Court: TJ's New Admission Policy Does Not Discriminate

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The middle class Asian community at TJ wasn’t a target at all. They were already at TJ.

The target was the nine-figure TJ prep industrial complex which was populated mostly by the wealthy whose kids couldn’t get into TJ without it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The middle class Asian community at TJ wasn’t a target at all. They were already at TJ.

The target was the nine-figure TJ prep industrial complex which was populated mostly by the wealthy whose kids couldn’t get into TJ without it.

No, the goal was to change the racial and socioeconomic demographics.

Otherwise, they would have emphasized inputs that the prep industry can’t really touch like math and science competitions and teacher recs.

The prep industry just shifted focus to the essay. It’s still there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The middle class Asian community at TJ wasn’t a target at all. They were already at TJ.

The target was the nine-figure TJ prep industrial complex which was populated mostly by the wealthy whose kids couldn’t get into TJ without it.

No, the goal was to change the racial and socioeconomic demographics.

Otherwise, they would have emphasized inputs that the prep industry can’t really touch like math and science competitions and teacher recs.

The prep industry just shifted focus to the essay. It’s still there.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The middle class Asian community at TJ wasn’t a target at all. They were already at TJ.

The target was the nine-figure TJ prep industrial complex which was populated mostly by the wealthy whose kids couldn’t get into TJ without it.

No, the goal was to change the racial and socioeconomic demographics.

Otherwise, they would have emphasized inputs that the prep industry can’t really touch like math and science competitions and teacher recs.

The prep industry just shifted focus to the essay. It’s still there.

You want an emphasize on clubs that only exist at a few schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The middle class Asian community at TJ wasn’t a target at all. They were already at TJ.

The target was the nine-figure TJ prep industrial complex which was populated mostly by the wealthy whose kids couldn’t get into TJ without it.

No, the goal was to change the racial and socioeconomic demographics.

Otherwise, they would have emphasized inputs that the prep industry can’t really touch like math and science competitions and teacher recs.

The prep industry just shifted focus to the essay. It’s still there.

You want an emphasize on clubs that only exist at a few schools?

If the goal was to eliminate the prep industry then that’s what you’d do. Craft the admissions criteria around inputs the prep industry can’t touch. You can do other things like the teacher recs or put emphasis on a higher GPA like 3.95. Prep industry can’t do much about that.

But no, eliminating the prep industry was never the main goal.

The goal was engineering a different racial and socioeconomic demographic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The middle class Asian community at TJ wasn’t a target at all. They were already at TJ.

The target was the nine-figure TJ prep industrial complex which was populated mostly by the wealthy whose kids couldn’t get into TJ without it.

No, the goal was to change the racial and socioeconomic demographics.

Otherwise, they would have emphasized inputs that the prep industry can’t really touch like math and science competitions and teacher recs.

The prep industry just shifted focus to the essay. It’s still there.

You want an emphasize on clubs that only exist at a few schools?

I'm all for it as long as it gives an advantage to the more affluent schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The middle class Asian community at TJ wasn’t a target at all. They were already at TJ.

The target was the nine-figure TJ prep industrial complex which was populated mostly by the wealthy whose kids couldn’t get into TJ without it.

No, the goal was to change the racial and socioeconomic demographics.

Otherwise, they would have emphasized inputs that the prep industry can’t really touch like math and science competitions and teacher recs.

The prep industry just shifted focus to the essay. It’s still there.

You want an emphasize on clubs that only exist at a few schools?

I'm all for it as long as it gives an advantage to the more affluent schools.

My kid is going to the Math Olympiad! All he has to do is attend Carson.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The middle class Asian community at TJ wasn’t a target at all. They were already at TJ.

The target was the nine-figure TJ prep industrial complex which was populated mostly by the wealthy whose kids couldn’t get into TJ without it.

No, the goal was to change the racial and socioeconomic demographics.

