Youngkin and TJ

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It's weird to me that the single issue that you would vote on, the hill that you would die on, is admission to TJ when the Republican Party as currently constituted is threatening to become an authoritarian anti-democracy party. They LITERALLY attempted a coup thirteen months ago in order to subjugate the will of the voters.

+1000

This cut throat “My kid has to go to Harvard or else” attitude that some recently immigrating Asian parents have us exactly why the recent TJ reforms happened. These same parents are happy to literally sink the US democracy if they don’t get their kid into a top collage. That nuts!

I personally think a different way of doing iTJ reforms would have been better, but I see why the parents of many African-American, Hispanic, Latin, and disabled children are fed up with their equally intelligent children getting pushed out by the same Asian parents saying racist things like “Asians are the smartest it’s a scientific fact!”.
Having a hyper aggressive parents who are willing to cheat from the time their kids are in elementary school is unfair. That doesn’t make their kids more intelligent.

Working hard equals cheating now?

This is the reason why you see Asians getting into bed with white supremacists. Asking a question like "Working hard equals cheating now?" presumes that you have the market cornered on hard work and that you are the only race who cares about education.

There is a tremendous sense of entitlement about a community that believes that their approach to education is the only legitimate one and should grant them unfettered access to all elite institutions irrespective of what's in the best interest of those institutions.

"Wait, are you saying it's not in TJ or Yale or Harvard's best interests to be predominantly Asian?"

YES! That is exactly what I am saying! And it wasn't in their best interests to be predominantly white either when they were. Legitimate diversity across a spectrum of ethnic, socioeconomic, and experiential backgrounds leads to stronger educational outcomes and a FAR more socially conscious student body ready to succeed in a changing global marketplace.

So is TJ for education or is it for cultural diversity? That's the question, last I checked it's School of Science and technology, not School for the Diverse with some science stuff

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It's weird to me that the single issue that you would vote on, the hill that you would die on, is admission to TJ when the Republican Party as currently constituted is threatening to become an authoritarian anti-democracy party. They LITERALLY attempted a coup thirteen months ago in order to subjugate the will of the voters.

+1000

This cut throat “My kid has to go to Harvard or else” attitude that some recently immigrating Asian parents have us exactly why the recent TJ reforms happened. These same parents are happy to literally sink the US democracy if they don’t get their kid into a top collage. That nuts!

I personally think a different way of doing iTJ reforms would have been better, but I see why the parents of many African-American, Hispanic, Latin, and disabled children are fed up with their equally intelligent children getting pushed out by the same Asian parents saying racist things like “Asians are the smartest it’s a scientific fact!”.
Having a hyper aggressive parents who are willing to cheat from the time their kids are in elementary school is unfair. That doesn’t make their kids more intelligent.

Working hard equals cheating now?

This is the reason why you see Asians getting into bed with white supremacists. Asking a question like "Working hard equals cheating now?" presumes that you have the market cornered on hard work and that you are the only race who cares about education.

There is a tremendous sense of entitlement about a community that believes that their approach to education is the only legitimate one and should grant them unfettered access to all elite institutions irrespective of what's in the best interest of those institutions.

"Wait, are you saying it's not in TJ or Yale or Harvard's best interests to be predominantly Asian?"

YES! That is exactly what I am saying! And it wasn't in their best interests to be predominantly white either when they were. Legitimate diversity across a spectrum of ethnic, socioeconomic, and experiential backgrounds leads to stronger educational outcomes and a FAR more socially conscious student body ready to succeed in a changing global marketplace.

So is TJ for education or is it for cultural diversity? That's the question, last I checked it's School of Science and technology, not School for the Diverse with some science stuff

TJ is an amazing public resource. Our kids are very fortunate to have this opportunity in our community.

It seems like the big question is should access to TJ be limited to only those with means? Or should we make it accessible to more of the community?

Do we want science kids without means to have access?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
TJ is an amazing public resource. Our kids are very fortunate to have this opportunity in our community.

It seems like the big question is should access to TJ be limited to only those with means? Or should we make it accessible to more of the community?

Do we want science kids without means to have access?

DP. Per VDOE:
"The Virginia Governor's School Program has been designed to assist divisions as they meet the needs of a small population of students whose learning levels are remarkably different from their age-level peers. The foundation of the Virginia Governor's School Program centers on best practices in the field of gifted education and the presentation of advanced content to able learners."

