Anonymous wrote:The problem with TJ admissions is that the school board was hoping for a catch-all solution to a diverse set of problems. In the end, their motive turned into a desperate, flailing "Smart kids are the problem. Why can't everyone be the same?" The end result was that the primary metric for a "successful" strategy was good conformance to population distribution.
In reality, there are a number of different issues which have been raised, each of which varies in solution space and degree of seriousness:
Academic aptitude may vary in race due to cultural or societal factors. However, the idea that there's a fundamental difference in peak academic capability due to race should be rejected on principle. If merit-based measures are showing high sensitivity to race, then that suggests that either (a) the merit-based metrics we're using aren't as good as we'd hope at measuring merit, or (b) if the merit-based measures are good, then some kids are somehow falling off the radar for non-merit based reasons. Either is unjust.
There should be a greater commitment to ensuring income-neutral resources for kids that want to be challenged or who want to "get ahead."
We're concerned that there are some easy but very superficial steps that students can take which can significantly impact their appearance of merit, without being particularly reflective of actual merit. This is especially true if those steps are accessible to some students but not to others. (the "prep" argument)
The academic status quo is too rigid, and it's too easy for students to get locked into "elite" or "dumb" tracks. Once they're stuck in the wrong track, they lose access to opportunities, and also lose access to the financial and societal means to pursue those opportunities. The system should be a lot more flexible and forgiving.
Smart people are too intimidating to the majority of the population which is not especially smart. We should really take elite schools like TJ down a notch. At the very least, take away the mystique that being "elite" means anything more that having a high GPA and/or skills that can be bought.
We finally admit that we're racist, but there are so many Asians, and honestly it makes us uncomfortable.
If admissions to elite education is entirely merit-based, what's to stop the Russians from infiltrating our elite institutions?
If we do not give the school board the utmost control and flexibility in deciding educational outcomes, how will our great and glorious leaders be able to ensure that they have relatively the best possible education for their children?
If you allow that academic aptitude may vary in race due to cultural or societal factors, then it's irrational to claim that it is unjust for merit-based metrics to identify candidates that reflect this variance.
The idea that academic aptitude (natural ability) varies by race is *drumroll* racist. Societal and cultural factors might impact academic *performance*, though even there it’s BOTH race and class/income (and other factors) that affect a child’s ability to perform up to potential in their schooling. I’d rather we focus more on identifying and cultivating academic potential, and focus less on “absolute performance to date” and preppable test taking skills as those conveniently paper over and perpetuate the systemic issues that give certain groups significant disadvantages in those supposedly objective measures of “merit” (yuck).
No one is arguing for the bolded part. Per your recommendation that we focus on identifying and cultivating academic potential, how do you go about doing that if measuring academic performance through tests is off the table? In other words, show me a test that you can't prepare for in advance.
Actually the PP said exactly the bolded part in their argument, so yes, someone is.
As to your question, I'm not arguing tests should be wholesale off the table, but likewise they shouldn't be elevated as some sort of objective county-wide gold standard. They should be used appropriately, and a singular test for all students regardless of background and circumstances is simply incorporating those disparities into the outcomes. If we compare a students academic performance against other students who have experienced generally similar circumstances (rather than "everyone in the entire county"), we might at least take one step towards identifying the highest potential students within each cohort. Given the economic/racial housing segregation we have, taking top x% per ES is a reasonable (albeit imperfect) better-than-nothing proxy for that. You could also do at least some small degree of age-norming (like CogAT and other standardized tests do) since there can be over a year's delta amongst students within a given grade, so that the oldest students in the grade don't inherit an artificial advantage.
