulted in better ideas and a less polarized community. There have been great ideas on this discussion board as well. Sadly it was not to be.

The new process penalizes Asians for who they are and where they live. It does not evaluate them as individuals. That is wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we re-label this thread as “so called adults, fighting over nothing..while their kids are just fine, enjoying HS”

Yes, sure, the changes doubled the number of URM and gave many low-income students opportunities that they were previously denied, but overall it's had little to no impact on anything. I read this thread as a few parents jockeying for an advantage at the expense of the public.

If you believe in entitlement to dole then you resent anyone that works hard. Nobody is asking for anything "at the expense of the public". The ask is to have a process that gives everyone an equal opportunity to public goods. The argument that "overrepresentation" of Asians is solely due to unfair advantages arising from cheating is not just dubious but nefarious.

Just because the new process doubled the URMs does not make the process fair. The end does not justify the means. Or else we can all dispense street justice.

But it was much more fair than the previous process since it gave all students a fair shot not just those at wealthy schools.

The standard cannot be that it was better than the previous one. Or else we can keep defending “separate but equal” as better than overt discrimination.

The previous process was broken. We are not defending that process. But the new one is discriminatory as well. It did not have to be implemented with haste during the pandemic. Proper consultation and change management would have resulted in better ideas and a less polarized community. There have been great ideas on this discussion board as well. Sadly it was not to be.

The new process penalizes Asians for who they are and where they live. It does not evaluate them as individuals. That is wrong.

Agree 100% with this. It is the way they implemented the changes that is the issue. If anyone has followed them closely as I did during the last 2 years, the deception is pure evil.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we re-label this thread as “so called adults, fighting over nothing..while their kids are just fine, enjoying HS”

Yes, sure, the changes doubled the number of URM and gave many low-income students opportunities that they were previously denied, but overall it's had little to no impact on anything. I read this thread as a few parents jockeying for an advantage at the expense of the public.

If you believe in entitlement to dole then you resent anyone that works hard. Nobody is asking for anything "at the expense of the public". The ask is to have a process that gives everyone an equal opportunity to public goods. The argument that "overrepresentation" of Asians is solely due to unfair advantages arising from cheating is not just dubious but nefarious.

Just because the new process doubled the URMs does not make the process fair. The end does not justify the means. Or else we can all dispense street justice.

But it was much more fair than the previous process since it gave all students a fair shot not just those at wealthy schools.

The standard cannot be that it was better than the previous one. Or else we can keep defending “separate but equal” as better than overt discrimination.

The previous process was broken. We are not defending that process. But the new one is discriminatory as well. It did not have to be implemented with haste during the pandemic. Proper consultation and change management would have resulted in better ideas and a less polarized community. There have been great ideas on this discussion board as well. Sadly it was not to be.

The new process penalizes Asians for who they are and where they live. It does not evaluate them as individuals. That is wrong.

Agree 100% with this. It is the way they implemented the changes that is the issue. If anyone has followed them closely as I did during the last 2 years, the deception is pure evil.

I agree that the old process was broken but can't see how a race blind admission process where a group that captures over 60% of all seats is being discriminated against.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we re-label this thread as “so called adults, fighting over nothing..while their kids are just fine, enjoying HS”

Yes, sure, the changes doubled the number of URM and gave many low-income students opportunities that they were previously denied, but overall it's had little to no impact on anything. I read this thread as a few parents jockeying for an advantage at the expense of the public.

If you believe in entitlement to dole then you resent anyone that works hard. Nobody is asking for anything "at the expense of the public". The ask is to have a process that gives everyone an equal opportunity to public goods. The argument that "overrepresentation" of Asians is solely due to unfair advantages arising from cheating is not just dubious but nefarious.

Just because the new process doubled the URMs does not make the process fair. The end does not justify the means. Or else we can all dispense street justice.

But it was much more fair than the previous process since it gave all students a fair shot not just those at wealthy schools.

The standard cannot be that it was better than the previous one. Or else we can keep defending “separate but equal” as better than overt discrimination.

The previous process was broken. We are not defending that process. But the new one is discriminatory as well. It did not have to be implemented with haste during the pandemic. Proper consultation and change management would have resulted in better ideas and a less polarized community. There have been great ideas on this discussion board as well. Sadly it was not to be.

