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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But for black students the # admitted was only 1/3rd of expected.

2011 admission results (class of 2015)
754 black kids in FCPS
244 were eligible to apply (32% of FCPS black students)
(ignoring other counties)
224 applied (30% of FCPS black students; 92% of eligible)
6 were admitted (1% of FCPS black students; 3% admit rate)

looking deeper in the the courses/pipeline
admit rates for A1H=4%, GH=26%, G+=67%
look at # of black kids in those classes (205,37,2) & apply rate (92%)
the # of admits should be ~18 kids

But there were only 6 admitted. 1/3rd compared to others in same course level.

So there still is the pipeline question - why are only 32% eligible?

BUT even when looking at eligible students & similar course levels, why is admit rate so low relative to other groups?

Here was the data from the 2010-11 admissions year.

The vast majority of eligible black students that year (A1H/GH/GH+) did apply to TJ. Only a handful got in.

I’m happy to run numbers if someone has more recent math class enrollment #s.

I would think that it would be worthwhile to look at the application requirements (tests, grades, essays, recommendations) and study whether those requirements could be affected by conscious or unconscious bias. That study could yield some useful information.

DP. It is my understanding that the teacher recs are a bit of a problem for students outside of the specific TJ mania middle schools - that teachers at other schools are unfamiliar with the process, are not supportive, and may not write good/helpful letters of recommendation. I don't have firsthand knowledge, but this is what I've heard as a parent living in a non-TJ mania area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://pacificlegal.org/press-release/federal-judge-rules-that-admissions-changes-at-nations-top-public-school-discriminate-against-asian-american-students/
Next step is to criminally charge Mr. Brabrand and FCPS SB members for their hate crimes against Asian Americans. I'll personally donate at least $10k for this cause.

DC

This case and this statement is just so ridiculous - goes to show how entitled some of our people our

I'm south Asian and my kid did go to TJ - but we thought of it as a privilege that she happened to earn by taking two tests and getting admitted (no Prep classes). We totally realize that DC had the advantage of having two professional parents who were able to expose DC to STEM outside of school and were knowledgeable about TJ and all it had to offer.

Yea, but according to Bradbrand, just you realizing your privilege is not enough. No. Your child must be discriminated against based on the color of his skin so that she has less of a chance to attend. You support this? You support racist discrimination against your own child?

DP, my child was also admitted a few years ago without any prepping, did very well at TJ, and went on to a highly rated STEM-focused college. It is not discriminatory to focus the admissions process on metrics that do not involve tests that advantage kids who happen to have parents who understand how the admissions process works.

Well, federal judge does not agree with you. Obey the law and the Constitution like a good citizen you are.

DP. That PP is correct. Her statement, that focusing the admissions process on new metrics is not discriminatory and is not unconstitutional, is correct.

The problem is not with having new admissions criteria, although there may be some issue with some parts of the new admissions criteria. The problem was with the accompanying comments.

Well sucks for you racist idiots. Should have carried out racist comments in more secret and dark places like other common criminals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But for black students the # admitted was only 1/3rd of expected.

2011 admission results (class of 2015)
754 black kids in FCPS
244 were eligible to apply (32% of FCPS black students)
(ignoring other counties)
224 applied (30% of FCPS black students; 92% of eligible)
6 were admitted (1% of FCPS black students; 3% admit rate)

looking deeper in the the courses/pipeline
admit rates for A1H=4%, GH=26%, G+=67%
look at # of black kids in those classes (205,37,2) & apply rate (92%)
the # of admits should be ~18 kids

But there were only 6 admitted. 1/3rd compared to others in same course level.

So there still is the pipeline question - why are only 32% eligible?

BUT even when looking at eligible students & similar course levels, why is admit rate so low relative to other groups?

Here was the data from the 2010-11 admissions year.

The vast majority of eligible black students that year (A1H/GH/GH+) did apply to TJ. Only a handful got in.

I’m happy to run numbers if someone has more recent math class enrollment #s.

I would think that it would be worthwhile to look at the application requirements (tests, grades, essays, recommendations) and study whether those requirements could be affected by conscious or unconscious bias. That study could yield some useful information.

Agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judge Hilton denied FCPS's motion for a stay. FCPS will have to use a merit-based admission system for the class of 2026.

They'll appeal for a stay to the 4th Circuit as well. This was a procedural move and no one realistically expected that Hilton would essentially reverse himself.

