Youngkin and TJ

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

PP. As do I, but I will never put my children through the same things that I went through.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
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.

PP here. I don't disagree with you. For my own kids, practicing their musical instrument 30 minutes/day is plenty. If they routinely had more than 2 hours of homework per night, I'd be encouraging them to drop down from at least AP/Honors classes. If I thought my kids would be in the bottom half of TJ, I'd discourage them from applying because it would be too much work. My kid is strongly into math contests, practices somewhat, and then loses to the Asian kids who practice more while my kid is playing video games. I'm totally fine with all of that. But, the natural result of that is that there are (primarily Asian) kids who have worked harder and are thus more advanced than mine. I don't begrudge them that, nor do I expect my kids to be selected for things like TJ or orchestra over these kids. They chose to prioritize TJ and academics. My family didn't. It's all fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

PP here. I don't disagree with you. For my own kids, practicing their musical instrument 30 minutes/day is plenty. If they routinely had more than 2 hours of homework per night, I'd be encouraging them to drop down from at least AP/Honors classes. If I thought my kids would be in the bottom half of TJ, I'd discourage them from applying because it would be too much work. My kid is strongly into math contests, practices somewhat, and then loses to the Asian kids who practice more while my kid is playing video games. I'm totally fine with all of that. But, the natural result of that is that there are (primarily Asian) kids who have worked harder and are thus more advanced than mine. I don't begrudge them that, nor do I expect my kids to be selected for things like TJ or orchestra over these kids. They chose to prioritize TJ and academics. My family didn't. It's all fine.

See, and that's great for you and your family. I really appreciate your perspective on this.

What I have a problem with is an admissions process that incentivizes unhealthy behaviors and an early streamlining of academic priorities with children who are 11 and 12 years old. There are children who display exceptional natural ability at those ages in particular areas, and that's wonderful and should be nurtured.

But what I see in practice in Northern Virginia are too many parents who envy those children with those exceptional natural abilities and will spare no expense or resource to pose their child as one with those same abilities. And then I see them get to TJ and have to stay up until all hours of the night, forsake all of the things that give them joy, AND spare even greater expense in outside tutoring in order for them to still end up in the bottom third of their class, miserable with their experience, and disappointed when they end up at VCU or Ohio State.

So what I don't want is for the admissions process in its final form (which I hope it is not yet) to confer advantages to people for posing their kids as something they're not. And I've watched it happen for too long.

[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.

That seems accurate. And what I thought was the situation, reading between the lines...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

PP here. I don't disagree with you. For my own kids, practicing their musical instrument 30 minutes/day is plenty. If they routinely had more than 2 hours of homework per night, I'd be encouraging them to drop down from at least AP/Honors classes. If I thought my kids would be in the bottom half of TJ, I'd discourage them from applying because it would be too much work. My kid is strongly into math contests, practices somewhat, and then loses to the Asian kids who practice more while my kid is playing video games. I'm totally fine with all of that. But, the natural result of that is that there are (primarily Asian) kids who have worked harder and are thus more advanced than mine. I don't begrudge them that, nor do I expect my kids to be selected for things like TJ or orchestra over these kids. They chose to prioritize TJ and academics. My family didn't. It's all fine.

See, and that's great for you and your family. I really appreciate your perspective on this.

What I have a problem with is an admissions process that incentivizes unhealthy behaviors and an early streamlining of academic priorities with children who are 11 and 12 years old. There are children who display exceptional natural ability at those ages in particular areas, and that's wonderful and should be nurtured.

But what I see in practice in Northern Virginia are too many parents who envy those children with those exceptional natural abilities and will spare no expense or resource to pose their child as one with those same abilities. And then I see them get to TJ and have to stay up until all hours of the night, forsake all of the things that give them joy, AND spare even greater expense in outside tutoring in order for them to still end up in the bottom third of their class, miserable with their experience, and disappointed when they end up at VCU or Ohio State.

So what I don't want is for the admissions process in its final form (which I hope it is not yet) to confer advantages to people for posing their kids as something they're not. And I've watched it happen for too long.

Sounds like we need a lottery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

PP here. I don't disagree with you. For my own kids, practicing their musical instrument 30 minutes/day is plenty. If they routinely had more than 2 hours of homework per night, I'd be encouraging them to drop down from at least AP/Honors classes. If I thought my kids would be in the bottom half of TJ, I'd discourage them from applying because it would be too much work. My kid is strongly into math contests, practices somewhat, and then loses to the Asian kids who practice more while my kid is playing video games. I'm totally fine with all of that. But, the natural result of that is that there are (primarily Asian) kids who have worked harder and are thus more advanced than mine. I don't begrudge them that, nor do I expect my kids to be selected for things like TJ or orchestra over these kids. They chose to prioritize TJ and academics. My family didn't. It's all fine.