Otherwise, they would have emphasized inputs that the prep industry can’t really touch like math and science competitions and teacher recs.

The prep industry just shifted focus to the essay. It’s still there.

You want an emphasize on clubs that only exist at a few schools?

If the goal was to eliminate the prep industry then that’s what you’d do. Craft the admissions criteria around inputs the prep industry can’t touch. You can do other things like the teacher recs or put emphasis on a higher GPA like 3.95. Prep industry can’t do much about that.

But no, eliminating the prep industry was never the main goal.

The goal was engineering a different racial and socioeconomic demographic.

Deliberate form of racial suppression by putting number limits on Asian Americans students. 4000+ public schools in United States with majority black students is not a problem, but 1 stem school with majority Asian American students is an unpleasant view for racist school board?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The middle class Asian community at TJ wasn’t a target at all. They were already at TJ.

The target was the nine-figure TJ prep industrial complex which was populated mostly by the wealthy whose kids couldn’t get into TJ without it.

No, the goal was to change the racial and socioeconomic demographics.

Otherwise, they would have emphasized inputs that the prep industry can’t really touch like math and science competitions and teacher recs.

The prep industry just shifted focus to the essay. It’s still there.

I thought it was to address the rampant test buying. I mean one prep center took out a full page ad boasting about how over 30% of the entering class had gone through their program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The middle class Asian community at TJ wasn’t a target at all. They were already at TJ.

The target was the nine-figure TJ prep industrial complex which was populated mostly by the wealthy whose kids couldn’t get into TJ without it.

No, the goal was to change the racial and socioeconomic demographics.

Otherwise, they would have emphasized inputs that the prep industry can’t really touch like math and science competitions and teacher recs.

The prep industry just shifted focus to the essay. It’s still there.

You want an emphasize on clubs that only exist at a few schools?

If the goal was to eliminate the prep industry then that’s what you’d do. Craft the admissions criteria around inputs the prep industry can’t touch. You can do other things like the teacher recs or put emphasis on a higher GPA like 3.95. Prep industry can’t do much about that.

But no, eliminating the prep industry was never the main goal.

The goal was engineering a different racial and socioeconomic demographic.

1) We agree on the teacher recommendations. It is not that challenging to put together a scale-based rec form that would simultaneously compare students against each other AND make it relatively easy to spot racial bias. And it's asinine to think that you can identify the most deserving 1.5% of students from a given school for allocated seats without input from the teachers.

2) The goal was absolutely to engineer a different socioeconomic demographic - because the one that was in place was exclusive to students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. There is nothing wrong with that. It bears repeating for the 50,000th time that the greatest single beneficiary of the new admissions process was low-income Asian students. No one ever seems to have a good answer for that fact because it doesn't fit your narrative. Under the old process, there were fewer low-income Asian students than there were low-income Black or Hispanic students.

The fact that socioeconomic status tracks fairly neatly with race in Northern Virginia is not FCPS's fault. The fact that eliminating the exam and the fee destroyed a lot of advantages for wealthy families - and the concurrent fact that South Asian families are by FAR the most affluent in Northern Virginia on average - is also not FCPS's fault.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The middle class Asian community at TJ wasn’t a target at all. They were already at TJ.

The target was the nine-figure TJ prep industrial complex which was populated mostly by the wealthy whose kids couldn’t get into TJ without it.

No, the goal was to change the racial and socioeconomic demographics.

Otherwise, they would have emphasized inputs that the prep industry can’t really touch like math and science competitions and teacher recs.

The prep industry just shifted focus to the essay. It’s still there.

You want an emphasize on clubs that only exist at a few schools?

If the goal was to eliminate the prep industry then that’s what you’d do. Craft the admissions criteria around inputs the prep industry can’t touch. You can do other things like the teacher recs or put emphasis on a higher GPA like 3.95. Prep industry can’t do much about that.

But no, eliminating the prep industry was never the main goal.

The goal was engineering a different racial and socioeconomic demographic.

