Court: TJ's New Admission Policy Does Not Discriminate

[Anonymous]

Yes. you meant the "golden old days" when no Asians squeezed your incompetent kids out of TJ.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Several great TJ math teachers have resigned due to the deteriorating student quality since the admission change. I guess they did not want to teach TJ Math 1.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Super Court can strike down any admission system that is considered unconstitutional.

Ask Harvard how they feel now. Harvard can still use the same admission system next year if it spares enough money for potential punitive damanges.

Apparently, FCPS does not have deep pockets like Harvard.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Establishing an admissions system which indirectly discriminates against asians (see page 39, paragraph 3 of the SCOTUS AA ruling). There is now a new basis for more lawsuits.

Asians are not discriminated against in TJ admissions. They have the highest acceptance rate and highest representation.

So you do not understand how the current Supreme Court thinks about equal protection? If they believe there was a deliberate, racially motivated effort to reduce the percentage of Asian kids at a school, they may well declare the system contrary to the Constitution, regardless of whether Asians are still statistically “over-represented.”

I suspect you do know this, but believe that you’ll convince people otherwise if you just copy and paste often enough.

If that is the justification for striking the new process down, all that would need to happen is for a new School Board to design either the exact same process or one that is relatively similar in order to pass muster.

The Court cannot mandate that a school system adopt a specific admissions system or any element of one.

Not sure it matters since FPCS system is race-blind so the Harvard case that used race as a factor in admissions isn't relevant.

The whole alleged purpose of the changes was racial. Just because a rule or law as written doesn't mention race or a discriminatory purpose doesn't necessarily mean that's not the actual purpose. It can still have a discriminatory effect.

For example, an effect of discriminating against Asians in favor of Whites.

The new admissions process does not discriminate against any race.

Neither did literacy tests and poll taxes to vote.

Yikes.

It appears that this requires explanation again, as a persistent lack of comprehension in this forum, whether out of convenience or ignorance, causes this thread to stagnate.

The previous admissions process was manifestly discriminatory against students of economic disadvantage. This point is not up for debate among serious people. It deeply favored students and families who were possessed of both the economic means and the parental motivation to leverage those means in the direction of optimizing the student's TJ application. For many reasons, in Northern Virginia that largely results in an advantage for students of Asian (and especially South Asian) descent. And the admissions statistics from prior classes bear that out very, very clearly - and combined with the Curie matter, provide a clear explanation for the dramatic overrepresentation of South Asians at TJ, who comprise about 5-7% of Northern Virginia's population but were hovering near 50% of incoming TJ classes between 2018-2024.

The new admissions process eliminated many of those advantages and indeed made it much more difficult for parents to leverage their resources to optimize TJ admissions outcomes. A staggering amount of mental gymnastics are required to observe a situation where a group that had a clear advantage in a process loses that advantage and refer to that loss as "racial discrimination".

The old process was discriminatory. Fixing it is the opposite of discrimination.

The new process sought to minimize that advantage.

The old process discriminated against dumb kids, too. Glad we were able to fix the lack of representation of poor and dumb kids at TJ.

There aren't any dumb kids at TJ. Pretending there are in order to serve your narrative makes you a horrible person, full stop.

I guess it's relative but many who had to be prepped for years to present well on the test always struggled to keep up.

This is an urban legend the parents of kids that didn’t get into to made up and perpetuate to make themselves feel better that their precious Larlo didn’t make the cut.

1) TJ math teachers disagree with you.

2) No one names their kid Larlo and you betray yourself as unserious when you keep using that name.

Weird, I heard they just retired and this wasn't related.

Teachers consistently retire, but some are committed to pushing this false narrative because they are unhappy with the admission changes. I think they would prefer to return to the good old days of test buying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Super Court can strike down any admission system that is considered unconstitutional.

Ask Harvard how they feel now. Harvard can still use the same admission system next year if it spares enough money for potential punitive damanges.

Apparently, FCPS does not have deep pockets like Harvard.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Establishing an admissions system which indirectly discriminates against asians (see page 39, paragraph 3 of the SCOTUS AA ruling). There is now a new basis for more lawsuits.

Asians are not discriminated against in TJ admissions. They have the highest acceptance rate and highest representation.

So you do not understand how the current Supreme Court thinks about equal protection? If they believe there was a deliberate, racially motivated effort to reduce the percentage of Asian kids at a school, they may well declare the system contrary to the Constitution, regardless of whether Asians are still statistically “over-represented.”

I suspect you do know this, but believe that you’ll convince people otherwise if you just copy and paste often enough.

If that is the justification for striking the new process down, all that would need to happen is for a new School Board to design either the exact same process or one that is relatively similar in order to pass muster.

The Court cannot mandate that a school system adopt a specific admissions system or any element of one.

Not sure it matters since FPCS system is race-blind so the Harvard case that used race as a factor in admissions isn't relevant.

The whole alleged purpose of the changes was racial. Just because a rule or law as written doesn't mention race or a discriminatory purpose doesn't necessarily mean that's not the actual purpose. It can still have a discriminatory effect.

For example, an effect of discriminating against Asians in favor of Whites.

The new admissions process does not discriminate against any race.

Neither did literacy tests and poll taxes to vote.

Yikes.

It appears that this requires explanation again, as a persistent lack of comprehension in this forum, whether out of convenience or ignorance, causes this thread to stagnate.

The previous admissions process was manifestly discriminatory against students of economic disadvantage. This point is not up for debate among serious people. It deeply favored students and families who were possessed of both the economic means and the parental motivation to leverage those means in the direction of optimizing the student's TJ application. For many reasons, in Northern Virginia that largely results in an advantage for students of Asian (and especially South Asian) descent. And the admissions statistics from prior classes bear that out very, very clearly - and combined with the Curie matter, provide a clear explanation for the dramatic overrepresentation of South Asians at TJ, who comprise about 5-7% of Northern Virginia's population but were hovering near 50% of incoming TJ classes between 2018-2024.

The new admissions process eliminated many of those advantages and indeed made it much more difficult for parents to leverage their resources to optimize TJ admissions outcomes. A staggering amount of mental gymnastics are required to observe a situation where a group that had a clear advantage in a process loses that advantage and refer to that loss as "racial discrimination".

The old process was discriminatory. Fixing it is the opposite of discrimination.

The new process sought to minimize that advantage.

The old process discriminated against dumb kids, too. Glad we were able to fix the lack of representation of poor and dumb kids at TJ.

There aren't any dumb kids at TJ. Pretending there are in order to serve your narrative makes you a horrible person, full stop.

I guess it's relative but many who had to be prepped for years to present well on the test always struggled to keep up.

This is an urban legend the parents of kids that didn’t get into to made up and perpetuate to make themselves feel better that their precious Larlo didn’t make the cut.

1) TJ math teachers disagree with you.

2) No one names their kid Larlo and you betray yourself as unserious when you keep using that name.

Ask the math teachers now what they think - too late they are retiring instead of having to teach remedial math. And on this forum, Larlo is used when pointing out Karens who make up facts because their privileged white kids couldn’t get in to TJ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Super Court can strike down any admission system that is considered unconstitutional.

