U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts on Friday called for a response from a Virginia school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You mean Rich people are selfish, self serving opportunity hoggers ? I am shocked !

You mean poor people aren't selfish and opportunity hoggers?

What opportunities do you think poor people are hoarding?

People hoard whatever resources they do have. Calling people opportunity hoarders is like calling people food eaters. I can't believe they eat food. The nerve of them!!!!

Right. The point is that poor people DON’T have resources to hoard.

Some kids have ALL of the opportunities and some have very little.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"the seats allocated to each middle school are extremely limited (no FCPS middle school has more than a dozen guaranteed seats, see App. at 240a), there are few unallocated seats, and Asian- American applicants from feeder schools are at a marked disadvantage for the limited number of unallocated seats."

so the coalition's logic is both that few seats are allocated and that few seats are unallocated?

They are describing the mechanism designed by the board whereby Asian students who were previously eligible to apply, are now unable to apply for a majority of the seat positions.

But this is true of every student in the County. That's why this is a specious argument. The students who are at Poe also have a limited number of seats that they can apply to. Same with Hughes, same with Rocky Run, same with Luther Jackson.

This might be the single worst argument that one could make.

+1000. The Coalition doesn't have a single argument that doesn't rely on a comparison between the old admissions process and the new one - and the reason is because they know that if the new admissions process is evaluated on its own merits, it holds up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"the seats allocated to each middle school are extremely limited (no FCPS middle school has more than a dozen guaranteed seats, see App. at 240a), there are few unallocated seats, and Asian- American applicants from feeder schools are at a marked disadvantage for the limited number of unallocated seats."

so the coalition's logic is both that few seats are allocated and that few seats are unallocated?

They are describing the mechanism designed by the board whereby Asian students who were previously eligible to apply, are now unable to apply for a majority of the seat positions.

But this is true of every student in the County. That's why this is a specious argument. The students who are at Poe also have a limited number of seats that they can apply to. Same with Hughes, same with Rocky Run, same with Luther Jackson.

This might be the single worst argument that one could make.

+1000. The Coalition doesn't have a single argument that doesn't rely on a comparison between the old admissions process and the new one - and the reason is because they know that if the new admissions process is evaluated on its own merits, it holds up.

Exactly. Roberts still might buy into it just as Hilton did, which is funny because he was appointed by a guy who did basically the exact same thing when he was Governor of Texas with UT-Austin, but the point still stands. I still haven't seen a single point that's been made by the Coalition's lawyers that would still be valid if the previous process had never existed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"the seats allocated to each middle school are extremely limited (no FCPS middle school has more than a dozen guaranteed seats, see App. at 240a), there are few unallocated seats, and Asian- American applicants from feeder schools are at a marked disadvantage for the limited number of unallocated seats."

so the coalition's logic is both that few seats are allocated and that few seats are unallocated?

They are describing the mechanism designed by the board whereby Asian students who were previously eligible to apply, are now unable to apply for a majority of the seat positions.

But this is true of every student in the County. That's why this is a specious argument. The students who are at Poe also have a limited number of seats that they can apply to. Same with Hughes, same with Rocky Run, same with Luther Jackson.

This might be the single worst argument that one could make.

+1000. The Coalition doesn't have a single argument that doesn't rely on a comparison between the old admissions process and the new one - and the reason is because they know that if the new admissions process is evaluated on its own merits, it holds up.

Two reactions:

First, you're reading quite a bit out of the law addressing discrimination for purposes of the equal protection clause if you set aside discriminatory intent.

Second, it's quite odd that the county encouraged AAP students to attend AAP centers, saw that so many Asian kids attend the AAP centers, and then allocated seats to a Governor's school for gifted students by middle school without regard to the base schools to which those students were assigned.

[Anonymous]

The funny thing is that in a couple of years, even under the new system TJ will return to being 70% Asian. Asians value that more than others and will disperse geographically.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The funny thing is that in a couple of years, even under the new system TJ will return to being 70% Asian. Asians value that more than others and will disperse geographically.