Of course kids without means "whose learning levels are remarkably different from their age level peers" belong at TJ. Your question amounts to whether kids without means who present as run of the mill above average kids should be assumed to be gifted due to their SES and placed in TJ without demonstrating a learning level significantly above their age level peers. The old system was far from perfect, but it did identify the kids who needed TJ, including a small handful of truly exceptional FARMS kids. The new system has no capacity to do so.

TJ is an amazing public resource for the kids who need classes beyond their regular high school offerings and who have demonstrated the capacity to handle those classes. For the bottom half in every TJ class, the base school would have been a better fit and a better public resource.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It's weird to me that the single issue that you would vote on, the hill that you would die on, is admission to TJ when the Republican Party as currently constituted is threatening to become an authoritarian anti-democracy party. They LITERALLY attempted a coup thirteen months ago in order to subjugate the will of the voters.

+1000

This cut throat “My kid has to go to Harvard or else” attitude that some recently immigrating Asian parents have us exactly why the recent TJ reforms happened. These same parents are happy to literally sink the US democracy if they don’t get their kid into a top collage. That nuts!

I personally think a different way of doing iTJ reforms would have been better, but I see why the parents of many African-American, Hispanic, Latin, and disabled children are fed up with their equally intelligent children getting pushed out by the same Asian parents saying racist things like “Asians are the smartest it’s a scientific fact!”.
Having a hyper aggressive parents who are willing to cheat from the time their kids are in elementary school is unfair. That doesn’t make their kids more intelligent.

Working hard equals cheating now?

This is the reason why you see Asians getting into bed with white supremacists. Asking a question like "Working hard equals cheating now?" presumes that you have the market cornered on hard work and that you are the only race who cares about education.

There is a tremendous sense of entitlement about a community that believes that their approach to education is the only legitimate one and should grant them unfettered access to all elite institutions irrespective of what's in the best interest of those institutions.

"Wait, are you saying it's not in TJ or Yale or Harvard's best interests to be predominantly Asian?"

YES! That is exactly what I am saying! And it wasn't in their best interests to be predominantly white either when they were. Legitimate diversity across a spectrum of ethnic, socioeconomic, and experiential backgrounds leads to stronger educational outcomes and a FAR more socially conscious student body ready to succeed in a changing global marketplace.

So is TJ for education or is it for cultural diversity? That's the question, last I checked it's School of Science and technology, not School for the Diverse with some science stuff

TJ is an amazing public resource. Our kids are very fortunate to have this opportunity in our community.

It seems like the big question is should access to TJ be limited to only those with means? Or should we make it accessible to more of the community?

Do we want science kids without means to have access?

TJ receives no financial payments from potential students nor do they base admission on paying to get it in. Race blind admission testing is the proper way. Means has nothing to do with it as my landscaper has kids at tj and lives in a very modest home, he just decided to make it a priority to help his kid go to TJ, the rich kids go to private schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It's weird to me that the single issue that you would vote on, the hill that you would die on, is admission to TJ when the Republican Party as currently constituted is threatening to become an authoritarian anti-democracy party. They LITERALLY attempted a coup thirteen months ago in order to subjugate the will of the voters.

+1000

This cut throat “My kid has to go to Harvard or else” attitude that some recently immigrating Asian parents have us exactly why the recent TJ reforms happened. These same parents are happy to literally sink the US democracy if they don’t get their kid into a top collage. That nuts!

I personally think a different way of doing iTJ reforms would have been better, but I see why the parents of many African-American, Hispanic, Latin, and disabled children are fed up with their equally intelligent children getting pushed out by the same Asian parents saying racist things like “Asians are the smartest it’s a scientific fact!”.
Having a hyper aggressive parents who are willing to cheat from the time their kids are in elementary school is unfair. That doesn’t make their kids more intelligent.

Working hard equals cheating now?

This is the reason why you see Asians getting into bed with white supremacists. Asking a question like "Working hard equals cheating now?" presumes that you have the market cornered on hard work and that you are the only race who cares about education.

There is a tremendous sense of entitlement about a community that believes that their approach to education is the only legitimate one and should grant them unfettered access to all elite institutions irrespective of what's in the best interest of those institutions.

"Wait, are you saying it's not in TJ or Yale or Harvard's best interests to be predominantly Asian?"

