Federal judge rules that admissions changes at nation’s top public school discriminate against Asian

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The argument that people are “stealing” seats from Asian kids falls flat when we see that there are actually MORE Asian students at TJ now than a few years ago.

# of Asian students at TJ
21-22: 1,258
20-21: 1,299
19-20: 1,292
18-19: 1,244
17-18: 1,210

----
That data means nothing without looking at the whole population.

2017 to 2019 -- were there less Asian American students as a whole in FCPS?

Then look at the trend between 2019 and 2021, then 2021/2022.

Whole numbers mean nothing. You need to look at the rate.

(I never realized how simple data analysis was so difficult for some people)

No, in this case, absolute numbers are very telling. There are MORE Asian students at TJ this year than a few years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The argument that people are “stealing” seats from Asian kids falls flat when we see that there are actually MORE Asian students at TJ now than a few years ago.

# of Asian students at TJ
21-22: 1,258
20-21: 1,299
19-20: 1,292
18-19: 1,244
17-18: 1,210

What would you think if you worked your ass off, but your boss takes away your bonus and gives it your colleague and says, 'you have no reason to complain as bonus still stays with in our team'? This really stings for many parents who put kids education over everything else including those who you would normally consider liberal. These are the parents who live in areas with 'good' schools and/or with kids who attend AAP center schools.

I am not sure why this is so difficult to understand. I consider myself liberal and always voted for progressives, but I would fight back if I feel that my kid isn't getting his/her fair chance. I don't mind providing additional resources, training and incentives for under represented kids, spending money towards them and/or try to keep the level playing field (discount activities/education that under privileged cannot afford etc), but don't intentionally limit my kids chances by introducing quotas or arbitrarily giving bonus points to others. TJ is no longer a true magnet school, it is just made up of bunch of groups and actual competition is now with in the each group i.e. infighting.

My kid(s) aren't exactly at the level of traditional TJ kids (well, at least according to older admission process), but it still hurts to think what is happening to TJ in the name of 'race'.

It's a poor analogy.

What is a good analogy is this:

We've decided to change our criteria for giving bonuses because we discovered that there are a huge number of people in our company who are eschewing the work of helping the company and becoming better employees in the name of meeting the narrow criteria that we've set for bonuses.

We realized that the bonus program as presently constructed was incentivizing behavior that doesn't help the company and indeed, might be rewarding a single group of employees to the exclusion of other employees who also deserve to be recognized for the work they've put in under their unique circumstances.

Perhaps most importantly, we have realized that by awarding these well-deserved bonuses to many different employees from different parts of the company, we are incentivizing those groups that have traditionally received fewer bonuses to deliver more because they feel like they have a real shot to be recognized by leadership.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
You would think so.. but AAP centers have only sent half as many kids compared to earlier. Tell this to the other half that they still got their bonus

DP. Do you mean specific AAP centers? Or all AAP centers? I assumed that most (nearly all) TJ students were in AAP. You are saying that they were not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The argument that people are “stealing” seats from Asian kids falls flat when we see that there are actually MORE Asian students at TJ now than a few years ago.

# of Asian students at TJ
21-22: 1,258
20-21: 1,299
19-20: 1,292
18-19: 1,244
17-18: 1,210

----
That data means nothing without looking at the whole population.

2017 to 2019 -- were there less Asian American students as a whole in FCPS?

Then look at the trend between 2019 and 2021, then 2021/2022.

Whole numbers mean nothing. You need to look at the rate.

(I never realized how simple data analysis was so difficult for some people)

----

No, in this case, absolute numbers are very telling. There are MORE Asian students at TJ this year than a few years ago.

But for giggles, I ran the %s (Jan enrollments):

year, at TJ, in FCPS, % of FCPS Asian population at TJ
2021-22, 1,258, 34,712, 3.62%
2020-21, 1,299, 35,644, 3.64%
2019-20, 1,292, 36,782, 3.51%
2018-19, 1,244, 37,017, 3.36%
2017-18, 1,210, 37,235, 3.25%

The "rate" of FCPS Asian students at TJ this year is a little less than last year, but still higher than the prior three years.

