Court: TJ's New Admission Policy Does Not Discriminate

[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: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%.

TJ admissions were and are easy to game. MIT, not so much.

Well, USAMO gold medalists and Regeneron finalists have a 90% rate of getting accepted to HYM, so these "gaming" parents should just pay Curie $20K to prep their kids to become USAMO/Regeneron winners, right? Sounds as easy-peasy as gaming the TJ admissions. /s

Your indication of snark is amusing, but ignores the fact that, especially in the case of Regeneron, that bill is usually a lot higher than $20K.

Please tell me the price tag for ensuring that my DS/DD will be recognized as one of the top 40 young scientists in the country. Folks are willing to pay upwards of $500K just to have a "good" college name on DS/DD's diploma - if the price tag is less than that, I'm sure that there will be plenty of demand for that service.

or...

please do not denigrate these kid's accomplishments by suggesting that money can buy achievement.

I think the suggestion is the parents help with some of these science fairs, sometimes using company resources. JFK's college thesis Why England Slept, and Profiles In Courage both had that type of assistance.

1) It's not a suggestion - they absolutely do if they feel it will help their kid win;

2) If the TJ Admissions process incentivizes parents to do whatever it takes to help their kid win, those who are sufficiently motivated and without scruples will spare no expense to make sure it happens.

This is why it's highly problematic to reference performance in certain competitions as indicative of "merit". It's entirely possible the kid did the work themselves, and it's also very possible that they didn't.

Let’s remove the kids from the parents altogether then. This way these kids won’t have any advantage whatsoever.

I think what PP wants to do is disregard any accomplishments that could possibly have been aided by someone else. So Olympic athletes who have good coaches should be disqualified. And the Nobel prize should not be given to children of former Nobel prize winners, because of the "incentives" structure that may lead unscrupulous Nobel prize winners to "make sure" their kids succeed.

I think what the PP wants to do is to treat TJ like an educational institution, not a competition or a prize.

I imagine that the PP wants to treat TJ like a governor's school intended to meet the needs of kids who are beyond the level of their same age peers and not as a feel good social experiment.

What is “beyond the level” of a child’s “same age peers” depends on the peer group, and that depends on the base school to which the child is assigned.

[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:

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%.

TJ admissions were and are easy to game. MIT, not so much.

Well, USAMO gold medalists and Regeneron finalists have a 90% rate of getting accepted to HYM, so these "gaming" parents should just pay Curie $20K to prep their kids to become USAMO/Regeneron winners, right? Sounds as easy-peasy as gaming the TJ admissions. /s

Your indication of snark is amusing, but ignores the fact that, especially in the case of Regeneron, that bill is usually a lot higher than $20K.

Please tell me the price tag for ensuring that my DS/DD will be recognized as one of the top 40 young scientists in the country. Folks are willing to pay upwards of $500K just to have a "good" college name on DS/DD's diploma - if the price tag is less than that, I'm sure that there will be plenty of demand for that service.

or...

please do not denigrate these kid's accomplishments by suggesting that money can buy achievement.

I think the suggestion is the parents help with some of these science fairs, sometimes using company resources. JFK's college thesis Why England Slept, and Profiles In Courage both had that type of assistance.

1) It's not a suggestion - they absolutely do if they feel it will help their kid win;

2) If the TJ Admissions process incentivizes parents to do whatever it takes to help their kid win, those who are sufficiently motivated and without scruples will spare no expense to make sure it happens.

This is why it's highly problematic to reference performance in certain competitions as indicative of "merit". It's entirely possible the kid did the work themselves, and it's also very possible that they didn't.

Let’s remove the kids from the parents altogether then. This way these kids won’t have any advantage whatsoever.

I think what PP wants to do is disregard any accomplishments that could possibly have been aided by someone else. So Olympic athletes who have good coaches should be disqualified. And the Nobel prize should not be given to children of former Nobel prize winners, because of the "incentives" structure that may lead unscrupulous Nobel prize winners to "make sure" their kids succeed.

I think what the PP wants to do is to treat TJ like an educational institution, not a competition or a prize.

I imagine that the PP wants to treat TJ like a governor's school intended to meet the needs of kids who are beyond the level of their same age peers and not as a feel good social experiment.

What is “beyond the level” of a child’s “same age peers” depends on the peer group, and that depends on the base school to which the child is assigned.

