student admissions and TJ lawsuit

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course they can change admissions but the way they did it — secretively at first, statements against Asian American students my multiple decision makers, with no proper process, notice or public hearing— is not okay.

Who made statements against Asian American students, and what did they say?

They just want to play victim.

These are people who fundamentally believe....

....that an admissions process that admits 54% Asians and 20% Black and Latino students....

....is MORE racist than a process that admits 73% Asians and 3% Black and Latino students.

They believe themselves to be better, pure and simple. They genuinely believe that as a class of people, they work harder, care more about education, and just fundamentally are smarter to such a degree that they should have more Asian students in ONE ADMITTED CLASS than TJ has had Black students in its ENTIRE 35-year history.

That is called Asian supremacy.

The new system was designed for a more even spread, and it accomplished that goal. Nobody's disputing that it looks less racist on paper.

Still, that doesn't mean it's not racist. Imagine that you have a jar of cookies, and you set up a competition where everyone gets a certain fraction of the cookies based on how they perform. One particular kid is an outsider, so the other kids don't like them very much. They're confident in themselves, though, so after putting forth a remarkable effort, they manage to earn themselves a majority of the cookies. The other kids realize that the unpopular kid is winning the most, so they all say, "hey, let's just share the cookies evenly!" Technically fair, but at the same time totally not.

Your analogy only makes sense if you subscribe to the belief that Asians work harder and are therefore more deserving. Which is the literal definition of Asian supremacy in this case.

Unless you know the starting points of everyone else in the sample, you cannot use their current position to measure their level of effort.

I am not Asian, but I see their point and for some reason you do not. All they are asking for is an objective, race-blind admissions process. They are not claiming superiority, they are simply saying “you had these objective ways of evaluating candidates for years and it worked; but now that it is clear that Asians are dominating those traditional indicators we need to change the process in a manner to allow other candidates to be evaluated higher based on race or income. They are not saying they have a monopoly on hard work or intelligence, but rather that they are willing to compete on merit and ask that the top candidates be chosen whether they are Asian or not. If society decides that we do not like that approach anymore, that’s fine. But at least be honest about it and admit that the admissions process is being redone because the objective metrics led to a student body that society has decided should not exist in a public high school. Then find a legal and Constitutional way to adjust the process. But let’s at least concede it’s their success in the process that is driving these changes.

Gonna continue on this because it's important.

What you keep hearing clamoring for over and over and over again is "objectivity" in the admissions process, both for TJ and for everyone else. And on its face, that sounds attractive and sensible. After all, when you're talking about the Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology, which posits itself as a leader in STEM education, shouldn't the admissions process seek objective measures to determine the strongest applicants in STEM?

But there's a core problem with this thought process.

The principle problem with the current iteration of TJ - which should change significantly with the new admissions process - is that the OLD process basically gave families a roadmap to optimizing that process. Score as highly as possible on the standardized exam, provide demonstrations of STEM capability by participating in competitions, and get the best grades you can in as advanced classes (especially in math) as possible.

Pearson's Law: "What is measured improves."

The old admissions process couldn't possibly have cared less about literally anything else that a student did before age 13, and as such incentivized behaviors that frankly aren't great for 11, 12, and 13-year olds. Extreme test prep, extreme acceleration in math (leaving huge gaps in comprehension according to TJ math teachers), and an abandonment of activities that aren't STEM-adjacent.

The result? An enormous amount of kids at the school who all have the same goals, the same future plans, the same college aspirations, etc etc etc. Once upon a time, TJ was a place where students were able to find their own niche - where the high achievers shared a dedication to the study of STEM, but applied that passion to diverse fields and interests. Nowadays, those exit points have narrowed considerably, creating an environment that is - stop me if you've heard this before - toxic and hyper-competitive. You have too many kids there who all see the same future for themselves. And yes, the cream rises to the top, but you end up with a ton of kids who are just lesser versions of the other ones.