+1 and they won't have to spend more on inflated housing prices in McLean.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"the seats allocated to each middle school are extremely limited (no FCPS middle school has more than a dozen guaranteed seats, see App. at 240a), there are few unallocated seats, and Asian- American applicants from feeder schools are at a marked disadvantage for the limited number of unallocated seats."

so the coalition's logic is both that few seats are allocated and that few seats are unallocated?

They are describing the mechanism designed by the board whereby Asian students who were previously eligible to apply, are now unable to apply for a majority of the seat positions.

But this is true of every student in the County. That's why this is a specious argument. The students who are at Poe also have a limited number of seats that they can apply to. Same with Hughes, same with Rocky Run, same with Luther Jackson.

This might be the single worst argument that one could make.

The purpose of the paragraph is to say FCPS's TJ plan is not the same as Texas's "Top Ten Percent" plan.

FCPS had previously argued that upending the TJ plan is in essence also upending Texas's "Top Ten Percent" plan. By invalidating the TJ plan you're going against precedent.

The coalition is saying allocating no more than a dozen kids from each school hardly constitutes strict comparison to the "Top Ten Percent" plan. The rest of the paragraph outlines other reasons why the TJ plan isn't tied to the hip of the "Top Ten Percent" plan.

Essentially, the previous court's decision on the "Top Ten Percent" plan has limited bearing on the constitutionality of the TJ plan. There are too many differences, and the TJ plan needs to be judged on its own merits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"the seats allocated to each middle school are extremely limited (no FCPS middle school has more than a dozen guaranteed seats, see App. at 240a), there are few unallocated seats, and Asian- American applicants from feeder schools are at a marked disadvantage for the limited number of unallocated seats."

so the coalition's logic is both that few seats are allocated and that few seats are unallocated?

They are describing the mechanism designed by the board whereby Asian students who were previously eligible to apply, are now unable to apply for a majority of the seat positions.

But this is true of every student in the County. That's why this is a specious argument. The students who are at Poe also have a limited number of seats that they can apply to. Same with Hughes, same with Rocky Run, same with Luther Jackson.

This might be the single worst argument that one could make.

The purpose of the paragraph is to say FCPS's TJ plan is not the same as Texas's "Top Ten Percent" plan.

FCPS had previously argued that upending the TJ plan is in essence also upending Texas's "Top Ten Percent" plan. By invalidating the TJ plan you're going against precedent.

The coalition is saying allocating no more than a dozen kids from each school hardly constitutes strict comparison to the "Top Ten Percent" plan. The rest of the paragraph outlines other reasons why the TJ plan isn't tied to the hip of the "Top Ten Percent" plan.

Essentially, the previous court's decision on the "Top Ten Percent" plan has limited bearing on the constitutionality of the TJ plan. There are too many differences, and the TJ plan needs to be judged on its own merits.

The PLF didn't come close to making that point adequately. They might as well have said that it's not the same because we're not in Texas - that would have been equally relevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"the seats allocated to each middle school are extremely limited (no FCPS middle school has more than a dozen guaranteed seats, see App. at 240a), there are few unallocated seats, and Asian- American applicants from feeder schools are at a marked disadvantage for the limited number of unallocated seats."

so the coalition's logic is both that few seats are allocated and that few seats are unallocated?

They are describing the mechanism designed by the board whereby Asian students who were previously eligible to apply, are now unable to apply for a majority of the seat positions.

But this is true of every student in the County. That's why this is a specious argument. The students who are at Poe also have a limited number of seats that they can apply to. Same with Hughes, same with Rocky Run, same with Luther Jackson.

This might be the single worst argument that one could make.

+1000. The Coalition doesn't have a single argument that doesn't rely on a comparison between the old admissions process and the new one - and the reason is because they know that if the new admissions process is evaluated on its own merits, it holds up.

Two reactions:

First, you're reading quite a bit out of the law addressing discrimination for purposes of the equal protection clause if you set aside discriminatory intent.

