Court: TJ's New Admission Policy Does Not Discriminate

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh boy, this is really going to piss off all the Annandale Asians.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/05/23/thomas-jefferson-admissions-policy-upheld/

Supreme Court Rules Against Affirmative Action

https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-rules-against-affirmative-action-c94b5a9c

Oh boy, you must be really pissed.

LOL

Since the ruling was about colleges that explicitly used race as a factor, it has no bearing at all on TJ.

False, the SCOTUS opinion said that any system, whether through essays or other roundabout ways, results in an outcome where asians are negatively impacted, it is unconstitutional.

No.....

Not to mention that the TJ process favors Asians.

People will laugh, but Asians remain the only group in the TJ admissions process that significantly outperforms their application numbers. There’s no justification for the idea that it’s harder for Asian students to get in that students of other backgrounds.

Being "overrepresented" is not the standard. Same would the true at Harvard etc under the system the court struck down.

Agree with a PP that if TJ was starting new with the current policy, totally fine. If they made the change for this reason, that could be problematic.

Everyone knows they made the change to put bend to the test buying scandal.

[Anonymous]

The Scotus ruling on affirmative action has no bearing on TJ's process, which has always been race blind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Scotus ruling on affirmative action has no bearing on TJ's process, which has always been race blind.

I wouldn’t say it has no bearing at all. The part that stuck out to me, just from a quick reading of the majority opinion’s syllabus, was Roberts’ view of admissions as a zero-sum game: if you give a preference to someone based on their race, you effectively hurt someone else based on their race, and that’s unconstitutional. The Coalition’s job, should they end up before SCOTUS, is basically to prove that FCPS is actually giving preference to specific races through the TJ process, at which point the aforementioned logic takes hold and they probably win the case.

On the other hand, there’s a carve-out in the ruling where you’re allowed to mention race in your essays as long as you tie it back to another part of your identity (which I understand as allowing “I didn’t see scientists who looked like me growing up so I want to be that role model for other kids” and similar topics) and I could see FCPS pointing to that as an example of the only possible way race is considered in the TJ system. (All of this is speculation, of course.)

[Anonymous]

So much sophistry when the only real answer if the goal is to promote equity and provide equal opportunities is to get rid of TJ, which chews up way too time of FCPS’s time, attention, and litigation budget.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh boy, this is really going to piss off all the Annandale Asians.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/05/23/thomas-jefferson-admissions-policy-upheld/

Supreme Court Rules Against Affirmative Action

https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-rules-against-affirmative-action-c94b5a9c

Oh boy, you must be really pissed.

LOL

Since the ruling was about colleges that explicitly used race as a factor, it has no bearing at all on TJ.

False, the SCOTUS opinion said that any system, whether through essays or other roundabout ways, results in an outcome where asians are negatively impacted, it is unconstitutional.

If TJ had opened brand new in 2021 with the current policy, there would be no basis for a lawsuit, and no case for arguing racial discrimination.
The lawsuit is entirely about whether the school board acted with intent to discriminate by race in making the changes. Did they want to reduce the number of Asians, like Harvard and some of these other schools?

Nobody's goal is to reduce the number of Asians. Jesus. We do want to see more representation from Blacks and Hispanics because of the positive downstream impacts that this brings for society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh boy, this is really going to piss off all the Annandale Asians.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/05/23/thomas-jefferson-admissions-policy-upheld/

Supreme Court Rules Against Affirmative Action

https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-rules-against-affirmative-action-c94b5a9c

Oh boy, you must be really pissed.

LOL

Since the ruling was about colleges that explicitly used race as a factor, it has no bearing at all on TJ.

False, the SCOTUS opinion said that any system, whether through essays or other roundabout ways, results in an outcome where asians are negatively impacted, it is unconstitutional.

No.....

Not to mention that the TJ process favors Asians.

People will laugh, but Asians remain the only group in the TJ admissions process that significantly outperforms their application numbers. There’s no justification for the idea that it’s harder for Asian students to get in that students of other backgrounds.

Being "overrepresented" is not the standard. Same would the true at Harvard etc under the system the court struck down.

Agree with a PP that if TJ was starting new with the current policy, totally fine. If they made the change for this reason, that could be problematic.

Everyone knows they made the change to put bend to the test buying scandal.