Ask Harvard how they feel now. Harvard can still use the same admission system next year if it spares enough money for potential punitive damanges.

Apparently, FCPS does not have deep pockets like Harvard.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Establishing an admissions system which indirectly discriminates against asians (see page 39, paragraph 3 of the SCOTUS AA ruling). There is now a new basis for more lawsuits.

Asians are not discriminated against in TJ admissions. They have the highest acceptance rate and highest representation.

So you do not understand how the current Supreme Court thinks about equal protection? If they believe there was a deliberate, racially motivated effort to reduce the percentage of Asian kids at a school, they may well declare the system contrary to the Constitution, regardless of whether Asians are still statistically “over-represented.”

I suspect you do know this, but believe that you’ll convince people otherwise if you just copy and paste often enough.

If that is the justification for striking the new process down, all that would need to happen is for a new School Board to design either the exact same process or one that is relatively similar in order to pass muster.

The Court cannot mandate that a school system adopt a specific admissions system or any element of one.

Not sure it matters since FPCS system is race-blind so the Harvard case that used race as a factor in admissions isn't relevant.

The whole alleged purpose of the changes was racial. Just because a rule or law as written doesn't mention race or a discriminatory purpose doesn't necessarily mean that's not the actual purpose. It can still have a discriminatory effect.

For example, an effect of discriminating against Asians in favor of Whites.

The new admissions process does not discriminate against any race.

Neither did literacy tests and poll taxes to vote.

Yikes.

It appears that this requires explanation again, as a persistent lack of comprehension in this forum, whether out of convenience or ignorance, causes this thread to stagnate.

The previous admissions process was manifestly discriminatory against students of economic disadvantage. This point is not up for debate among serious people. It deeply favored students and families who were possessed of both the economic means and the parental motivation to leverage those means in the direction of optimizing the student's TJ application. For many reasons, in Northern Virginia that largely results in an advantage for students of Asian (and especially South Asian) descent. And the admissions statistics from prior classes bear that out very, very clearly - and combined with the Curie matter, provide a clear explanation for the dramatic overrepresentation of South Asians at TJ, who comprise about 5-7% of Northern Virginia's population but were hovering near 50% of incoming TJ classes between 2018-2024.

The new admissions process eliminated many of those advantages and indeed made it much more difficult for parents to leverage their resources to optimize TJ admissions outcomes. A staggering amount of mental gymnastics are required to observe a situation where a group that had a clear advantage in a process loses that advantage and refer to that loss as "racial discrimination".

The old process was discriminatory. Fixing it is the opposite of discrimination.

The new process sought to minimize that advantage.

The old process discriminated against dumb kids, too. Glad we were able to fix the lack of representation of poor and dumb kids at TJ.

There aren't any dumb kids at TJ. Pretending there are in order to serve your narrative makes you a horrible person, full stop.

I guess it's relative but many who had to be prepped for years to present well on the test always struggled to keep up.

This is an urban legend the parents of kids that didn’t get into to made up and perpetuate to make themselves feel better that their precious Larlo didn’t make the cut.

1) TJ math teachers disagree with you.

2) No one names their kid Larlo and you betray yourself as unserious when you keep using that name.

Ask the math teachers now what they think - too late they are retiring instead of having to teach remedial math. And on this forum, Larlo is used when pointing out Karens who make up facts because their privileged white kids couldn’t get in to TJ.

They’re not… retiring… at all…

[Anonymous]

Of course, they are not retiring at all.

Mr. Sam Ng, one of the best TJ Math teachers of all time, quit his job in early February this year.

He is like 30 years old, a Cornell graduate of Class 2014.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Super Court can strike down any admission system that is considered unconstitutional.

Ask Harvard how they feel now. Harvard can still use the same admission system next year if it spares enough money for potential punitive damanges.

Apparently, FCPS does not have deep pockets like Harvard.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Establishing an admissions system which indirectly discriminates against asians (see page 39, paragraph 3 of the SCOTUS AA ruling). There is now a new basis for more lawsuits.

Asians are not discriminated against in TJ admissions. They have the highest acceptance rate and highest representation.

So you do not understand how the current Supreme Court thinks about equal protection? If they believe there was a deliberate, racially motivated effort to reduce the percentage of Asian kids at a school, they may well declare the system contrary to the Constitution, regardless of whether Asians are still statistically “over-represented.”

I suspect you do know this, but believe that you’ll convince people otherwise if you just copy and paste often enough.

If that is the justification for striking the new process down, all that would need to happen is for a new School Board to design either the exact same process or one that is relatively similar in order to pass muster.

The Court cannot mandate that a school system adopt a specific admissions system or any element of one.

Not sure it matters since FPCS system is race-blind so the Harvard case that used race as a factor in admissions isn't relevant.

The whole alleged purpose of the changes was racial. Just because a rule or law as written doesn't mention race or a discriminatory purpose doesn't necessarily mean that's not the actual purpose. It can still have a discriminatory effect.

For example, an effect of discriminating against Asians in favor of Whites.

The new admissions process does not discriminate against any race.

Neither did literacy tests and poll taxes to vote.

Yikes.

It appears that this requires explanation again, as a persistent lack of comprehension in this forum, whether out of convenience or ignorance, causes this thread to stagnate.

The previous admissions process was manifestly discriminatory against students of economic disadvantage. This point is not up for debate among serious people. It deeply favored students and families who were possessed of both the economic means and the parental motivation to leverage those means in the direction of optimizing the student's TJ application. For many reasons, in Northern Virginia that largely results in an advantage for students of Asian (and especially South Asian) descent. And the admissions statistics from prior classes bear that out very, very clearly - and combined with the Curie matter, provide a clear explanation for the dramatic overrepresentation of South Asians at TJ, who comprise about 5-7% of Northern Virginia's population but were hovering near 50% of incoming TJ classes between 2018-2024.

The new admissions process eliminated many of those advantages and indeed made it much more difficult for parents to leverage their resources to optimize TJ admissions outcomes. A staggering amount of mental gymnastics are required to observe a situation where a group that had a clear advantage in a process loses that advantage and refer to that loss as "racial discrimination".

The old process was discriminatory. Fixing it is the opposite of discrimination.

The new process sought to minimize that advantage.

The old process discriminated against dumb kids, too. Glad we were able to fix the lack of representation of poor and dumb kids at TJ.

There aren't any dumb kids at TJ. Pretending there are in order to serve your narrative makes you a horrible person, full stop.

I guess it's relative but many who had to be prepped for years to present well on the test always struggled to keep up.

This is an urban legend the parents of kids that didn’t get into to made up and perpetuate to make themselves feel better that their precious Larlo didn’t make the cut.

1) TJ math teachers disagree with you.

2) No one names their kid Larlo and you betray yourself as unserious when you keep using that name.

Ask the math teachers now what they think - too late they are retiring instead of having to teach remedial math. And on this forum, Larlo is used when pointing out Karens who make up facts because their privileged white kids couldn’t get in to TJ.

They’re not… retiring… at all…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Of course, they are not retiring at all.