The new process penalizes Asians for who they are and where they live. It does not evaluate them as individuals. That is wrong.

+1000. And every School Board member who went along with this discrimination needs to be investigated by the VDOE and voted out next year, especially Stella Pekarsky and Elaine Tholen - two lying, hypocritical White women who were willing to throw Asian kids under the bus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we re-label this thread as “so called adults, fighting over nothing..while their kids are just fine, enjoying HS”

Yes, sure, the changes doubled the number of URM and gave many low-income students opportunities that they were previously denied, but overall it's had little to no impact on anything. I read this thread as a few parents jockeying for an advantage at the expense of the public.

If you believe in entitlement to dole then you resent anyone that works hard. Nobody is asking for anything "at the expense of the public". The ask is to have a process that gives everyone an equal opportunity to public goods. The argument that "overrepresentation" of Asians is solely due to unfair advantages arising from cheating is not just dubious but nefarious.

Just because the new process doubled the URMs does not make the process fair. The end does not justify the means. Or else we can all dispense street justice.

But it was much more fair than the previous process since it gave all students a fair shot not just those at wealthy schools.

The standard cannot be that it was better than the previous one. Or else we can keep defending “separate but equal” as better than overt discrimination.

The previous process was broken. We are not defending that process. But the new one is discriminatory as well. It did not have to be implemented with haste during the pandemic. Proper consultation and change management would have resulted in better ideas and a less polarized community. There have been great ideas on this discussion board as well. Sadly it was not to be.

The new process penalizes Asians for who they are and where they live. It does not evaluate them as individuals. That is wrong.

Agree 100% with this. It is the way they implemented the changes that is the issue. If anyone has followed them closely as I did during the last 2 years, the deception is pure evil.

I agree that the old process was broken but can't see how a race blind admission process where a group that captures over 60% of all seats is being discriminated against.

The changes better served the entire county instead of a small number of wealthy schools. This resulted in a small reduction in Asian students, and any changes would have an impact since that group was so large compared to others. For example, AA students went from something like 3% of TJ to almost 6% with the fairer system that allows all schools to participate. Also, local morning of test scores to determine merit has been widely used elsewhere and is considered a best practice in gifted education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we re-label this thread as “so called adults, fighting over nothing..while their kids are just fine, enjoying HS”

Yes, sure, the changes doubled the number of URM and gave many low-income students opportunities that they were previously denied, but overall it's had little to no impact on anything. I read this thread as a few parents jockeying for an advantage at the expense of the public.

If you believe in entitlement to dole then you resent anyone that works hard. Nobody is asking for anything "at the expense of the public". The ask is to have a process that gives everyone an equal opportunity to public goods. The argument that "overrepresentation" of Asians is solely due to unfair advantages arising from cheating is not just dubious but nefarious.

Just because the new process doubled the URMs does not make the process fair. The end does not justify the means. Or else we can all dispense street justice.

But it was much more fair than the previous process since it gave all students a fair shot not just those at wealthy schools.

The standard cannot be that it was better than the previous one. Or else we can keep defending “separate but equal” as better than overt discrimination.

The previous process was broken. We are not defending that process. But the new one is discriminatory as well. It did not have to be implemented with haste during the pandemic. Proper consultation and change management would have resulted in better ideas and a less polarized community. There have been great ideas on this discussion board as well. Sadly it was not to be.

The new process penalizes Asians for who they are and where they live. It does not evaluate them as individuals. That is wrong.

Agree 100% with this. It is the way they implemented the changes that is the issue. If anyone has followed them closely as I did during the last 2 years, the deception is pure evil.

I agree that the old process was broken but can't see how a race blind admission process where a group that captures over 60% of all seats is being discriminated against.

The changes better served the entire county instead of a small number of wealthy schools. This resulted in a small reduction in Asian students, and any changes would have an impact since that group was so large compared to others. For example, AA students went from something like 3% of TJ to almost 6% with the fairer system that allows all schools to participate. Also, local morning of test scores to determine merit has been widely used elsewhere and is considered a best practice in gifted education.

Kids should be evaluated based on their individual merits and not penalized because they attend a “wealthy school.” Your “best practices” are just pretexts to engage in discrimination. Hopefully at least some of the School Board members who failed to serve their constituents and went along with this garbage will see their time in office come to an abrupt halt next year.

