Waitlisted at TJ - now what?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the link to the FCAG report I just mentioned:
https://www.fcag.org/documents/TJ_Class_of_2025_analysis.pdf

Yes, we know the students that were admitted weren't as well prepped as in years past but were selected because they were naturally more gifted than the less successful preppers.

Diversity is great and diversity in any cohort enriches the cohort - schools or workplace.

But to claim that by increasing diversity we have somehow admitted more “naturally gifted” students is the kind of asinine wokeness that is leading the progressives to ruin.

You wanted a more diverse class through this reform - understood. But to claim all this BS around natural giftedness, et al demonstrates an absolute absence of logic or a cult-like following of woke ideology.

The sensible folks who are advocating for reform and who prefer the current system to the old system do not claim that somehow the new system is better at identifying "natural giftedness". The folks doing so are to be ignored.

What is inarguable is that the old system allowed parents to pose their children as being significantly more gifted than they actually were. It's more that the old system was prone to selecting for artificial giftedness.

We can agree to that.

The old system was broken and in dire need of fixing - including the need to infuse more diversity.

But the new system is broken as well. And there was no need to rush. Everyone seems to agree that doing away with teacher recs was a bad idea. Couldn’t they have sought input from stakeholders? There may have been a year’s delay but there would have been far less drama and less discord in the community. Begs the question- what was the motivation to rush things through.

At some point, good leaders need to make unpopular decisions that are universally "better" even if the usual voter base is against it. Input from stakeholders would overwhelmingly be from parents belonging to the the top 3 feeder middle schools. We'd be stuck in shouting matches at every SB meeting for the next year and nothing would really get accomplished.

Teacher recs are a terrible idea. Almost anyone who works in education knows this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the link to the FCAG report I just mentioned:
https://www.fcag.org/documents/TJ_Class_of_2025_analysis.pdf

Yes, we know the students that were admitted weren't as well prepped as in years past but were selected because they were naturally more gifted than the less successful preppers.

Diversity is great and diversity in any cohort enriches the cohort - schools or workplace.

But to claim that by increasing diversity we have somehow admitted more “naturally gifted” students is the kind of asinine wokeness that is leading the progressives to ruin.

You wanted a more diverse class through this reform - understood. But to claim all this BS around natural giftedness, et al demonstrates an absolute absence of logic or a cult-like following of woke ideology.

The sensible folks who are advocating for reform and who prefer the current system to the old system do not claim that somehow the new system is better at identifying "natural giftedness". The folks doing so are to be ignored.

What is inarguable is that the old system allowed parents to pose their children as being significantly more gifted than they actually were. It's more that the old system was prone to selecting for artificial giftedness.

We can agree to that.

The old system was broken and in dire need of fixing - including the need to infuse more diversity.

But the new system is broken as well. And there was no need to rush. Everyone seems to agree that doing away with teacher recs was a bad idea. Couldn’t they have sought input from stakeholders? There may have been a year’s delay but there would have been far less drama and less discord in the community. Begs the question- what was the motivation to rush things through.

There was a little bit of a need to rush because of the pandemic. There was no option in the winter of 2020 - the absolute depths of the crisis - to hold an in-person exam that looked anything like what existed previously, and on top of that the providers of the previous exams were no longer making those exams at those age levels.

The School Board had to do something with respect to TJ admissions that involved eliminating the exam at least for a year. There were tons of public comment opportunities and town halls, and they all devolved into shouting matches.

The bottom line is that while there are folks in the community who genuinely desire to have real conversations about how to move forward in a positive and productive way, their voices are shouted down and obfuscated by folks like Nomani, Jackson, Miller, and Dutta who are out to use this issue to elevate their profile for political and relevance purposes.

There will be further changes to the process, I think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the link to the FCAG report I just mentioned:
https://www.fcag.org/documents/TJ_Class_of_2025_analysis.pdf

Yes, we know the students that were admitted weren't as well prepped as in years past but were selected because they were naturally more gifted than the less successful preppers.

Diversity is great and diversity in any cohort enriches the cohort - schools or workplace.