Mr. Sam Ng, one of the best TJ Math teachers of all time, quit his job in early February this year.

He is like 30 years old, a Cornell graduate of Class 2014.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Super Court can strike down any admission system that is considered unconstitutional.

Ask Harvard how they feel now. Harvard can still use the same admission system next year if it spares enough money for potential punitive damanges.

Apparently, FCPS does not have deep pockets like Harvard.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Establishing an admissions system which indirectly discriminates against asians (see page 39, paragraph 3 of the SCOTUS AA ruling). There is now a new basis for more lawsuits.

Asians are not discriminated against in TJ admissions. They have the highest acceptance rate and highest representation.

So you do not understand how the current Supreme Court thinks about equal protection? If they believe there was a deliberate, racially motivated effort to reduce the percentage of Asian kids at a school, they may well declare the system contrary to the Constitution, regardless of whether Asians are still statistically “over-represented.”

I suspect you do know this, but believe that you’ll convince people otherwise if you just copy and paste often enough.

If that is the justification for striking the new process down, all that would need to happen is for a new School Board to design either the exact same process or one that is relatively similar in order to pass muster.

The Court cannot mandate that a school system adopt a specific admissions system or any element of one.

Not sure it matters since FPCS system is race-blind so the Harvard case that used race as a factor in admissions isn't relevant.

The whole alleged purpose of the changes was racial. Just because a rule or law as written doesn't mention race or a discriminatory purpose doesn't necessarily mean that's not the actual purpose. It can still have a discriminatory effect.

For example, an effect of discriminating against Asians in favor of Whites.

The new admissions process does not discriminate against any race.

Neither did literacy tests and poll taxes to vote.

Yikes.

It appears that this requires explanation again, as a persistent lack of comprehension in this forum, whether out of convenience or ignorance, causes this thread to stagnate.

The previous admissions process was manifestly discriminatory against students of economic disadvantage. This point is not up for debate among serious people. It deeply favored students and families who were possessed of both the economic means and the parental motivation to leverage those means in the direction of optimizing the student's TJ application. For many reasons, in Northern Virginia that largely results in an advantage for students of Asian (and especially South Asian) descent. And the admissions statistics from prior classes bear that out very, very clearly - and combined with the Curie matter, provide a clear explanation for the dramatic overrepresentation of South Asians at TJ, who comprise about 5-7% of Northern Virginia's population but were hovering near 50% of incoming TJ classes between 2018-2024.

The new admissions process eliminated many of those advantages and indeed made it much more difficult for parents to leverage their resources to optimize TJ admissions outcomes. A staggering amount of mental gymnastics are required to observe a situation where a group that had a clear advantage in a process loses that advantage and refer to that loss as "racial discrimination".

The old process was discriminatory. Fixing it is the opposite of discrimination.

The new process sought to minimize that advantage.

The old process discriminated against dumb kids, too. Glad we were able to fix the lack of representation of poor and dumb kids at TJ.

There aren't any dumb kids at TJ. Pretending there are in order to serve your narrative makes you a horrible person, full stop.

I guess it's relative but many who had to be prepped for years to present well on the test always struggled to keep up.

This is an urban legend the parents of kids that didn’t get into to made up and perpetuate to make themselves feel better that their precious Larlo didn’t make the cut.

1) TJ math teachers disagree with you.

2) No one names their kid Larlo and you betray yourself as unserious when you keep using that name.

Ask the math teachers now what they think - too late they are retiring instead of having to teach remedial math. And on this forum, Larlo is used when pointing out Karens who make up facts because their privileged white kids couldn’t get in to TJ.

They’re not… retiring… at all…

Yes, I heard he wanted to go a different direction with his life, but the rest retired. I don't think this has anything to do with the narrative the C4TJ folks keep pushing.

[Anonymous]

Bump

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course, they are not retiring at all.

Mr. Sam Ng, one of the best TJ Math teachers of all time, quit his job in early February this year.

He is like 30 years old, a Cornell graduate of Class 2014.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Super Court can strike down any admission system that is considered unconstitutional.

Ask Harvard how they feel now. Harvard can still use the same admission system next year if it spares enough money for potential punitive damanges.

Apparently, FCPS does not have deep pockets like Harvard.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Establishing an admissions system which indirectly discriminates against asians (see page 39, paragraph 3 of the SCOTUS AA ruling). There is now a new basis for more lawsuits.

Asians are not discriminated against in TJ admissions. They have the highest acceptance rate and highest representation.

So you do not understand how the current Supreme Court thinks about equal protection? If they believe there was a deliberate, racially motivated effort to reduce the percentage of Asian kids at a school, they may well declare the system contrary to the Constitution, regardless of whether Asians are still statistically “over-represented.”

I suspect you do know this, but believe that you’ll convince people otherwise if you just copy and paste often enough.

If that is the justification for striking the new process down, all that would need to happen is for a new School Board to design either the exact same process or one that is relatively similar in order to pass muster.

The Court cannot mandate that a school system adopt a specific admissions system or any element of one.

Not sure it matters since FPCS system is race-blind so the Harvard case that used race as a factor in admissions isn't relevant.

The whole alleged purpose of the changes was racial. Just because a rule or law as written doesn't mention race or a discriminatory purpose doesn't necessarily mean that's not the actual purpose. It can still have a discriminatory effect.

For example, an effect of discriminating against Asians in favor of Whites.

The new admissions process does not discriminate against any race.

Neither did literacy tests and poll taxes to vote.

Yikes.

It appears that this requires explanation again, as a persistent lack of comprehension in this forum, whether out of convenience or ignorance, causes this thread to stagnate.

The previous admissions process was manifestly discriminatory against students of economic disadvantage. This point is not up for debate among serious people. It deeply favored students and families who were possessed of both the economic means and the parental motivation to leverage those means in the direction of optimizing the student's TJ application. For many reasons, in Northern Virginia that largely results in an advantage for students of Asian (and especially South Asian) descent. And the admissions statistics from prior classes bear that out very, very clearly - and combined with the Curie matter, provide a clear explanation for the dramatic overrepresentation of South Asians at TJ, who comprise about 5-7% of Northern Virginia's population but were hovering near 50% of incoming TJ classes between 2018-2024.

The new admissions process eliminated many of those advantages and indeed made it much more difficult for parents to leverage their resources to optimize TJ admissions outcomes. A staggering amount of mental gymnastics are required to observe a situation where a group that had a clear advantage in a process loses that advantage and refer to that loss as "racial discrimination".

The old process was discriminatory. Fixing it is the opposite of discrimination.

The new process sought to minimize that advantage.

The old process discriminated against dumb kids, too. Glad we were able to fix the lack of representation of poor and dumb kids at TJ.

There aren't any dumb kids at TJ. Pretending there are in order to serve your narrative makes you a horrible person, full stop.

I guess it's relative but many who had to be prepped for years to present well on the test always struggled to keep up.

This is an urban legend the parents of kids that didn’t get into to made up and perpetuate to make themselves feel better that their precious Larlo didn’t make the cut.