[Anonymous]

Longfellow was disproportionately affected by the changes and most of the rejected students will now feed to Mclean which is already overcrowded and in desperate need of a renovation / expansion. Will equity also apply to school renovations or will Mclean 22101 continue to be used as an ATM to fund the renovation of other schools and county programs?

[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:Can someone post the link to these "TJ Papers?"

Here’s an earlier thread with a link. The conduct of the School Board was embarrassing: even if you didn’t conclude some were anti-Asian and racist, you might still conclude they were unprincipled and deeply incompetent. The only way these people could ever be re-elected is if there are enough people who just blindly vote for candidates endorsed by the Democrats (in which case they fully deserve four more years of FCPS decline):

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1028206.page

I agree the board acted deplorably; nevertheless, with a 59% share of TJ seats I can't take these claims seriously.

Ok. Don’t take them seriously. I don’t think anyone is appealing to you in any case.

The rational majority will speak when the next elections happen.

I suspect that you are going to be sorely disappointed. I would vote for a moderate Republican but the Republicans that end up running are anything but Moderate and will not receive the votes of the majority of the people in this region.

That said, the school board behaved poorly.

And I don’t have a problem with the changes as they stand. I think that guaranteeing seats to every MS is a good call. I prefer using metrics that every student can meet, ie classes and grades from MS and not extra curricular activities that not all kids have access to is fine. I do wish they would increase the GPA to 3.75, include all classes and not just the core classes, and require kids have Geometry before completing 8th grade.

The reality is that increasing the number of URM is going to decrease the number of Asian kids at TJ because the Asian kids are highly overrepresented at TJ.

Maybe they should also increase the number of Sophmores and Juniors who are allowed to transfer into TJ. Perhaps a summer class to make up for whatever it was that they missed would be required?

It’s despicable to say Asian kids are over-represented at TJ. It’s no different than saying Jewish people are over-represented at the Treasury Department. You are disgusting and should be ashamed of yourself.

And if any group is over-representatives it’s women on the School Board and hopefully many will be removed soon.

It's not despicable. It's basic mathematics. Over-represented is not a value judgment.

College educated people are over represented in federal jobs. We should do something about it. Not everyone has the ability or desire to go to college. Penalizing them would be inequitable.

Coalition-aligned folks major in drawing comparisons where there are none.

Jobs are not the same as educational opportunities. Nor are places on sports teams.

True but the coalition folks aren't very bright and just don't care about anything beyond their own interests.

Yes, the coalition folks are pretty awful. They want an admission policy that allows them to buy entry.

Actually the reformers are pork barrel politicians who want racial quotas - it is pretty obvious from the gerrymandering of the TJ admissions process. Twist and turn the admissions process so that you can get the outcome you want without calling out race. Much like gerrymandering.

You used the word gerrymandering here - it doesn't mean what you think it does.

Go back to school.

ger·ry·man·der

manipulate the boundaries of (an electoral constituency) so as to favor one party or class.
achieve (a result) by manipulating the boundaries of an electoral constituency.
"a total freedom to gerrymander the results they want"

In this context it means manipulating the process to get the outcome you want. Time-tested by pork barrel politicians including the ones in Fairfax.

And if you dont get it, you dont get it.

....There were no boundaries that were manipulated and no electoral constituency that was involved. You used the word incorrectly and you tried to shoehorn it into a conversation where it doesn't belong because it's an unpopular word.

F.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we re-label this thread as “so called adults, fighting over nothing..while their kids are just fine, enjoying HS”

Yes, sure, the changes doubled the number of URM and gave many low-income students opportunities that they were previously denied, but overall it's had little to no impact on anything. I read this thread as a few parents jockeying for an advantage at the expense of the public.

If you believe in entitlement to dole then you resent anyone that works hard. Nobody is asking for anything "at the expense of the public". The ask is to have a process that gives everyone an equal opportunity to public goods. The argument that "overrepresentation" of Asians is solely due to unfair advantages arising from cheating is not just dubious but nefarious.

Just because the new process doubled the URMs does not make the process fair. The end does not justify the means. Or else we can all dispense street justice.

But it was much more fair than the previous process since it gave all students a fair shot not just those at wealthy schools.