This is a direct function of the previous, supposedly "objective" admissions process. The bottom line is that TJ is a better academic environment when the students have diverse interests, passions, hopes, and dreams above and beyond being limited to just STEM.

You are furthering a stereotype. TJ kids are very diverse in their interests. Many kids are interested in drama, music, sports, poetry, writing, debates, businesses etc. Don’t just give into false narratives and learn to discover how information on your own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course they can change admissions but the way they did it — secretively at first, statements against Asian American students my multiple decision makers, with no proper process, notice or public hearing— is not okay.

Who made statements against Asian American students, and what did they say?

They just want to play victim.

These are people who fundamentally believe....

....that an admissions process that admits 54% Asians and 20% Black and Latino students....

....is MORE racist than a process that admits 73% Asians and 3% Black and Latino students.

They believe themselves to be better, pure and simple. They genuinely believe that as a class of people, they work harder, care more about education, and just fundamentally are smarter to such a degree that they should have more Asian students in ONE ADMITTED CLASS than TJ has had Black students in its ENTIRE 35-year history.

That is called Asian supremacy.

The new system was designed for a more even spread, and it accomplished that goal. Nobody's disputing that it looks less racist on paper.

Still, that doesn't mean it's not racist. Imagine that you have a jar of cookies, and you set up a competition where everyone gets a certain fraction of the cookies based on how they perform. One particular kid is an outsider, so the other kids don't like them very much. They're confident in themselves, though, so after putting forth a remarkable effort, they manage to earn themselves a majority of the cookies. The other kids realize that the unpopular kid is winning the most, so they all say, "hey, let's just share the cookies evenly!" Technically fair, but at the same time totally not.

Your analogy only makes sense if you subscribe to the belief that Asians work harder and are therefore more deserving. Which is the literal definition of Asian supremacy in this case.

Unless you know the starting points of everyone else in the sample, you cannot use their current position to measure their level of effort.

The problem with this follow-up is that it doesn't even make a valid point. In context, the cookie-jar competition has been taking place for ages. Usually, a different kid gets the most cookies, and our protagonist has just now started coming out on top. As is the nature of any competition, this could very well change again in the future. The point is, this is our protagonist's moment in the sun, and also precisely the moment that everyone else decided to change up the rules.

Note that the analogy has no functional dependency on a belief in inherent supremacy. In no normal conversation would someone confuse a current, numerically-objective, advantageous competitive outcome with a belief in innate superiority of effort. In no normal conversation would someone equate self-confidence to self-superiority. Yet here we are. The factors which have led some people to conclude that the system "doesn't work" have been known for decades. Yet in all that time, nobody lifted a finger to make this kind of fundamental change until now. Right when our protagonist would have been enjoying their moment of glory.

When a change is made in the interests of racial sensitivity, there's an expectation that proponents of the change endorse racial sensitivity through their actions. No system is perfect, and there will always be some groups which are disadvantaged in minor or major ways. It's worrying, then, when the proponents of the change instead act smug and dismissive towards what should be seen as reasonable concerns from certain racial groups.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course they can change admissions but the way they did it — secretively at first, statements against Asian American students my multiple decision makers, with no proper process, notice or public hearing— is not okay.

Who made statements against Asian American students, and what did they say?

They just want to play victim.

These are people who fundamentally believe....

....that an admissions process that admits 54% Asians and 20% Black and Latino students....

....is MORE racist than a process that admits 73% Asians and 3% Black and Latino students.

They believe themselves to be better, pure and simple. They genuinely believe that as a class of people, they work harder, care more about education, and just fundamentally are smarter to such a degree that they should have more Asian students in ONE ADMITTED CLASS than TJ has had Black students in its ENTIRE 35-year history.

That is called Asian supremacy.

The new system was designed for a more even spread, and it accomplished that goal. Nobody's disputing that it looks less racist on paper.

