TJ admissions change from Merit to Essay impact to Asian American Students

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Asian count remains more or less same, but the Asian percent has gone down?
Along with the admissions change, the total number of seats were expanded by 100 seats, but Asian students were solely excluded from participating in the expanded seat assignment. There are consistently 1000+ declined Asian applicants each year, largest among all ethnicities, and none of them are allowed to receive a single seat from the expanded seat quota.

How do they consistently maintain the admitted percentage of Asian students within the tight confines of 70 to 74%, even prior to admissions change, and then further compress it to a lower spectrum, forcefully keeping it between 54 to 57%? It's anything but race-blind. It's plausible that the selection process undergoes successive rounds of racial scrutiny to meticulously engineer such narrow margins.

Without a thumb on the scale, consistent racial quota management is impossible.

It hasn't been consistent. It has been rising gradually along with the asian population in the area. The change in admissions process is how they are flattening that curve. Go back 10 years before the change and there were more whites at tj than asians. Right before the change there were over 4 times as many asians as white. Now there are about 3 times as many asians as whites. They are buying a bit of racial diversity at the expense of a ton of merit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Asian count remains more or less same, but the Asian percent has gone down?
Along with the admissions change, the total number of seats were expanded by 100 seats, but Asian students were solely excluded from participating in the expanded seat assignment. There are consistently 1000+ declined Asian applicants each year, largest among all ethnicities, and none of them are allowed to receive a single seat from the expanded seat quota.

How do they consistently maintain the admitted percentage of Asian students within the tight confines of 70 to 74%, even prior to admissions change, and then further compress it to a lower spectrum, forcefully keeping it between 54 to 57%? It's anything but race-blind. It's plausible that the selection process undergoes successive rounds of racial scrutiny to meticulously engineer such narrow margins.

Once you understand the 1.5% allocation to every middle school, it's clear as day and mathematically an obvious outcome why why the percentage dropped to ~55%. Simply put, Asians have elected to concentrate at a small number of middle schools.

The simple fact that very few Asians attend and apply from schools like Sandburg and Whitman means those seats tend not to go to Asian kids. Therefore, the new expanded enrollment at TJ has a lesser percentage of Asians. It's simple proportions and not discrimination.

Yes but the reason they changed the admissions criteria was discrimination.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Asian count remains more or less same, but the Asian percent has gone down?
Along with the admissions change, the total number of seats were expanded by 100 seats, but Asian students were solely excluded from participating in the expanded seat assignment. There are consistently 1000+ declined Asian applicants each year, largest among all ethnicities, and none of them are allowed to receive a single seat from the expanded seat quota.

How do they consistently maintain the admitted percentage of Asian students within the tight confines of 70 to 74%, even prior to admissions change, and then further compress it to a lower spectrum, forcefully keeping it between 54 to 57%? It's anything but race-blind. It's plausible that the selection process undergoes successive rounds of racial scrutiny to meticulously engineer such narrow margins.

Once you understand the 1.5% allocation to every middle school, it's clear as day and mathematically an obvious outcome why why the percentage dropped to ~55%. Simply put, Asians have elected to concentrate at a small number of middle schools.

The simple fact that very few Asians attend and apply from schools like Sandburg and Whitman means those seats tend not to go to Asian kids. Therefore, the new expanded enrollment at TJ has a lesser percentage of Asians. It's simple proportions and not discrimination.

It’s not ~55%. PP posted incorrect data.

Yeah the correction still says 54% in the first year after the change. It moved the top end up because the asians are adapting to the test, they are learning how to write better so I guess that's a benefit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


Why would they reject high math qualified applicants in favor of lower math applicants?

Why doesn't Fcps reveal this in the initial news release? That would show which group gets discriminated the most.

If they did, that would be like shooting themselves in the foot.

Yup. That data would show that there may be discrimination against black and multiracial students.

Acceptance rates (class of 25):
Hispanic 21%
Asian 19%
ALL 18%
White 17%
Black 14%
Multiracial/Other* 13%

The data shows that Asian students were accepted at a higher rate than almost all other groups, aside from Hispanic students.

And the number of Asian students at TJ is almost at a record high..

That's great! At least discrimination against Asians is not an issue.

If you compare current asian population to a decade ago it may look that way because asians haven't been around that long. 10 years before the change, there were more whites than asians at tj. Right before the change there were 4 times as many asians as white. Now there are about 3 times as many asians as whites. The process itself is not very discriminatory but it is not very merit based either and the reason they switched from a merit based system to a less merit based system was because they didn't like the racial profile of the entering class when they relied too heavily on merit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:About 60% is a pretty strong majority for a population that is only 20% of the school area.