It would be genuinely shocking if the stay were not granted by the 4th Circuit.

It would not be "shocking" if the 4th Circuit also denied the stay. I haven't been following the district court stay proceedings, but FCPS will presumably argue irreparable harm in the absence of a stay. But the potential harm to applicants denied under the existing (invalidated) policy is significant and it may be hard for FCPS to show that the balance of harms (another prerequisite for a stay) favors a stay -- on paper, the possible constitutional harm to applicants from being denied admission under a policy the district court has already found to be unconstitutional outweighs the hardship FCPS might face from using a different admissions policy (i.e. the old policy!) while the appeal proceeds. The outcome will likely depend, in part, on the makeup of motions panel that considers FCPS's petition -- and the 4th Circuit tilts to the left -- but, objectively, FCPS does not have a clear cut winner of a stay argument (in fact, the odds likely favor denial of a stay).

+1, this is how I see it as well.

The brief filed was really powerful. It starts off with the quote from the Judge at the preliminary injunction hearing telling FCPS that he's denying the injunction but that the FCPS better make a contingency plan in case they lose. Well, they lost so it's a challenge to argue hardship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judge Hilton denied FCPS's motion for a stay. FCPS will have to use a merit-based admission system for the class of 2026.

They'll appeal for a stay to the 4th Circuit as well. This was a procedural move and no one realistically expected that Hilton would essentially reverse himself.

It would be genuinely shocking if the stay were not granted by the 4th Circuit.

It would not be "shocking" if the 4th Circuit also denied the stay. I haven't been following the district court stay proceedings, but FCPS will presumably argue irreparable harm in the absence of a stay. But the potential harm to applicants denied under the existing (invalidated) policy is significant and it may be hard for FCPS to show that the balance of harms (another prerequisite for a stay) favors a stay -- on paper, the possible constitutional harm to applicants from being denied admission under a policy the district court has already found to be unconstitutional outweighs the hardship FCPS might face from using a different admissions policy (i.e. the old policy!) while the appeal proceeds. The outcome will likely depend, in part, on the makeup of motions panel that considers FCPS's petition -- and the 4th Circuit tilts to the left -- but, objectively, FCPS does not have a clear cut winner of a stay argument (in fact, the odds likely favor denial of a stay).

+1, this is how I see it as well.

The brief filed was really powerful. It starts off with the quote from the Judge at the preliminary injunction hearing telling FCPS that he's denying the injunction but that the FCPS better make a contingency plan in case they lose. Well, they lost so it's a challenge to argue hardship.

They create the mess (gigantic one) and then complain about the mess they created. You can't make this stuff up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judge Hilton denied FCPS's motion for a stay. FCPS will have to use a merit-based admission system for the class of 2026.

They'll appeal for a stay to the 4th Circuit as well. This was a procedural move and no one realistically expected that Hilton would essentially reverse himself.

It would be genuinely shocking if the stay were not granted by the 4th Circuit.

It would not be "shocking" if the 4th Circuit also denied the stay. I haven't been following the district court stay proceedings, but FCPS will presumably argue irreparable harm in the absence of a stay. But the potential harm to applicants denied under the existing (invalidated) policy is significant and it may be hard for FCPS to show that the balance of harms (another prerequisite for a stay) favors a stay -- on paper, the possible constitutional harm to applicants from being denied admission under a policy the district court has already found to be unconstitutional outweighs the hardship FCPS might face from using a different admissions policy (i.e. the old policy!) while the appeal proceeds. The outcome will likely depend, in part, on the makeup of motions panel that considers FCPS's petition -- and the 4th Circuit tilts to the left -- but, objectively, FCPS does not have a clear cut winner of a stay argument (in fact, the odds likely favor denial of a stay).

+1, this is how I see it as well.

The brief filed was really powerful. It starts off with the quote from the Judge at the preliminary injunction hearing telling FCPS that he's denying the injunction but that the FCPS better make a contingency plan in case they lose. Well, they lost so it's a challenge to argue hardship.

They create the mess (gigantic one) and then complain about the mess they created. You can't make this stuff up.

This is what FCPS does all the time. It's been years of non-stop dumpster fires followed by weak efforts at damage control.

One would be hard pressed to think a single senior FCPS employee who should not be fired, or a single School Board member with the possible exception of McLaughlin who shouldn't be replaced. Some should be behind bars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judge Hilton denied FCPS's motion for a stay. FCPS will have to use a merit-based admission system for the class of 2026.