YES! That is exactly what I am saying! And it wasn't in their best interests to be predominantly white either when they were. Legitimate diversity across a spectrum of ethnic, socioeconomic, and experiential backgrounds leads to stronger educational outcomes and a FAR more socially conscious student body ready to succeed in a changing global marketplace.

I have heard drivel but to accuse someone of "cornering the market on hard work" is just so absurd. What the heck does that even mean? Is it supposed to be an insult? My advice is to take it off your talking points list. It is a pathetic line.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I have heard drivel but to accuse someone of "cornering the market on hard work" is just so absurd. What the heck does that even mean? Is it supposed to be an insult? My advice is to take it off your talking points list. It is a pathetic line.

+1. Here's my perspective as a white person who has read dcum for many years. White people think that there's a correct amount of hard work that also leaves a lot of room for sports, family time, video games, playing with friends, relaxing, etc. It's okay to have your kid do some extracurricular academics, but not too much. Asians are perceived to do too much hard work at the expense of all of those other things. Asian kids are consequently at the top, due to so much extracurricular schooling.

White people don't want their kids to enter that rat race, where they're doing more than that correct amount of hard work and less of the fun stuff in life. But, they also don't like having their kids miss out to the Asian kids who are doing all of the extras and achieving at higher levels. So, the goal is to rewrite the system so no one is rewarded for doing more than the correct amount of hard work. URMs are being used as pawns to achieve this without looking like they're trying to penalize Asians for working too hard.

The notion of "cornering the market on hard work" is ludicrous, since no one is gatekeeping "hard work," and anyone has the option to work harder. People who hurl that around feel that they work hard enough and don't want anyone who works harder to be rewarded for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It's weird to me that the single issue that you would vote on, the hill that you would die on, is admission to TJ when the Republican Party as currently constituted is threatening to become an authoritarian anti-democracy party. They LITERALLY attempted a coup thirteen months ago in order to subjugate the will of the voters.

+1000

This cut throat “My kid has to go to Harvard or else” attitude that some recently immigrating Asian parents have us exactly why the recent TJ reforms happened. These same parents are happy to literally sink the US democracy if they don’t get their kid into a top collage. That nuts!

I personally think a different way of doing iTJ reforms would have been better, but I see why the parents of many African-American, Hispanic, Latin, and disabled children are fed up with their equally intelligent children getting pushed out by the same Asian parents saying racist things like “Asians are the smartest it’s a scientific fact!”.
Having a hyper aggressive parents who are willing to cheat from the time their kids are in elementary school is unfair. That doesn’t make their kids more intelligent.

Working hard equals cheating now?

This is the reason why you see Asians getting into bed with white supremacists. Asking a question like "Working hard equals cheating now?" presumes that you have the market cornered on hard work and that you are the only race who cares about education.

There is a tremendous sense of entitlement about a community that believes that their approach to education is the only legitimate one and should grant them unfettered access to all elite institutions irrespective of what's in the best interest of those institutions.

"Wait, are you saying it's not in TJ or Yale or Harvard's best interests to be predominantly Asian?"

YES! That is exactly what I am saying! And it wasn't in their best interests to be predominantly white either when they were. Legitimate diversity across a spectrum of ethnic, socioeconomic, and experiential backgrounds leads to stronger educational outcomes and a FAR more socially conscious student body ready to succeed in a changing global marketplace.

So is TJ for education or is it for cultural diversity? That's the question, last I checked it's School of Science and technology, not School for the Diverse with some science stuff

TJ is an amazing public resource. Our kids are very fortunate to have this opportunity in our community.

It seems like the big question is should access to TJ be limited to only those with means? Or should we make it accessible to more of the community?

Do we want science kids without means to have access?

TJ receives no financial payments from potential students nor do they base admission on paying to get it in. Race blind admission testing is the proper way. Means has nothing to do with it as my landscaper has kids at tj and lives in a very modest home, he just decided to make it a priority to help his kid go to TJ, the rich kids go to private schools

What % of the TJ class is low income?

[Anonymous]

USA: getting gold medals with ethnically Asian athletes

also in USA: Asian-hate

lmao...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I have heard drivel but to accuse someone of "cornering the market on hard work" is just so absurd. What the heck does that even mean? Is it supposed to be an insult? My advice is to take it off your talking points list. It is a pathetic line.

+1. Here's my perspective as a white person who has read dcum for many years. White people think that there's a correct amount of hard work that also leaves a lot of room for sports, family time, video games, playing with friends, relaxing, etc. It's okay to have your kid do some extracurricular academics, but not too much. Asians are perceived to do too much hard work at the expense of all of those other things. Asian kids are consequently at the top, due to so much extracurricular schooling.