The optimal way to build a rocket doesn't depend on the whether the engineer was a poor black kid from the inner city. The optimal way to write a software program doesn't depend on whether the programmer is a first generation hispanic DACA recipient. The optimal way to perform neural surgery doesn't depend on whether the doctor is the first BIPOC woman from her family to go to college. And the best way to test for academic potential doesn't depend on childrens' backgrounds
I grew up in India, and started college at a time and a place where college started in 11th grade. The day we went for enrollment (in person), they had us ordered by grades. The girl in front of me had scored fewer points on the test than me, but was ahead, because of other factors, in her case, caste. We got to talking, and it turned out that she was an orphan, raised by her older brother, who was a subsistence farmer. She had no electricity in her home, and studied under street lights. I would say that someone like her, who grew up in serious poverty, with so much motivation and the brains, is MUCH more likely to have what it takes to be successful as a rocket scientist or brain surgeon, than most of the rest of us there that day, that had every advantage.
Cool story bro.
Happens to be true. She struggled in college initially because of language issues; she learned in the local language, and had to translate everything to it from the texts written in English. I helped translate, although not successfully all the time, because I didn’t know names of even some of the simple scientific terms (we were in the science track) in local language. I left for the US before I finished out the year. We corresponded by mail for a few years before I lost touch. She was going into a nursing program with the intent to move abroad once finished, and that would’ve been a huge accomplishment for her. If she had better supports, she could’ve gone even further. She was a lovely person, dignified in the face of a lot of adversity.
And her kids would be openly discriminated against if her kids applied to TJ.
Her kids didn’t overcome the adversity. She did.
Parents have got to stop with this tired narrative that their children should get credit for their struggles, or that they should get credit for their children’s achievements.
Anonymous wrote:The problem with TJ admissions is that the school board was hoping for a catch-all solution to a diverse set of problems. In the end, their motive turned into a desperate, flailing "Smart kids are the problem. Why can't everyone be the same?" The end result was that the primary metric for a "successful" strategy was good conformance to population distribution.
In reality, there are a number of different issues which have been raised, each of which varies in solution space and degree of seriousness:
Academic aptitude may vary in race due to cultural or societal factors. However, the idea that there's a fundamental difference in peak academic capability due to race should be rejected on principle. If merit-based measures are showing high sensitivity to race, then that suggests that either (a) the merit-based metrics we're using aren't as good as we'd hope at measuring merit, or (b) if the merit-based measures are good, then some kids are somehow falling off the radar for non-merit based reasons. Either is unjust.
There should be a greater commitment to ensuring income-neutral resources for kids that want to be challenged or who want to "get ahead."
We're concerned that there are some easy but very superficial steps that students can take which can significantly impact their appearance of merit, without being particularly reflective of actual merit. This is especially true if those steps are accessible to some students but not to others. (the "prep" argument)
The academic status quo is too rigid, and it's too easy for students to get locked into "elite" or "dumb" tracks. Once they're stuck in the wrong track, they lose access to opportunities, and also lose access to the financial and societal means to pursue those opportunities. The system should be a lot more flexible and forgiving.
Smart people are too intimidating to the majority of the population which is not especially smart. We should really take elite schools like TJ down a notch. At the very least, take away the mystique that being "elite" means anything more that having a high GPA and/or skills that can be bought.
We finally admit that we're racist, but there are so many Asians, and honestly it makes us uncomfortable.
If admissions to elite education is entirely merit-based, what's to stop the Russians from infiltrating our elite institutions?
If we do not give the school board the utmost control and flexibility in deciding educational outcomes, how will our great and glorious leaders be able to ensure that they have relatively the best possible education for their children?
If you allow that academic aptitude may vary in race due to cultural or societal factors, then it's irrational to claim that it is unjust for merit-based metrics to identify candidates that reflect this variance.
The idea that academic aptitude (natural ability) varies by race is *drumroll* racist. Societal and cultural factors might impact academic *performance*, though even there it’s BOTH race and class/income (and other factors) that affect a child’s ability to perform up to potential in their schooling. I’d rather we focus more on identifying and cultivating academic potential, and focus less on “absolute performance to date” and preppable test taking skills as those conveniently paper over and perpetuate the systemic issues that give certain groups significant disadvantages in those supposedly objective measures of “merit” (yuck).
