NP, but give it a rest. Clearly you've convinced yourself this is true, but a very large number of parents disagree with you and believe things differently than you do. I don't understand why people cling so tightly to their particualar POVs and assume others who see it differently must all be disingenuous. Sure, I think that most of what you're saying above is BS, but at least I don't question that you believe it. |
Reality is not a faith based system. If you say that this change was driven by some desire to improve the quality of students rather than a desire for more racial diversity, your either lying or stupid. You know this was about race. Anybody that followed this knows it was about race. |
I don't think you're stupid.
|
True, but to many of us, this was a feature since it was a way to ensure only children of affluent families could participate and kept the rif-raf to a minimum. |
Well, I don't think you're lying about what you're thinking. And just because I disagree with you, doesn't mean I'm going to call you stupid. One need not characterize reality as "a faith based system" to accept that in reality different people can see the same evidence and come to different well-reasoned conclusions. |
Reality is not based on what you believe when there are objective facts surrounding the change in the admission process that shows that the change was driven by race. There is no honest way to reach the conclusion that this was not racially driven, unless you engage in faith based reasoning. You can conclude that it was a good thing despite the racial motives but you cannot conclude that it was not driven by race. You certainly can't conclude that this was an attempt to improve the caliber of student by eliminating objective measures of academic ability because they might be affected by preparation and studying. They got rid of the test because they didn't like the racial distribution of test scores. |
Yes, and the reality was the main beneficiaries of the change were low-income Asian families. The overall makeup of TJ isn't; all that different so if this claim about diversity was true they failed miserably but personally I never bought that nonsense. It is after all a race blind process. |
Geez. Who do you think you're fooling? The asian population at TJ went from 75% to 55%. We all saw the racism being exhibited during process of changing TJ admissions. We all saw the racial focus in the communications between the school board members as they pushed forward the new process. |
The data shows that Asian enrollment has stayed the same or even gone up. Asians are only 15% of the population in FC and are the most well-represented cohort at TJ. WHo is fooling who here? |
The way Curie approaches teaching is very different. They primarily focus on strong foundation so you can do well in any exam not just TJ. They don’t prepare you to get into TJ. Teachers there work very hard and expect the same from students so they do well in school and life |
Asians are about 50% of the applicant pool and about 55% of the admitted students. The racial profile of the admitted looks very similar to the racial profile of the applicant pool. The selection process is relatively random (with a preference for poor kids and kids from underrepresented schools). But you knew these things already, didn't you. |
I only know about curie from this board but if it is anything like the cram schools in flushing NYC, it is a high intensity enrichment program that gets you from grade 3 to 12 with maybe an add on test prep class you can take for a couple hundred bucks. |
Sorry, but just because you don't/can't/won't see it that way doesn't make it incorrect or dishonest. All the declarative statements in the world about your perspective being the only honest one do nothing to actually support your claim, they just show that you have blinders on. Stating things so forcefully and dogmatically are not evidence of correctness, no matter how much you might wish them to be so. |
This board and particularly the fake test buying narrative has increased Curie's business dramatically in recent years. |
There have been multiple corroborating articles. Links were posted even recently, not to mention dozens with first-hand accounts. It's well-documented. Sure you preferred a system that was easy to game but nobody is buying your false claims. |