New TJ Lawsuit Filed 3/10/21 by Pacific Legal Foundation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The percentage of Asian students dive-bombed from 74.9% with Class of 2021 to 65.2% with Class of 2022. The major change to the process in that year was the change to the exams that you all are so desperately trying to save now. In the two years since, 2023 was about 72% and 2024 was about 73%. This tracks perfectly with the increases that Curie reported.

When a new exam was introduced, somehow magically you saw the largest group of Hispanic students that we've seen in decades. But then the prep companies caught up, and order was restored to the universe.

You nailed it. It's not like the cohort of Asians in the Class of 2022 was somehow magically less bright or less talented than the other years. They were simply less prepared. A decrease of 10 percentage points after a steady two-decade incline is not an accident.

Combatting the effect of test prep by changing exams is fine, perhaps even eliminating in place of another metric. However, per school quotas is just elevating inferior students because they happen to be at a particular school.
Parents can move for a year to the weaker school, and this year can just pretend to move.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Assuming arguendo plaintiffs “win” in district court, the Fourth Circuit is locked down liberal. So it would be reversed. Gets to Supreme Court. 5-4 Fourth Circuit upheld. FCPS wins. Long game.

If that happens, then that would be institutionalizing racism, and we would literally be confirming that we are now a socialist country.

With the amount of actual racism that Asians face in this country, you'd think they would be able to interpret what is and is not racism. The removal of a standardized exam as a metric is antiracist.

Their reason for doing it is to reduce the number of Asians.

This is true in the same sense that when colleges decided to start admitting women, they were doing it to reduce the number of men.

Which is to say, you can read it that way if you want, and there will definitely be an impact on the number of Asians because they are so profoundly dominant at the school currently - but really, that's not why they're doing it.

Remember once upon a time we as a society believed that women were less capable of doing well in higher education.

Except they didn't reduce the standards when they admitted women. The schools became more selective, not less.

At TJ they will are just dispensing with objective criteria to produce the diversity they want. At the expense of Asian kids.

So, here's the reality of the situation. You are only going to see the percentage of Asian kids at TJ decrease significantly IF the number of non-Asian applicants across the board increases significantly. Which is going to create a more selective process.

The percentage of Asian students dive-bombed from 74.9% with Class of 2021 to 65.2% with Class of 2022. The major change to the process in that year was the change to the exams that you all are so desperately trying to save now. In the two years since, 2023 was about 72% and 2024 was about 73%. This tracks perfectly with the increases that Curie reported.

When a new exam was introduced, somehow magically you saw the largest group of Hispanic students that we've seen in decades. But then the prep companies caught up, and order was restored to the universe.

this is really damning. pretty much hard proof that it's the prep that's making the difference on the macro level

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The percentage of Asian students dive-bombed from 74.9% with Class of 2021 to 65.2% with Class of 2022. The major change to the process in that year was the change to the exams that you all are so desperately trying to save now. In the two years since, 2023 was about 72% and 2024 was about 73%. This tracks perfectly with the increases that Curie reported.

When a new exam was introduced, somehow magically you saw the largest group of Hispanic students that we've seen in decades. But then the prep companies caught up, and order was restored to the universe.

You nailed it. It's not like the cohort of Asians in the Class of 2022 was somehow magically less bright or less talented than the other years. They were simply less prepared. A decrease of 10 percentage points after a steady two-decade incline is not an accident.

Combatting the effect of test prep by changing exams is fine, perhaps even eliminating in place of another metric. However, per school quotas is just elevating inferior students because they happen to be at a particular school.
Parents can move for a year to the weaker school, and this year can just pretend to move.

I'll repeat what I said earlier in this thread:

1) The process will change significantly for next year

2) It still won't include an exam

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The percentage of Asian students dive-bombed from 74.9% with Class of 2021 to 65.2% with Class of 2022. The major change to the process in that year was the change to the exams that you all are so desperately trying to save now. In the two years since, 2023 was about 72% and 2024 was about 73%. This tracks perfectly with the increases that Curie reported.

When a new exam was introduced, somehow magically you saw the largest group of Hispanic students that we've seen in decades. But then the prep companies caught up, and order was restored to the universe.

You nailed it. It's not like the cohort of Asians in the Class of 2022 was somehow magically less bright or less talented than the other years. They were simply less prepared. A decrease of 10 percentage points after a steady two-decade incline is not an accident.

Combatting the effect of test prep by changing exams is fine, perhaps even eliminating in place of another metric. However, per school quotas is just elevating inferior students because they happen to be at a particular school.
Parents can move for a year to the weaker school, and this year can just pretend to move.

How do you know they're inferior? A good number of these may be students who would not have applied to TJ otherwise but will because they feel like there's a chance other kids at their school will go too.

[Anonymous]

One of the most surprising things about this thread is how much more reasonable the folks who are advocating for change are compared to the folks advocating for maintaining the status quo.