Still, that doesn't mean it's not racist. Imagine that you have a jar of cookies, and you set up a competition where everyone gets a certain fraction of the cookies based on how they perform. One particular kid is an outsider, so the other kids don't like them very much. They're confident in themselves, though, so after putting forth a remarkable effort, they manage to earn themselves a majority of the cookies. The other kids realize that the unpopular kid is winning the most, so they all say, "hey, let's just share the cookies evenly!" Technically fair, but at the same time totally not.

Your analogy only makes sense if you subscribe to the belief that Asians work harder and are therefore more deserving. Which is the literal definition of Asian supremacy in this case.

Unless you know the starting points of everyone else in the sample, you cannot use their current position to measure their level of effort.

I am not Asian, but I see their point and for some reason you do not. All they are asking for is an objective, race-blind admissions process. They are not claiming superiority, they are simply saying “you had these objective ways of evaluating candidates for years and it worked; but now that it is clear that Asians are dominating those traditional indicators we need to change the process in a manner to allow other candidates to be evaluated higher based on race or income. They are not saying they have a monopoly on hard work or intelligence, but rather that they are willing to compete on merit and ask that the top candidates be chosen whether they are Asian or not. If society decides that we do not like that approach anymore, that’s fine. But at least be honest about it and admit that the admissions process is being redone because the objective metrics led to a student body that society has decided should not exist in a public high school. Then find a legal and Constitutional way to adjust the process. But let’s at least concede it’s their success in the process that is driving these changes.

Gonna continue on this because it's important.

What you keep hearing clamoring for over and over and over again is "objectivity" in the admissions process, both for TJ and for everyone else. And on its face, that sounds attractive and sensible. After all, when you're talking about the Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology, which posits itself as a leader in STEM education, shouldn't the admissions process seek objective measures to determine the strongest applicants in STEM?

But there's a core problem with this thought process.

The principle problem with the current iteration of TJ - which should change significantly with the new admissions process - is that the OLD process basically gave families a roadmap to optimizing that process. Score as highly as possible on the standardized exam, provide demonstrations of STEM capability by participating in competitions, and get the best grades you can in as advanced classes (especially in math) as possible.

Pearson's Law: "What is measured improves."

The old admissions process couldn't possibly have cared less about literally anything else that a student did before age 13, and as such incentivized behaviors that frankly aren't great for 11, 12, and 13-year olds. Extreme test prep, extreme acceleration in math (leaving huge gaps in comprehension according to TJ math teachers), and an abandonment of activities that aren't STEM-adjacent.

The result? An enormous amount of kids at the school who all have the same goals, the same future plans, the same college aspirations, etc etc etc. Once upon a time, TJ was a place where students were able to find their own niche - where the high achievers shared a dedication to the study of STEM, but applied that passion to diverse fields and interests. Nowadays, those exit points have narrowed considerably, creating an environment that is - stop me if you've heard this before - toxic and hyper-competitive. You have too many kids there who all see the same future for themselves. And yes, the cream rises to the top, but you end up with a ton of kids who are just lesser versions of the other ones.

This is a direct function of the previous, supposedly "objective" admissions process. The bottom line is that TJ is a better academic environment when the students have diverse interests, passions, hopes, and dreams above and beyond being limited to just STEM.

Agreed, definitely a change in the right direction, TJ shouldn't be a STEM focused magnet school, it should be way more balanced, nobody likes the science nerds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Your analogy only makes sense if you subscribe to the belief that Asians work harder and are therefore more deserving. Which is the literal definition of Asian supremacy in this case.

Unless you know the starting points of everyone else in the sample, you cannot use their current position to measure their level of effort.

LCPS and FCPS have adopted this belief. Not explicitly, but check out the grading for equity video on VADOE's website.
The recent LCPS curriculum committee meeting also explained this.

It's not that Asian kids work harder, but that black kids don't have parents who will push them to do their homework.
This is the thinking behind why homework is not graded, and you get retakes, and all the other grading policy changes that have been implemented over the last several years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course they can change admissions but the way they did it — secretively at first, statements against Asian American students my multiple decision makers, with no proper process, notice or public hearing— is not okay.