They'll appeal for a stay to the 4th Circuit as well. This was a procedural move and no one realistically expected that Hilton would essentially reverse himself.

It would be genuinely shocking if the stay were not granted by the 4th Circuit.

It would not be "shocking" if the 4th Circuit also denied the stay. I haven't been following the district court stay proceedings, but FCPS will presumably argue irreparable harm in the absence of a stay. But the potential harm to applicants denied under the existing (invalidated) policy is significant and it may be hard for FCPS to show that the balance of harms (another prerequisite for a stay) favors a stay -- on paper, the possible constitutional harm to applicants from being denied admission under a policy the district court has already found to be unconstitutional outweighs the hardship FCPS might face from using a different admissions policy (i.e. the old policy!) while the appeal proceeds. The outcome will likely depend, in part, on the makeup of motions panel that considers FCPS's petition -- and the 4th Circuit tilts to the left -- but, objectively, FCPS does not have a clear cut winner of a stay argument (in fact, the odds likely favor denial of a stay).

+1, this is how I see it as well.

The brief filed was really powerful. It starts off with the quote from the Judge at the preliminary injunction hearing telling FCPS that he's denying the injunction but that the FCPS better make a contingency plan in case they lose. Well, they lost so it's a challenge to argue hardship.

They create the mess (gigantic one) and then complain about the mess they created. You can't make this stuff up.

This is what FCPS does all the time. It's been years of non-stop dumpster fires followed by weak efforts at damage control.

One would be hard pressed to think a single senior FCPS employee who should not be fired, or a single School Board member with the possible exception of McLaughlin who shouldn't be replaced. Some should be behind bars.

Absolutely agree. Not to mention millions of tax payer money they wasted (and continue to waste) practicing racial discrimination.

[Anonymous]

Just build another TJ-like school in the big weird county. In time, it'll be like what Bronx Science is to Stuyvesant. And the collective mental breakdown that affluent credentialist residents arguably are having could be ameliorated to sone extent. Throw in a couple hundred more UVA seats too. Parents need these car decals, really, really, really bad it seems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judge Hilton denied FCPS's motion for a stay. FCPS will have to use a merit-based admission system for the class of 2026.

They'll appeal for a stay to the 4th Circuit as well. This was a procedural move and no one realistically expected that Hilton would essentially reverse himself.

It would be genuinely shocking if the stay were not granted by the 4th Circuit.

It would not be "shocking" if the 4th Circuit also denied the stay. I haven't been following the district court stay proceedings, but FCPS will presumably argue irreparable harm in the absence of a stay. But the potential harm to applicants denied under the existing (invalidated) policy is significant and it may be hard for FCPS to show that the balance of harms (another prerequisite for a stay) favors a stay -- on paper, the possible constitutional harm to applicants from being denied admission under a policy the district court has already found to be unconstitutional outweighs the hardship FCPS might face from using a different admissions policy (i.e. the old policy!) while the appeal proceeds. The outcome will likely depend, in part, on the makeup of motions panel that considers FCPS's petition -- and the 4th Circuit tilts to the left -- but, objectively, FCPS does not have a clear cut winner of a stay argument (in fact, the odds likely favor denial of a stay).

C4TJ has two primary complainants and one of them has students who were admitted both under the previous and under the new admissions policy. There are over 2,500 applicants to TJ who will be impacted by a significant delay in the process, not to mention the domino effect on both TJ and the other public schools who are making hiring decisions and scheduling courses based on the eventual results of this process.

The school was told at the start of the case by the judge to make an alternative plan should this ruling occur. The school should be prepared to implement the alternative plan as the judge warned them. They should have had letters out earlier than informed the applicants of the court case and how they were planning to resolve the admissions issue should the ruling go against them.

They were warned to make these plans. The fact that they did not make those plans is not a reason to allow a stay and allow the faulty new admissions process to be implemented.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://pacificlegal.org/press-release/federal-judge-rules-that-admissions-changes-at-nations-top-public-school-discriminate-against-asian-american-students/
Next step is to criminally charge Mr. Brabrand and FCPS SB members for their hate crimes against Asian Americans. I'll personally donate at least $10k for this cause.

DC

This case and this statement is just so ridiculous - goes to show how entitled some of our people our

I'm south Asian and my kid did go to TJ - but we thought of it as a privilege that she happened to earn by taking two tests and getting admitted (no Prep classes). We totally realize that DC had the advantage of having two professional parents who were able to expose DC to STEM outside of school and were knowledgeable about TJ and all it had to offer.