The standard cannot be that it was better than the previous one. Or else we can keep defending “separate but equal” as better than overt discrimination.

The previous process was broken. We are not defending that process. But the new one is discriminatory as well. It did not have to be implemented with haste during the pandemic. Proper consultation and change management would have resulted in better ideas and a less polarized community. There have been great ideas on this discussion board as well. Sadly it was not to be.

The new process penalizes Asians for who they are and where they live. It does not evaluate them as individuals. That is wrong.

How precisely does it do this? Asians are spread all across the county - and indeed the new process was a great help to some constituencies of Asians who previously didn't have access to TJ.

What the new process does do is that it ceases to FAVOR certain populations for where they live and for their priorities. If it penalized those people, you would probably see a greater or equal number of students getting into TJ from, say, Poe as from Carson. And that's simply not the case. Carson still gets ten times as many kids in to TJ as Poe does. But the fact that it's no longer infinity times as many leads some parents to cry "discrimination".

The development of this new process is not complete, not by a long shot - and it absolutely is flawed. But the first step in that process had to be removing the inherent advantage that some children received from their parents having a laser-focus on TJ for their entire academic careers.

[Anonymous]

The selection by geography needs to be extended. Don't just pick from each school, but pick from different areas of each school boundary as well.

[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:Can someone post the link to these "TJ Papers?"

Here’s an earlier thread with a link. The conduct of the School Board was embarrassing: even if you didn’t conclude some were anti-Asian and racist, you might still conclude they were unprincipled and deeply incompetent. The only way these people could ever be re-elected is if there are enough people who just blindly vote for candidates endorsed by the Democrats (in which case they fully deserve four more years of FCPS decline):

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1028206.page

I agree the board acted deplorably; nevertheless, with a 59% share of TJ seats I can't take these claims seriously.

Ok. Don’t take them seriously. I don’t think anyone is appealing to you in any case.

The rational majority will speak when the next elections happen.

I suspect that you are going to be sorely disappointed. I would vote for a moderate Republican but the Republicans that end up running are anything but Moderate and will not receive the votes of the majority of the people in this region.

That said, the school board behaved poorly.

And I don’t have a problem with the changes as they stand. I think that guaranteeing seats to every MS is a good call. I prefer using metrics that every student can meet, ie classes and grades from MS and not extra curricular activities that not all kids have access to is fine. I do wish they would increase the GPA to 3.75, include all classes and not just the core classes, and require kids have Geometry before completing 8th grade.

The reality is that increasing the number of URM is going to decrease the number of Asian kids at TJ because the Asian kids are highly overrepresented at TJ.

Maybe they should also increase the number of Sophmores and Juniors who are allowed to transfer into TJ. Perhaps a summer class to make up for whatever it was that they missed would be required?

It’s despicable to say Asian kids are over-represented at TJ. It’s no different than saying Jewish people are over-represented at the Treasury Department. You are disgusting and should be ashamed of yourself.

And if any group is over-representatives it’s women on the School Board and hopefully many will be removed soon.

It's not despicable. It's basic mathematics. Over-represented is not a value judgment.

College educated people are over represented in federal jobs. We should do something about it. Not everyone has the ability or desire to go to college. Penalizing them would be inequitable.

Coalition-aligned folks major in drawing comparisons where there are none.

Jobs are not the same as educational opportunities. Nor are places on sports teams.

True but the coalition folks aren't very bright and just don't care about anything beyond their own interests.

Yes, the coalition folks are pretty awful. They want an admission policy that allows them to buy entry.

Actually the reformers are pork barrel politicians who want racial quotas - it is pretty obvious from the gerrymandering of the TJ admissions process. Twist and turn the admissions process so that you can get the outcome you want without calling out race. Much like gerrymandering.

You used the word gerrymandering here - it doesn't mean what you think it does.

Go back to school.

ger·ry·man·der

manipulate the boundaries of (an electoral constituency) so as to favor one party or class.
achieve (a result) by manipulating the boundaries of an electoral constituency.
"a total freedom to gerrymander the results they want"

In this context it means manipulating the process to get the outcome you want. Time-tested by pork barrel politicians including the ones in Fairfax.

And if you dont get it, you dont get it.

....There were no boundaries that were manipulated and no electoral constituency that was involved. You used the word incorrectly and you tried to shoehorn it into a conversation where it doesn't belong because it's an unpopular word.