I don't really have a dog in this fight because my kid graduated from TJ years ago but it's a lot easier to side with the folks who want to make TJ more accessible to a broader demographic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One of the most surprising things about this thread is how much more reasonable the folks who are advocating for change are compared to the folks advocating for maintaining the status quo.

I don't really have a dog in this fight because my kid graduated from TJ years ago but it's a lot easier to side with the folks who want to make TJ more accessible to a broader demographic.

We are OK with a lottery, if you are OK with a lottery for every sports team, government position, job opening, . . . It's the changing of merit-based admissions only where Asians are excelling that is a big problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the most surprising things about this thread is how much more reasonable the folks who are advocating for change are compared to the folks advocating for maintaining the status quo.

I don't really have a dog in this fight because my kid graduated from TJ years ago but it's a lot easier to side with the folks who want to make TJ more accessible to a broader demographic.

We are OK with a lottery, if you are OK with a lottery for every sports team, government position, job opening, . . . It's the changing of merit-based admissions only where Asians are excelling that is a big problem.

sure, those are totally the same as access to a unique public high school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One of the most surprising things about this thread is how much more reasonable the folks who are advocating for change are compared to the folks advocating for maintaining the status quo.

I don't really have a dog in this fight because my kid graduated from TJ years ago but it's a lot easier to side with the folks who want to make TJ more accessible to a broader demographic.

What demographic was prevented from applying to TJ previously?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the most surprising things about this thread is how much more reasonable the folks who are advocating for change are compared to the folks advocating for maintaining the status quo.

I don't really have a dog in this fight because my kid graduated from TJ years ago but it's a lot easier to side with the folks who want to make TJ more accessible to a broader demographic.

We are OK with a lottery, if you are OK with a lottery for every sports team, government position, job opening, . . . It's the changing of merit-based admissions only where Asians are excelling that is a big problem.

1) I'm probably the most pro-reform person on these boards and I never supported a lottery

2) There is absolutely no commonality between public school admissions and any of the things you mentioned, but EVEN SO it is incumbent upon all of these (including TJ admissions) to create the best environment possible for their students - and the previous admissions process failed miserably at that goal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the most surprising things about this thread is how much more reasonable the folks who are advocating for change are compared to the folks advocating for maintaining the status quo.

I don't really have a dog in this fight because my kid graduated from TJ years ago but it's a lot easier to side with the folks who want to make TJ more accessible to a broader demographic.

What demographic was prevented from applying to TJ previously?

You moved the goalposts. I didn't say anyone was prevented from applying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One of the most surprising things about this thread is how much more reasonable the folks who are advocating for change are compared to the folks advocating for maintaining the status quo.

I don't really have a dog in this fight because my kid graduated from TJ years ago but it's a lot easier to side with the folks who want to make TJ more accessible to a broader demographic.

To be fair, some of us oppose the changes not because we think the status quo is great, but rather because the changes are ill-conceived and won't accomplish anything. If FCPS wants more URM and lower income kids in TJ, and if they want to eliminate kids who are there purely due to extensive prepping, they should implement much stronger early programming. Strengthen the Young Scholars program. Offer free after school and summer enrichment to kids who otherwise wouldn't receive it. Expand programs like AVID to elementary school to help URM or low income kids succeed in advanced math or AAP. This would lead to more underrepresented kids who could succeed at TJ.
Without this, they're paying lip service to wanting more minorities at TJ, but they're doing nothing to aid them in being qualified for a school like TJ.

They should also keep some degree of testing, but not place so much weight upon it. They could switch tests every year to make it more difficult for people to prep. They could even create their own math test each year. The tests should do two things: detect kids who have deficiencies that make them unlikely to succeed at TJ and detect kids who are so brilliant or advanced that they really need a school like TJ. Most of the non-brilliant, highly prepped kids wouldn't fall into either of those categories, so their prepped scores wouldn't necessarily help them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the most surprising things about this thread is how much more reasonable the folks who are advocating for change are compared to the folks advocating for maintaining the status quo.

I don't really have a dog in this fight because my kid graduated from TJ years ago but it's a lot easier to side with the folks who want to make TJ more accessible to a broader demographic.

We are OK with a lottery, if you are OK with a lottery for every sports team, government position, job opening, . . . It's the changing of merit-based admissions only where Asians are excelling that is a big problem.

I'm in favor of a lottery for TJ, providing that..
-The top 50-100 kids applying get in pre-lottery based on their merits.
-The remaining applicants are rated as either Qualified for TJ or Not Qualified based on something much more stringent than a 3.5 GPA and Algebra in 8th. Over half of the kids in FCPS would meet the GPA + algebra bar, but realistically only about 10% of the kids are actually qualified for TJ. If they had a pool of kids who are truly qualified to handle the rigor of TJ, I have no problem with them doing a lottery for the TJ spots among those qualified kids. Heck, I have no problem with them flat out offering admissions to every single Black, Hispanic, or FARMS kid who is truly qualified for TJ, and then doing a lottery among all qualified kids for the rest of the spots.