PP here, and I agree. There's also no doubt that the USAMO/JMO kids are beyond the level of their same age peers. There's no reason to discount elite accomplishments, especially when kids are already being judged against kids from their own school. No matter how much you try to make it a Carson vs. Whitmer thing, it's instead an elite Carson kid in honors precalc who made JMO and Mathcounts state vs. an equally privileged Carson kid who is in Algebra I honors and is barely above average, but who got essay training at a prep center thing.

[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:

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%.

TJ admissions were and are easy to game. MIT, not so much.

Well, USAMO gold medalists and Regeneron finalists have a 90% rate of getting accepted to HYM, so these "gaming" parents should just pay Curie $20K to prep their kids to become USAMO/Regeneron winners, right? Sounds as easy-peasy as gaming the TJ admissions. /s

Your indication of snark is amusing, but ignores the fact that, especially in the case of Regeneron, that bill is usually a lot higher than $20K.

Please tell me the price tag for ensuring that my DS/DD will be recognized as one of the top 40 young scientists in the country. Folks are willing to pay upwards of $500K just to have a "good" college name on DS/DD's diploma - if the price tag is less than that, I'm sure that there will be plenty of demand for that service.

or...

please do not denigrate these kid's accomplishments by suggesting that money can buy achievement.

I think the suggestion is the parents help with some of these science fairs, sometimes using company resources. JFK's college thesis Why England Slept, and Profiles In Courage both had that type of assistance.

1) It's not a suggestion - they absolutely do if they feel it will help their kid win;

2) If the TJ Admissions process incentivizes parents to do whatever it takes to help their kid win, those who are sufficiently motivated and without scruples will spare no expense to make sure it happens.

This is why it's highly problematic to reference performance in certain competitions as indicative of "merit". It's entirely possible the kid did the work themselves, and it's also very possible that they didn't.

Let’s remove the kids from the parents altogether then. This way these kids won’t have any advantage whatsoever.

I think what PP wants to do is disregard any accomplishments that could possibly have been aided by someone else. So Olympic athletes who have good coaches should be disqualified. And the Nobel prize should not be given to children of former Nobel prize winners, because of the "incentives" structure that may lead unscrupulous Nobel prize winners to "make sure" their kids succeed.

I think what the PP wants to do is to treat TJ like an educational institution, not a competition or a prize.

I imagine that the PP wants to treat TJ like a governor's school intended to meet the needs of kids who are beyond the level of their same age peers and not as a feel good social experiment.

What is “beyond the level” of a child’s “same age peers” depends on the peer group, and that depends on the base school to which the child is assigned.

PP here, and I agree. There's also no doubt that the USAMO/JMO kids are beyond the level of their same age peers. There's no reason to discount elite accomplishments, especially when kids are already being judged against kids from their own school. No matter how much you try to make it a Carson vs. Whitmer thing, it's instead an elite Carson kid in honors precalc who made JMO and Mathcounts state vs. an equally privileged Carson kid who is in Algebra I honors and is barely above average, but who got essay training at a prep center thing.

This is perhaps the biggest reason why I (as a staunch supporter of the new admissions process) am strongly in favor of adding a reimagined teacher recommendation form (and not just an open essay format) back into the process.

Trying to identify the strongest potential applicants from each school without the input of the teachers at said schools is pretty silly. Teachers also have unique insight into the student's ability to contribute positively to the classroom dynamic - a trait which has always been underemphasized in TJ admissions. Teachers can help identify which students are genuinely curious learners and which ones are out to get the grade in exchange for the lowest possible effort level.

[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:

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%.

TJ admissions were and are easy to game. MIT, not so much.

Well, USAMO gold medalists and Regeneron finalists have a 90% rate of getting accepted to HYM, so these "gaming" parents should just pay Curie $20K to prep their kids to become USAMO/Regeneron winners, right? Sounds as easy-peasy as gaming the TJ admissions. /s

Your indication of snark is amusing, but ignores the fact that, especially in the case of Regeneron, that bill is usually a lot higher than $20K.

Please tell me the price tag for ensuring that my DS/DD will be recognized as one of the top 40 young scientists in the country. Folks are willing to pay upwards of $500K just to have a "good" college name on DS/DD's diploma - if the price tag is less than that, I'm sure that there will be plenty of demand for that service.

or...

please do not denigrate these kid's accomplishments by suggesting that money can buy achievement.

I think the suggestion is the parents help with some of these science fairs, sometimes using company resources. JFK's college thesis Why England Slept, and Profiles In Courage both had that type of assistance.