But to claim that by increasing diversity we have somehow admitted more “naturally gifted” students is the kind of asinine wokeness that is leading the progressives to ruin.

You wanted a more diverse class through this reform - understood. But to claim all this BS around natural giftedness, et al demonstrates an absolute absence of logic or a cult-like following of woke ideology.

The sensible folks who are advocating for reform and who prefer the current system to the old system do not claim that somehow the new system is better at identifying "natural giftedness". The folks doing so are to be ignored.

What is inarguable is that the old system allowed parents to pose their children as being significantly more gifted than they actually were. It's more that the old system was prone to selecting for artificial giftedness.

We can agree to that.

The old system was broken and in dire need of fixing - including the need to infuse more diversity.

But the new system is broken as well. And there was no need to rush. Everyone seems to agree that doing away with teacher recs was a bad idea. Couldn’t they have sought input from stakeholders? There may have been a year’s delay but there would have been far less drama and less discord in the community. Begs the question- what was the motivation to rush things through.

At some point, good leaders need to make unpopular decisions that are universally "better" even if the usual voter base is against it. Input from stakeholders would overwhelmingly be from parents belonging to the the top 3 feeder middle schools. We'd be stuck in shouting matches at every SB meeting for the next year and nothing would really get accomplished.

Teacher recs are a terrible idea. Almost anyone who works in education knows this.

They're not if you do them right. If you simply leave them as an open recommendation letter, they're skewed in favor of teachers who know how to write a strong recommendation and who have the time to do however many of them are necessary. Some teachers simply aren't good at them or don't have enough time to plow through hundreds of them and give them all the multi-paragraph effort that they deserve.

Rethink your teacher recommendations to allow teachers to evaluate students within the context of their classes on scales, and afford each teacher the opportunity to write positively or negatively on a deeper level about a very limited number of students - in secret - and you'll have a much better evaluative tool to use.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the link to the FCAG report I just mentioned:
https://www.fcag.org/documents/TJ_Class_of_2025_analysis.pdf

Yes, we know the students that were admitted weren't as well prepped as in years past but were selected because they were naturally more gifted than the less successful preppers.

Diversity is great and diversity in any cohort enriches the cohort - schools or workplace.

But to claim that by increasing diversity we have somehow admitted more “naturally gifted” students is the kind of asinine wokeness that is leading the progressives to ruin.

You wanted a more diverse class through this reform - understood. But to claim all this BS around natural giftedness, et al demonstrates an absolute absence of logic or a cult-like following of woke ideology.

The sensible folks who are advocating for reform and who prefer the current system to the old system do not claim that somehow the new system is better at identifying "natural giftedness". The folks doing so are to be ignored.

What is inarguable is that the old system allowed parents to pose their children as being significantly more gifted than they actually were. It's more that the old system was prone to selecting for artificial giftedness.

We can agree to that.

The old system was broken and in dire need of fixing - including the need to infuse more diversity.

But the new system is broken as well. And there was no need to rush. Everyone seems to agree that doing away with teacher recs was a bad idea. Couldn’t they have sought input from stakeholders? There may have been a year’s delay but there would have been far less drama and less discord in the community. Begs the question- what was the motivation to rush things through.

At some point, good leaders need to make unpopular decisions that are universally "better" even if the usual voter base is against it. Input from stakeholders would overwhelmingly be from parents belonging to the the top 3 feeder middle schools. We'd be stuck in shouting matches at every SB meeting for the next year and nothing would really get accomplished.

Teacher recs are a terrible idea. Almost anyone who works in education knows this.

They're not if you do them right. If you simply leave them as an open recommendation letter, they're skewed in favor of teachers who know how to write a strong recommendation and who have the time to do however many of them are necessary. Some teachers simply aren't good at them or don't have enough time to plow through hundreds of them and give them all the multi-paragraph effort that they deserve.

Rethink your teacher recommendations to allow teachers to evaluate students within the context of their classes on scales, and afford each teacher the opportunity to write positively or negatively on a deeper level about a very limited number of students - in secret - and you'll have a much better evaluative tool to use.