Deliberate form of racial suppression by putting number limits on Asian Americans students. 4000+ public schools in United States with majority black students is not a problem, but 1 stem school with majority Asian American students is an unpleasant view for racist school board?

What is this supposed "number limit on Asian American students" that you think exists? Please be very specific.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The middle class Asian community at TJ wasn’t a target at all. They were already at TJ.

The target was the nine-figure TJ prep industrial complex which was populated mostly by the wealthy whose kids couldn’t get into TJ without it.

No, the goal was to change the racial and socioeconomic demographics.

Otherwise, they would have emphasized inputs that the prep industry can’t really touch like math and science competitions and teacher recs.

The prep industry just shifted focus to the essay. It’s still there.

You want an emphasize on clubs that only exist at a few schools?

If the goal was to eliminate the prep industry then that’s what you’d do. Craft the admissions criteria around inputs the prep industry can’t touch. You can do other things like the teacher recs or put emphasis on a higher GPA like 3.95. Prep industry can’t do much about that.

But no, eliminating the prep industry was never the main goal.

The goal was engineering a different racial and socioeconomic demographic.

1) We agree on the teacher recommendations. It is not that challenging to put together a scale-based rec form that would simultaneously compare students against each other AND make it relatively easy to spot racial bias. And it's asinine to think that you can identify the most deserving 1.5% of students from a given school for allocated seats without input from the teachers.

2) The goal was absolutely to engineer a different socioeconomic demographic - because the one that was in place was exclusive to students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. There is nothing wrong with that. It bears repeating for the 50,000th time that the greatest single beneficiary of the new admissions process was low-income Asian students. No one ever seems to have a good answer for that fact because it doesn't fit your narrative. Under the old process, there were fewer low-income Asian students than there were low-income Black or Hispanic students.

The fact that socioeconomic status tracks fairly neatly with race in Northern Virginia is not FCPS's fault. The fact that eliminating the exam and the fee destroyed a lot of advantages for wealthy families - and the concurrent fact that South Asian families are by FAR the most affluent in Northern Virginia on average - is also not FCPS's fault.

The problem with your argument is that you ignore all the conversations regarding race leading up to and during the reforms. You're also ignoring the national movement around equity in magnet schools. It's not a coincidence that FCPS, MCPS, NYC, Boston, San Francisco and Philadelphia all reformed their magnet school admissions criteria within several years of each other, and in each instance the driving conversations behind the reforms were equity and race.

Do we have any data on the actual percentage of low income Asians students, and how do we know if FCPS did any verification of their income? I just went on US News & World Report, and it says TJ is just 2% FARMs. Niche and GreatSchools said the same thing. That's like 40 kids across the entire school. Where are you getting that TJ all of a sudden has an influx of poor Asian kids? What's the source?

Sounds like you're trying to pretend that race wasn't a major factor in the admissions changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The middle class Asian community at TJ wasn’t a target at all. They were already at TJ.

The target was the nine-figure TJ prep industrial complex which was populated mostly by the wealthy whose kids couldn’t get into TJ without it.

No, the goal was to change the racial and socioeconomic demographics.

Otherwise, they would have emphasized inputs that the prep industry can’t really touch like math and science competitions and teacher recs.

The prep industry just shifted focus to the essay. It’s still there.

You want an emphasize on clubs that only exist at a few schools?

If the goal was to eliminate the prep industry then that’s what you’d do. Craft the admissions criteria around inputs the prep industry can’t touch. You can do other things like the teacher recs or put emphasis on a higher GPA like 3.95. Prep industry can’t do much about that.

But no, eliminating the prep industry was never the main goal.

The goal was engineering a different racial and socioeconomic demographic.

1) We agree on the teacher recommendations. It is not that challenging to put together a scale-based rec form that would simultaneously compare students against each other AND make it relatively easy to spot racial bias. And it's asinine to think that you can identify the most deserving 1.5% of students from a given school for allocated seats without input from the teachers.