1) TJ math teachers disagree with you.

2) No one names their kid Larlo and you betray yourself as unserious when you keep using that name.

Ask the math teachers now what they think - too late they are retiring instead of having to teach remedial math. And on this forum, Larlo is used when pointing out Karens who make up facts because their privileged white kids couldn’t get in to TJ.

They’re not… retiring… at all…

Yes, I heard he wanted to go a different direction with his life, but the rest retired. I don't think this has anything to do with the narrative the C4TJ folks keep pushing.

Isn't "go in a different direction" a euphemism for "my job sucked"?

Without interviewing him directly, it's impossible to know his idiosyncratic reasons for leaving, but teaching some of the best math kids in the country (world) is a dream job of many math educators. It would take a big reason for most to "go in a different direction"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course, they are not retiring at all.

Mr. Sam Ng, one of the best TJ Math teachers of all time, quit his job in early February this year.

He is like 30 years old, a Cornell graduate of Class 2014.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Super Court can strike down any admission system that is considered unconstitutional.

Ask Harvard how they feel now. Harvard can still use the same admission system next year if it spares enough money for potential punitive damanges.

Apparently, FCPS does not have deep pockets like Harvard.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Establishing an admissions system which indirectly discriminates against asians (see page 39, paragraph 3 of the SCOTUS AA ruling). There is now a new basis for more lawsuits.

Asians are not discriminated against in TJ admissions. They have the highest acceptance rate and highest representation.

So you do not understand how the current Supreme Court thinks about equal protection? If they believe there was a deliberate, racially motivated effort to reduce the percentage of Asian kids at a school, they may well declare the system contrary to the Constitution, regardless of whether Asians are still statistically “over-represented.”

I suspect you do know this, but believe that you’ll convince people otherwise if you just copy and paste often enough.

If that is the justification for striking the new process down, all that would need to happen is for a new School Board to design either the exact same process or one that is relatively similar in order to pass muster.

The Court cannot mandate that a school system adopt a specific admissions system or any element of one.

Not sure it matters since FPCS system is race-blind so the Harvard case that used race as a factor in admissions isn't relevant.

The whole alleged purpose of the changes was racial. Just because a rule or law as written doesn't mention race or a discriminatory purpose doesn't necessarily mean that's not the actual purpose. It can still have a discriminatory effect.

For example, an effect of discriminating against Asians in favor of Whites.

The new admissions process does not discriminate against any race.

Neither did literacy tests and poll taxes to vote.

Yikes.

It appears that this requires explanation again, as a persistent lack of comprehension in this forum, whether out of convenience or ignorance, causes this thread to stagnate.

The previous admissions process was manifestly discriminatory against students of economic disadvantage. This point is not up for debate among serious people. It deeply favored students and families who were possessed of both the economic means and the parental motivation to leverage those means in the direction of optimizing the student's TJ application. For many reasons, in Northern Virginia that largely results in an advantage for students of Asian (and especially South Asian) descent. And the admissions statistics from prior classes bear that out very, very clearly - and combined with the Curie matter, provide a clear explanation for the dramatic overrepresentation of South Asians at TJ, who comprise about 5-7% of Northern Virginia's population but were hovering near 50% of incoming TJ classes between 2018-2024.

The new admissions process eliminated many of those advantages and indeed made it much more difficult for parents to leverage their resources to optimize TJ admissions outcomes. A staggering amount of mental gymnastics are required to observe a situation where a group that had a clear advantage in a process loses that advantage and refer to that loss as "racial discrimination".

The old process was discriminatory. Fixing it is the opposite of discrimination.

The new process sought to minimize that advantage.

The old process discriminated against dumb kids, too. Glad we were able to fix the lack of representation of poor and dumb kids at TJ.

There aren't any dumb kids at TJ. Pretending there are in order to serve your narrative makes you a horrible person, full stop.

I guess it's relative but many who had to be prepped for years to present well on the test always struggled to keep up.

This is an urban legend the parents of kids that didn’t get into to made up and perpetuate to make themselves feel better that their precious Larlo didn’t make the cut.

1) TJ math teachers disagree with you.

2) No one names their kid Larlo and you betray yourself as unserious when you keep using that name.

Ask the math teachers now what they think - too late they are retiring instead of having to teach remedial math. And on this forum, Larlo is used when pointing out Karens who make up facts because their privileged white kids couldn’t get in to TJ.

They’re not… retiring… at all…

Yes, I heard he wanted to go a different direction with his life, but the rest retired. I don't think this has anything to do with the narrative the C4TJ folks keep pushing.

Isn't "go in a different direction" a euphemism for "my job sucked"?

Without interviewing him directly, it's impossible to know his idiosyncratic reasons for leaving, but teaching some of the best math kids in the country (world) is a dream job of many math educators. It would take a big reason for most to "go in a different direction"

Not really. Sure, he got to teach many super-privileged kids with extensive outside enrichment but that may not be fulfilling for everyone. I don't know where he went but guessing it was for a higher paying job.

[Anonymous]

I do not think Mr. Ng cares too much about money. If he does, he could pick a higher-paying job immediately after graduating from Cornell rather than teaching at TJ for many years.

By the way, he graduated from Stuyvesant High School, TJ's counterpart in New York City.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course, they are not retiring at all.

Mr. Sam Ng, one of the best TJ Math teachers of all time, quit his job in early February this year.

He is like 30 years old, a Cornell graduate of Class 2014.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Super Court can strike down any admission system that is considered unconstitutional.

Ask Harvard how they feel now. Harvard can still use the same admission system next year if it spares enough money for potential punitive damanges.

Apparently, FCPS does not have deep pockets like Harvard.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Establishing an admissions system which indirectly discriminates against asians (see page 39, paragraph 3 of the SCOTUS AA ruling). There is now a new basis for more lawsuits.

Asians are not discriminated against in TJ admissions. They have the highest acceptance rate and highest representation.

So you do not understand how the current Supreme Court thinks about equal protection? If they believe there was a deliberate, racially motivated effort to reduce the percentage of Asian kids at a school, they may well declare the system contrary to the Constitution, regardless of whether Asians are still statistically “over-represented.”

I suspect you do know this, but believe that you’ll convince people otherwise if you just copy and paste often enough.

If that is the justification for striking the new process down, all that would need to happen is for a new School Board to design either the exact same process or one that is relatively similar in order to pass muster.

The Court cannot mandate that a school system adopt a specific admissions system or any element of one.

Not sure it matters since FPCS system is race-blind so the Harvard case that used race as a factor in admissions isn't relevant.

The whole alleged purpose of the changes was racial. Just because a rule or law as written doesn't mention race or a discriminatory purpose doesn't necessarily mean that's not the actual purpose. It can still have a discriminatory effect.

For example, an effect of discriminating against Asians in favor of Whites.

The new admissions process does not discriminate against any race.

Neither did literacy tests and poll taxes to vote.

Yikes.

It appears that this requires explanation again, as a persistent lack of comprehension in this forum, whether out of convenience or ignorance, causes this thread to stagnate.