See, and that's great for you and your family. I really appreciate your perspective on this.

What I have a problem with is an admissions process that incentivizes unhealthy behaviors and an early streamlining of academic priorities with children who are 11 and 12 years old. There are children who display exceptional natural ability at those ages in particular areas, and that's wonderful and should be nurtured.

But what I see in practice in Northern Virginia are too many parents who envy those children with those exceptional natural abilities and will spare no expense or resource to pose their child as one with those same abilities. And then I see them get to TJ and have to stay up until all hours of the night, forsake all of the things that give them joy, AND spare even greater expense in outside tutoring in order for them to still end up in the bottom third of their class, miserable with their experience, and disappointed when they end up at VCU or Ohio State.

So what I don't want is for the admissions process in its final form (which I hope it is not yet) to confer advantages to people for posing their kids as something they're not. And I've watched it happen for too long.

+1000 - the kids at TJ know who the posers are. and usually the posers know it themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

PP here. I don't disagree with you. For my own kids, practicing their musical instrument 30 minutes/day is plenty. If they routinely had more than 2 hours of homework per night, I'd be encouraging them to drop down from at least AP/Honors classes. If I thought my kids would be in the bottom half of TJ, I'd discourage them from applying because it would be too much work. My kid is strongly into math contests, practices somewhat, and then loses to the Asian kids who practice more while my kid is playing video games. I'm totally fine with all of that. But, the natural result of that is that there are (primarily Asian) kids who have worked harder and are thus more advanced than mine. I don't begrudge them that, nor do I expect my kids to be selected for things like TJ or orchestra over these kids. They chose to prioritize TJ and academics. My family didn't. It's all fine.

See, and that's great for you and your family. I really appreciate your perspective on this.

What I have a problem with is an admissions process that incentivizes unhealthy behaviors and an early streamlining of academic priorities with children who are 11 and 12 years old. There are children who display exceptional natural ability at those ages in particular areas, and that's wonderful and should be nurtured.

But what I see in practice in Northern Virginia are too many parents who envy those children with those exceptional natural abilities and will spare no expense or resource to pose their child as one with those same abilities. And then I see them get to TJ and have to stay up until all hours of the night, forsake all of the things that give them joy, AND spare even greater expense in outside tutoring in order for them to still end up in the bottom third of their class, miserable with their experience, and disappointed when they end up at VCU or Ohio State.

So what I don't want is for the admissions process in its final form (which I hope it is not yet) to confer advantages to people for posing their kids as something they're not. And I've watched it happen for too long.

Who are you to decide on what is unhealthy for another’s family? You evaluate others through your standards. See anything wrong in that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

To answer my own question, only 0.62% (less than 1%) of the class admitted in 20-21 were from economically disadvantaged families.

Do we want gifted science kids from economically disadvantaged families to have access?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

PP here. I don't disagree with you. For my own kids, practicing their musical instrument 30 minutes/day is plenty. If they routinely had more than 2 hours of homework per night, I'd be encouraging them to drop down from at least AP/Honors classes. If I thought my kids would be in the bottom half of TJ, I'd discourage them from applying because it would be too much work. My kid is strongly into math contests, practices somewhat, and then loses to the Asian kids who practice more while my kid is playing video games. I'm totally fine with all of that. But, the natural result of that is that there are (primarily Asian) kids who have worked harder and are thus more advanced than mine. I don't begrudge them that, nor do I expect my kids to be selected for things like TJ or orchestra over these kids. They chose to prioritize TJ and academics. My family didn't. It's all fine.

See, and that's great for you and your family. I really appreciate your perspective on this.

What I have a problem with is an admissions process that incentivizes unhealthy behaviors and an early streamlining of academic priorities with children who are 11 and 12 years old. There are children who display exceptional natural ability at those ages in particular areas, and that's wonderful and should be nurtured.

But what I see in practice in Northern Virginia are too many parents who envy those children with those exceptional natural abilities and will spare no expense or resource to pose their child as one with those same abilities. And then I see them get to TJ and have to stay up until all hours of the night, forsake all of the things that give them joy, AND spare even greater expense in outside tutoring in order for them to still end up in the bottom third of their class, miserable with their experience, and disappointed when they end up at VCU or Ohio State.

So what I don't want is for the admissions process in its final form (which I hope it is not yet) to confer advantages to people for posing their kids as something they're not. And I've watched it happen for too long.

So you are saving the innocent kids from their ignorant evil Asian parents. Because you care. How noble of you, dear sir/madam...(eyes filling with tears. damn onions)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

PP here. I don't disagree with you. For my own kids, practicing their musical instrument 30 minutes/day is plenty. If they routinely had more than 2 hours of homework per night, I'd be encouraging them to drop down from at least AP/Honors classes. If I thought my kids would be in the bottom half of TJ, I'd discourage them from applying because it would be too much work. My kid is strongly into math contests, practices somewhat, and then loses to the Asian kids who practice more while my kid is playing video games. I'm totally fine with all of that. But, the natural result of that is that there are (primarily Asian) kids who have worked harder and are thus more advanced than mine. I don't begrudge them that, nor do I expect my kids to be selected for things like TJ or orchestra over these kids. They chose to prioritize TJ and academics. My family didn't. It's all fine.

