TJ Students by FCPS Pyramid 2022-23

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That really depends on how the holding is phrased. Are you counting on this Court to rule narrowly? I'd think think it's more likely we get a language barring the use of race in admissions that we get language restricting the holding to the university level.

FCPS is claiming they are not using race in admissions to TJ. If a county opened a brand new school with the current admissions policy, there would be no case.
The racial discrimination is a finding by the judge that FCPS made these changes with intent to discriminate against Asians.
LCPS was more blatant in putting in a maximum quota per school, and claiming they weren't using geography as a proxy for race.

Except that's illegal in the United States. Admission is race blind. They do not know an applicant's race just their student ID and the information they provided in their essay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They need to put an upper bound on the percentage at these schools because it seems heavily skewed in favor of wealthier schools where people have the $$$ to buy enrichment. These programs should benefit all bright county residents, not unfairly benefit the wealthiest.

There is effectively an “upper bound,” due to the middle school quotas that ensure students from higher poverty areas get into TJ, even if they are less qualified.

Yes, an upper bound would help limit the impact of outside enrichment on admissions and ensure that all residents get equal access to these opportunities.

Kids had equal access to opportunities.

What the pork barrel politicians want is equal outcomes, but since they can’t pull that off they just mess around with TJ and tolerate much bigger disparities everywhere else.

That’s fine with the phonies behind TJAAG and their allies because it keeps TJ front and center, which plays to their endless narcissism.

Oh no they really didn't since those who could afford prep got early access to the test questions which gave them a huge edge over the less affluent schools.

Oh, please. They could have prepped through programs at those schools, too. They couldn’t compete on merit so the politicians had to come up with quotas.

The Highest Court in the Land will render its Decision in due time to dispense with the unjust affirmative action to preserve the notion of 'Equal Protection under the Law".

Since TJ admissions have always been race blind, I don't think the illegitimate supreme court's decision will have any bearing.

Yes, the case before SCOTUS is about race-based college admissions which isn't applicable to TJ since an applicant's race isn't known or considered.

That really depends on how the holding is phrased. Are you counting on this Court to rule narrowly? I'd think think it's more likely we get a language barring the use of race in admissions that we get language restricting the holding to the university level.

These are extremist hacks so everyone already knows how they'll rule. I can see the value of affirmative action but also why this is problematic. On the other hand, I don't see how it relates to TJ since applicant race is not known or used in admission unlike these elite colleges which seem to have quotas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That really depends on how the holding is phrased. Are you counting on this Court to rule narrowly? I'd think think it's more likely we get a language barring the use of race in admissions that we get language restricting the holding to the university level.

FCPS is claiming they are not using race in admissions to TJ. If a county opened a brand new school with the current admissions policy, there would be no case.
The racial discrimination is a finding by the judge that FCPS made these changes with intent to discriminate against Asians.
LCPS was more blatant in putting in a maximum quota per school, and claiming they weren't using geography as a proxy for race.

Except that's illegal in the United States. Admission is race blind. They do not know an applicant's race just their student ID and the information they provided in their essay.

They know what school the student attends. The policy of taking a minimum number per school, based on the racial distribution at different schools in FCPS, serves to discriminate by race.
It is a great way to reduce the number of Asians while claiming to be race blind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That really depends on how the holding is phrased. Are you counting on this Court to rule narrowly? I'd think think it's more likely we get a language barring the use of race in admissions that we get language restricting the holding to the university level.

FCPS is claiming they are not using race in admissions to TJ. If a county opened a brand new school with the current admissions policy, there would be no case.
The racial discrimination is a finding by the judge that FCPS made these changes with intent to discriminate against Asians.
LCPS was more blatant in putting in a maximum quota per school, and claiming they weren't using geography as a proxy for race.

Except that's illegal in the United States. Admission is race blind. They do not know an applicant's race just their student ID and the information they provided in their essay.

They know what school the student attends. The policy of taking a minimum number per school, based on the racial distribution at different schools in FCPS, serves to discriminate by race.
It is a great way to reduce the number of Asians while claiming to be race blind.