The previous admissions process was manifestly discriminatory against students of economic disadvantage. This point is not up for debate among serious people. It deeply favored students and families who were possessed of both the economic means and the parental motivation to leverage those means in the direction of optimizing the student's TJ application. For many reasons, in Northern Virginia that largely results in an advantage for students of Asian (and especially South Asian) descent. And the admissions statistics from prior classes bear that out very, very clearly - and combined with the Curie matter, provide a clear explanation for the dramatic overrepresentation of South Asians at TJ, who comprise about 5-7% of Northern Virginia's population but were hovering near 50% of incoming TJ classes between 2018-2024.

The new admissions process eliminated many of those advantages and indeed made it much more difficult for parents to leverage their resources to optimize TJ admissions outcomes. A staggering amount of mental gymnastics are required to observe a situation where a group that had a clear advantage in a process loses that advantage and refer to that loss as "racial discrimination".

The old process was discriminatory. Fixing it is the opposite of discrimination.

The new process sought to minimize that advantage.

The old process discriminated against dumb kids, too. Glad we were able to fix the lack of representation of poor and dumb kids at TJ.

There aren't any dumb kids at TJ. Pretending there are in order to serve your narrative makes you a horrible person, full stop.

I guess it's relative but many who had to be prepped for years to present well on the test always struggled to keep up.

This is an urban legend the parents of kids that didn’t get into to made up and perpetuate to make themselves feel better that their precious Larlo didn’t make the cut.

1) TJ math teachers disagree with you.

2) No one names their kid Larlo and you betray yourself as unserious when you keep using that name.

Ask the math teachers now what they think - too late they are retiring instead of having to teach remedial math. And on this forum, Larlo is used when pointing out Karens who make up facts because their privileged white kids couldn’t get in to TJ.

They’re not… retiring… at all…

Yes, I heard he wanted to go a different direction with his life, but the rest retired. I don't think this has anything to do with the narrative the C4TJ folks keep pushing.

Isn't "go in a different direction" a euphemism for "my job sucked"?

Without interviewing him directly, it's impossible to know his idiosyncratic reasons for leaving, but teaching some of the best math kids in the country (world) is a dream job of many math educators. It would take a big reason for most to "go in a different direction"

Not really. Sure, he got to teach many super-privileged kids with extensive outside enrichment but that may not be fulfilling for everyone. I don't know where he went but guessing it was for a higher paying job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I do not think Mr. Ng cares too much about money. If he does, he could pick a higher-paying job immediately after graduating from Cornell rather than teaching at TJ for many years.

By the way, he graduated from Stuyvesant High School, TJ's counterpart in New York City.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course, they are not retiring at all.

Mr. Sam Ng, one of the best TJ Math teachers of all time, quit his job in early February this year.

He is like 30 years old, a Cornell graduate of Class 2014.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Super Court can strike down any admission system that is considered unconstitutional.

Ask Harvard how they feel now. Harvard can still use the same admission system next year if it spares enough money for potential punitive damanges.

Apparently, FCPS does not have deep pockets like Harvard.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Establishing an admissions system which indirectly discriminates against asians (see page 39, paragraph 3 of the SCOTUS AA ruling). There is now a new basis for more lawsuits.

Asians are not discriminated against in TJ admissions. They have the highest acceptance rate and highest representation.

So you do not understand how the current Supreme Court thinks about equal protection? If they believe there was a deliberate, racially motivated effort to reduce the percentage of Asian kids at a school, they may well declare the system contrary to the Constitution, regardless of whether Asians are still statistically “over-represented.”

I suspect you do know this, but believe that you’ll convince people otherwise if you just copy and paste often enough.

If that is the justification for striking the new process down, all that would need to happen is for a new School Board to design either the exact same process or one that is relatively similar in order to pass muster.

The Court cannot mandate that a school system adopt a specific admissions system or any element of one.

Not sure it matters since FPCS system is race-blind so the Harvard case that used race as a factor in admissions isn't relevant.

The whole alleged purpose of the changes was racial. Just because a rule or law as written doesn't mention race or a discriminatory purpose doesn't necessarily mean that's not the actual purpose. It can still have a discriminatory effect.

For example, an effect of discriminating against Asians in favor of Whites.

The new admissions process does not discriminate against any race.

Neither did literacy tests and poll taxes to vote.

Yikes.

It appears that this requires explanation again, as a persistent lack of comprehension in this forum, whether out of convenience or ignorance, causes this thread to stagnate.

The previous admissions process was manifestly discriminatory against students of economic disadvantage. This point is not up for debate among serious people. It deeply favored students and families who were possessed of both the economic means and the parental motivation to leverage those means in the direction of optimizing the student's TJ application. For many reasons, in Northern Virginia that largely results in an advantage for students of Asian (and especially South Asian) descent. And the admissions statistics from prior classes bear that out very, very clearly - and combined with the Curie matter, provide a clear explanation for the dramatic overrepresentation of South Asians at TJ, who comprise about 5-7% of Northern Virginia's population but were hovering near 50% of incoming TJ classes between 2018-2024.

The new admissions process eliminated many of those advantages and indeed made it much more difficult for parents to leverage their resources to optimize TJ admissions outcomes. A staggering amount of mental gymnastics are required to observe a situation where a group that had a clear advantage in a process loses that advantage and refer to that loss as "racial discrimination".

The old process was discriminatory. Fixing it is the opposite of discrimination.

The new process sought to minimize that advantage.

The old process discriminated against dumb kids, too. Glad we were able to fix the lack of representation of poor and dumb kids at TJ.

There aren't any dumb kids at TJ. Pretending there are in order to serve your narrative makes you a horrible person, full stop.

I guess it's relative but many who had to be prepped for years to present well on the test always struggled to keep up.

This is an urban legend the parents of kids that didn’t get into to made up and perpetuate to make themselves feel better that their precious Larlo didn’t make the cut.

1) TJ math teachers disagree with you.

2) No one names their kid Larlo and you betray yourself as unserious when you keep using that name.

Ask the math teachers now what they think - too late they are retiring instead of having to teach remedial math. And on this forum, Larlo is used when pointing out Karens who make up facts because their privileged white kids couldn’t get in to TJ.

They’re not… retiring… at all…

Yes, I heard he wanted to go a different direction with his life, but the rest retired. I don't think this has anything to do with the narrative the C4TJ folks keep pushing.

Isn't "go in a different direction" a euphemism for "my job sucked"?

Without interviewing him directly, it's impossible to know his idiosyncratic reasons for leaving, but teaching some of the best math kids in the country (world) is a dream job of many math educators. It would take a big reason for most to "go in a different direction"

Not really. Sure, he got to teach many super-privileged kids with extensive outside enrichment but that may not be fulfilling for everyone. I don't know where he went but guessing it was for a higher paying job.

A simple LinkedIn search shows that his new job is MUCH higher paying than what he would have gotten as a math teacher in FCPS. At least double, in all likelihood.

People’s priorities have a way of changing as they transition from their twenties to their thirties.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course, they are not retiring at all.

Mr. Sam Ng, one of the best TJ Math teachers of all time, quit his job in early February this year.