2) The goal was absolutely to engineer a different socioeconomic demographic - because the one that was in place was exclusive to students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. There is nothing wrong with that. It bears repeating for the 50,000th time that the greatest single beneficiary of the new admissions process was low-income Asian students. No one ever seems to have a good answer for that fact because it doesn't fit your narrative. Under the old process, there were fewer low-income Asian students than there were low-income Black or Hispanic students.

The fact that socioeconomic status tracks fairly neatly with race in Northern Virginia is not FCPS's fault. The fact that eliminating the exam and the fee destroyed a lot of advantages for wealthy families - and the concurrent fact that South Asian families are by FAR the most affluent in Northern Virginia on average - is also not FCPS's fault.

The problem with your argument is that you ignore all the conversations regarding race leading up to and during the reforms. You're also ignoring the national movement around equity in magnet schools. It's not a coincidence that FCPS, MCPS, NYC, Boston, San Francisco and Philadelphia all reformed their magnet school admissions criteria within several years of each other, and in each instance the driving conversations behind the reforms were equity and race.

Do we have any data on the actual percentage of low income Asians students, and how do we know if FCPS did any verification of their income? I just went on US News & World Report, and it says TJ is just 2% FARMs. Niche and GreatSchools said the same thing. That's like 40 kids across the entire school. Where are you getting that TJ all of a sudden has an influx of poor Asian kids? What's the source?

Sounds like you're trying to pretend that race wasn't a major factor in the admissions changes.

Lots to unpack here.

1) By "conversations regarding race" I can only assume that you're talking about the so-called "TJ Papers". As has been explained several times on this forum, the text messages that and e-mails that were exchanged between School Board members that were cherry-picked by noted conservative operative Asra Nomani largely involved criticism of the "Merit Lottery" proposal that was offered by the former Superintendent, Scott Brabrand, and was roundly rejected by the School Board. Judge Hilton, in his since-excoriated District Court opinion ruling in favor of the Coalition, referenced these messages inappropriately, alongside some statements by Dr. Brabrand that were frankly moronic, to infer that the process was "infected by talk of racial balancing from the start". All of this is why Brabrand was removed from the process of developing a new admissions standard, and why he and the cited messages are essentially irrelevant to the conversation.

2) "Equity" isn't a dirty word in the way that you think it is, and it is not mutually exclusive with "excellence" or "merit". If you believe that education is the key to improving one's status and the status of one's family, it is inexcusable to then deny access to educational opportunities to those of lower socioeconomic status, which is precisely what was happening under the old process. Students from disadvantaged backgrounds have merely been given a seat at the table - they are not occupying ALL of the seats at the table.

3) Publicly available data via FOIA requests from (I believe) FCAG indicated that one low income Asian student was admitted in the Class of 2024, while 36 were admitted in the Class of 2025. FCPS was very public about going back and engaging in a verification process that, I understand, actually removed a few families who attempted to game the process - that was discussed at some length on these fora. I don't think we have data of the same type on the Class of 2026 - given how their 2025 request destroyed their narrative, I can't say I'm surprised.

4) It's been pointed out about a thousand times here that the USNWR data was all compiled with an end date of 2021, and that no students admitted by the new process were a part of the data which caused TJ to slip from #1 to #5 in the rankings.

5) https://schoolprofiles.fcps.edu/schlprfl/f?p=108:13:::NO:0_CURRENT_SCHOOL_ID,P0_EDSL:300,0 That's where you can find the demographic of the school as of the end of last school year, which would include two classes admitted by the new process. Feel free to dig around the data. The relevant number is that as of the end of last school year, a little over 10% of TJ was FARMS eligible, as opposed to 2.27%, the number you cited, before the changes took effect.