So about those seats that were "stolen"...

There are MORE Asian students at TJ this year than a few years ago. Even when you look at the "rate".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The argument that people are “stealing” seats from Asian kids falls flat when we see that there are actually MORE Asian students at TJ now than a few years ago.

# of Asian students at TJ
21-22: 1,258
20-21: 1,299
19-20: 1,292
18-19: 1,244
17-18: 1,210

----
That data means nothing without looking at the whole population.

2017 to 2019 -- were there less Asian American students as a whole in FCPS?

Then look at the trend between 2019 and 2021, then 2021/2022.

Whole numbers mean nothing. You need to look at the rate.

(I never realized how simple data analysis was so difficult for some people)

----

No, in this case, absolute numbers are very telling. There are MORE Asian students at TJ this year than a few years ago.

But for giggles, I ran the %s (Jan enrollments):

year, at TJ, in FCPS, % of FCPS Asian population at TJ
2021-22, 1,258, 34,712, 3.62%
2020-21, 1,299, 35,644, 3.64%
2019-20, 1,292, 36,782, 3.51%
2018-19, 1,244, 37,017, 3.36%
2017-18, 1,210, 37,235, 3.25%

The "rate" of FCPS Asian students at TJ this year is a little less than last year, but still higher than the prior three years.

So about those seats that were "stolen"...

There are MORE Asian students at TJ this year than a few years ago. Even when you look at the "rate".

The problem some posters have is not with the number of Asians, but which type of Asian student that got in. The higher performing math/science student from McLean did not get in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The argument that people are “stealing” seats from Asian kids falls flat when we see that there are actually MORE Asian students at TJ now than a few years ago.

# of Asian students at TJ
21-22: 1,258
20-21: 1,299
19-20: 1,292
18-19: 1,244
17-18: 1,210

----
That data means nothing without looking at the whole population.

2017 to 2019 -- were there less Asian American students as a whole in FCPS?

Then look at the trend between 2019 and 2021, then 2021/2022.

Whole numbers mean nothing. You need to look at the rate.

(I never realized how simple data analysis was so difficult for some people)

----

No, in this case, absolute numbers are very telling. There are MORE Asian students at TJ this year than a few years ago.

But for giggles, I ran the %s (Jan enrollments):

year, at TJ, in FCPS, % of FCPS Asian population at TJ
2021-22, 1,258, 34,712, 3.62%
2020-21, 1,299, 35,644, 3.64%
2019-20, 1,292, 36,782, 3.51%
2018-19, 1,244, 37,017, 3.36%
2017-18, 1,210, 37,235, 3.25%

The "rate" of FCPS Asian students at TJ this year is a little less than last year, but still higher than the prior three years.

So about those seats that were "stolen"...

There are MORE Asian students at TJ this year than a few years ago. Even when you look at the "rate".

It's interesting - I would be willing to bet that a lot of the Asian families most impacted by the admissions changes would have come from Loudoun County. Historically, about 90% of the Loudoun contingent headed to TJ every year has been Asian, and overwhelmingly South Asian. They tend to be concentrated in Ashburn, Brambleton, and South Riding with a little bit in Aldie. The unused allocated spaces out in the far western part of Loudoun would have gone into the unallocated pool and therefore might have come back to some of those lesser kids from Carson/Longfellow/etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The argument that people are “stealing” seats from Asian kids falls flat when we see that there are actually MORE Asian students at TJ now than a few years ago.

# of Asian students at TJ
21-22: 1,258
20-21: 1,299
19-20: 1,292
18-19: 1,244
17-18: 1,210

----
That data means nothing without looking at the whole population.

2017 to 2019 -- were there less Asian American students as a whole in FCPS?

Then look at the trend between 2019 and 2021, then 2021/2022.

Whole numbers mean nothing. You need to look at the rate.

(I never realized how simple data analysis was so difficult for some people)

----

No, in this case, absolute numbers are very telling. There are MORE Asian students at TJ this year than a few years ago.