They take a minimum number per school. Hadn't heard anything about racial quotas but that's against the law so I'm skeptical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That really depends on how the holding is phrased. Are you counting on this Court to rule narrowly? I'd think think it's more likely we get a language barring the use of race in admissions that we get language restricting the holding to the university level.

FCPS is claiming they are not using race in admissions to TJ. If a county opened a brand new school with the current admissions policy, there would be no case.
The racial discrimination is a finding by the judge that FCPS made these changes with intent to discriminate against Asians.
LCPS was more blatant in putting in a maximum quota per school, and claiming they weren't using geography as a proxy for race.

This. The supporters of the admissions change want to pretend the factual record of the motivations behind the change doesn't exist and that the new policy can only be judged in the abstract. It is by no means clear, and in fact seems rather unlikely, that this will fly. There will be some language in at least one of the pending Supreme Court cases that those challenging the TJ changes will latch onto.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That really depends on how the holding is phrased. Are you counting on this Court to rule narrowly? I'd think think it's more likely we get a language barring the use of race in admissions that we get language restricting the holding to the university level.

FCPS is claiming they are not using race in admissions to TJ. If a county opened a brand new school with the current admissions policy, there would be no case.
The racial discrimination is a finding by the judge that FCPS made these changes with intent to discriminate against Asians.
LCPS was more blatant in putting in a maximum quota per school, and claiming they weren't using geography as a proxy for race.

Except that's illegal in the United States. Admission is race blind. They do not know an applicant's race just their student ID and the information they provided in their essay.

They know what school the student attends. The policy of taking a minimum number per school, based on the racial distribution at different schools in FCPS, serves to discriminate by race.
It is a great way to reduce the number of Asians while claiming to be race blind.

They take a minimum number per school. Hadn't heard anything about racial quotas but that's against the law so I'm skeptical.

Yes, their changes simply allow students at any school a minimum chance of admission and say nothing about race. The earlier poster is subscribing to alternative facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That really depends on how the holding is phrased. Are you counting on this Court to rule narrowly? I'd think think it's more likely we get a language barring the use of race in admissions that we get language restricting the holding to the university level.

FCPS is claiming they are not using race in admissions to TJ. If a county opened a brand new school with the current admissions policy, there would be no case.
The racial discrimination is a finding by the judge that FCPS made these changes with intent to discriminate against Asians.
LCPS was more blatant in putting in a maximum quota per school, and claiming they weren't using geography as a proxy for race.

This. The supporters of the admissions change want to pretend the factual record of the motivations behind the change doesn't exist and that the new policy can only be judged in the abstract. It is by no means clear, and in fact seems rather unlikely, that this will fly. There will be some language in at least one of the pending Supreme Court cases that those challenging the TJ changes will latch onto.

Didn't the later judge state they couldn't show any harm done since the selection was still roughly 70% Asian even after the changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That really depends on how the holding is phrased. Are you counting on this Court to rule narrowly? I'd think think it's more likely we get a language barring the use of race in admissions that we get language restricting the holding to the university level.

FCPS is claiming they are not using race in admissions to TJ. If a county opened a brand new school with the current admissions policy, there would be no case.
The racial discrimination is a finding by the judge that FCPS made these changes with intent to discriminate against Asians.
LCPS was more blatant in putting in a maximum quota per school, and claiming they weren't using geography as a proxy for race.

This. The supporters of the admissions change want to pretend the factual record of the motivations behind the change doesn't exist and that the new policy can only be judged in the abstract. It is by no means clear, and in fact seems rather unlikely, that this will fly. There will be some language in at least one of the pending Supreme Court cases that those challenging the TJ changes will latch onto.

Didn't the later judge state they couldn't show any harm done since the selection was still roughly 70% Asian even after the changes?

No. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals will probably wait until June for the SCOTUS decision on the AA and then rule few months after that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That really depends on how the holding is phrased. Are you counting on this Court to rule narrowly? I'd think think it's more likely we get a language barring the use of race in admissions that we get language restricting the holding to the university level.

FCPS is claiming they are not using race in admissions to TJ. If a county opened a brand new school with the current admissions policy, there would be no case.
The racial discrimination is a finding by the judge that FCPS made these changes with intent to discriminate against Asians.
LCPS was more blatant in putting in a maximum quota per school, and claiming they weren't using geography as a proxy for race.