White people don't want their kids to enter that rat race, where they're doing more than that correct amount of hard work and less of the fun stuff in life. But, they also don't like having their kids miss out to the Asian kids who are doing all of the extras and achieving at higher levels. So, the goal is to rewrite the system so no one is rewarded for doing more than the correct amount of hard work. URMs are being used as pawns to achieve this without looking like they're trying to penalize Asians for working too hard.

The notion of "cornering the market on hard work" is ludicrous, since no one is gatekeeping "hard work," and anyone has the option to work harder. People who hurl that around feel that they work hard enough and don't want anyone who works harder to be rewarded for it.

There are very few white people that care about TJ at all. It’s not really on most peoples radar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It's weird to me that the single issue that you would vote on, the hill that you would die on, is admission to TJ when the Republican Party as currently constituted is threatening to become an authoritarian anti-democracy party. They LITERALLY attempted a coup thirteen months ago in order to subjugate the will of the voters.

+1000

This cut throat “My kid has to go to Harvard or else” attitude that some recently immigrating Asian parents have us exactly why the recent TJ reforms happened. These same parents are happy to literally sink the US democracy if they don’t get their kid into a top collage. That nuts!

I personally think a different way of doing iTJ reforms would have been better, but I see why the parents of many African-American, Hispanic, Latin, and disabled children are fed up with their equally intelligent children getting pushed out by the same Asian parents saying racist things like “Asians are the smartest it’s a scientific fact!”.
Having a hyper aggressive parents who are willing to cheat from the time their kids are in elementary school is unfair. That doesn’t make their kids more intelligent.

Working hard equals cheating now?

This is the reason why you see Asians getting into bed with white supremacists. Asking a question like "Working hard equals cheating now?" presumes that you have the market cornered on hard work and that you are the only race who cares about education.

There is a tremendous sense of entitlement about a community that believes that their approach to education is the only legitimate one and should grant them unfettered access to all elite institutions irrespective of what's in the best interest of those institutions.

"Wait, are you saying it's not in TJ or Yale or Harvard's best interests to be predominantly Asian?"

YES! That is exactly what I am saying! And it wasn't in their best interests to be predominantly white either when they were. Legitimate diversity across a spectrum of ethnic, socioeconomic, and experiential backgrounds leads to stronger educational outcomes and a FAR more socially conscious student body ready to succeed in a changing global marketplace.

So is TJ for education or is it for cultural diversity? That's the question, last I checked it's School of Science and technology, not School for the Diverse with some science stuff

This is a false choice and believing it isn't is racist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
TJ is an amazing public resource. Our kids are very fortunate to have this opportunity in our community.

It seems like the big question is should access to TJ be limited to only those with means? Or should we make it accessible to more of the community?

Do we want science kids without means to have access?

DP. Per VDOE:
"The Virginia Governor's School Program has been designed to assist divisions as they meet the needs of a small population of students whose learning levels are remarkably different from their age-level peers. The foundation of the Virginia Governor's School Program centers on best practices in the field of gifted education and the presentation of advanced content to able learners."

Of course kids without means "whose learning levels are remarkably different from their age level peers" belong at TJ. Your question amounts to whether kids without means who present as run of the mill above average kids should be assumed to be gifted due to their SES and placed in TJ without demonstrating a learning level significantly above their age level peers. The old system was far from perfect, but it did identify the kids who needed TJ, including a small handful of truly exceptional FARMS kids. The new system has no capacity to do so.

TJ is an amazing public resource for the kids who need classes beyond their regular high school offerings and who have demonstrated the capacity to handle those classes. For the bottom half in every TJ class, the base school would have been a better fit and a better public resource.

High schools that serve less-resourced populations (Lewis, Mt. Vernon, Falls Church) have less advanced course offerings than schools that serve populations that are more affluent (Langley, McLean, and just about everyone in Loudoun).

In a convoluted way, this is a brilliant argument in favor of geographical diversity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I have heard drivel but to accuse someone of "cornering the market on hard work" is just so absurd. What the heck does that even mean? Is it supposed to be an insult? My advice is to take it off your talking points list. It is a pathetic line.