But for giggles, I ran the %s (Jan enrollments):

year, at TJ, in FCPS, % of FCPS Asian population at TJ
2021-22, 1,258, 34,712, 3.62%
2020-21, 1,299, 35,644, 3.64%
2019-20, 1,292, 36,782, 3.51%
2018-19, 1,244, 37,017, 3.36%
2017-18, 1,210, 37,235, 3.25%

The "rate" of FCPS Asian students at TJ this year is a little less than last year, but still higher than the prior three years.

So about those seats that were "stolen"...

There are MORE Asian students at TJ this year than a few years ago. Even when you look at the "rate".

The problem some posters have is not with the number of Asians, but which type of Asian student that got in. The higher performing math/science student from McLean did not get in.

How do you know?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The argument that people are “stealing” seats from Asian kids falls flat when we see that there are actually MORE Asian students at TJ now than a few years ago.

# of Asian students at TJ
21-22: 1,258
20-21: 1,299
19-20: 1,292
18-19: 1,244
17-18: 1,210

----
That data means nothing without looking at the whole population.

2017 to 2019 -- were there less Asian American students as a whole in FCPS?

Then look at the trend between 2019 and 2021, then 2021/2022.

Whole numbers mean nothing. You need to look at the rate.

(I never realized how simple data analysis was so difficult for some people)

----

No, in this case, absolute numbers are very telling. There are MORE Asian students at TJ this year than a few years ago.

But for giggles, I ran the %s (Jan enrollments):

year, at TJ, in FCPS, % of FCPS Asian population at TJ
2021-22, 1,258, 34,712, 3.62%
2020-21, 1,299, 35,644, 3.64%
2019-20, 1,292, 36,782, 3.51%
2018-19, 1,244, 37,017, 3.36%
2017-18, 1,210, 37,235, 3.25%

The "rate" of FCPS Asian students at TJ this year is a little less than last year, but still higher than the prior three years.

So about those seats that were "stolen"...

There are MORE Asian students at TJ this year than a few years ago. Even when you look at the "rate".

It's interesting - I would be willing to bet that a lot of the Asian families most impacted by the admissions changes would have come from Loudoun County. Historically, about 90% of the Loudoun contingent headed to TJ every year has been Asian, and overwhelmingly South Asian. They tend to be concentrated in Ashburn, Brambleton, and South Riding with a little bit in Aldie. The unused allocated spaces out in the far western part of Loudoun would have gone into the unallocated pool and therefore might have come back to some of those lesser kids from Carson/Longfellow/etc.

DP. I tbought the admissions changes only applied to Fairfax County, not to the other counties that feed into TJ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The argument that people are “stealing” seats from Asian kids falls flat when we see that there are actually MORE Asian students at TJ now than a few years ago.

# of Asian students at TJ
21-22: 1,258
20-21: 1,299
19-20: 1,292
18-19: 1,244
17-18: 1,210

----
That data means nothing without looking at the whole population.

2017 to 2019 -- were there less Asian American students as a whole in FCPS?

Then look at the trend between 2019 and 2021, then 2021/2022.

Whole numbers mean nothing. You need to look at the rate.

(I never realized how simple data analysis was so difficult for some people)

----

No, in this case, absolute numbers are very telling. There are MORE Asian students at TJ this year than a few years ago.

But for giggles, I ran the %s (Jan enrollments):

year, at TJ, in FCPS, % of FCPS Asian population at TJ
2021-22, 1,258, 34,712, 3.62%
2020-21, 1,299, 35,644, 3.64%
2019-20, 1,292, 36,782, 3.51%
2018-19, 1,244, 37,017, 3.36%
2017-18, 1,210, 37,235, 3.25%

The "rate" of FCPS Asian students at TJ this year is a little less than last year, but still higher than the prior three years.

So about those seats that were "stolen"...

There are MORE Asian students at TJ this year than a few years ago. Even when you look at the "rate".

It's interesting - I would be willing to bet that a lot of the Asian families most impacted by the admissions changes would have come from Loudoun County. Historically, about 90% of the Loudoun contingent headed to TJ every year has been Asian, and overwhelmingly South Asian. They tend to be concentrated in Ashburn, Brambleton, and South Riding with a little bit in Aldie. The unused allocated spaces out in the far western part of Loudoun would have gone into the unallocated pool and therefore might have come back to some of those lesser kids from Carson/Longfellow/etc.