Interestingly, NBA has 72.4% African American representation with only 12% overall population. But no one dares to pull a stunt like TJ admissions to reduce that NBA representation to mid 50%, which would be outrageous and illegal. But at TJ it's normal admissions policy.

Please stop with this silly talking point. The NBA and TJ are not an apples to apples comparison.

Like everything else, basketball needs diversity and representation.

I don't think the argument against DEI should be to have more DEI and see how they like it. They know it's bullshit but they think of it as stealing from the rich to give to the poor. It's the oppression olympics and and it's OK to oppress asians a little because it will releive oppression for blacksd and hispanics. Of course white kids don't make any sacrifices, in fact they get more seats; but that is reasonable collateral damage for the monumental good they think they are doing.

The argument against this sort of DEI is that it masks underlying issues in education that cannot be solved by changing who you say are the winners. This is not the same thing as AA in college admissions in an effort to grow a black middle class, more black tj grads doesn't change anything except make the world more racist. This is an effort to hide how dismally our current public education policy is failing black communities. You don't make a student better by sticking them in a program they didn't earn entry to. You do it by improving their local schools even if it means charter schools in urm neighborhoods. Give these kids a chance. Give these families a way out. Just give them a choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:About 60% is a pretty strong majority for a population that is only 20% of the school area.

Interestingly, NBA has 72.4% African American representation with only 12% overall population. But no one dares to pull a stunt like TJ admissions to reduce that NBA representation to mid 50%, which would be outrageous and illegal. But at TJ it's normal admissions policy.

Please stop with this silly talking point. The NBA and TJ are not an apples to apples comparison.

Like everything else, basketball needs diversity and representation.

I don't think the argument against DEI should be to have more DEI and see how they like it. They know it's bullshit but they think of it as stealing from the rich to give to the poor. It's the oppression olympics and and it's OK to oppress asians a little because it will releive oppression for blacksd and hispanics. Of course white kids don't make any sacrifices, in fact they get more seats; but that is reasonable collateral damage for the monumental good they think they are doing.

The argument against this sort of DEI is that it masks underlying issues in education that cannot be solved by changing who you say are the winners. This is not the same thing as AA in college admissions in an effort to grow a black middle class, more black tj grads doesn't change anything except make the world more racist. This is an effort to hide how dismally our current public education policy is failing black communities. You don't make a student better by sticking them in a program they didn't earn entry to. You do it by improving their local schools even if it means charter schools in urm neighborhoods. Give these kids a chance. Give these families a way out. Just give them a choice.

Shameless DEI politicians see no incentive in enhancing struggling schools; it simply means more work for them and nothing to show immediately. Manipulating outcomes through racial quotas offers an easier path, ironically at the expense of innocent students who endure unnecessary suffering unable to handle the rigor and do extra work after school in remedial classes instead of sports and extracurriculars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Asian count remains more or less same, but the Asian percent has gone down?
Along with the admissions change, the total number of seats were expanded by 100 seats, but Asian students were solely excluded from participating in the expanded seat assignment. There are consistently 1000+ declined Asian applicants each year, largest among all ethnicities, and none of them are allowed to receive a single seat from the expanded seat quota.

How do they consistently maintain the admitted percentage of Asian students within the tight confines of 70 to 74%, even prior to admissions change, and then further compress it to a lower spectrum, forcefully keeping it between 54 to 57%? It's anything but race-blind. It's plausible that the selection process undergoes successive rounds of racial scrutiny to meticulously engineer such narrow margins.

Once you understand the 1.5% allocation to every middle school, it's clear as day and mathematically an obvious outcome why why the percentage dropped to ~55%. Simply put, Asians have elected to concentrate at a small number of middle schools.

The simple fact that very few Asians attend and apply from schools like Sandburg and Whitman means those seats tend not to go to Asian kids. Therefore, the new expanded enrollment at TJ has a lesser percentage of Asians. It's simple proportions and not discrimination.

Yes but the reason they changed the admissions criteria was discrimination.

If by discrimination you mean to put an end to the test buying that had the effect of limiting selection to a few wealthy schools where parent could afford to buy access then sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


Why would they reject high math qualified applicants in favor of lower math applicants?

Why doesn't Fcps reveal this in the initial news release? That would show which group gets discriminated the most.

If they did, that would be like shooting themselves in the foot.

Yup. That data would show that there may be discrimination against black and multiracial students.

Acceptance rates (class of 25):
Hispanic 21%
Asian 19%
ALL 18%
White 17%
Black 14%
Multiracial/Other* 13%

The data shows that Asian students were accepted at a higher rate than almost all other groups, aside from Hispanic students.

And the number of Asian students at TJ is almost at a record high..

That's great! At least discrimination against Asians is not an issue.

Yep, Asian representation seems unaffected by selection changes, but I had read that low-income Asians were the greatest beneficiary of the changes.