Study after study has shown there's racial bias which disadvantages some kids. Teachers currently evaluate kids when they assign grades.

[Anonymous]

If only the people who find a way to interject references to "racial bias" and "systemic racism" into every post gave even the slightest hint that they cared about the 97% of FCPS high school students of all races who'll never attend TJ. They care oh so deeply, but oh so narrowly.

[Anonymous]

From an article on

Anyone who works in a large bureaucracy knows that DEI ("diversity, equity and inclusion") has become a powerful tool for cultural radicals. In the hiring process, DEI statements serve as ideological litmus tests. Martin Luther King Jr. famously said that we should judge others by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. Imagine someone applying for the job of Fairfax County Schools Superintendent and featuring King’s exhortation prominently in his DEI statement. It would almost certainly be considered disqualifying. Today’s radicalism regards colorblind justice as a tool of white supremacy.

State universities in Virginia make DEI ideology a veritable condition for employment. The University of Virginia’s McIntire School of Commerce seeks a professor of organizational behavior. The candidate for this job must submit a “statement highlighting knowledge, skills, abilities, and experiences that support excellence through diversity, equity, and inclusion.” The School of Education and Human Development at the same state university is seeking an instructor in athletic training. Among the job requirements: “Explicit evidence of commitment to diversity and of advanced understanding and outcomes for underrepresented groups.”
There should be no illusions about the kind of statements and “evidence of commitment” required. In a 2016 essay for Inside Higher Ed, University of California, Merced sociologist Tanya Golash-Boza gives advice to applicants. Don’t be naive, she says; this is no time to think for yourself: “Write about racial oppression, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism or some other commonly recognized form of oppression.” If you’re a scholar, not a progressive activist, take remedial action: “Sign up to be a tutor at an underperforming school, build a house for Habitat for Humanity or incorporate antiracist pedagogy in your teaching.” And be sure to signal your commitment to serving as a foot soldier: “Mention your willingness to contribute to pre-existing [DEI] programs or you can express your interest in creating new programs.”
Most people want to do their jobs without interference. But those who seek “transformative justice” want to assign everyone to do their bidding. In the Soviet Union, each Red Army military unit had a party commissar who monitored operations to ensure ideological conformity. The same system was in place for industrial and agricultural operations, as well as youth and cultural organizations. In American universities and other institutions, an ad hoc system has evolved with similar qualities. Required DEI statements allow a radical element in every organization to monitor hiring and promotion across entire departments and divisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the link to the FCAG report I just mentioned:
https://www.fcag.org/documents/TJ_Class_of_2025_analysis.pdf

Yes, we know the students that were admitted weren't as well prepped as in years past but were selected because they were naturally more gifted than the less successful preppers.

Diversity is great and diversity in any cohort enriches the cohort - schools or workplace.

But to claim that by increasing diversity we have somehow admitted more “naturally gifted” students is the kind of asinine wokeness that is leading the progressives to ruin.

You wanted a more diverse class through this reform - understood. But to claim all this BS around natural giftedness, et al demonstrates an absolute absence of logic or a cult-like following of woke ideology.

+1. We can't win if our position is that doing away with a test and giving extra points for "experience factors" such as poverty and ESL is the trick to getting the best and brightest. We are so much better off sticking to the fact that all of Fairfax pays taxes that support TJ so all middle schools in Fairfax should have the opportunity to send the top 1.5% of their middle school student body to TJ. Why is that so hard to stand behind?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the link to the FCAG report I just mentioned:
https://www.fcag.org/documents/TJ_Class_of_2025_analysis.pdf

Yes, we know the students that were admitted weren't as well prepped as in years past but were selected because they were naturally more gifted than the less successful preppers.

Diversity is great and diversity in any cohort enriches the cohort - schools or workplace.

But to claim that by increasing diversity we have somehow admitted more “naturally gifted” students is the kind of asinine wokeness that is leading the progressives to ruin.

You wanted a more diverse class through this reform - understood. But to claim all this BS around natural giftedness, et al demonstrates an absolute absence of logic or a cult-like following of woke ideology.