DP. I tbought the admissions changes only applied to Fairfax County, not to the other counties that feed into TJ.

I assume you mean the 1.5%. The other changes were universal - as in no admissions test, bonus points for FARMs, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The argument that people are “stealing” seats from Asian kids falls flat when we see that there are actually MORE Asian students at TJ now than a few years ago.

# of Asian students at TJ
21-22: 1,258
20-21: 1,299
19-20: 1,292
18-19: 1,244
17-18: 1,210

----
That data means nothing without looking at the whole population.

2017 to 2019 -- were there less Asian American students as a whole in FCPS?

Then look at the trend between 2019 and 2021, then 2021/2022.

Whole numbers mean nothing. You need to look at the rate.

(I never realized how simple data analysis was so difficult for some people)

----

No, in this case, absolute numbers are very telling. There are MORE Asian students at TJ this year than a few years ago.

But for giggles, I ran the %s (Jan enrollments):

year, at TJ, in FCPS, % of FCPS Asian population at TJ
2021-22, 1,258, 34,712, 3.62%
2020-21, 1,299, 35,644, 3.64%
2019-20, 1,292, 36,782, 3.51%
2018-19, 1,244, 37,017, 3.36%
2017-18, 1,210, 37,235, 3.25%

The "rate" of FCPS Asian students at TJ this year is a little less than last year, but still higher than the prior three years.

So about those seats that were "stolen"...

There are MORE Asian students at TJ this year than a few years ago. Even when you look at the "rate".

It's interesting - I would be willing to bet that a lot of the Asian families most impacted by the admissions changes would have come from Loudoun County. Historically, about 90% of the Loudoun contingent headed to TJ every year has been Asian, and overwhelmingly South Asian. They tend to be concentrated in Ashburn, Brambleton, and South Riding with a little bit in Aldie. The unused allocated spaces out in the far western part of Loudoun would have gone into the unallocated pool and therefore might have come back to some of those lesser kids from Carson/Longfellow/etc.

DP. I tbought the admissions changes only applied to Fairfax County, not to the other counties that feed into TJ.

From TJ Admissions website:

Each public school within Fairfax County and each cooperating school division will be presumptively allocated a number of seats equal to 1.5% of that school’s 8th grade student population (“Allocated Seats”).

https://www.fcps.edu/registration/thomas-jefferson-high-school-science-and-technology-admissions/tjhsst-freshman

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If white parents don’t care about TJ, why did we need to increase the number of white students at TJ? Because that’s exactly what we did

There could be more white students at TJ if more white students were applying. But they aren’t. Only 14% of white 8th graders even applied.

You think the white parents wanted to reduce the # of seats from well-represented middle schools and private schools? How would that benefit them?

The Merit Lottery originally proposed in September 2020 that limits the number of admitted students from schools grouped into Regional pathways, would have given the whites a plurality at TJ. That shows the intent.

If white families were so interested in TJ then more would be applying. Sorry that doesn't fit with your false narrative.

What happened was that people looked at the demographics with the old TJ admissions process and saw how few black/hispanic/ED kids were admitted.

For the class of 2021...
Out of the 179 who black kids applied, only 9 got it.
Out of the 220 hispanic kids, only 8 got it.
Out of the 289 ED kids, only 8 got it.

In the entire class of 490 students. Respectively, they were 1.8%, 1.6%, and 1.6% of the class. They make up 10%, 27%, and 27% of FCPS students.

https://www.fcps.edu/news/fcps-offers-admission-tjhsst-490-students


How can you look at those numbers and NOT think that is a problem?

Obviously there is a problem. Solution is not Asian bashing/demonizing - they are not the cause. It is very clearly a pipeline problem which can be solved by a collaborative approach - maybe even including the TJ students. Having them mentor middle school kids etc. Destroying the school standards and introducing criteria with an express intent to decrease Asians in not the solution. Root cause analysis, people. Not lazy, wrong solutions.