Yea, but according to Bradbrand, just you realizing your privilege is not enough. No. Your child must be discriminated against based on the color of his skin so that she has less of a chance to attend. You support this? You support racist discrimination against your own child?

DP, my child was also admitted a few years ago without any prepping, did very well at TJ, and went on to a highly rated STEM-focused college. It is not discriminatory to focus the admissions process on metrics that do not involve tests that advantage kids who happen to have parents who understand how the admissions process works.

Well, federal judge does not agree with you. Obey the law and the Constitution like a good citizen you are.

DP. That PP is correct. Her statement, that focusing the admissions process on new metrics is not discriminatory and is not unconstitutional, is correct.

The problem is not with having new admissions criteria, although there may be some issue with some parts of the new admissions criteria. The problem was with the accompanying comments.

It's more than just comments. It's the intent, the whole driver behind the new policies. Without the racist intent, there wouldn't be these new policies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just build another TJ-like school in the big weird county. In time, it'll be like what Bronx Science is to Stuyvesant. And the collective mental breakdown that affluent credentialist residents arguably are having could be ameliorated to sone extent. Throw in a couple hundred more UVA seats too. Parents need these car decals, really, really, really bad it seems.

The recent TJ renovation cost $100M.

Think the taxpayers are gonna soak that bill?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just build another TJ-like school in the big weird county. In time, it'll be like what Bronx Science is to Stuyvesant. And the collective mental breakdown that affluent credentialist residents arguably are having could be ameliorated to sone extent. Throw in a couple hundred more UVA seats too. Parents need these car decals, really, really, really bad it seems.

The recent TJ renovation cost $100M.

Think the taxpayers are gonna soak that bill?

They should.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judge Hilton denied FCPS's motion for a stay. FCPS will have to use a merit-based admission system for the class of 2026.

They'll appeal for a stay to the 4th Circuit as well. This was a procedural move and no one realistically expected that Hilton would essentially reverse himself.

It would be genuinely shocking if the stay were not granted by the 4th Circuit.

It would not be "shocking" if the 4th Circuit also denied the stay. I haven't been following the district court stay proceedings, but FCPS will presumably argue irreparable harm in the absence of a stay. But the potential harm to applicants denied under the existing (invalidated) policy is significant and it may be hard for FCPS to show that the balance of harms (another prerequisite for a stay) favors a stay -- on paper, the possible constitutional harm to applicants from being denied admission under a policy the district court has already found to be unconstitutional outweighs the hardship FCPS might face from using a different admissions policy (i.e. the old policy!) while the appeal proceeds. The outcome will likely depend, in part, on the makeup of motions panel that considers FCPS's petition -- and the 4th Circuit tilts to the left -- but, objectively, FCPS does not have a clear cut winner of a stay argument (in fact, the odds likely favor denial of a stay).

+1. They can still seat the class using a lottery…this isnt doing enough harm to get a stay. I also don't see an fcps appeal going anywhere in the 4th circuit. Could they say that this is a unique case and should be looked at as it is a weird circumstance where you have an application only school sitting in a public k-12 system? Sure. But I don’t see the 4th being the one to take this up. If we were in the 6th, sure.

C4TJ has two primary complainants and one of them has students who were admitted both under the previous and under the new admissions policy. There are over 2,500 applicants to TJ who will be impacted by a significant delay in the process, not to mention the domino effect on both TJ and the other public schools who are making hiring decisions and scheduling courses based on the eventual results of this process.

Balance of harms looks not at just the two primary complainants, but everyone who would be impacted by an unconstiutional policy. I don't have a horse in this race, but it is far easier for FCPS to use a different admissions system this year (any system that passes constitutional muster) than to unwind this year's admissions if the 4th Circuit affirms. Important to remember that, as a matter of law, the "2,500 applicants to TJ" don't have a right to have their applications considered under any particular admissions system, just a right to one that is constitutional (and otherwise lawful). So there is no legal harm to current applicants from changing to a different admissions system for this year.

(At the extreme, FCPS could -- for example -- just put every application into a big bucket and randomly select those who are admitted. As dumb as that sounds, it would certainly be constitutional. While that would obviously never happen, it shows that FCPS isn't facing any present irreparable harm.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judge Hilton denied FCPS's motion for a stay. FCPS will have to use a merit-based admission system for the class of 2026.