1) It's not a suggestion - they absolutely do if they feel it will help their kid win;

2) If the TJ Admissions process incentivizes parents to do whatever it takes to help their kid win, those who are sufficiently motivated and without scruples will spare no expense to make sure it happens.

This is why it's highly problematic to reference performance in certain competitions as indicative of "merit". It's entirely possible the kid did the work themselves, and it's also very possible that they didn't.

Let’s remove the kids from the parents altogether then. This way these kids won’t have any advantage whatsoever.

I think what PP wants to do is disregard any accomplishments that could possibly have been aided by someone else. So Olympic athletes who have good coaches should be disqualified. And the Nobel prize should not be given to children of former Nobel prize winners, because of the "incentives" structure that may lead unscrupulous Nobel prize winners to "make sure" their kids succeed.

I think what the PP wants to do is to treat TJ like an educational institution, not a competition or a prize.

I imagine that the PP wants to treat TJ like a governor's school intended to meet the needs of kids who are beyond the level of their same age peers and not as a feel good social experiment.

What is “beyond the level” of a child’s “same age peers” depends on the peer group, and that depends on the base school to which the child is assigned.

This is such an important point and contextualizes the entire conversation about why the allocated seats system needs to exist.

[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:

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%.

TJ admissions were and are easy to game. MIT, not so much.

Well, USAMO gold medalists and Regeneron finalists have a 90% rate of getting accepted to HYM, so these "gaming" parents should just pay Curie $20K to prep their kids to become USAMO/Regeneron winners, right? Sounds as easy-peasy as gaming the TJ admissions. /s

Your indication of snark is amusing, but ignores the fact that, especially in the case of Regeneron, that bill is usually a lot higher than $20K.

Please tell me the price tag for ensuring that my DS/DD will be recognized as one of the top 40 young scientists in the country. Folks are willing to pay upwards of $500K just to have a "good" college name on DS/DD's diploma - if the price tag is less than that, I'm sure that there will be plenty of demand for that service.

or...

please do not denigrate these kid's accomplishments by suggesting that money can buy achievement.

I think the suggestion is the parents help with some of these science fairs, sometimes using company resources. JFK's college thesis Why England Slept, and Profiles In Courage both had that type of assistance.

1) It's not a suggestion - they absolutely do if they feel it will help their kid win;

2) If the TJ Admissions process incentivizes parents to do whatever it takes to help their kid win, those who are sufficiently motivated and without scruples will spare no expense to make sure it happens.

This is why it's highly problematic to reference performance in certain competitions as indicative of "merit". It's entirely possible the kid did the work themselves, and it's also very possible that they didn't.

Let’s remove the kids from the parents altogether then. This way these kids won’t have any advantage whatsoever.

I think what PP wants to do is disregard any accomplishments that could possibly have been aided by someone else. So Olympic athletes who have good coaches should be disqualified. And the Nobel prize should not be given to children of former Nobel prize winners, because of the "incentives" structure that may lead unscrupulous Nobel prize winners to "make sure" their kids succeed.

I think what the PP wants to do is to treat TJ like an educational institution, not a competition or a prize.

I imagine that the PP wants to treat TJ like a governor's school intended to meet the needs of kids who are beyond the level of their same age peers and not as a feel good social experiment.

What is “beyond the level” of a child’s “same age peers” depends on the peer group, and that depends on the base school to which the child is assigned.

This is such an important point and contextualizes the entire conversation about why the allocated seats system needs to exist.

YES!!! Can’t like this enough. A student at Carson in AAP LIV who is taking Geometry is not remarkably advanced compared to their peers. A student taking Algebra 1 at Whitman probably is, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
YES!!! Can’t like this enough. A student at Carson in AAP LIV who is taking Geometry is not remarkably advanced compared to their peers. A student taking Algebra 1 at Whitman probably is, though.

There are some native Japanese basketball players that are remarkably advanced compared to other players in Japan. Is that a good enough reason to pick them into the NBA?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
YES!!! Can’t like this enough. A student at Carson in AAP LIV who is taking Geometry is not remarkably advanced compared to their peers. A student taking Algebra 1 at Whitman probably is, though.

There are some native Japanese basketball players that are remarkably advanced compared to other players in Japan. Is that a good enough reason to pick them into the NBA?