6) It is possible to understand these three things at the same time:

- There is sufficient peer-reviewed research to confirm that legitimate diversity significantly enhances the educational experience in elite academic environments across racial, geographic, experiential, and socioeconomic axes.
- It's probably not the best idea for us to admit kids to these environments solely because of their race.
- Academic potential is not limited exclusively to any racial or socioeconomic group, and therefore a process that effectively bars any such group from admission is problematic and needs to be fixed.

All of that is a way of saying that it's not problematic for race to have played some part in the admissions changes because you had racial groups that were being discriminated against for reasons that cannot be explained solely by effort or desire. The old process was discriminatory and to suggest that fixing the problems that it created is somehow impermissible because one of the issues at play was race is laughable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The middle class Asian community at TJ wasn’t a target at all. They were already at TJ.

The target was the nine-figure TJ prep industrial complex which was populated mostly by the wealthy whose kids couldn’t get into TJ without it.

No, the goal was to change the racial and socioeconomic demographics.

Otherwise, they would have emphasized inputs that the prep industry can’t really touch like math and science competitions and teacher recs.

The prep industry just shifted focus to the essay. It’s still there.

You want an emphasize on clubs that only exist at a few schools?

If the goal was to eliminate the prep industry then that’s what you’d do. Craft the admissions criteria around inputs the prep industry can’t touch. You can do other things like the teacher recs or put emphasis on a higher GPA like 3.95. Prep industry can’t do much about that.

But no, eliminating the prep industry was never the main goal.

The goal was engineering a different racial and socioeconomic demographic.

1) We agree on the teacher recommendations. It is not that challenging to put together a scale-based rec form that would simultaneously compare students against each other AND make it relatively easy to spot racial bias. And it's asinine to think that you can identify the most deserving 1.5% of students from a given school for allocated seats without input from the teachers.

2) The goal was absolutely to engineer a different socioeconomic demographic - because the one that was in place was exclusive to students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. There is nothing wrong with that. It bears repeating for the 50,000th time that the greatest single beneficiary of the new admissions process was low-income Asian students. No one ever seems to have a good answer for that fact because it doesn't fit your narrative. Under the old process, there were fewer low-income Asian students than there were low-income Black or Hispanic students.

The fact that socioeconomic status tracks fairly neatly with race in Northern Virginia is not FCPS's fault. The fact that eliminating the exam and the fee destroyed a lot of advantages for wealthy families - and the concurrent fact that South Asian families are by FAR the most affluent in Northern Virginia on average - is also not FCPS's fault.

The problem with your argument is that you ignore all the conversations regarding race leading up to and during the reforms. You're also ignoring the national movement around equity in magnet schools. It's not a coincidence that FCPS, MCPS, NYC, Boston, San Francisco and Philadelphia all reformed their magnet school admissions criteria within several years of each other, and in each instance the driving conversations behind the reforms were equity and race.

Do we have any data on the actual percentage of low income Asians students, and how do we know if FCPS did any verification of their income? I just went on US News & World Report, and it says TJ is just 2% FARMs. Niche and GreatSchools said the same thing. That's like 40 kids across the entire school. Where are you getting that TJ all of a sudden has an influx of poor Asian kids? What's the source?

Sounds like you're trying to pretend that race wasn't a major factor in the admissions changes.

Lots to unpack here.

1) By "conversations regarding race" I can only assume that you're talking about the so-called "TJ Papers". As has been explained several times on this forum, the text messages that and e-mails that were exchanged between School Board members that were cherry-picked by noted conservative operative Asra Nomani largely involved criticism of the "Merit Lottery" proposal that was offered by the former Superintendent, Scott Brabrand, and was roundly rejected by the School Board. Judge Hilton, in his since-excoriated District Court opinion ruling in favor of the Coalition, referenced these messages inappropriately, alongside some statements by Dr. Brabrand that were frankly moronic, to infer that the process was "infected by talk of racial balancing from the start". All of this is why Brabrand was removed from the process of developing a new admissions standard, and why he and the cited messages are essentially irrelevant to the conversation.