He is like 30 years old, a Cornell graduate of Class 2014.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Super Court can strike down any admission system that is considered unconstitutional.

Ask Harvard how they feel now. Harvard can still use the same admission system next year if it spares enough money for potential punitive damanges.

Apparently, FCPS does not have deep pockets like Harvard.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Establishing an admissions system which indirectly discriminates against asians (see page 39, paragraph 3 of the SCOTUS AA ruling). There is now a new basis for more lawsuits.

Asians are not discriminated against in TJ admissions. They have the highest acceptance rate and highest representation.

So you do not understand how the current Supreme Court thinks about equal protection? If they believe there was a deliberate, racially motivated effort to reduce the percentage of Asian kids at a school, they may well declare the system contrary to the Constitution, regardless of whether Asians are still statistically “over-represented.”

I suspect you do know this, but believe that you’ll convince people otherwise if you just copy and paste often enough.

If that is the justification for striking the new process down, all that would need to happen is for a new School Board to design either the exact same process or one that is relatively similar in order to pass muster.

The Court cannot mandate that a school system adopt a specific admissions system or any element of one.

Not sure it matters since FPCS system is race-blind so the Harvard case that used race as a factor in admissions isn't relevant.

The whole alleged purpose of the changes was racial. Just because a rule or law as written doesn't mention race or a discriminatory purpose doesn't necessarily mean that's not the actual purpose. It can still have a discriminatory effect.

For example, an effect of discriminating against Asians in favor of Whites.

The new admissions process does not discriminate against any race.

Neither did literacy tests and poll taxes to vote.

Yikes.

It appears that this requires explanation again, as a persistent lack of comprehension in this forum, whether out of convenience or ignorance, causes this thread to stagnate.

The previous admissions process was manifestly discriminatory against students of economic disadvantage. This point is not up for debate among serious people. It deeply favored students and families who were possessed of both the economic means and the parental motivation to leverage those means in the direction of optimizing the student's TJ application. For many reasons, in Northern Virginia that largely results in an advantage for students of Asian (and especially South Asian) descent. And the admissions statistics from prior classes bear that out very, very clearly - and combined with the Curie matter, provide a clear explanation for the dramatic overrepresentation of South Asians at TJ, who comprise about 5-7% of Northern Virginia's population but were hovering near 50% of incoming TJ classes between 2018-2024.

The new admissions process eliminated many of those advantages and indeed made it much more difficult for parents to leverage their resources to optimize TJ admissions outcomes. A staggering amount of mental gymnastics are required to observe a situation where a group that had a clear advantage in a process loses that advantage and refer to that loss as "racial discrimination".

The old process was discriminatory. Fixing it is the opposite of discrimination.

The new process sought to minimize that advantage.

The old process discriminated against dumb kids, too. Glad we were able to fix the lack of representation of poor and dumb kids at TJ.

There aren't any dumb kids at TJ. Pretending there are in order to serve your narrative makes you a horrible person, full stop.

I guess it's relative but many who had to be prepped for years to present well on the test always struggled to keep up.

This is an urban legend the parents of kids that didn’t get into to made up and perpetuate to make themselves feel better that their precious Larlo didn’t make the cut.

1) TJ math teachers disagree with you.

2) No one names their kid Larlo and you betray yourself as unserious when you keep using that name.

Ask the math teachers now what they think - too late they are retiring instead of having to teach remedial math. And on this forum, Larlo is used when pointing out Karens who make up facts because their privileged white kids couldn’t get in to TJ.

They’re not… retiring… at all…

Yes, I heard he wanted to go a different direction with his life, but the rest retired. I don't think this has anything to do with the narrative the C4TJ folks keep pushing.

Isn't "go in a different direction" a euphemism for "my job sucked"?

Without interviewing him directly, it's impossible to know his idiosyncratic reasons for leaving, but teaching some of the best math kids in the country (world) is a dream job of many math educators. It would take a big reason for most to "go in a different direction"

I guess teaching mostly privileged and cocky rich kids isn't that rewarding.

[Anonymous]

MIT professors certainly enjoy teaching the most talented kids in the world. one of the biggest reasons why they stay there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course, they are not retiring at all.

Mr. Sam Ng, one of the best TJ Math teachers of all time, quit his job in early February this year.

He is like 30 years old, a Cornell graduate of Class 2014.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Super Court can strike down any admission system that is considered unconstitutional.

Ask Harvard how they feel now. Harvard can still use the same admission system next year if it spares enough money for potential punitive damanges.

Apparently, FCPS does not have deep pockets like Harvard.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Establishing an admissions system which indirectly discriminates against asians (see page 39, paragraph 3 of the SCOTUS AA ruling). There is now a new basis for more lawsuits.

Asians are not discriminated against in TJ admissions. They have the highest acceptance rate and highest representation.

So you do not understand how the current Supreme Court thinks about equal protection? If they believe there was a deliberate, racially motivated effort to reduce the percentage of Asian kids at a school, they may well declare the system contrary to the Constitution, regardless of whether Asians are still statistically “over-represented.”

I suspect you do know this, but believe that you’ll convince people otherwise if you just copy and paste often enough.

If that is the justification for striking the new process down, all that would need to happen is for a new School Board to design either the exact same process or one that is relatively similar in order to pass muster.

The Court cannot mandate that a school system adopt a specific admissions system or any element of one.

Not sure it matters since FPCS system is race-blind so the Harvard case that used race as a factor in admissions isn't relevant.

The whole alleged purpose of the changes was racial. Just because a rule or law as written doesn't mention race or a discriminatory purpose doesn't necessarily mean that's not the actual purpose. It can still have a discriminatory effect.

For example, an effect of discriminating against Asians in favor of Whites.

The new admissions process does not discriminate against any race.

Neither did literacy tests and poll taxes to vote.

Yikes.

It appears that this requires explanation again, as a persistent lack of comprehension in this forum, whether out of convenience or ignorance, causes this thread to stagnate.

The previous admissions process was manifestly discriminatory against students of economic disadvantage. This point is not up for debate among serious people. It deeply favored students and families who were possessed of both the economic means and the parental motivation to leverage those means in the direction of optimizing the student's TJ application. For many reasons, in Northern Virginia that largely results in an advantage for students of Asian (and especially South Asian) descent. And the admissions statistics from prior classes bear that out very, very clearly - and combined with the Curie matter, provide a clear explanation for the dramatic overrepresentation of South Asians at TJ, who comprise about 5-7% of Northern Virginia's population but were hovering near 50% of incoming TJ classes between 2018-2024.

The new admissions process eliminated many of those advantages and indeed made it much more difficult for parents to leverage their resources to optimize TJ admissions outcomes. A staggering amount of mental gymnastics are required to observe a situation where a group that had a clear advantage in a process loses that advantage and refer to that loss as "racial discrimination".

The old process was discriminatory. Fixing it is the opposite of discrimination.

The new process sought to minimize that advantage.

The old process discriminated against dumb kids, too. Glad we were able to fix the lack of representation of poor and dumb kids at TJ.