Lazy? You're under-estimating the degree of malicious intent of the liberal people. The very purpose of the TJ reform was to reduce the Asian population. They're NOT interested in the root causes, PERIOD!

Let's back up for a second.

The School Board is a mess and the communications around this process were horrible. So stipulated and agreed to. If you want to call them evil or racist or whatever, fine - there's plenty of evidence to suggest some level of malicious intent, though I disagree that the mechanics of the new process are inherently racist.

The advocates on the ground for TJ admissions reform do not care about the population of Asian students at the school, except inasmuch as we'd love to see more of them come from disadvantaged backgrounds. The lack of students from historically underrepresented communities is what we are trying to solve, NOT the disproportionately high percentage of Asian students.

However, it is a function of the reality on the ground that those numbers have to come from somewhere - and as such, the most likely outcome of increasing the representation of underserved communities in the school was going to be a decrease in the number of Asian students.

You of course have the right to advocate for your group as much as you feel is appropriate. But the reality is this - and I've said it here many times before:

The fact that it IMPACTS you doesn't mean it's ABOUT you. I understand the need to leverage every angle you can to try and advocate for yourselves, and the School Board and Brabrand gave you a huge window in which to do it because of their sloppiness.

But intellectually, if you can't wrap your head around the fact that desiring any increase in underrepresented communities does not indicate animus toward Asians, even though a decrease in Asian students is the most likely result, you can't be a part of any productive conversation in this area.

" The lack of students from historically underrepresented communities is what we are trying to solve, NOT the disproportionately high percentage of Asian students."

[b] If this were true, then the process the judge threw out would have allocated middle school seats by BASE school, NOT by school of attendance. This would have kids from underrepresented schools in AAP go to TJ, not the ones struggling now [b]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You would think so.. but AAP centers have only sent half as many kids compared to earlier. Tell this to the other half that they still got their bonus

DP. Do you mean specific AAP centers? Or all AAP centers? I assumed that most (nearly all) TJ students were in AAP. You are saying that they were not?

Well, I was primarily referring to Carson, Longfellow and Rocky Run. But based on the stats, it may be same for other AAP centers as well. In spite of increased seats at TJ, these center schools still only sent half as many. The thing is AAP centers DO represent the entire school pyramid and quotas hurt the students who attend center schools. I have no way of saying if all TJ came from AAP or not.

There is a reason why Carson, Longfellow etc do send more kids to TJ. For example, my kid attended a TSA event recently. He said he was shocked to see Carson kids dominated events winning one or more prizes in every category there was and there were well over 1000 kids from every school in NoVA. He said he knew Carson was a good school, but he didn't know how good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If white parents don’t care about TJ, why did we need to increase the number of white students at TJ? Because that’s exactly what we did

There could be more white students at TJ if more white students were applying. But they aren’t. Only 14% of white 8th graders even applied.

You think the white parents wanted to reduce the # of seats from well-represented middle schools and private schools? How would that benefit them?

The Merit Lottery originally proposed in September 2020 that limits the number of admitted students from schools grouped into Regional pathways, would have given the whites a plurality at TJ. That shows the intent.

If white families were so interested in TJ then more would be applying. Sorry that doesn't fit with your false narrative.

What happened was that people looked at the demographics with the old TJ admissions process and saw how few black/hispanic/ED kids were admitted.

For the class of 2021...
Out of the 179 who black kids applied, only 9 got it.
Out of the 220 hispanic kids, only 8 got it.
Out of the 289 ED kids, only 8 got it.

In the entire class of 490 students. Respectively, they were 1.8%, 1.6%, and 1.6% of the class. They make up 10%, 27%, and 27% of FCPS students.

https://www.fcps.edu/news/fcps-offers-admission-tjhsst-490-students


How can you look at those numbers and NOT think that is a problem?

Obviously there is a problem. Solution is not Asian bashing/demonizing - they are not the cause. It is very clearly a pipeline problem which can be solved by a collaborative approach - maybe even including the TJ students. Having them mentor middle school kids etc. Destroying the school standards and introducing criteria with an express intent to decrease Asians in not the solution. Root cause analysis, people. Not lazy, wrong solutions.