They'll appeal for a stay to the 4th Circuit as well. This was a procedural move and no one realistically expected that Hilton would essentially reverse himself.

It would be genuinely shocking if the stay were not granted by the 4th Circuit.

It would not be "shocking" if the 4th Circuit also denied the stay. I haven't been following the district court stay proceedings, but FCPS will presumably argue irreparable harm in the absence of a stay. But the potential harm to applicants denied under the existing (invalidated) policy is significant and it may be hard for FCPS to show that the balance of harms (another prerequisite for a stay) favors a stay -- on paper, the possible constitutional harm to applicants from being denied admission under a policy the district court has already found to be unconstitutional outweighs the hardship FCPS might face from using a different admissions policy (i.e. the old policy!) while the appeal proceeds. The outcome will likely depend, in part, on the makeup of motions panel that considers FCPS's petition -- and the 4th Circuit tilts to the left -- but, objectively, FCPS does not have a clear cut winner of a stay argument (in fact, the odds likely favor denial of a stay).

+1. They can still seat the class using a lottery…this isnt doing enough harm to get a stay. I also don't see an fcps appeal going anywhere in the 4th circuit. Could they say that this is a unique case and should be looked at as it is a weird circumstance where you have an application only school sitting in a public k-12 system? Sure. But I don’t see the 4th being the one to take this up. If we were in the 6th, sure.

C4TJ has two primary complainants and one of them has students who were admitted both under the previous and under the new admissions policy. There are over 2,500 applicants to TJ who will be impacted by a significant delay in the process, not to mention the domino effect on both TJ and the other public schools who are making hiring decisions and scheduling courses based on the eventual results of this process.

Balance of harms looks not at just the two primary complainants, but everyone who would be impacted by an unconstiutional policy. I don't have a horse in this race, but it is far easier for FCPS to use a different admissions system this year (any system that passes constitutional muster) than to unwind this year's admissions if the 4th Circuit affirms. Important to remember that, as a matter of law, the "2,500 applicants to TJ" don't have a right to have their applications considered under any particular admissions system, just a right to one that is constitutional (and otherwise lawful). So there is no legal harm to current applicants from changing to a different admissions system for this year.

(At the extreme, FCPS could -- for example -- just put every application into a big bucket and randomly select those who are admitted. As dumb as that sounds, it would certainly be constitutional. While that would obviously never happen, it shows that FCPS isn't facing any present irreparable harm.)

I think a lottery might just be the only path forward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://pacificlegal.org/press-release/federal-judge-rules-that-admissions-changes-at-nations-top-public-school-discriminate-against-asian-american-students/
Next step is to criminally charge Mr. Brabrand and FCPS SB members for their hate crimes against Asian Americans. I'll personally donate at least $10k for this cause.

DC

This case and this statement is just so ridiculous - goes to show how entitled some of our people our

I'm south Asian and my kid did go to TJ - but we thought of it as a privilege that she happened to earn by taking two tests and getting admitted (no Prep classes). We totally realize that DC had the advantage of having two professional parents who were able to expose DC to STEM outside of school and were knowledgeable about TJ and all it had to offer.

Yea, but according to Bradbrand, just you realizing your privilege is not enough. No. Your child must be discriminated against based on the color of his skin so that she has less of a chance to attend. You support this? You support racist discrimination against your own child?

DP, my child was also admitted a few years ago without any prepping, did very well at TJ, and went on to a highly rated STEM-focused college. It is not discriminatory to focus the admissions process on metrics that do not involve tests that advantage kids who happen to have parents who understand how the admissions process works.

Well, federal judge does not agree with you. Obey the law and the Constitution like a good citizen you are.

DP. That PP is correct. Her statement, that focusing the admissions process on new metrics is not discriminatory and is not unconstitutional, is correct.

The problem is not with having new admissions criteria, although there may be some issue with some parts of the new admissions criteria. The problem was with the accompanying comments.

It's more than just comments. It's the intent, the whole driver behind the new policies. Without the racist intent, there wouldn't be these new policies.

You can say that. But creating new admissions criteria is not a crazy idea. The other governor's school has recently created new admissions criteria, as have other prestigious high schools. The problem with the new criteria was the intent behind them but what they came up with wasn't terrible. With some tweaking, it should work well. The new admissions criteria do not need to be scrapped entirely, especially if a new board or board-approved group is in charge.