None of this is even remotely close to what FCPS is doing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the most surprising things about this thread is how much more reasonable the folks who are advocating for change are compared to the folks advocating for maintaining the status quo.

I don't really have a dog in this fight because my kid graduated from TJ years ago but it's a lot easier to side with the folks who want to make TJ more accessible to a broader demographic.

To be fair, some of us oppose the changes not because we think the status quo is great, but rather because the changes are ill-conceived and won't accomplish anything. If FCPS wants more URM and lower income kids in TJ, and if they want to eliminate kids who are there purely due to extensive prepping, they should implement much stronger early programming. Strengthen the Young Scholars program. Offer free after school and summer enrichment to kids who otherwise wouldn't receive it. Expand programs like AVID to elementary school to help URM or low income kids succeed in advanced math or AAP. This would lead to more underrepresented kids who could succeed at TJ.
Without this, they're paying lip service to wanting more minorities at TJ, but they're doing nothing to aid them in being qualified for a school like TJ.

They should also keep some degree of testing, but not place so much weight upon it. They could switch tests every year to make it more difficult for people to prep. They could even create their own math test each year. The tests should do two things: detect kids who have deficiencies that make them unlikely to succeed at TJ and detect kids who are so brilliant or advanced that they really need a school like TJ. Most of the non-brilliant, highly prepped kids wouldn't fall into either of those categories, so their prepped scores wouldn't necessarily help them.

and best of all, your kid will already be through TJ by the time we know. That would take a decade to implement and have kids work through with those support in place; we're past the point where the status quo would be acceptable for that long

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the most surprising things about this thread is how much more reasonable the folks who are advocating for change are compared to the folks advocating for maintaining the status quo.

I don't really have a dog in this fight because my kid graduated from TJ years ago but it's a lot easier to side with the folks who want to make TJ more accessible to a broader demographic.

To be fair, some of us oppose the changes not because we think the status quo is great, but rather because the changes are ill-conceived and won't accomplish anything. If FCPS wants more URM and lower income kids in TJ, and if they want to eliminate kids who are there purely due to extensive prepping, they should implement much stronger early programming. Strengthen the Young Scholars program. Offer free after school and summer enrichment to kids who otherwise wouldn't receive it. Expand programs like AVID to elementary school to help URM or low income kids succeed in advanced math or AAP. This would lead to more underrepresented kids who could succeed at TJ.
Without this, they're paying lip service to wanting more minorities at TJ, but they're doing nothing to aid them in being qualified for a school like TJ.

They should also keep some degree of testing, but not place so much weight upon it. They could switch tests every year to make it more difficult for people to prep. They could even create their own math test each year. The tests should do two things: detect kids who have deficiencies that make them unlikely to succeed at TJ and detect kids who are so brilliant or advanced that they really need a school like TJ. Most of the non-brilliant, highly prepped kids wouldn't fall into either of those categories, so their prepped scores wouldn't necessarily help them.

This is a very fair response and well-thought out. It is much appreciated.

Everyone seems to agree that early programming needs to be improved in order to aid in this process (though sometimes I don't believe that the status-quo crowd actually wants this - rather that it's a convenient way to kick the can down the road) but there are two key points to consider:

1) Doing this AND working on the TJ admissions process to make each more equitable are not mutually exclusive

2) The things you're talking about would cost the county a LOT of money, and it's not clear that families would be interested in the additional expense because it's essentially a wealth transfer

With regard to the exam.... It's a more complicated question than this. It's not really to their advantage to have either a TJ teacher or another local teacher (I know some have offered) provide such an exam - doing so would invite conflict-of-interest issues and accusations - so they sort of have to have it be provided by someone like Pearson. And when you do that, it's expensive and results in the type of application fee that you had previously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Assuming arguendo plaintiffs “win” in district court, the Fourth Circuit is locked down liberal. So it would be reversed. Gets to Supreme Court. 5-4 Fourth Circuit upheld. FCPS wins. Long game.

If that happens, then that would be institutionalizing racism, and we would literally be confirming that we are now a socialist country.

With the amount of actual racism that Asians face in this country, you'd think they would be able to interpret what is and is not racism. The removal of a standardized exam as a metric is antiracist.

Their reason for doing it is to reduce the number of Asians.

This is true in the same sense that when colleges decided to start admitting women, they were doing it to reduce the number of men.

Which is to say, you can read it that way if you want, and there will definitely be an impact on the number of Asians because they are so profoundly dominant at the school currently - but really, that's not why they're doing it.

Remember once upon a time we as a society believed that women were less capable of doing well in higher education.

This is not a good analogy because they didn't lower standards to let women in. Women weren't allowed in on a systemic basis, and then policy changed to allow them in. Standards of excellence didn't change. In the TJ situation, there is no prohibition against any race. All races have an opportunity to gain entrance, on a race blind basis. In order to change the racial composition, standards are being lowered. That is the rub.