Lazy? You're under-estimating the degree of malicious intent of the liberal people. The very purpose of the TJ reform was to reduce the Asian population. They're NOT interested in the root causes, PERIOD!

Let's back up for a second.

The School Board is a mess and the communications around this process were horrible. So stipulated and agreed to. If you want to call them evil or racist or whatever, fine - there's plenty of evidence to suggest some level of malicious intent, though I disagree that the mechanics of the new process are inherently racist.

The advocates on the ground for TJ admissions reform do not care about the population of Asian students at the school, except inasmuch as we'd love to see more of them come from disadvantaged backgrounds. The lack of students from historically underrepresented communities is what we are trying to solve, NOT the disproportionately high percentage of Asian students.

However, it is a function of the reality on the ground that those numbers have to come from somewhere - and as such, the most likely outcome of increasing the representation of underserved communities in the school was going to be a decrease in the number of Asian students.

You of course have the right to advocate for your group as much as you feel is appropriate. But the reality is this - and I've said it here many times before:

The fact that it IMPACTS you doesn't mean it's ABOUT you. I understand the need to leverage every angle you can to try and advocate for yourselves, and the School Board and Brabrand gave you a huge window in which to do it because of their sloppiness.

But intellectually, if you can't wrap your head around the fact that desiring any increase in underrepresented communities does not indicate animus toward Asians, even though a decrease in Asian students is the most likely result, you can't be a part of any productive conversation in this area.

" The lack of students from historically underrepresented communities is what we are trying to solve, NOT the disproportionately high percentage of Asian students."

[b] If this were true, then the process the judge threw out would have allocated middle school seats by BASE school, NOT by school of attendance. This would have kids from underrepresented schools in AAP go to TJ, not the ones struggling now [b]

1) When I say "we" in this instance I am referring to pro-reform advocates, not to FCPS.

2) I actually think there's a solid argument to be made in favor of allocating seats by zoned middle school, perhaps with a small set-aside number for students who may have been missed by the AAP process but are excelling in their current environment. This may be an eventual compromise that is reached.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The argument that people are “stealing” seats from Asian kids falls flat when we see that there are actually MORE Asian students at TJ now than a few years ago.

# of Asian students at TJ
21-22: 1,258
20-21: 1,299
19-20: 1,292
18-19: 1,244
17-18: 1,210

What would you think if you worked your ass off, but your boss takes away your bonus and gives it your colleague and says, 'you have no reason to complain as bonus still stays with in our team'? This really stings for many parents who put kids education over everything else including those who you would normally consider liberal. These are the parents who live in areas with 'good' schools and/or with kids who attend AAP center schools.

I am not sure why this is so difficult to understand. I consider myself liberal and always voted for progressives, but I would fight back if I feel that my kid isn't getting his/her fair chance. I don't mind providing additional resources, training and incentives for under represented kids, spending money towards them and/or try to keep the level playing field (discount activities/education that under privileged cannot afford etc), but don't intentionally limit my kids chances by introducing quotas or arbitrarily giving bonus points to others. TJ is no longer a true magnet school, it is just made up of bunch of groups and actual competition is now with in the each group i.e. infighting.

My kid(s) aren't exactly at the level of traditional TJ kids (well, at least according to older admission process), but it still hurts to think what is happening to TJ in the name of 'race'.

It's a poor analogy.

What is a good analogy is this:

We've decided to change our criteria for giving bonuses because we discovered that there are a huge number of people in our company who are eschewing the work of helping the company and becoming better employees in the name of meeting the narrow criteria that we've set for bonuses.

We realized that the bonus program as presently constructed was incentivizing behavior that doesn't help the company and indeed, might be rewarding a single group of employees to the exclusion of other employees who also deserve to be recognized for the work they've put in under their unique circumstances.

Perhaps most importantly, we have realized that by awarding these well-deserved bonuses to many different employees from different parts of the company, we are incentivizing those groups that have traditionally received fewer bonuses to deliver more because they feel like they have a real shot to be recognized by leadership.