+1. Here's my perspective as a white person who has read dcum for many years. White people think that there's a correct amount of hard work that also leaves a lot of room for sports, family time, video games, playing with friends, relaxing, etc. It's okay to have your kid do some extracurricular academics, but not too much. Asians are perceived to do too much hard work at the expense of all of those other things. Asian kids are consequently at the top, due to so much extracurricular schooling.

White people don't want their kids to enter that rat race, where they're doing more than that correct amount of hard work and less of the fun stuff in life. But, they also don't like having their kids miss out to the Asian kids who are doing all of the extras and achieving at higher levels. So, the goal is to rewrite the system so no one is rewarded for doing more than the correct amount of hard work. URMs are being used as pawns to achieve this without looking like they're trying to penalize Asians for working too hard.

The notion of "cornering the market on hard work" is ludicrous, since no one is gatekeeping "hard work," and anyone has the option to work harder. People who hurl that around feel that they work hard enough and don't want anyone who works harder to be rewarded for it.

This is called "a healthy work-life balance". Second-generation Asian-Americans largely believe in it, because we know what happened to us and our friends as children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

High schools that serve less-resourced populations (Lewis, Mt. Vernon, Falls Church) have less advanced course offerings than schools that serve populations that are more affluent (Langley, McLean, and just about everyone in Loudoun).

In a convoluted way, this is a brilliant argument in favor of geographical diversity.

I just pulled up the course catalog for Falls Church and compared it to both Oakton and Chantilly. All 3 schools have pretty similar offerings, with none of them clearly offering less breadth or less rigor than the others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
TJ is an amazing public resource. Our kids are very fortunate to have this opportunity in our community.

It seems like the big question is should access to TJ be limited to only those with means? Or should we make it accessible to more of the community?

Do we want science kids without means to have access?

DP. Per VDOE:
"The Virginia Governor's School Program has been designed to assist divisions as they meet the needs of a small population of students whose learning levels are remarkably different from their age-level peers. The foundation of the Virginia Governor's School Program centers on best practices in the field of gifted education and the presentation of advanced content to able learners."

Of course kids without means "whose learning levels are remarkably different from their age level peers" belong at TJ. Your question amounts to whether kids without means who present as run of the mill above average kids should be assumed to be gifted due to their SES and placed in TJ without demonstrating a learning level significantly above their age level peers. The old system was far from perfect, but it did identify the kids who needed TJ, including a small handful of truly exceptional FARMS kids. The new system has no capacity to do so.

TJ is an amazing public resource for the kids who need classes beyond their regular high school offerings and who have demonstrated the capacity to handle those classes. For the bottom half in every TJ class, the base school would have been a better fit and a better public resource.

High schools that serve less-resourced populations (Lewis, Mt. Vernon, Falls Church) have less advanced course offerings than schools that serve populations that are more affluent (Langley, McLean, and just about everyone in Loudoun).

In a convoluted way, this is a brilliant argument in favor of geographical diversity.

And tomorrow SJWs will use the “inequity” of better course offerings at McLean/Langley to foist bussing in the name of equity. Convoluted and insidious as well. But keep going

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I have heard drivel but to accuse someone of "cornering the market on hard work" is just so absurd. What the heck does that even mean? Is it supposed to be an insult? My advice is to take it off your talking points list. It is a pathetic line.

+1. Here's my perspective as a white person who has read dcum for many years. White people think that there's a correct amount of hard work that also leaves a lot of room for sports, family time, video games, playing with friends, relaxing, etc. It's okay to have your kid do some extracurricular academics, but not too much. Asians are perceived to do too much hard work at the expense of all of those other things. Asian kids are consequently at the top, due to so much extracurricular schooling.

White people don't want their kids to enter that rat race, where they're doing more than that correct amount of hard work and less of the fun stuff in life. But, they also don't like having their kids miss out to the Asian kids who are doing all of the extras and achieving at higher levels. So, the goal is to rewrite the system so no one is rewarded for doing more than the correct amount of hard work. URMs are being used as pawns to achieve this without looking like they're trying to penalize Asians for working too hard.

The notion of "cornering the market on hard work" is ludicrous, since no one is gatekeeping "hard work," and anyone has the option to work harder. People who hurl that around feel that they work hard enough and don't want anyone who works harder to be rewarded for it.

This is called "a healthy work-life balance". Second-generation Asian-Americans largely believe in it, because we know what happened to us and our friends as children.[/quot


Please don't pretend you speak for all of us. I thank my parents every day.