#fakenews

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh boy, this is really going to piss off all the Annandale Asians.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/05/23/thomas-jefferson-admissions-policy-upheld/

Supreme Court Rules Against Affirmative Action

https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-rules-against-affirmative-action-c94b5a9c

Oh boy, you must be really pissed.

LOL

Since the ruling was about colleges that explicitly used race as a factor, it has no bearing at all on TJ.

False, the SCOTUS opinion said that any system, whether through essays or other roundabout ways, results in an outcome where asians are negatively impacted, it is unconstitutional.

If TJ had opened brand new in 2021 with the current policy, there would be no basis for a lawsuit, and no case for arguing racial discrimination.
The lawsuit is entirely about whether the school board acted with intent to discriminate by race in making the changes. Did they want to reduce the number of Asians, like Harvard and some of these other schools?

Nobody's goal is to reduce the number of Asians. Jesus. We do want to see more representation from Blacks and Hispanics because of the positive downstream impacts that this brings for society.

Ummm . . . And in order to see more representation you had to reduce the number of Asians. Two sides to the coin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So much sophistry when the only real answer if the goal is to promote equity and provide equal opportunities is to get rid of TJ, which chews up way too time of FCPS’s time, attention, and litigation budget.

Yes. That is what California and New York are doing. Get rid of grades and tests too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When a group of people is good enough to fill 95% of a team, 70% does feel like discrimination.

Another example, the NBA, Athletics teams, NFL, NHL...Well, Asians are not represented per their population % there and NO ONE seems to be saying "Let's fix this"

Why should someone else be expected to represent Asian American interests? If they want it so badly, Asian Americans need to develop their own diversity, equity & inclusion industry, financially and politically, to assert their census status as a minority populace, and defend merit based access to advanced education.

Not sure about any of that but glad that FCPS has raised the merit standards for TJ by eliminating the rampant cheating that had tainted admissions in previous years.

Hmm.... Do you have any proof/reference? Looking at the performance for AMC 10 etc. it seems class of 2025 and beyond are lagging behind other local schools. PSAT/NMSQT this year will be another benchmark for the class of 2025. Science Olympiad and other Science/Math/Academic competitions will still have some seniors. Drama and other non-stem activities including sports; maybe is getting better

Both of you are wrong.

While I disagree with the assertion that FCPS has lowered the merit standards for TJ admissions, they certainly have not raised them either. What they've done is eliminated metrics that were occluding the selection process.

What students were doing to prepare for the TJ admissions exam wasn't "cheating" in any sense of the word. What they were doing is leveraging their parents' resources to attend prep programs that were cheating. That's not on the students or families, it's on the prep programs and their prior students who fed them questions from a secured exam. You can't blame the kids for this.

But at the same time, all PP is doing is insisting on continuing to measure the merit of students by standardized exams and academic competitions. This is a valueless statement. OF COURSE the new classes at TJ are going to have lower scores on standardized exams and probably not participate as heavily in competitions such as SciOly. Because the TJ admissions process is no longer overselecting for those metrics. When all you care about in an admissions process is metric X and Y, you shouldn't be surprised when your entire class excels at metric X and Y. It would be like a soccer team selecting their players entirely on goalkeeping skills or a basketball team on free throw shooting. Yes, those skills are tangentially relevant and could be a little bit predictive, but you're missing out on tons of other dimensions.

The key moving forward is for FCPS to do a better job of finding those other dimensions. But stopping the process of eliminating kids who aren't phenomenal test takers from the process at step one is a good...first step.

The new process indeed is failing to identify more students for the "top" slots (e.g. are the JMO kids) compared to the old process. A teacher recommendation or a verified achievement list could help. "Froshmore" selection process (by TJ teachers); if it is able to identify the "Right" candidates can also be adopted to the "Freshman" round selection

The more likely result is they will eliminate the froshmore round of admissions or take the teachers out of that. It wouldn't look good to have a comparison group, students rejected in 8th grade who get in the next year under a different admissions process.

Yes, but all indications are the new process is working well at identifying the top students.

DP and strongly pro-reform. People need to stop parroting this talking point unless their intent is to parody the folks on the other side.

There are no indications that the new process is identifying the "top students" - even within their own schools. What absolutely is clear is that TJ is a much healthier environment than it was prior to the admissions changes. That much is inarguable if you have spent any significant time in that building over the past 15-20 years.

I personally would like to see teacher recommendations return to the process and perhaps a move from top 1.5% to top 1%, but the admissions changes were a monumental step in the right direction compared to what was happening before, where you had this enormous glut of students who were all trying to get to the same place on the same path when hundreds of other paths and destinations are available.