+1. We can't win if our position is that doing away with a test and giving extra points for "experience factors" such as poverty and ESL is the trick to getting the best and brightest. We are so much better off sticking to the fact that all of Fairfax pays taxes that support TJ so all middle schools in Fairfax should have the opportunity to send the top 1.5% of their middle school student body to TJ. Why is that so hard to stand behind?

Disagree, admitting the top performers from all schools will result in a stronger cohort than admitting the 3rd tier preppers from the most affluent school. This is just common sense, but some parents dislike this since it makes it harder to game admissions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If only the people who find a way to interject references to "racial bias" and "systemic racism" into every post gave even the slightest hint that they cared about the 97% of FCPS high school students of all races who'll never attend TJ. They care oh so deeply, but oh so narrowly.

I mostly care because it bugs you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From an article on

Anyone who works in a large bureaucracy knows that DEI ("diversity, equity and inclusion") has become a powerful tool for cultural radicals. In the hiring process, DEI statements serve as ideological litmus tests. Martin Luther King Jr. famously said that we should judge others by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. Imagine someone applying for the job of Fairfax County Schools Superintendent and featuring King’s exhortation prominently in his DEI statement. It would almost certainly be considered disqualifying. Today’s radicalism regards colorblind justice as a tool of white supremacy.

State universities in Virginia make DEI ideology a veritable condition for employment. The University of Virginia’s McIntire School of Commerce seeks a professor of organizational behavior. The candidate for this job must submit a “statement highlighting knowledge, skills, abilities, and experiences that support excellence through diversity, equity, and inclusion.” The School of Education and Human Development at the same state university is seeking an instructor in athletic training. Among the job requirements: “Explicit evidence of commitment to diversity and of advanced understanding and outcomes for underrepresented groups.”
There should be no illusions about the kind of statements and “evidence of commitment” required. In a 2016 essay for Inside Higher Ed, University of California, Merced sociologist Tanya Golash-Boza gives advice to applicants. Don’t be naive, she says; this is no time to think for yourself: “Write about racial oppression, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism or some other commonly recognized form of oppression.” If you’re a scholar, not a progressive activist, take remedial action: “Sign up to be a tutor at an underperforming school, build a house for Habitat for Humanity or incorporate antiracist pedagogy in your teaching.” And be sure to signal your commitment to serving as a foot soldier: “Mention your willingness to contribute to pre-existing [DEI] programs or you can express your interest in creating new programs.”
Most people want to do their jobs without interference. But those who seek “transformative justice” want to assign everyone to do their bidding. In the Soviet Union, each Red Army military unit had a party commissar who monitored operations to ensure ideological conformity. The same system was in place for industrial and agricultural operations, as well as youth and cultural organizations. In American universities and other institutions, an ad hoc system has evolved with similar qualities. Required DEI statements allow a radical element in every organization to monitor hiring and promotion across entire departments and divisions.

I guess if you mean radical in as in it was radically wonderful sure. We all benefit from greater diversity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the link to the FCAG report I just mentioned:
https://www.fcag.org/documents/TJ_Class_of_2025_analysis.pdf

Yes, we know the students that were admitted weren't as well prepped as in years past but were selected because they were naturally more gifted than the less successful preppers.

Diversity is great and diversity in any cohort enriches the cohort - schools or workplace.

But to claim that by increasing diversity we have somehow admitted more “naturally gifted” students is the kind of asinine wokeness that is leading the progressives to ruin.

You wanted a more diverse class through this reform - understood. But to claim all this BS around natural giftedness, et al demonstrates an absolute absence of logic or a cult-like following of woke ideology.

The sensible folks who are advocating for reform and who prefer the current system to the old system do not claim that somehow the new system is better at identifying "natural giftedness". The folks doing so are to be ignored.

What is inarguable is that the old system allowed parents to pose their children as being significantly more gifted than they actually were. It's more that the old system was prone to selecting for artificial giftedness.

We can agree to that.

The old system was broken and in dire need of fixing - including the need to infuse more diversity.