No. There is no relevant analogy to be made here. Comparing TJ to the NBA fundamentally misunderstands the nature and purpose of TJ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
YES!!! Can’t like this enough. A student at Carson in AAP LIV who is taking Geometry is not remarkably advanced compared to their peers. A student taking Algebra 1 at Whitman probably is, though.

There are some native Japanese basketball players that are remarkably advanced compared to other players in Japan. Is that a good enough reason to pick them into the NBA?

No. There is no relevant analogy to be made here. Comparing TJ to the NBA fundamentally misunderstands the nature and purpose of TJ.

DP, but replace NBA with Harvard, or whatever other "advanced compared to usual" institution that fits whatever analogy you need to get the point across.

TJ is a governor's school, whose purpose is to provide a STEM education to students who are vastly more capable in STEM than their peer group, which comprises (almost) all of NOVA, and is not school specific.

If you have different ideas about the nature and purpose of TJ, perhaps you should ask yourself if you misunderstood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
YES!!! Can’t like this enough. A student at Carson in AAP LIV who is taking Geometry is not remarkably advanced compared to their peers. A student taking Algebra 1 at Whitman probably is, though.

There are some native Japanese basketball players that are remarkably advanced compared to other players in Japan. Is that a good enough reason to pick them into the NBA?

No. There is no relevant analogy to be made here. Comparing TJ to the NBA fundamentally misunderstands the nature and purpose of TJ.

Very true. The analogy makes little sense except to those who want to strain credibility to the point of desparation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
YES!!! Can’t like this enough. A student at Carson in AAP LIV who is taking Geometry is not remarkably advanced compared to their peers. A student taking Algebra 1 at Whitman probably is, though.

There are some native Japanese basketball players that are remarkably advanced compared to other players in Japan. Is that a good enough reason to pick them into the NBA?

No. There is no relevant analogy to be made here. Comparing TJ to the NBA fundamentally misunderstands the nature and purpose of TJ.

DP, but replace NBA with Harvard, or whatever other "advanced compared to usual" institution that fits whatever analogy you need to get the point across.

TJ is a governor's school, whose purpose is to provide a STEM education to students who are vastly more capable in STEM than their peer group, which comprises (almost) all of NOVA, and is not school specific.

If you have different ideas about the nature and purpose of TJ, perhaps you should ask yourself if you misunderstood.

Citation needed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
YES!!! Can’t like this enough. A student at Carson in AAP LIV who is taking Geometry is not remarkably advanced compared to their peers. A student taking Algebra 1 at Whitman probably is, though.

There are some native Japanese basketball players that are remarkably advanced compared to other players in Japan. Is that a good enough reason to pick them into the NBA?

No. There is no relevant analogy to be made here. Comparing TJ to the NBA fundamentally misunderstands the nature and purpose of TJ.

Very true. The analogy makes little sense except to those who want to strain credibility to the point of desparation.

That's because you are a hypocrite.

[Anonymous]

The problem is that U.S is quickly becoming a country where people are demanding handouts, no hard work, no accountability, just hand over stuff to us. These things will have big implications down the road.

Liberals who support such policies are notorious for living in mostly white enclaves. Ask me how I know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
YES!!! Can’t like this enough. A student at Carson in AAP LIV who is taking Geometry is not remarkably advanced compared to their peers. A student taking Algebra 1 at Whitman probably is, though.

There are some native Japanese basketball players that are remarkably advanced compared to other players in Japan. Is that a good enough reason to pick them into the NBA?

No. There is no relevant analogy to be made here. Comparing TJ to the NBA fundamentally misunderstands the nature and purpose of TJ.

Very true. The analogy makes little sense except to those who want to strain credibility to the point of desparation.

Exactly!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that U.S is quickly becoming a country where people are demanding handouts, no hard work, no accountability, just hand over stuff to us. These things will have big implications down the road.

Liberals who support such policies are notorious for living in mostly white enclaves. Ask me how I know.

I'd counter it's becoming a country where people are demanding fairness and an end to the handouts for the wealthy which allow them to put their thumb on the scale.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that U.S is quickly becoming a country where people are demanding handouts, no hard work, no accountability, just hand over stuff to us. These things will have big implications down the road.

Liberals who support such policies are notorious for living in mostly white enclaves. Ask me how I know.

I'd counter it's becoming a country where people are demanding fairness and an end to the handouts for the wealthy which allow them to put their thumb on the scale.

TJ (or, more precisely, the middle class Asian community at TJ) was an east target but Langley sure must be laughing their asses off reading this.