There aren't any dumb kids at TJ. Pretending there are in order to serve your narrative makes you a horrible person, full stop.

I guess it's relative but many who had to be prepped for years to present well on the test always struggled to keep up.

This is an urban legend the parents of kids that didn’t get into to made up and perpetuate to make themselves feel better that their precious Larlo didn’t make the cut.

1) TJ math teachers disagree with you.

2) No one names their kid Larlo and you betray yourself as unserious when you keep using that name.

Ask the math teachers now what they think - too late they are retiring instead of having to teach remedial math. And on this forum, Larlo is used when pointing out Karens who make up facts because their privileged white kids couldn’t get in to TJ.

They’re not… retiring… at all…

Yes, I heard he wanted to go a different direction with his life, but the rest retired. I don't think this has anything to do with the narrative the C4TJ folks keep pushing.

Isn't "go in a different direction" a euphemism for "my job sucked"?

Without interviewing him directly, it's impossible to know his idiosyncratic reasons for leaving, but teaching some of the best math kids in the country (world) is a dream job of many math educators. It would take a big reason for most to "go in a different direction"

I guess teaching mostly privileged and cocky rich kids isn't that rewarding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:MIT professors certainly enjoy teaching the most talented kids in the world. one of the biggest reasons why they stay there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course, they are not retiring at all.

Mr. Sam Ng, one of the best TJ Math teachers of all time, quit his job in early February this year.

He is like 30 years old, a Cornell graduate of Class 2014.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Super Court can strike down any admission system that is considered unconstitutional.

Ask Harvard how they feel now. Harvard can still use the same admission system next year if it spares enough money for potential punitive damanges.

Apparently, FCPS does not have deep pockets like Harvard.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Establishing an admissions system which indirectly discriminates against asians (see page 39, paragraph 3 of the SCOTUS AA ruling). There is now a new basis for more lawsuits.

Asians are not discriminated against in TJ admissions. They have the highest acceptance rate and highest representation.

So you do not understand how the current Supreme Court thinks about equal protection? If they believe there was a deliberate, racially motivated effort to reduce the percentage of Asian kids at a school, they may well declare the system contrary to the Constitution, regardless of whether Asians are still statistically “over-represented.”

I suspect you do know this, but believe that you’ll convince people otherwise if you just copy and paste often enough.

If that is the justification for striking the new process down, all that would need to happen is for a new School Board to design either the exact same process or one that is relatively similar in order to pass muster.

The Court cannot mandate that a school system adopt a specific admissions system or any element of one.

Not sure it matters since FPCS system is race-blind so the Harvard case that used race as a factor in admissions isn't relevant.

The whole alleged purpose of the changes was racial. Just because a rule or law as written doesn't mention race or a discriminatory purpose doesn't necessarily mean that's not the actual purpose. It can still have a discriminatory effect.

For example, an effect of discriminating against Asians in favor of Whites.

The new admissions process does not discriminate against any race.

Neither did literacy tests and poll taxes to vote.

Yikes.

It appears that this requires explanation again, as a persistent lack of comprehension in this forum, whether out of convenience or ignorance, causes this thread to stagnate.

The previous admissions process was manifestly discriminatory against students of economic disadvantage. This point is not up for debate among serious people. It deeply favored students and families who were possessed of both the economic means and the parental motivation to leverage those means in the direction of optimizing the student's TJ application. For many reasons, in Northern Virginia that largely results in an advantage for students of Asian (and especially South Asian) descent. And the admissions statistics from prior classes bear that out very, very clearly - and combined with the Curie matter, provide a clear explanation for the dramatic overrepresentation of South Asians at TJ, who comprise about 5-7% of Northern Virginia's population but were hovering near 50% of incoming TJ classes between 2018-2024.

The new admissions process eliminated many of those advantages and indeed made it much more difficult for parents to leverage their resources to optimize TJ admissions outcomes. A staggering amount of mental gymnastics are required to observe a situation where a group that had a clear advantage in a process loses that advantage and refer to that loss as "racial discrimination".

The old process was discriminatory. Fixing it is the opposite of discrimination.

The new process sought to minimize that advantage.

The old process discriminated against dumb kids, too. Glad we were able to fix the lack of representation of poor and dumb kids at TJ.

There aren't any dumb kids at TJ. Pretending there are in order to serve your narrative makes you a horrible person, full stop.

I guess it's relative but many who had to be prepped for years to present well on the test always struggled to keep up.

This is an urban legend the parents of kids that didn’t get into to made up and perpetuate to make themselves feel better that their precious Larlo didn’t make the cut.

1) TJ math teachers disagree with you.

2) No one names their kid Larlo and you betray yourself as unserious when you keep using that name.

Ask the math teachers now what they think - too late they are retiring instead of having to teach remedial math. And on this forum, Larlo is used when pointing out Karens who make up facts because their privileged white kids couldn’t get in to TJ.

They’re not… retiring… at all…

Yes, I heard he wanted to go a different direction with his life, but the rest retired. I don't think this has anything to do with the narrative the C4TJ folks keep pushing.

Isn't "go in a different direction" a euphemism for "my job sucked"?

Without interviewing him directly, it's impossible to know his idiosyncratic reasons for leaving, but teaching some of the best math kids in the country (world) is a dream job of many math educators. It would take a big reason for most to "go in a different direction"

I guess teaching mostly privileged and cocky rich kids isn't that rewarding.

But sadly TJ is nothing like MIT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MIT professors certainly enjoy teaching the most talented kids in the world. one of the biggest reasons why they stay there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course, they are not retiring at all.

Mr. Sam Ng, one of the best TJ Math teachers of all time, quit his job in early February this year.

He is like 30 years old, a Cornell graduate of Class 2014.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Super Court can strike down any admission system that is considered unconstitutional.

Ask Harvard how they feel now. Harvard can still use the same admission system next year if it spares enough money for potential punitive damanges.

Apparently, FCPS does not have deep pockets like Harvard.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Establishing an admissions system which indirectly discriminates against asians (see page 39, paragraph 3 of the SCOTUS AA ruling). There is now a new basis for more lawsuits.

Asians are not discriminated against in TJ admissions. They have the highest acceptance rate and highest representation.

So you do not understand how the current Supreme Court thinks about equal protection? If they believe there was a deliberate, racially motivated effort to reduce the percentage of Asian kids at a school, they may well declare the system contrary to the Constitution, regardless of whether Asians are still statistically “over-represented.”

I suspect you do know this, but believe that you’ll convince people otherwise if you just copy and paste often enough.

If that is the justification for striking the new process down, all that would need to happen is for a new School Board to design either the exact same process or one that is relatively similar in order to pass muster.

The Court cannot mandate that a school system adopt a specific admissions system or any element of one.

Not sure it matters since FPCS system is race-blind so the Harvard case that used race as a factor in admissions isn't relevant.

The whole alleged purpose of the changes was racial. Just because a rule or law as written doesn't mention race or a discriminatory purpose doesn't necessarily mean that's not the actual purpose. It can still have a discriminatory effect.

For example, an effect of discriminating against Asians in favor of Whites.

The new admissions process does not discriminate against any race.