Who made statements against Asian American students, and what did they say?

They just want to play victim.

These are people who fundamentally believe....

....that an admissions process that admits 54% Asians and 20% Black and Latino students....

....is MORE racist than a process that admits 73% Asians and 3% Black and Latino students.

They believe themselves to be better, pure and simple. They genuinely believe that as a class of people, they work harder, care more about education, and just fundamentally are smarter to such a degree that they should have more Asian students in ONE ADMITTED CLASS than TJ has had Black students in its ENTIRE 35-year history.

That is called Asian supremacy.

One thing I couldn't get my head around is how the Asian families come from poorer countries, no welfare, no minimum wage, even poor human rights countries, over the past 20 or 35 years their kids are catching up and doing better than native Black students? Some Latino families come from poor countries, sure, understandable. But didn't Black families as US citizens have better starting points than those Asian immigrant families?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course they can change admissions but the way they did it — secretively at first, statements against Asian American students my multiple decision makers, with no proper process, notice or public hearing— is not okay.

Who made statements against Asian American students, and what did they say?

They just want to play victim.

These are people who fundamentally believe....

....that an admissions process that admits 54% Asians and 20% Black and Latino students....

....is MORE racist than a process that admits 73% Asians and 3% Black and Latino students.

They believe themselves to be better, pure and simple. They genuinely believe that as a class of people, they work harder, care more about education, and just fundamentally are smarter to such a degree that they should have more Asian students in ONE ADMITTED CLASS than TJ has had Black students in its ENTIRE 35-year history.

That is called Asian supremacy.

The new system was designed for a more even spread, and it accomplished that goal. Nobody's disputing that it looks less racist on paper.

Still, that doesn't mean it's not racist. Imagine that you have a jar of cookies, and you set up a competition where everyone gets a certain fraction of the cookies based on how they perform. One particular kid is an outsider, so the other kids don't like them very much. They're confident in themselves, though, so after putting forth a remarkable effort, they manage to earn themselves a majority of the cookies. The other kids realize that the unpopular kid is winning the most, so they all say, "hey, let's just share the cookies evenly!" Technically fair, but at the same time totally not.

Your analogy only makes sense if you subscribe to the belief that Asians work harder and are therefore more deserving. Which is the literal definition of Asian supremacy in this case.

Unless you know the starting points of everyone else in the sample, you cannot use their current position to measure their level of effort.

I am not Asian, but I see their point and for some reason you do not. All they are asking for is an objective, race-blind admissions process. They are not claiming superiority, they are simply saying “you had these objective ways of evaluating candidates for years and it worked; but now that it is clear that Asians are dominating those traditional indicators we need to change the process in a manner to allow other candidates to be evaluated higher based on race or income. They are not saying they have a monopoly on hard work or intelligence, but rather that they are willing to compete on merit and ask that the top candidates be chosen whether they are Asian or not. If society decides that we do not like that approach anymore, that’s fine. But at least be honest about it and admit that the admissions process is being redone because the objective metrics led to a student body that society has decided should not exist in a public high school. Then find a legal and Constitutional way to adjust the process. But let’s at least concede it’s their success in the process that is driving these changes.

There is your disconnect. The people making the change are making it because it no longer works. Now the school is going to spread the spots out geographically (which is how most selective state univestites also act, so the kids may as well get used to it)

It's not just state universities that do this. Elite schools do it too. They have recognized that it doesn't do them any good to have a supermajority of students coming from a few places.

I agree this seems problematic but the admissions for TJ are race blind so this is all kind of moot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have 2 kids in Fairfax County. No one is being indoctrinated. Teachers are professionals teaching their subjects and teaching kids to be critical thinkers. Why are people so afraid of hearing multiple points of view and perspectives? The human experience is wide and varied.