This. The supporters of the admissions change want to pretend the factual record of the motivations behind the change doesn't exist and that the new policy can only be judged in the abstract. It is by no means clear, and in fact seems rather unlikely, that this will fly. There will be some language in at least one of the pending Supreme Court cases that those challenging the TJ changes will latch onto.

Didn't the later judge state they couldn't show any harm done since the selection was still roughly 70% Asian even after the changes?

No. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals will probably wait until June for the SCOTUS decision on the AA and then rule few months after that.

Unlikely since the cases aren't related. In TJ's case an applicant's race is not known whereas the college case is about racial quotas. Nevertheles, some people seem to think it's possible to have race discrimination without race LOL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That really depends on how the holding is phrased. Are you counting on this Court to rule narrowly? I'd think think it's more likely we get a language barring the use of race in admissions that we get language restricting the holding to the university level.

FCPS is claiming they are not using race in admissions to TJ. If a county opened a brand new school with the current admissions policy, there would be no case.
The racial discrimination is a finding by the judge that FCPS made these changes with intent to discriminate against Asians.
LCPS was more blatant in putting in a maximum quota per school, and claiming they weren't using geography as a proxy for race.

This. The supporters of the admissions change want to pretend the factual record of the motivations behind the change doesn't exist and that the new policy can only be judged in the abstract. It is by no means clear, and in fact seems rather unlikely, that this will fly. There will be some language in at least one of the pending Supreme Court cases that those challenging the TJ changes will latch onto.

Didn't the later judge state they couldn't show any harm done since the selection was still roughly 70% Asian even after the changes?

Yes, the group in question is doing better than any other so hard to show harm from these changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That really depends on how the holding is phrased. Are you counting on this Court to rule narrowly? I'd think think it's more likely we get a language barring the use of race in admissions that we get language restricting the holding to the university level.

FCPS is claiming they are not using race in admissions to TJ. If a county opened a brand new school with the current admissions policy, there would be no case.
The racial discrimination is a finding by the judge that FCPS made these changes with intent to discriminate against Asians.
LCPS was more blatant in putting in a maximum quota per school, and claiming they weren't using geography as a proxy for race.

This. The supporters of the admissions change want to pretend the factual record of the motivations behind the change doesn't exist and that the new policy can only be judged in the abstract. It is by no means clear, and in fact seems rather unlikely, that this will fly. There will be some language in at least one of the pending Supreme Court cases that those challenging the TJ changes will latch onto.

Didn't the later judge state they couldn't show any harm done since the selection was still roughly 70% Asian even after the changes?

Yes, the group in question is doing better than any other so hard to show harm from these changes.

Unless unintelligent and unwise fcps board members put it in wring they want to see fewer Asian students at TJ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: Nevertheless, some people seem to think it's possible to have race discrimination without race LOL.

The joke is on you. There have been many cases of race discrimination without race.
Perhaps you've heard of rules that you can only register to vote if your grandfather voted. No race discrimination there since there is no mention of race, right?
Poll taxes? Say one school is all Asian, while the other 9 schools are all white, and the school board says the seats are to be distributed equally among all schools. This would be using geography as a proxy for race. I don't know the Fairfax demographics well enough to say if this applies, but it is likely happening to some extent. More so in Loudoun which set a maximum quota per school, and Asians are dominating a handful of high schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That really depends on how the holding is phrased. Are you counting on this Court to rule narrowly? I'd think think it's more likely we get a language barring the use of race in admissions that we get language restricting the holding to the university level.

FCPS is claiming they are not using race in admissions to TJ. If a county opened a brand new school with the current admissions policy, there would be no case.
The racial discrimination is a finding by the judge that FCPS made these changes with intent to discriminate against Asians.
LCPS was more blatant in putting in a maximum quota per school, and claiming they weren't using geography as a proxy for race.

This. The supporters of the admissions change want to pretend the factual record of the motivations behind the change doesn't exist and that the new policy can only be judged in the abstract. It is by no means clear, and in fact seems rather unlikely, that this will fly. There will be some language in at least one of the pending Supreme Court cases that those challenging the TJ changes will latch onto.