2) "Equity" isn't a dirty word in the way that you think it is, and it is not mutually exclusive with "excellence" or "merit". If you believe that education is the key to improving one's status and the status of one's family, it is inexcusable to then deny access to educational opportunities to those of lower socioeconomic status, which is precisely what was happening under the old process. Students from disadvantaged backgrounds have merely been given a seat at the table - they are not occupying ALL of the seats at the table.

3) Publicly available data via FOIA requests from (I believe) FCAG indicated that one low income Asian student was admitted in the Class of 2024, while 36 were admitted in the Class of 2025. FCPS was very public about going back and engaging in a verification process that, I understand, actually removed a few families who attempted to game the process - that was discussed at some length on these fora. I don't think we have data of the same type on the Class of 2026 - given how their 2025 request destroyed their narrative, I can't say I'm surprised.

4) It's been pointed out about a thousand times here that the USNWR data was all compiled with an end date of 2021, and that no students admitted by the new process were a part of the data which caused TJ to slip from #1 to #5 in the rankings.

5) https://schoolprofiles.fcps.edu/schlprfl/f?p=108:13:::NO:0_CURRENT_SCHOOL_ID,P0_EDSL:300,0 That's where you can find the demographic of the school as of the end of last school year, which would include two classes admitted by the new process. Feel free to dig around the data. The relevant number is that as of the end of last school year, a little over 10% of TJ was FARMS eligible, as opposed to 2.27%, the number you cited, before the changes took effect.

6) It is possible to understand these three things at the same time:

- There is sufficient peer-reviewed research to confirm that legitimate diversity significantly enhances the educational experience in elite academic environments across racial, geographic, experiential, and socioeconomic axes.
- It's probably not the best idea for us to admit kids to these environments solely because of their race.
- Academic potential is not limited exclusively to any racial or socioeconomic group, and therefore a process that effectively bars any such group from admission is problematic and needs to be fixed.

All of that is a way of saying that it's not problematic for race to have played some part in the admissions changes because you had racial groups that were being discriminated against for reasons that cannot be explained solely by effort or desire. The old process was discriminatory and to suggest that fixing the problems that it created is somehow impermissible because one of the issues at play was race is laughable.

*slow clap*

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The middle class Asian community at TJ wasn’t a target at all. They were already at TJ.

The target was the nine-figure TJ prep industrial complex which was populated mostly by the wealthy whose kids couldn’t get into TJ without it.

No, the goal was to change the racial and socioeconomic demographics.

Otherwise, they would have emphasized inputs that the prep industry can’t really touch like math and science competitions and teacher recs.

The prep industry just shifted focus to the essay. It’s still there.

You want an emphasize on clubs that only exist at a few schools?

If the goal was to eliminate the prep industry then that’s what you’d do. Craft the admissions criteria around inputs the prep industry can’t touch. You can do other things like the teacher recs or put emphasis on a higher GPA like 3.95. Prep industry can’t do much about that.

But no, eliminating the prep industry was never the main goal.

The goal was engineering a different racial and socioeconomic demographic.

1) We agree on the teacher recommendations. It is not that challenging to put together a scale-based rec form that would simultaneously compare students against each other AND make it relatively easy to spot racial bias. And it's asinine to think that you can identify the most deserving 1.5% of students from a given school for allocated seats without input from the teachers.

2) The goal was absolutely to engineer a different socioeconomic demographic - because the one that was in place was exclusive to students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. There is nothing wrong with that. It bears repeating for the 50,000th time that the greatest single beneficiary of the new admissions process was low-income Asian students. No one ever seems to have a good answer for that fact because it doesn't fit your narrative. Under the old process, there were fewer low-income Asian students than there were low-income Black or Hispanic students.

The fact that socioeconomic status tracks fairly neatly with race in Northern Virginia is not FCPS's fault. The fact that eliminating the exam and the fee destroyed a lot of advantages for wealthy families - and the concurrent fact that South Asian families are by FAR the most affluent in Northern Virginia on average - is also not FCPS's fault.