Well, OK then. The biggest mistake the teachers made was insisting on going virtual. It was quite interesting listening in my kid's APUSH class. It's certainly wasn't the version of US history I learned and I grew up in a town generally viewed as more leftist than NoVa.
The basic problem is that both sides are not being presented.

When I was a kid in VA they used to say nonsense like the civil war was about state rights. I hope they're more honest with kids today about this stuff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

When I was a kid in VA they used to say nonsense like the civil war was about state rights. I hope they're more honest with kids today about this stuff.

Thank you for demonstrating exactly how posters on DCUM lack critical thinking skills. The only appropriate response to ideas that aren't popular or of which I disagree is censorship! Indoctrination must be replaced by indoctrination by the other side!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

When I was a kid in VA they used to say nonsense like the civil war was about state rights. I hope they're more honest with kids today about this stuff.

Thank you for demonstrating exactly how posters on DCUM lack critical thinking skills. The only appropriate response to ideas that aren't popular or of which I disagree is censorship! Indoctrination must be replaced by indoctrination by the other side!

I think critical thinking makes it clear that's bunk. I mean nobody with an ounce of sense buys that load of BS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

When I was a kid in VA they used to say nonsense like the civil war was about state rights. I hope they're more honest with kids today about this stuff.

Thank you for demonstrating exactly how posters on DCUM lack critical thinking skills. The only appropriate response to ideas that aren't popular or of which I disagree is censorship! Indoctrination must be replaced by indoctrination by the other side!

I think critical thinking makes it clear that's bunk. I mean nobody with an ounce of sense buys that load of BS.

Trumpers love that stuff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

When I was a kid in VA they used to say nonsense like the civil war was about state rights. I hope they're more honest with kids today about this stuff.

Thank you for demonstrating exactly how posters on DCUM lack critical thinking skills. The only appropriate response to ideas that aren't popular or of which I disagree is censorship! Indoctrination must be replaced by indoctrination by the other side!

I think critical thinking makes it clear that's bunk. I mean nobody with an ounce of sense buys that load of BS.

I never said I bought the BS, but if you aren't exposed to the BS, when do you learn to distinguish it from the truth?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course they can change admissions but the way they did it — secretively at first, statements against Asian American students my multiple decision makers, with no proper process, notice or public hearing— is not okay.

Who made statements against Asian American students, and what did they say?

They just want to play victim.

These are people who fundamentally believe....

....that an admissions process that admits 54% Asians and 20% Black and Latino students....

....is MORE racist than a process that admits 73% Asians and 3% Black and Latino students.

They believe themselves to be better, pure and simple. They genuinely believe that as a class of people, they work harder, care more about education, and just fundamentally are smarter to such a degree that they should have more Asian students in ONE ADMITTED CLASS than TJ has had Black students in its ENTIRE 35-year history.

That is called Asian supremacy.

The new system was designed for a more even spread, and it accomplished that goal. Nobody's disputing that it looks less racist on paper.

Still, that doesn't mean it's not racist. Imagine that you have a jar of cookies, and you set up a competition where everyone gets a certain fraction of the cookies based on how they perform. One particular kid is an outsider, so the other kids don't like them very much. They're confident in themselves, though, so after putting forth a remarkable effort, they manage to earn themselves a majority of the cookies. The other kids realize that the unpopular kid is winning the most, so they all say, "hey, let's just share the cookies evenly!" Technically fair, but at the same time totally not.

Your analogy only makes sense if you subscribe to the belief that Asians work harder and are therefore more deserving. Which is the literal definition of Asian supremacy in this case.

Unless you know the starting points of everyone else in the sample, you cannot use their current position to measure their level of effort.

I am not Asian, but I see their point and for some reason you do not. All they are asking for is an objective, race-blind admissions process. They are not claiming superiority, they are simply saying “you had these objective ways of evaluating candidates for years and it worked; but now that it is clear that Asians are dominating those traditional indicators we need to change the process in a manner to allow other candidates to be evaluated higher based on race or income. They are not saying they have a monopoly on hard work or intelligence, but rather that they are willing to compete on merit and ask that the top candidates be chosen whether they are Asian or not. If society decides that we do not like that approach anymore, that’s fine. But at least be honest about it and admit that the admissions process is being redone because the objective metrics led to a student body that society has decided should not exist in a public high school. Then find a legal and Constitutional way to adjust the process. But let’s at least concede it’s their success in the process that is driving these changes.