Second, it's quite odd that the county encouraged AAP students to attend AAP centers, saw that so many Asian kids attend the AAP centers, and then allocated seats to a Governor's school for gifted students by middle school without regard to the base schools to which those students were assigned.

Exactly. Asians (which is composed of a plethora of many different races by the way) were screwed by the more essay-heavy criteria and eliminating the math test (Asians' strong suit is in maths), allocation of seats by attending school (not base school, so students in AAP which are heavily Asian is also at a disadvantage), and basing grades off of any core courses instead of giving any more weight to more difficult courses (like Algebra II). I mean could they have tried any harder to put the Asians down?

Just go to the chat rooms and instagram message groups in AAP middle schools. The Asian students are pissed. There is genuine resentment fermenting, even for those who are not considering TJ. You can argue until the sun sets, but it doesn't change the fact that the students feel discriminated against and the adults are stoking hatred by this new process. These kids will grow up to be your doctors, scientists, and engineers.

It would be another matter to find an intelligent system to nurture and discover/identify talent in other ethnic groups in FCPS. To the current flock of Asian students, you have simply changed the rules of the game so that they are disadvantaged at every turn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"the seats allocated to each middle school are extremely limited (no FCPS middle school has more than a dozen guaranteed seats, see App. at 240a), there are few unallocated seats, and Asian- American applicants from feeder schools are at a marked disadvantage for the limited number of unallocated seats."

so the coalition's logic is both that few seats are allocated and that few seats are unallocated?

They are describing the mechanism designed by the board whereby Asian students who were previously eligible to apply, are now unable to apply for a majority of the seat positions.

But this is true of every student in the County. That's why this is a specious argument. The students who are at Poe also have a limited number of seats that they can apply to. Same with Hughes, same with Rocky Run, same with Luther Jackson.

This might be the single worst argument that one could make.

The purpose of the paragraph is to say FCPS's TJ plan is not the same as Texas's "Top Ten Percent" plan.

FCPS had previously argued that upending the TJ plan is in essence also upending Texas's "Top Ten Percent" plan. By invalidating the TJ plan you're going against precedent.

The coalition is saying allocating no more than a dozen kids from each school hardly constitutes strict comparison to the "Top Ten Percent" plan. The rest of the paragraph outlines other reasons why the TJ plan isn't tied to the hip of the "Top Ten Percent" plan.

Essentially, the previous court's decision on the "Top Ten Percent" plan has limited bearing on the constitutionality of the TJ plan. There are too many differences, and the TJ plan needs to be judged on its own merits.

Here is where they were semi-correct:

"Asian-American applicants from feeder schools are at a marked disadvantage for the limited number of unallocated seats".

But there are two problems with this assertion:

1) Students of other races at those feeder schools were ALSO disadvantaged in exactly the same way, and at none of those schools do Asians constitute a majority;

2) Asian-American students at non-feeder schools were ADVANTAGED by the new process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"the seats allocated to each middle school are extremely limited (no FCPS middle school has more than a dozen guaranteed seats, see App. at 240a), there are few unallocated seats, and Asian- American applicants from feeder schools are at a marked disadvantage for the limited number of unallocated seats."

so the coalition's logic is both that few seats are allocated and that few seats are unallocated?

They are describing the mechanism designed by the board whereby Asian students who were previously eligible to apply, are now unable to apply for a majority of the seat positions.

But this is true of every student in the County. That's why this is a specious argument. The students who are at Poe also have a limited number of seats that they can apply to. Same with Hughes, same with Rocky Run, same with Luther Jackson.

This might be the single worst argument that one could make.

Are you saying that facially neutral mechanisms are always proper? Lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You mean Rich people are selfish, self serving opportunity hoggers ? I am shocked !

You mean poor people aren't selfish and opportunity hoggers?

What opportunities do you think poor people are hoarding?

People hoard whatever resources they do have. Calling people opportunity hoarders is like calling people food eaters. I can't believe they eat food. The nerve of them!!!!