But the new system is broken as well. And there was no need to rush. Everyone seems to agree that doing away with teacher recs was a bad idea. Couldn’t they have sought input from stakeholders? There may have been a year’s delay but there would have been far less drama and less discord in the community. Begs the question- what was the motivation to rush things through.

There was a little bit of a need to rush because of the pandemic. There was no option in the winter of 2020 - the absolute depths of the crisis - to hold an in-person exam that looked anything like what existed previously, and on top of that the providers of the previous exams were no longer making those exams at those age levels.

The School Board had to do something with respect to TJ admissions that involved eliminating the exam at least for a year. There were tons of public comment opportunities and town halls, and they all devolved into shouting matches.

The bottom line is that while there are folks in the community who genuinely desire to have real conversations about how to move forward in a positive and productive way, their voices are shouted down and obfuscated by folks like Nomani, Jackson, Miller, and Dutta who are out to use this issue to elevate their profile for political and relevance purposes.

There will be further changes to the process, I think.

I thought they got rid of the test because many were buying the snsewrs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From an article on

Anyone who works in a large bureaucracy knows that DEI ("diversity, equity and inclusion") has become a powerful tool for cultural radicals. In the hiring process, DEI statements serve as ideological litmus tests. Martin Luther King Jr. famously said that we should judge others by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. Imagine someone applying for the job of Fairfax County Schools Superintendent and featuring King’s exhortation prominently in his DEI statement. It would almost certainly be considered disqualifying. Today’s radicalism regards colorblind justice as a tool of white supremacy.

State universities in Virginia make DEI ideology a veritable condition for employment. The University of Virginia’s McIntire School of Commerce seeks a professor of organizational behavior. The candidate for this job must submit a “statement highlighting knowledge, skills, abilities, and experiences that support excellence through diversity, equity, and inclusion.” The School of Education and Human Development at the same state university is seeking an instructor in athletic training. Among the job requirements: “Explicit evidence of commitment to diversity and of advanced understanding and outcomes for underrepresented groups.”
There should be no illusions about the kind of statements and “evidence of commitment” required. In a 2016 essay for Inside Higher Ed, University of California, Merced sociologist Tanya Golash-Boza gives advice to applicants. Don’t be naive, she says; this is no time to think for yourself: “Write about racial oppression, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism or some other commonly recognized form of oppression.” If you’re a scholar, not a progressive activist, take remedial action: “Sign up to be a tutor at an underperforming school, build a house for Habitat for Humanity or incorporate antiracist pedagogy in your teaching.” And be sure to signal your commitment to serving as a foot soldier: “Mention your willingness to contribute to pre-existing [DEI] programs or you can express your interest in creating new programs.”
Most people want to do their jobs without interference. But those who seek “transformative justice” want to assign everyone to do their bidding. In the Soviet Union, each Red Army military unit had a party commissar who monitored operations to ensure ideological conformity. The same system was in place for industrial and agricultural operations, as well as youth and cultural organizations. In American universities and other institutions, an ad hoc system has evolved with similar qualities. Required DEI statements allow a radical element in every organization to monitor hiring and promotion across entire departments and divisions.

Calling this an “article” rather than an “opinion piece” is irresponsible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the link to the FCAG report I just mentioned:
https://www.fcag.org/documents/TJ_Class_of_2025_analysis.pdf

Yes, we know the students that were admitted weren't as well prepped as in years past but were selected because they were naturally more gifted than the less successful preppers.

Diversity is great and diversity in any cohort enriches the cohort - schools or workplace.

But to claim that by increasing diversity we have somehow admitted more “naturally gifted” students is the kind of asinine wokeness that is leading the progressives to ruin.

You wanted a more diverse class through this reform - understood. But to claim all this BS around natural giftedness, et al demonstrates an absolute absence of logic or a cult-like following of woke ideology.

The sensible folks who are advocating for reform and who prefer the current system to the old system do not claim that somehow the new system is better at identifying "natural giftedness". The folks doing so are to be ignored.

What is inarguable is that the old system allowed parents to pose their children as being significantly more gifted than they actually were. It's more that the old system was prone to selecting for artificial giftedness.