Didn't the later judge state they couldn't show any harm done since the selection was still roughly 70% Asian even after the changes?

Yes, the group in question is doing better than any other so hard to show harm from these changes.

Unless unintelligent and unwise fcps board members put it in wring they want to see fewer Asian students at TJ.

No, 1 board member sharing her view that the new policy was anti Asian does not mean that the goal of ANY of the BOD members was to result in fewer Asian kids at TJ.

https://www.fairfaxtimes.com/articles/fairfax_county/school-board-members-called-process-for-tj-admissions-changes-anti-asian-racist-embarrassing/article_7ba0320e-74a0-11ec-bf93-4bf5ff6732bd.html

"...school board member Abrar Omeish wrote a text to fellow board member Stella Pekarsky about the admissions changes: “I mean there has been an anti asian feel underlying some of this, hate to say it lol.” And she pressed send.
Pekarsky, now the board chair, responded: “…I always told people that talking about TJ is a stupid waste of tome [sic]. It’s about making a political point.” Speaking about Asians, Omeish answered: “Of course it is…They’re discriminated against in this process too.”"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That really depends on how the holding is phrased. Are you counting on this Court to rule narrowly? I'd think think it's more likely we get a language barring the use of race in admissions that we get language restricting the holding to the university level.

FCPS is claiming they are not using race in admissions to TJ. If a county opened a brand new school with the current admissions policy, there would be no case.
The racial discrimination is a finding by the judge that FCPS made these changes with intent to discriminate against Asians.
LCPS was more blatant in putting in a maximum quota per school, and claiming they weren't using geography as a proxy for race.

This. The supporters of the admissions change want to pretend the factual record of the motivations behind the change doesn't exist and that the new policy can only be judged in the abstract. It is by no means clear, and in fact seems rather unlikely, that this will fly. There will be some language in at least one of the pending Supreme Court cases that those challenging the TJ changes will latch onto.

Didn't the later judge state they couldn't show any harm done since the selection was still roughly 70% Asian even after the changes?

Yes, the group in question is doing better than any other so hard to show harm from these changes.

Unless unintelligent and unwise fcps board members put it in wring they want to see fewer Asian students at TJ.

No, 1 board member sharing her view that the new policy was anti Asian does not mean that the goal of ANY of the BOD members was to result in fewer Asian kids at TJ.

https://www.fairfaxtimes.com/articles/fairfax_county/school-board-members-called-process-for-tj-admissions-changes-anti-asian-racist-embarrassing/article_7ba0320e-74a0-11ec-bf93-4bf5ff6732bd.html

"...school board member Abrar Omeish wrote a text to fellow board member Stella Pekarsky about the admissions changes: “I mean there has been an anti asian feel underlying some of this, hate to say it lol.” And she pressed send.
Pekarsky, now the board chair, responded: “…I always told people that talking about TJ is a stupid waste of tome [sic]. It’s about making a political point.” Speaking about Asians, Omeish answered: “Of course it is…They’re discriminated against in this process too.”"

There are other additional evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That really depends on how the holding is phrased. Are you counting on this Court to rule narrowly? I'd think think it's more likely we get a language barring the use of race in admissions that we get language restricting the holding to the university level.

FCPS is claiming they are not using race in admissions to TJ. If a county opened a brand new school with the current admissions policy, there would be no case.
The racial discrimination is a finding by the judge that FCPS made these changes with intent to discriminate against Asians.
LCPS was more blatant in putting in a maximum quota per school, and claiming they weren't using geography as a proxy for race.

This. The supporters of the admissions change want to pretend the factual record of the motivations behind the change doesn't exist and that the new policy can only be judged in the abstract. It is by no means clear, and in fact seems rather unlikely, that this will fly. There will be some language in at least one of the pending Supreme Court cases that those challenging the TJ changes will latch onto.

Didn't the later judge state they couldn't show any harm done since the selection was still roughly 70% Asian even after the changes?

Yes, the group in question is doing better than any other so hard to show harm from these changes.

Unless unintelligent and unwise fcps board members put it in wring they want to see fewer Asian students at TJ.

#fakenews