No one is arguing for the bolded part. Per your recommendation that we focus on identifying and cultivating academic potential, how do you go about doing that if measuring academic performance through tests is off the table? In other words, show me a test that you can't prepare for in advance.
Actually the PP said exactly the bolded part in their argument, so yes, someone is.
As to your question, I'm not arguing tests should be wholesale off the table, but likewise they shouldn't be elevated as some sort of objective county-wide gold standard. They should be used appropriately, and a singular test for all students regardless of background and circumstances is simply incorporating those disparities into the outcomes. If we compare a students academic performance against other students who have experienced generally similar circumstances (rather than "everyone in the entire county"), we might at least take one step towards identifying the highest potential students within each cohort. Given the economic/racial housing segregation we have, taking top x% per ES is a reasonable (albeit imperfect) better-than-nothing proxy for that. You could also do at least some small degree of age-norming (like CogAT and other standardized tests do) since there can be over a year's delta amongst students within a given grade, so that the oldest students in the grade don't inherit an artificial advantage.
The optimal way to build a rocket doesn't depend on the whether the engineer was a poor black kid from the inner city. The optimal way to write a software program doesn't depend on whether the programmer is a first generation hispanic DACA recipient. The optimal way to perform neural surgery doesn't depend on whether the doctor is the first BIPOC woman from her family to go to college. And the best way to test for academic potential doesn't depend on childrens' backgrounds
I grew up in India, and started college at a time and a place where college started in 11th grade. The day we went for enrollment (in person), they had us ordered by grades. The girl in front of me had scored fewer points on the test than me, but was ahead, because of other factors, in her case, caste. We got to talking, and it turned out that she was an orphan, raised by her older brother, who was a subsistence farmer. She had no electricity in her home, and studied under street lights. I would say that someone like her, who grew up in serious poverty, with so much motivation and the brains, is MUCH more likely to have what it takes to be successful as a rocket scientist or brain surgeon, than most of the rest of us there that day, that had every advantage.
Cool story bro.
Happens to be true. She struggled in college initially because of language issues; she learned in the local language, and had to translate everything to it from the texts written in English. I helped translate, although not successfully all the time, because I didn’t know names of even some of the simple scientific terms (we were in the science track) in local language. I left for the US before I finished out the year. We corresponded by mail for a few years before I lost touch. She was going into a nursing program with the intent to move abroad once finished, and that would’ve been a huge accomplishment for her. If she had better supports, she could’ve gone even further. She was a lovely person, dignified in the face of a lot of adversity.
And her kids would be openly discriminated against if her kids applied to TJ.
Her kids didn’t overcome the adversity. She did.
Parents have got to stop with this tired narrative that their children should get credit for their struggles, or that they should get credit for their children’s achievements.
Anonymous wrote:
Almost, but not quite. There were three main issues with the earlier admissions process. 1. The Quant-Q was especially vulnerable to prep. 2. Scores were used as a baseline that prevented kids from having their entire files viewed holistically. 3. The application fee may have been cost prohibitive for lower income kids. They could have addressed all of these issues without gutting the entire application process.
Plus equity. I think people need to look at the changes to Academy of Loudoun admissions that happened around the same time.
The admission changes were almost identical, except that Loudoun put a max quota per school.
The changes were also presented just days before the school board adopted them. Even board members who supported the changes voted against them because of the haphazard implementation.
Gutting the entire application process was the goal, and they wanted to implement this new process that appears to have come from an outside group.
Anonymous wrote:The problem with TJ admissions is that the school board was hoping for a catch-all solution to a diverse set of problems. In the end, their motive turned into a desperate, flailing "Smart kids are the problem. Why can't everyone be the same?" The end result was that the primary metric for a "successful" strategy was good conformance to population distribution.