See, and that's great for you and your family. I really appreciate your perspective on this.

What I have a problem with is an admissions process that incentivizes unhealthy behaviors and an early streamlining of academic priorities with children who are 11 and 12 years old. There are children who display exceptional natural ability at those ages in particular areas, and that's wonderful and should be nurtured.

But what I see in practice in Northern Virginia are too many parents who envy those children with those exceptional natural abilities and will spare no expense or resource to pose their child as one with those same abilities. And then I see them get to TJ and have to stay up until all hours of the night, forsake all of the things that give them joy, AND spare even greater expense in outside tutoring in order for them to still end up in the bottom third of their class, miserable with their experience, and disappointed when they end up at VCU or Ohio State.

So what I don't want is for the admissions process in its final form (which I hope it is not yet) to confer advantages to people for posing their kids as something they're not. And I've watched it happen for too long.

Who are you to decide on what is unhealthy for another’s family? You evaluate others through your standards. See anything wrong in that?

Ehh. You see enough kids and enough issues and you start to figure things out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

PP here. I don't disagree with you. For my own kids, practicing their musical instrument 30 minutes/day is plenty. If they routinely had more than 2 hours of homework per night, I'd be encouraging them to drop down from at least AP/Honors classes. If I thought my kids would be in the bottom half of TJ, I'd discourage them from applying because it would be too much work. My kid is strongly into math contests, practices somewhat, and then loses to the Asian kids who practice more while my kid is playing video games. I'm totally fine with all of that. But, the natural result of that is that there are (primarily Asian) kids who have worked harder and are thus more advanced than mine. I don't begrudge them that, nor do I expect my kids to be selected for things like TJ or orchestra over these kids. They chose to prioritize TJ and academics. My family didn't. It's all fine.

See, and that's great for you and your family. I really appreciate your perspective on this.

What I have a problem with is an admissions process that incentivizes unhealthy behaviors and an early streamlining of academic priorities with children who are 11 and 12 years old. There are children who display exceptional natural ability at those ages in particular areas, and that's wonderful and should be nurtured.

But what I see in practice in Northern Virginia are too many parents who envy those children with those exceptional natural abilities and will spare no expense or resource to pose their child as one with those same abilities. And then I see them get to TJ and have to stay up until all hours of the night, forsake all of the things that give them joy, AND spare even greater expense in outside tutoring in order for them to still end up in the bottom third of their class, miserable with their experience, and disappointed when they end up at VCU or Ohio State.

So what I don't want is for the admissions process in its final form (which I hope it is not yet) to confer advantages to people for posing their kids as something they're not. And I've watched it happen for too long.

So you are saving the innocent kids from their ignorant evil Asian parents. Because you care. How noble of you, dear sir/madam...(eyes filling with tears. damn onions)

Oh, believe me, at TJ it's far more than just the Asians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

PP here. I don't disagree with you. [...]

See, and that's great for you and your family. I really appreciate your perspective on this.

What I have a problem with is an admissions process that incentivizes unhealthy behaviors and an early streamlining of academic priorities with children who are 11 and 12 years old. There are children who display exceptional natural ability at those ages in particular areas, and that's wonderful and should be nurtured.
[...]

First PP here. While I don't personally like putting that much pressure on kids or streamlining their interests, I'm hesitant to label different cultural values as an "unhealthy behavior." In any objective measure, the kids practicing these "unhealthy behaviors" are highly successful, and many of them are quite content. If it works for them, and their kids are objectively more advanced than mine, then they deserve the TJ spot.

It's similar to the olympics for me. When I hear olympic athlete backstories, I feel like the Olympics is incentivizing unhealthy behaviors and streamlining of children's activities to the exclusion of almost everything else. It seems to work for them, though, so who am I to judge?

[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.

Hey white boys - Pull your self up by the boot straps!

[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

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

Saying this is a racist is being a racist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

To answer my own question, only 0.62% (less than 1%) of the class admitted in 20-21 were from economically disadvantaged families.

Do we want gifted science kids from economically disadvantaged families to have access?

Vast majority of them (70%) are disadvantaged for being Asian students and in my estimation about 20-40% are economically disadvantaged on top of that meaning less than $75,000 per year in HHI. because of all the hate and discrimination directed towards Asian students for doing well academically. How about doing the same for your snowflakes Johnny and Susie for dancing, soccer, hockey, singing, debating, writing, poetry, acting, drawing, basketball etc. etc.?