F.

Hi F.

I suppose you understand analogies. If you dont then this conversation is moot.

The new process skirted around constitutional barriers on explicit racial quotas by identifying proxies that would yield the same outcome as quotas. That is the purpose of gerrymandering as well. It is the favorite tool of cynical politicians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we re-label this thread as “so called adults, fighting over nothing..while their kids are just fine, enjoying HS”

Yes, sure, the changes doubled the number of URM and gave many low-income students opportunities that they were previously denied, but overall it's had little to no impact on anything. I read this thread as a few parents jockeying for an advantage at the expense of the public.

If you believe in entitlement to dole then you resent anyone that works hard. Nobody is asking for anything "at the expense of the public". The ask is to have a process that gives everyone an equal opportunity to public goods. The argument that "overrepresentation" of Asians is solely due to unfair advantages arising from cheating is not just dubious but nefarious.

Just because the new process doubled the URMs does not make the process fair. The end does not justify the means. Or else we can all dispense street justice.

But it was much more fair than the previous process since it gave all students a fair shot not just those at wealthy schools.

The standard cannot be that it was better than the previous one. Or else we can keep defending “separate but equal” as better than overt discrimination.

The previous process was broken. We are not defending that process. But the new one is discriminatory as well. It did not have to be implemented with haste during the pandemic. Proper consultation and change management would have resulted in better ideas and a less polarized community. There have been great ideas on this discussion board as well. Sadly it was not to be.

The new process penalizes Asians for who they are and where they live. It does not evaluate them as individuals. That is wrong.

Agree 100% with this. It is the way they implemented the changes that is the issue. If anyone has followed them closely as I did during the last 2 years, the deception is pure evil.

I agree that the old process was broken but can't see how a race blind admission process where a group that captures over 60% of all seats is being discriminated against.

The changes better served the entire county instead of a small number of wealthy schools. This resulted in a small reduction in Asian students, and any changes would have an impact since that group was so large compared to others. For example, AA students went from something like 3% of TJ to almost 6% with the fairer system that allows all schools to participate. Also, local morning of test scores to determine merit has been widely used elsewhere and is considered a best practice in gifted education.

What the heck is a "wealthy school?" Every single school in Fairfax has at least some FARMS kids and some upper middle class kids. Are you really suggesting that an upper middle class kid living in Annandale is more needy than a lower middle class kid in McLean? When you consider that upper middle class white people are the ones most likely to attend poorer schools because the family prioritized a bigger house or a better commute over top notch schools, and that lower middle class Asians are more likely to sacrifice and save so they can put their kids in the high SES school, the whole thing is especially racist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we re-label this thread as “so called adults, fighting over nothing..while their kids are just fine, enjoying HS”

Yes, sure, the changes doubled the number of URM and gave many low-income students opportunities that they were previously denied, but overall it's had little to no impact on anything. I read this thread as a few parents jockeying for an advantage at the expense of the public.

If you believe in entitlement to dole then you resent anyone that works hard. Nobody is asking for anything "at the expense of the public". The ask is to have a process that gives everyone an equal opportunity to public goods. The argument that "overrepresentation" of Asians is solely due to unfair advantages arising from cheating is not just dubious but nefarious.

Just because the new process doubled the URMs does not make the process fair. The end does not justify the means. Or else we can all dispense street justice.

But it was much more fair than the previous process since it gave all students a fair shot not just those at wealthy schools.

The standard cannot be that it was better than the previous one. Or else we can keep defending “separate but equal” as better than overt discrimination.

The previous process was broken. We are not defending that process. But the new one is discriminatory as well. It did not have to be implemented with haste during the pandemic. Proper consultation and change management would have resulted in better ideas and a less polarized community. There have been great ideas on this discussion board as well. Sadly it was not to be.

The new process penalizes Asians for who they are and where they live. It does not evaluate them as individuals. That is wrong.

Agree 100% with this. It is the way they implemented the changes that is the issue. If anyone has followed them closely as I did during the last 2 years, the deception is pure evil.

I agree that the old process was broken but can't see how a race blind admission process where a group that captures over 60% of all seats is being discriminated against.

You read that language - Asians “capturing” opportunities and you wonder how many Alison Collins live in Fairfax County.