Well stated.

Very well stated.

Right now the approach to changing the process seems illegal. In addition to being high handed and taking the Asian population for granted . A better solution would be to try and improve the system. Create more capacity and improve middle schools. Win-win. Rather than trying to bring down people out of spite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course they can change admissions but the way they did it — secretively at first, statements against Asian American students my multiple decision makers, with no proper process, notice or public hearing— is not okay.

Who made statements against Asian American students, and what did they say?

They just want to play victim.

These are people who fundamentally believe....

....that an admissions process that admits 54% Asians and 20% Black and Latino students....

....is MORE racist than a process that admits 73% Asians and 3% Black and Latino students.

They believe themselves to be better, pure and simple. They genuinely believe that as a class of people, they work harder, care more about education, and just fundamentally are smarter to such a degree that they should have more Asian students in ONE ADMITTED CLASS than TJ has had Black students in its ENTIRE 35-year history.

That is called Asian supremacy.

The new system was designed for a more even spread, and it accomplished that goal. Nobody's disputing that it looks less racist on paper.

Still, that doesn't mean it's not racist. Imagine that you have a jar of cookies, and you set up a competition where everyone gets a certain fraction of the cookies based on how they perform. One particular kid is an outsider, so the other kids don't like them very much. They're confident in themselves, though, so after putting forth a remarkable effort, they manage to earn themselves a majority of the cookies. The other kids realize that the unpopular kid is winning the most, so they all say, "hey, let's just share the cookies evenly!" Technically fair, but at the same time totally not.

Your analogy only makes sense if you subscribe to the belief that Asians work harder and are therefore more deserving. Which is the literal definition of Asian supremacy in this case.

Unless you know the starting points of everyone else in the sample, you cannot use their current position to measure their level of effort.

I am not Asian, but I see their point and for some reason you do not. All they are asking for is an objective, race-blind admissions process. They are not claiming superiority, they are simply saying “you had these objective ways of evaluating candidates for years and it worked; but now that it is clear that Asians are dominating those traditional indicators we need to change the process in a manner to allow other candidates to be evaluated higher based on race or income. They are not saying they have a monopoly on hard work or intelligence, but rather that they are willing to compete on merit and ask that the top candidates be chosen whether they are Asian or not. If society decides that we do not like that approach anymore, that’s fine. But at least be honest about it and admit that the admissions process is being redone because the objective metrics led to a student body that society has decided should not exist in a public high school. Then find a legal and Constitutional way to adjust the process. But let’s at least concede it’s their success in the process that is driving these changes.

Well stated.

Very well stated.

Right now the approach to changing the process seems illegal. In addition to being high handed and taking the Asian population for granted . A better solution would be to try and improve the system. Create more capacity and improve middle schools. Win-win. Rather than trying to bring down people out of spite.

and when the county doesn't want to increase takes to make that happen, we can return the the status quo. The plaintiffs win and the poor kids stay where they belong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

When I was a kid in VA they used to say nonsense like the civil war was about state rights. I hope they're more honest with kids today about this stuff.

Thank you for demonstrating exactly how posters on DCUM lack critical thinking skills. The only appropriate response to ideas that aren't popular or of which I disagree is censorship! Indoctrination must be replaced by indoctrination by the other side!

DP. Where did pp ask for censorship? PP asked for more honesty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course they can change admissions but the way they did it — secretively at first, statements against Asian American students my multiple decision makers, with no proper process, notice or public hearing— is not okay.

Who made statements against Asian American students, and what did they say?

They just want to play victim.

These are people who fundamentally believe....

....that an admissions process that admits 54% Asians and 20% Black and Latino students....