Neither did literacy tests and poll taxes to vote.

Yikes.

It appears that this requires explanation again, as a persistent lack of comprehension in this forum, whether out of convenience or ignorance, causes this thread to stagnate.

The previous admissions process was manifestly discriminatory against students of economic disadvantage. This point is not up for debate among serious people. It deeply favored students and families who were possessed of both the economic means and the parental motivation to leverage those means in the direction of optimizing the student's TJ application. For many reasons, in Northern Virginia that largely results in an advantage for students of Asian (and especially South Asian) descent. And the admissions statistics from prior classes bear that out very, very clearly - and combined with the Curie matter, provide a clear explanation for the dramatic overrepresentation of South Asians at TJ, who comprise about 5-7% of Northern Virginia's population but were hovering near 50% of incoming TJ classes between 2018-2024.

The new admissions process eliminated many of those advantages and indeed made it much more difficult for parents to leverage their resources to optimize TJ admissions outcomes. A staggering amount of mental gymnastics are required to observe a situation where a group that had a clear advantage in a process loses that advantage and refer to that loss as "racial discrimination".

The old process was discriminatory. Fixing it is the opposite of discrimination.

The new process sought to minimize that advantage.

The old process discriminated against dumb kids, too. Glad we were able to fix the lack of representation of poor and dumb kids at TJ.

There aren't any dumb kids at TJ. Pretending there are in order to serve your narrative makes you a horrible person, full stop.

I guess it's relative but many who had to be prepped for years to present well on the test always struggled to keep up.

This is an urban legend the parents of kids that didn’t get into to made up and perpetuate to make themselves feel better that their precious Larlo didn’t make the cut.

1) TJ math teachers disagree with you.

2) No one names their kid Larlo and you betray yourself as unserious when you keep using that name.

Ask the math teachers now what they think - too late they are retiring instead of having to teach remedial math. And on this forum, Larlo is used when pointing out Karens who make up facts because their privileged white kids couldn’t get in to TJ.

They’re not… retiring… at all…

Yes, I heard he wanted to go a different direction with his life, but the rest retired. I don't think this has anything to do with the narrative the C4TJ folks keep pushing.

Isn't "go in a different direction" a euphemism for "my job sucked"?

Without interviewing him directly, it's impossible to know his idiosyncratic reasons for leaving, but teaching some of the best math kids in the country (world) is a dream job of many math educators. It would take a big reason for most to "go in a different direction"

I guess teaching mostly privileged and cocky rich kids isn't that rewarding.

But sadly TJ is nothing like MIT.

Indeed. TJ remains approximately 65% Asian while MIT undergrad is only 34%.

[Anonymous]

That is the point. MIT should have had 65% ore more of asians if AA was illegal.

Too many stupid equity kids at MIT.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MIT professors certainly enjoy teaching the most talented kids in the world. one of the biggest reasons why they stay there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course, they are not retiring at all.

Mr. Sam Ng, one of the best TJ Math teachers of all time, quit his job in early February this year.

He is like 30 years old, a Cornell graduate of Class 2014.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Super Court can strike down any admission system that is considered unconstitutional.

Ask Harvard how they feel now. Harvard can still use the same admission system next year if it spares enough money for potential punitive damanges.

Apparently, FCPS does not have deep pockets like Harvard.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Establishing an admissions system which indirectly discriminates against asians (see page 39, paragraph 3 of the SCOTUS AA ruling). There is now a new basis for more lawsuits.

Asians are not discriminated against in TJ admissions. They have the highest acceptance rate and highest representation.

So you do not understand how the current Supreme Court thinks about equal protection? If they believe there was a deliberate, racially motivated effort to reduce the percentage of Asian kids at a school, they may well declare the system contrary to the Constitution, regardless of whether Asians are still statistically “over-represented.”

I suspect you do know this, but believe that you’ll convince people otherwise if you just copy and paste often enough.

If that is the justification for striking the new process down, all that would need to happen is for a new School Board to design either the exact same process or one that is relatively similar in order to pass muster.

The Court cannot mandate that a school system adopt a specific admissions system or any element of one.

Not sure it matters since FPCS system is race-blind so the Harvard case that used race as a factor in admissions isn't relevant.

The whole alleged purpose of the changes was racial. Just because a rule or law as written doesn't mention race or a discriminatory purpose doesn't necessarily mean that's not the actual purpose. It can still have a discriminatory effect.

For example, an effect of discriminating against Asians in favor of Whites.

The new admissions process does not discriminate against any race.

Neither did literacy tests and poll taxes to vote.

Yikes.

It appears that this requires explanation again, as a persistent lack of comprehension in this forum, whether out of convenience or ignorance, causes this thread to stagnate.

The previous admissions process was manifestly discriminatory against students of economic disadvantage. This point is not up for debate among serious people. It deeply favored students and families who were possessed of both the economic means and the parental motivation to leverage those means in the direction of optimizing the student's TJ application. For many reasons, in Northern Virginia that largely results in an advantage for students of Asian (and especially South Asian) descent. And the admissions statistics from prior classes bear that out very, very clearly - and combined with the Curie matter, provide a clear explanation for the dramatic overrepresentation of South Asians at TJ, who comprise about 5-7% of Northern Virginia's population but were hovering near 50% of incoming TJ classes between 2018-2024.

The new admissions process eliminated many of those advantages and indeed made it much more difficult for parents to leverage their resources to optimize TJ admissions outcomes. A staggering amount of mental gymnastics are required to observe a situation where a group that had a clear advantage in a process loses that advantage and refer to that loss as "racial discrimination".

The old process was discriminatory. Fixing it is the opposite of discrimination.

The new process sought to minimize that advantage.

The old process discriminated against dumb kids, too. Glad we were able to fix the lack of representation of poor and dumb kids at TJ.

There aren't any dumb kids at TJ. Pretending there are in order to serve your narrative makes you a horrible person, full stop.

I guess it's relative but many who had to be prepped for years to present well on the test always struggled to keep up.

This is an urban legend the parents of kids that didn’t get into to made up and perpetuate to make themselves feel better that their precious Larlo didn’t make the cut.

1) TJ math teachers disagree with you.

2) No one names their kid Larlo and you betray yourself as unserious when you keep using that name.

Ask the math teachers now what they think - too late they are retiring instead of having to teach remedial math. And on this forum, Larlo is used when pointing out Karens who make up facts because their privileged white kids couldn’t get in to TJ.

They’re not… retiring… at all…

Yes, I heard he wanted to go a different direction with his life, but the rest retired. I don't think this has anything to do with the narrative the C4TJ folks keep pushing.

Isn't "go in a different direction" a euphemism for "my job sucked"?

Without interviewing him directly, it's impossible to know his idiosyncratic reasons for leaving, but teaching some of the best math kids in the country (world) is a dream job of many math educators. It would take a big reason for most to "go in a different direction"

I guess teaching mostly privileged and cocky rich kids isn't that rewarding.

But sadly TJ is nothing like MIT.

Indeed. TJ remains approximately 65% Asian while MIT undergrad is only 34%.