Right. The point is that poor people DON’T have resources to hoard.

Some kids have ALL of the opportunities and some have very little.

Sure they do, poor people in the US have homes to live in, clothes to wear, TVs, cellphones, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"the seats allocated to each middle school are extremely limited (no FCPS middle school has more than a dozen guaranteed seats, see App. at 240a), there are few unallocated seats, and Asian- American applicants from feeder schools are at a marked disadvantage for the limited number of unallocated seats."

so the coalition's logic is both that few seats are allocated and that few seats are unallocated?

They are describing the mechanism designed by the board whereby Asian students who were previously eligible to apply, are now unable to apply for a majority of the seat positions.

But this is true of every student in the County. That's why this is a specious argument. The students who are at Poe also have a limited number of seats that they can apply to. Same with Hughes, same with Rocky Run, same with Luther Jackson.

This might be the single worst argument that one could make.

+1000. The Coalition doesn't have a single argument that doesn't rely on a comparison between the old admissions process and the new one - and the reason is because they know that if the new admissions process is evaluated on its own merits, it holds up.

Two reactions:

First, you're reading quite a bit out of the law addressing discrimination for purposes of the equal protection clause if you set aside discriminatory intent.

Second, it's quite odd that the county encouraged AAP students to attend AAP centers, saw that so many Asian kids attend the AAP centers, and then allocated seats to a Governor's school for gifted students by middle school without regard to the base schools to which those students were assigned.

Exactly. Asians (which is composed of a plethora of many different races by the way) were screwed by the more essay-heavy criteria and eliminating the math test (Asians' strong suit is in maths), allocation of seats by attending school (not base school, so students in AAP which are heavily Asian is also at a disadvantage), and basing grades off of any core courses instead of giving any more weight to more difficult courses (like Algebra II). I mean could they have tried any harder to put the Asians down?

Just go to the chat rooms and instagram message groups in AAP middle schools. The Asian students are pissed. There is genuine resentment fermenting, even for those who are not considering TJ. You can argue until the sun sets, but it doesn't change the fact that the students feel discriminated against and the adults are stoking hatred by this new process. These kids will grow up to be your doctors, scientists, and engineers.

It would be another matter to find an intelligent system to nurture and discover/identify talent in other ethnic groups in FCPS. To the current flock of Asian students, you have simply changed the rules of the game so that they are disadvantaged at every turn.

Change "Asian" with "Students good at maths" and everything continues to apply. That is what is scary about this whole thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"the seats allocated to each middle school are extremely limited (no FCPS middle school has more than a dozen guaranteed seats, see App. at 240a), there are few unallocated seats, and Asian- American applicants from feeder schools are at a marked disadvantage for the limited number of unallocated seats."

so the coalition's logic is both that few seats are allocated and that few seats are unallocated?

They are describing the mechanism designed by the board whereby Asian students who were previously eligible to apply, are now unable to apply for a majority of the seat positions.

But this is true of every student in the County. That's why this is a specious argument. The students who are at Poe also have a limited number of seats that they can apply to. Same with Hughes, same with Rocky Run, same with Luther Jackson.

This might be the single worst argument that one could make.

The purpose of the paragraph is to say FCPS's TJ plan is not the same as Texas's "Top Ten Percent" plan.

FCPS had previously argued that upending the TJ plan is in essence also upending Texas's "Top Ten Percent" plan. By invalidating the TJ plan you're going against precedent.

The coalition is saying allocating no more than a dozen kids from each school hardly constitutes strict comparison to the "Top Ten Percent" plan. The rest of the paragraph outlines other reasons why the TJ plan isn't tied to the hip of the "Top Ten Percent" plan.

Essentially, the previous court's decision on the "Top Ten Percent" plan has limited bearing on the constitutionality of the TJ plan. There are too many differences, and the TJ plan needs to be judged on its own merits.

Here is where they were semi-correct:

"Asian-American applicants from feeder schools are at a marked disadvantage for the limited number of unallocated seats".