In reality, there are a number of different issues which have been raised, each of which varies in solution space and degree of seriousness:
Academic aptitude may vary in race due to cultural or societal factors. However, the idea that there's a fundamental difference in peak academic capability due to race should be rejected on principle. If merit-based measures are showing high sensitivity to race, then that suggests that either (a) the merit-based metrics we're using aren't as good as we'd hope at measuring merit, or (b) if the merit-based measures are good, then some kids are somehow falling off the radar for non-merit based reasons. Either is unjust.
There should be a greater commitment to ensuring income-neutral resources for kids that want to be challenged or who want to "get ahead."
We're concerned that there are some easy but very superficial steps that students can take which can significantly impact their appearance of merit, without being particularly reflective of actual merit. This is especially true if those steps are accessible to some students but not to others. (the "prep" argument)
The academic status quo is too rigid, and it's too easy for students to get locked into "elite" or "dumb" tracks. Once they're stuck in the wrong track, they lose access to opportunities, and also lose access to the financial and societal means to pursue those opportunities. The system should be a lot more flexible and forgiving.
Smart people are too intimidating to the majority of the population which is not especially smart. We should really take elite schools like TJ down a notch. At the very least, take away the mystique that being "elite" means anything more that having a high GPA and/or skills that can be bought.
We finally admit that we're racist, but there are so many Asians, and honestly it makes us uncomfortable.
If admissions to elite education is entirely merit-based, what's to stop the Russians from infiltrating our elite institutions?
If we do not give the school board the utmost control and flexibility in deciding educational outcomes, how will our great and glorious leaders be able to ensure that they have relatively the best possible education for their children?
If you allow that academic aptitude may vary in race due to cultural or societal factors, then it's irrational to claim that it is unjust for merit-based metrics to identify candidates that reflect this variance.
The idea that academic aptitude (natural ability) varies by race is *drumroll* racist. Societal and cultural factors might impact academic *performance*, though even there it’s BOTH race and class/income (and other factors) that affect a child’s ability to perform up to potential in their schooling. I’d rather we focus more on identifying and cultivating academic potential, and focus less on “absolute performance to date” and preppable test taking skills as those conveniently paper over and perpetuate the systemic issues that give certain groups significant disadvantages in those supposedly objective measures of “merit” (yuck).
No one is arguing for the bolded part. Per your recommendation that we focus on identifying and cultivating academic potential, how do you go about doing that if measuring academic performance through tests is off the table? In other words, show me a test that you can't prepare for in advance.
Actually the PP said exactly the bolded part in their argument, so yes, someone is.
As to your question, I'm not arguing tests should be wholesale off the table, but likewise they shouldn't be elevated as some sort of objective county-wide gold standard. They should be used appropriately, and a singular test for all students regardless of background and circumstances is simply incorporating those disparities into the outcomes. If we compare a students academic performance against other students who have experienced generally similar circumstances (rather than "everyone in the entire county"), we might at least take one step towards identifying the highest potential students within each cohort. Given the economic/racial housing segregation we have, taking top x% per ES is a reasonable (albeit imperfect) better-than-nothing proxy for that. You could also do at least some small degree of age-norming (like CogAT and other standardized tests do) since there can be over a year's delta amongst students within a given grade, so that the oldest students in the grade don't inherit an artificial advantage.
The optimal way to build a rocket doesn't depend on the whether the engineer was a poor black kid from the inner city. The optimal way to write a software program doesn't depend on whether the programmer is a first generation hispanic DACA recipient. The optimal way to perform neural surgery doesn't depend on whether the doctor is the first BIPOC woman from her family to go to college. And the best way to test for academic potential doesn't depend on childrens' backgrounds
I grew up in India, and started college at a time and a place where college started in 11th grade. The day we went for enrollment (in person), they had us ordered by grades. The girl in front of me had scored fewer points on the test than me, but was ahead, because of other factors, in her case, caste. We got to talking, and it turned out that she was an orphan, raised by her older brother, who was a subsistence farmer. She had no electricity in her home, and studied under street lights. I would say that someone like her, who grew up in serious poverty, with so much motivation and the brains, is MUCH more likely to have what it takes to be successful as a rocket scientist or brain surgeon, than most of the rest of us there that day, that had every advantage.