We can agree to that.

The old system was broken and in dire need of fixing - including the need to infuse more diversity.

But the new system is broken as well. And there was no need to rush. Everyone seems to agree that doing away with teacher recs was a bad idea. Couldn’t they have sought input from stakeholders? There may have been a year’s delay but there would have been far less drama and less discord in the community. Begs the question- what was the motivation to rush things through.

There was a little bit of a need to rush because of the pandemic. There was no option in the winter of 2020 - the absolute depths of the crisis - to hold an in-person exam that looked anything like what existed previously, and on top of that the providers of the previous exams were no longer making those exams at those age levels.

The School Board had to do something with respect to TJ admissions that involved eliminating the exam at least for a year. There were tons of public comment opportunities and town halls, and they all devolved into shouting matches.

The bottom line is that while there are folks in the community who genuinely desire to have real conversations about how to move forward in a positive and productive way, their voices are shouted down and obfuscated by folks like Nomani, Jackson, Miller, and Dutta who are out to use this issue to elevate their profile for political and relevance purposes.

There will be further changes to the process, I think.

I thought they got rid of the test because many were buying the snsewrs.

No, it was eliminated to lower the standard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the link to the FCAG report I just mentioned:
https://www.fcag.org/documents/TJ_Class_of_2025_analysis.pdf

Yes, we know the students that were admitted weren't as well prepped as in years past but were selected because they were naturally more gifted than the less successful preppers.

Diversity is great and diversity in any cohort enriches the cohort - schools or workplace.

But to claim that by increasing diversity we have somehow admitted more “naturally gifted” students is the kind of asinine wokeness that is leading the progressives to ruin.

You wanted a more diverse class through this reform - understood. But to claim all this BS around natural giftedness, et al demonstrates an absolute absence of logic or a cult-like following of woke ideology.

The sensible folks who are advocating for reform and who prefer the current system to the old system do not claim that somehow the new system is better at identifying "natural giftedness". The folks doing so are to be ignored.

What is inarguable is that the old system allowed parents to pose their children as being significantly more gifted than they actually were. It's more that the old system was prone to selecting for artificial giftedness.

We can agree to that.

The old system was broken and in dire need of fixing - including the need to infuse more diversity.

But the new system is broken as well. And there was no need to rush. Everyone seems to agree that doing away with teacher recs was a bad idea. Couldn’t they have sought input from stakeholders? There may have been a year’s delay but there would have been far less drama and less discord in the community. Begs the question- what was the motivation to rush things through.

There was a little bit of a need to rush because of the pandemic. There was no option in the winter of 2020 - the absolute depths of the crisis - to hold an in-person exam that looked anything like what existed previously, and on top of that the providers of the previous exams were no longer making those exams at those age levels.

The School Board had to do something with respect to TJ admissions that involved eliminating the exam at least for a year. There were tons of public comment opportunities and town halls, and they all devolved into shouting matches.

The bottom line is that while there are folks in the community who genuinely desire to have real conversations about how to move forward in a positive and productive way, their voices are shouted down and obfuscated by folks like Nomani, Jackson, Miller, and Dutta who are out to use this issue to elevate their profile for political and relevance purposes.

There will be further changes to the process, I think.

I thought they got rid of the test because many were buying the snsewrs.

No, it was eliminated to lower the standard.

Wrong - they got rid of it because there was rampant cheating since the prep centers had the questions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the link to the FCAG report I just mentioned:
https://www.fcag.org/documents/TJ_Class_of_2025_analysis.pdf

Yes, we know the students that were admitted weren't as well prepped as in years past but were selected because they were naturally more gifted than the less successful preppers.

Diversity is great and diversity in any cohort enriches the cohort - schools or workplace.

But to claim that by increasing diversity we have somehow admitted more “naturally gifted” students is the kind of asinine wokeness that is leading the progressives to ruin.

You wanted a more diverse class through this reform - understood. But to claim all this BS around natural giftedness, et al demonstrates an absolute absence of logic or a cult-like following of woke ideology.

You know every time you type "woke," you out yourself as an imbecile, right?