But there are two problems with this assertion:

1) Students of other races at those feeder schools were ALSO disadvantaged in exactly the same way, and at none of those schools do Asians constitute a majority;

2) Asian-American students at non-feeder schools were ADVANTAGED by the new process.

Excellent point! Approximately 2300 Asian American students attend TJ "feeder middle schools" and approximately 3,500 Asian American students attend middle schools that are not considered "TJ feeders". So it would appear that a greater number of Asian Americans could have actually benefited from this new process than might have been harmed by it - putting the lie AGAIN to the idea that this was about hurting Asian Americans.

And we can even go further by looking at the demographic composition of the feeder schools in question! Those feeder schools as a whole are only 32.4% Asian to begin with, and they're 36.7% white! So even if we accept that the goal was depress the total population from TJ feeder schools, there were more white students directly impacted by that policy than Asian students!

https://schoolprofiles.fcps.edu/schlprfl/f?p=108%3A8

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"the seats allocated to each middle school are extremely limited (no FCPS middle school has more than a dozen guaranteed seats, see App. at 240a), there are few unallocated seats, and Asian- American applicants from feeder schools are at a marked disadvantage for the limited number of unallocated seats."

so the coalition's logic is both that few seats are allocated and that few seats are unallocated?

They are describing the mechanism designed by the board whereby Asian students who were previously eligible to apply, are now unable to apply for a majority of the seat positions.

But this is true of every student in the County. That's why this is a specious argument. The students who are at Poe also have a limited number of seats that they can apply to. Same with Hughes, same with Rocky Run, same with Luther Jackson.

This might be the single worst argument that one could make.

The purpose of the paragraph is to say FCPS's TJ plan is not the same as Texas's "Top Ten Percent" plan.

FCPS had previously argued that upending the TJ plan is in essence also upending Texas's "Top Ten Percent" plan. By invalidating the TJ plan you're going against precedent.

The coalition is saying allocating no more than a dozen kids from each school hardly constitutes strict comparison to the "Top Ten Percent" plan. The rest of the paragraph outlines other reasons why the TJ plan isn't tied to the hip of the "Top Ten Percent" plan.

Essentially, the previous court's decision on the "Top Ten Percent" plan has limited bearing on the constitutionality of the TJ plan. There are too many differences, and the TJ plan needs to be judged on its own merits.

Here is where they were semi-correct:

"Asian-American applicants from feeder schools are at a marked disadvantage for the limited number of unallocated seats".

But there are two problems with this assertion:

1) Students of other races at those feeder schools were ALSO disadvantaged in exactly the same way, and at none of those schools do Asians constitute a majority;

2) Asian-American students at non-feeder schools were ADVANTAGED by the new process.

Excellent point! Approximately 2300 Asian American students attend TJ "feeder middle schools" and approximately 3,500 Asian American students attend middle schools that are not considered "TJ feeders". So it would appear that a greater number of Asian Americans could have actually benefited from this new process than might have been harmed by it - putting the lie AGAIN to the idea that this was about hurting Asian Americans.

And we can even go further by looking at the demographic composition of the feeder schools in question! Those feeder schools as a whole are only 32.4% Asian to begin with, and they're 36.7% white! So even if we accept that the goal was depress the total population from TJ feeder schools, there were more white students directly impacted by that policy than Asian students!

https://schoolprofiles.fcps.edu/schlprfl/f?p=108%3A8

Wow - I didn't even know that was the case. You nailed it. Any way you look at this case, the Coalition has to narrow their definition of exactly who was harmed by the new policy to a smaller and smaller sliver of the total population.

So the majority of the students even at the two most Asian schools are NOT, in fact, Asian...

The plurality of the students at the feeder schools as a whole were white, and fewer than a third of the students at those schools are Asian...

There are more Asian students at non-feeder schools than there are at feeder schools....

This just keeps looking worse and worse for the Coalition as you dig deeper into the numbers.