The problem with your argument is that you ignore all the conversations regarding race leading up to and during the reforms. You're also ignoring the national movement around equity in magnet schools. It's not a coincidence that FCPS, MCPS, NYC, Boston, San Francisco and Philadelphia all reformed their magnet school admissions criteria within several years of each other, and in each instance the driving conversations behind the reforms were equity and race.

Do we have any data on the actual percentage of low income Asians students, and how do we know if FCPS did any verification of their income? I just went on US News & World Report, and it says TJ is just 2% FARMs. Niche and GreatSchools said the same thing. That's like 40 kids across the entire school. Where are you getting that TJ all of a sudden has an influx of poor Asian kids? What's the source?

Sounds like you're trying to pretend that race wasn't a major factor in the admissions changes.

Lots to unpack here.

1) By "conversations regarding race" I can only assume that you're talking about the so-called "TJ Papers". As has been explained several times on this forum, the text messages that and e-mails that were exchanged between School Board members that were cherry-picked by noted conservative operative Asra Nomani largely involved criticism of the "Merit Lottery" proposal that was offered by the former Superintendent, Scott Brabrand, and was roundly rejected by the School Board. Judge Hilton, in his since-excoriated District Court opinion ruling in favor of the Coalition, referenced these messages inappropriately, alongside some statements by Dr. Brabrand that were frankly moronic, to infer that the process was "infected by talk of racial balancing from the start". All of this is why Brabrand was removed from the process of developing a new admissions standard, and why he and the cited messages are essentially irrelevant to the conversation.

2) "Equity" isn't a dirty word in the way that you think it is, and it is not mutually exclusive with "excellence" or "merit". If you believe that education is the key to improving one's status and the status of one's family, it is inexcusable to then deny access to educational opportunities to those of lower socioeconomic status, which is precisely what was happening under the old process. Students from disadvantaged backgrounds have merely been given a seat at the table - they are not occupying ALL of the seats at the table.

3) Publicly available data via FOIA requests from (I believe) FCAG indicated that one low income Asian student was admitted in the Class of 2024, while 36 were admitted in the Class of 2025. FCPS was very public about going back and engaging in a verification process that, I understand, actually removed a few families who attempted to game the process - that was discussed at some length on these fora. I don't think we have data of the same type on the Class of 2026 - given how their 2025 request destroyed their narrative, I can't say I'm surprised.

4) It's been pointed out about a thousand times here that the USNWR data was all compiled with an end date of 2021, and that no students admitted by the new process were a part of the data which caused TJ to slip from #1 to #5 in the rankings.

5) https://schoolprofiles.fcps.edu/schlprfl/f?p=108:13:::NO:0_CURRENT_SCHOOL_ID,P0_EDSL:300,0 That's where you can find the demographic of the school as of the end of last school year, which would include two classes admitted by the new process. Feel free to dig around the data. The relevant number is that as of the end of last school year, a little over 10% of TJ was FARMS eligible, as opposed to 2.27%, the number you cited, before the changes took effect.

6) It is possible to understand these three things at the same time:

- There is sufficient peer-reviewed research to confirm that legitimate diversity significantly enhances the educational experience in elite academic environments across racial, geographic, experiential, and socioeconomic axes.
- It's probably not the best idea for us to admit kids to these environments solely because of their race.
- Academic potential is not limited exclusively to any racial or socioeconomic group, and therefore a process that effectively bars any such group from admission is problematic and needs to be fixed.

All of that is a way of saying that it's not problematic for race to have played some part in the admissions changes because you had racial groups that were being discriminated against for reasons that cannot be explained solely by effort or desire. The old process was discriminatory and to suggest that fixing the problems that it created is somehow impermissible because one of the issues at play was race is laughable.

Only liberal can write such BS