....is MORE racist than a process that admits 73% Asians and 3% Black and Latino students.

They believe themselves to be better, pure and simple. They genuinely believe that as a class of people, they work harder, care more about education, and just fundamentally are smarter to such a degree that they should have more Asian students in ONE ADMITTED CLASS than TJ has had Black students in its ENTIRE 35-year history.

That is called Asian supremacy.

The new system was designed for a more even spread, and it accomplished that goal. Nobody's disputing that it looks less racist on paper.

Still, that doesn't mean it's not racist. Imagine that you have a jar of cookies, and you set up a competition where everyone gets a certain fraction of the cookies based on how they perform. One particular kid is an outsider, so the other kids don't like them very much. They're confident in themselves, though, so after putting forth a remarkable effort, they manage to earn themselves a majority of the cookies. The other kids realize that the unpopular kid is winning the most, so they all say, "hey, let's just share the cookies evenly!" Technically fair, but at the same time totally not.

Your analogy only makes sense if you subscribe to the belief that Asians work harder and are therefore more deserving. Which is the literal definition of Asian supremacy in this case.

Unless you know the starting points of everyone else in the sample, you cannot use their current position to measure their level of effort.

I am not Asian, but I see their point and for some reason you do not. All they are asking for is an objective, race-blind admissions process. They are not claiming superiority, they are simply saying “you had these objective ways of evaluating candidates for years and it worked; but now that it is clear that Asians are dominating those traditional indicators we need to change the process in a manner to allow other candidates to be evaluated higher based on race or income. They are not saying they have a monopoly on hard work or intelligence, but rather that they are willing to compete on merit and ask that the top candidates be chosen whether they are Asian or not. If society decides that we do not like that approach anymore, that’s fine. But at least be honest about it and admit that the admissions process is being redone because the objective metrics led to a student body that society has decided should not exist in a public high school. Then find a legal and Constitutional way to adjust the process. But let’s at least concede it’s their success in the process that is driving these changes.

Gonna continue on this because it's important.

What you keep hearing clamoring for over and over and over again is "objectivity" in the admissions process, both for TJ and for everyone else. And on its face, that sounds attractive and sensible. After all, when you're talking about the Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology, which posits itself as a leader in STEM education, shouldn't the admissions process seek objective measures to determine the strongest applicants in STEM?

But there's a core problem with this thought process.

The principle problem with the current iteration of TJ - which should change significantly with the new admissions process - is that the OLD process basically gave families a roadmap to optimizing that process. Score as highly as possible on the standardized exam, provide demonstrations of STEM capability by participating in competitions, and get the best grades you can in as advanced classes (especially in math) as possible.

Pearson's Law: "What is measured improves."

The old admissions process couldn't possibly have cared less about literally anything else that a student did before age 13, and as such incentivized behaviors that frankly aren't great for 11, 12, and 13-year olds. Extreme test prep, extreme acceleration in math (leaving huge gaps in comprehension according to TJ math teachers), and an abandonment of activities that aren't STEM-adjacent.

The result? An enormous amount of kids at the school who all have the same goals, the same future plans, the same college aspirations, etc etc etc. Once upon a time, TJ was a place where students were able to find their own niche - where the high achievers shared a dedication to the study of STEM, but applied that passion to diverse fields and interests. Nowadays, those exit points have narrowed considerably, creating an environment that is - stop me if you've heard this before - toxic and hyper-competitive. You have too many kids there who all see the same future for themselves. And yes, the cream rises to the top, but you end up with a ton of kids who are just lesser versions of the other ones.

This is a direct function of the previous, supposedly "objective" admissions process. The bottom line is that TJ is a better academic environment when the students have diverse interests, passions, hopes, and dreams above and beyond being limited to just STEM.

Agreed, definitely a change in the right direction, TJ shouldn't be a STEM focused magnet school, it should be way more balanced, nobody likes the science nerds.

Thanks! So agree. Purge.