I mostly agree, but there are thousands of kids who are capable of doing well at TJ. The new process just selects a slightly different group from that pool than the old process. It's fairer to the whole county and less easy to game through test buying. Overall it's a step in the right direction but dropping the percentage and finding a way to add back teacher recs that would offset the inherent racial bias would be great.

Or . . . A lottery from the applicant pool that meet the requirements and apply. Nothing could be more fair and balanced than that. Gonna miss out on a lot of deserving kids, but it is a fair process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Scotus ruling on affirmative action has no bearing on TJ's process, which has always been race blind.

I wouldn’t say it has no bearing at all. The part that stuck out to me, just from a quick reading of the majority opinion’s syllabus, was Roberts’ view of admissions as a zero-sum game: if you give a preference to someone based on their race, you effectively hurt someone else based on their race, and that’s unconstitutional. The Coalition’s job, should they end up before SCOTUS, is basically to prove that FCPS is actually giving preference to specific races through the TJ process, at which point the aforementioned logic takes hold and they probably win the case.

On the other hand, there’s a carve-out in the ruling where you’re allowed to mention race in your essays as long as you tie it back to another part of your identity (which I understand as allowing “I didn’t see scientists who looked like me growing up so I want to be that role model for other kids” and similar topics) and I could see FCPS pointing to that as an example of the only possible way race is considered in the TJ system. (All of this is speculation, of course.)

Harvard looked at applicants' race several times in the admissions process. FCPS did not.

The only chances they have to claim racial discrimination are:
The changes were implemented with a goal of boosting the number of black kids. This will reduce Asian numbers. I don't see this as winning on its own.
The per school quota could be seen as geography being used as a proxy for race.
The changes were made with the goal of reducing the number of Asians. I think this was the basis for their win at trial court.
I believe the essays were graded with an eye on race. However, I'm not aware this is in the trial court record.
My basis for this belief is that when Loudoun changed its admissions policies, someone said in the school board meeting, Aug 2020, that reviewers would be trained to grade based on equity.
Loudoun and Fairfax implemented their changes at the same time, and the equity committees were working together on this and other issues like PBIS/discipline.

[Anonymous]

Sorry strivers, but the Court’s Harvard and UNC result will have no impact on TJ’s policy. Enjoy your neighborhood school and all that!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Scotus ruling on affirmative action has no bearing on TJ's process, which has always been race blind.

I wouldn’t say it has no bearing at all. The part that stuck out to me, just from a quick reading of the majority opinion’s syllabus, was Roberts’ view of admissions as a zero-sum game: if you give a preference to someone based on their race, you effectively hurt someone else based on their race, and that’s unconstitutional. The Coalition’s job, should they end up before SCOTUS, is basically to prove that FCPS is actually giving preference to specific races through the TJ process, at which point the aforementioned logic takes hold and they probably win the case.

On the other hand, there’s a carve-out in the ruling where you’re allowed to mention race in your essays as long as you tie it back to another part of your identity (which I understand as allowing “I didn’t see scientists who looked like me growing up so I want to be that role model for other kids” and similar topics) and I could see FCPS pointing to that as an example of the only possible way race is considered in the TJ system. (All of this is speculation, of course.)

Harvard looked at applicants' race several times in the admissions process. FCPS did not.

The only chances they have to claim racial discrimination are:
The changes were implemented with a goal of boosting the number of black kids. This will reduce Asian numbers. I don't see this as winning on its own.
The per school quota could be seen as geography being used as a proxy for race.
The changes were made with the goal of reducing the number of Asians. I think this was the basis for their win at trial court.
I believe the essays were graded with an eye on race. However, I'm not aware this is in the trial court record.
My basis for this belief is that when Loudoun changed its admissions policies, someone said in the school board meeting, Aug 2020, that reviewers would be trained to grade based on equity.
Loudoun and Fairfax implemented their changes at the same time, and the equity committees were working together on this and other issues like PBIS/discipline.[/quote

I think that is a winning strategy, or at least a core part of one, simply because it’s so explicitly mentioned in the Harvard ruling. Seems to me that if the Coalition can prove FCPS was specifically trying to boost black enrollment, all they have to do from there is point to the relevant section of this opinion and go, “this is the same situation, therefore it’s illegal”. (I’m hardly a lawyer, though.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Scotus ruling on affirmative action has no bearing on TJ's process, which has always been race blind.