Trying to wrap my head around the above comment - What you are essentially saying is there are some employees who according to you deserves the bonus, but not getting it based on an existing criteria. So, instead of revising the criteria that is fair to everyone, you want to simply reduce the bonus targets for some employees. Don't get me wrong, I am all for revising the process which is fair to 'everyone', but not tilt the field in other direction so it becomes easier for some to score than others.

To provide another analogy, in a 100m race, if a kid can't run faster, make the kid the start at 25m mark instead of 0. The fair thing to do is make them wear same type of shoe and/or offer equal amount of training

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The argument that people are “stealing” seats from Asian kids falls flat when we see that there are actually MORE Asian students at TJ now than a few years ago.

# of Asian students at TJ
21-22: 1,258
20-21: 1,299
19-20: 1,292
18-19: 1,244
17-18: 1,210

What would you think if you worked your ass off, but your boss takes away your bonus and gives it your colleague and says, 'you have no reason to complain as bonus still stays with in our team'? This really stings for many parents who put kids education over everything else including those who you would normally consider liberal. These are the parents who live in areas with 'good' schools and/or with kids who attend AAP center schools.

I am not sure why this is so difficult to understand. I consider myself liberal and always voted for progressives, but I would fight back if I feel that my kid isn't getting his/her fair chance. I don't mind providing additional resources, training and incentives for under represented kids, spending money towards them and/or try to keep the level playing field (discount activities/education that under privileged cannot afford etc), but don't intentionally limit my kids chances by introducing quotas or arbitrarily giving bonus points to others. TJ is no longer a true magnet school, it is just made up of bunch of groups and actual competition is now with in the each group i.e. infighting.

My kid(s) aren't exactly at the level of traditional TJ kids (well, at least according to older admission process), but it still hurts to think what is happening to TJ in the name of 'race'.

It's a poor analogy.

What is a good analogy is this:

We've decided to change our criteria for giving bonuses because we discovered that there are a huge number of people in our company who are eschewing the work of helping the company and becoming better employees in the name of meeting the narrow criteria that we've set for bonuses.

We realized that the bonus program as presently constructed was incentivizing behavior that doesn't help the company and indeed, might be rewarding a single group of employees to the exclusion of other employees who also deserve to be recognized for the work they've put in under their unique circumstances.

Perhaps most importantly, we have realized that by awarding these well-deserved bonuses to many different employees from different parts of the company, we are incentivizing those groups that have traditionally received fewer bonuses to deliver more because they feel like they have a real shot to be recognized by leadership.

Trying to wrap my head around the above comment - What you are essentially saying is there are some employees who according to you deserves the bonus, but not getting it based on an existing criteria. So, instead of revising the criteria that is fair to everyone, you want to simply reduce the bonus targets for some employees. Don't get me wrong, I am all for revising the process which is fair to 'everyone', but not tilt the field in other direction so it becomes easier for some to score than others.

To provide another analogy, in a 100m race, if a kid can't run faster, make the kid the start at 25m mark instead of 0. The fair thing to do is make them wear same type of shoe and/or offer equal amount of training

1) The existing criteria not only wasn't fair to everyone, but made certain key segments of the business have no interest in achieving the bonus (they didn't try to apply to the school in the first place).

2) We didn't reduce the bonus targets. It may serve your interests to claim that they were reduced because you're trying to create a narrative that the employees that were selected are somehow less deserving and are receiving a handout from corporate. We simply changed the bonus structure so that a particular metric that was confounding our process and wasting a tremendous amount of employee time and energy was removed from consideration, and ensured that all areas of the business have access to at least some piece of the bonus pool, while still keeping a significant amount of bonus money available for the highest-performing employees across the business regardless of department.

3) We're still keeping the fastest kids on the team for the 100m race, but we understand that there are also many different events in the track meet and that in order to cover all of those events, we need kids who are good at throwing, running long distances, and even some who have a specialized skill like pole vaulting. And there are some who we've identified who might not be as fast as the other kids right now, but who - given the right environment - might be able to maximize their potential by having them on the team even if they're not quite ready to compete at the highest level yet. After all, they are freshmen in high school and not nearly finished products yet!