I wouldn’t say it has no bearing at all. The part that stuck out to me, just from a quick reading of the majority opinion’s syllabus, was Roberts’ view of admissions as a zero-sum game: if you give a preference to someone based on their race, you effectively hurt someone else based on their race, and that’s unconstitutional. The Coalition’s job, should they end up before SCOTUS, is basically to prove that FCPS is actually giving preference to specific races through the TJ process, at which point the aforementioned logic takes hold and they probably win the case.

On the other hand, there’s a carve-out in the ruling where you’re allowed to mention race in your essays as long as you tie it back to another part of your identity (which I understand as allowing “I didn’t see scientists who looked like me growing up so I want to be that role model for other kids” and similar topics) and I could see FCPS pointing to that as an example of the only possible way race is considered in the TJ system. (All of this is speculation, of course.)

Harvard looked at applicants' race several times in the admissions process. FCPS did not.

The only chances they have to claim racial discrimination are:
The changes were implemented with a goal of boosting the number of black kids. This will reduce Asian numbers. I don't see this as winning on its own.
The per school quota could be seen as geography being used as a proxy for race.
The changes were made with the goal of reducing the number of Asians. I think this was the basis for their win at trial court.
I believe the essays were graded with an eye on race. However, I'm not aware this is in the trial court record.
My basis for this belief is that when Loudoun changed its admissions policies, someone said in the school board meeting, Aug 2020, that reviewers would be trained to grade based on equity.
Loudoun and Fairfax implemented their changes at the same time, and the equity committees were working together on this and other issues like PBIS/discipline.[/quote

I think that is a winning strategy, or at least a core part of one, simply because it’s so explicitly mentioned in the Harvard ruling. Seems to me that if the Coalition can prove FCPS was specifically trying to boost black enrollment, all they have to do from there is point to the relevant section of this opinion and go, “this is the same situation, therefore it’s illegal”. (I’m hardly a lawyer, though.)

Harvard was explicitly looking at race during admissions, at certain points reviewing the list of how many of each race they had and taking a closer look if one race was too low compared to their loose quota. Having a goal of admitting more is not likely to do much when they haven't explicitly used race.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Scotus ruling on affirmative action has no bearing on TJ's process, which has always been race blind.

I wouldn’t say it has no bearing at all. The part that stuck out to me, just from a quick reading of the majority opinion’s syllabus, was Roberts’ view of admissions as a zero-sum game: if you give a preference to someone based on their race, you effectively hurt someone else based on their race, and that’s unconstitutional. The Coalition’s job, should they end up before SCOTUS, is basically to prove that FCPS is actually giving preference to specific races through the TJ process, at which point the aforementioned logic takes hold and they probably win the case.

On the other hand, there’s a carve-out in the ruling where you’re allowed to mention race in your essays as long as you tie it back to another part of your identity (which I understand as allowing “I didn’t see scientists who looked like me growing up so I want to be that role model for other kids” and similar topics) and I could see FCPS pointing to that as an example of the only possible way race is considered in the TJ system. (All of this is speculation, of course.)

The PP was correct. The SCOTUS ruling is about race-based selection, whereas TJ uses a race-blind process that overwhelmingly selects one minority while excluding others.

[Anonymous]

How does a "race-blind process" exclude anyone?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Scotus ruling on affirmative action has no bearing on TJ's process, which has always been race blind.

I wouldn’t say it has no bearing at all. The part that stuck out to me, just from a quick reading of the majority opinion’s syllabus, was Roberts’ view of admissions as a zero-sum game: if you give a preference to someone based on their race, you effectively hurt someone else based on their race, and that’s unconstitutional. The Coalition’s job, should they end up before SCOTUS, is basically to prove that FCPS is actually giving preference to specific races through the TJ process, at which point the aforementioned logic takes hold and they probably win the case.

On the other hand, there’s a carve-out in the ruling where you’re allowed to mention race in your essays as long as you tie it back to another part of your identity (which I understand as allowing “I didn’t see scientists who looked like me growing up so I want to be that role model for other kids” and similar topics) and I could see FCPS pointing to that as an example of the only possible way race is considered in the TJ system. (All of this is speculation, of course.)

The PP was correct. The SCOTUS ruling is about race-based selection, whereas TJ uses a race-blind process that overwhelmingly selects one minority while excluding others.