Cool story bro.
Happens to be true. She struggled in college initially because of language issues; she learned in the local language, and had to translate everything to it from the texts written in English. I helped translate, although not successfully all the time, because I didn’t know names of even some of the simple scientific terms (we were in the science track) in local language. I left for the US before I finished out the year. We corresponded by mail for a few years before I lost touch. She was going into a nursing program with the intent to move abroad once finished, and that would’ve been a huge accomplishment for her. If she had better supports, she could’ve gone even further. She was a lovely person, dignified in the face of a lot of adversity.
And her kids would be openly discriminated against if her kids applied to TJ.
Her kids didn’t overcome the adversity. She did.
Parents have got to stop with this tired narrative that their children should get credit for their struggles, or that they should get credit for their children’s achievements.
Well then, same should apply to black applicants.
PP. I don’t disagree with you. The kids’ lives are a lot harder than your kids’ are. In many cases for no reason other than the color of their skin. They are presumed to be less than because they are black in all aspects of life.
Anonymous wrote:The problem with TJ admissions is that the school board was hoping for a catch-all solution to a diverse set of problems. In the end, their motive turned into a desperate, flailing "Smart kids are the problem. Why can't everyone be the same?" The end result was that the primary metric for a "successful" strategy was good conformance to population distribution.
In reality, there are a number of different issues which have been raised, each of which varies in solution space and degree of seriousness:
Academic aptitude may vary in race due to cultural or societal factors. However, the idea that there's a fundamental difference in peak academic capability due to race should be rejected on principle. If merit-based measures are showing high sensitivity to race, then that suggests that either (a) the merit-based metrics we're using aren't as good as we'd hope at measuring merit, or (b) if the merit-based measures are good, then some kids are somehow falling off the radar for non-merit based reasons. Either is unjust.
There should be a greater commitment to ensuring income-neutral resources for kids that want to be challenged or who want to "get ahead."
We're concerned that there are some easy but very superficial steps that students can take which can significantly impact their appearance of merit, without being particularly reflective of actual merit. This is especially true if those steps are accessible to some students but not to others. (the "prep" argument)
The academic status quo is too rigid, and it's too easy for students to get locked into "elite" or "dumb" tracks. Once they're stuck in the wrong track, they lose access to opportunities, and also lose access to the financial and societal means to pursue those opportunities. The system should be a lot more flexible and forgiving.
Smart people are too intimidating to the majority of the population which is not especially smart. We should really take elite schools like TJ down a notch. At the very least, take away the mystique that being "elite" means anything more that having a high GPA and/or skills that can be bought.
We finally admit that we're racist, but there are so many Asians, and honestly it makes us uncomfortable.
If admissions to elite education is entirely merit-based, what's to stop the Russians from infiltrating our elite institutions?
If we do not give the school board the utmost control and flexibility in deciding educational outcomes, how will our great and glorious leaders be able to ensure that they have relatively the best possible education for their children?
If you allow that academic aptitude may vary in race due to cultural or societal factors, then it's irrational to claim that it is unjust for merit-based metrics to identify candidates that reflect this variance.
The idea that academic aptitude (natural ability) varies by race is *drumroll* racist. Societal and cultural factors might impact academic *performance*, though even there it’s BOTH race and class/income (and other factors) that affect a child’s ability to perform up to potential in their schooling. I’d rather we focus more on identifying and cultivating academic potential, and focus less on “absolute performance to date” and preppable test taking skills as those conveniently paper over and perpetuate the systemic issues that give certain groups significant disadvantages in those supposedly objective measures of “merit” (yuck).
No one is arguing for the bolded part. Per your recommendation that we focus on identifying and cultivating academic potential, how do you go about doing that if measuring academic performance through tests is off the table? In other words, show me a test that you can't prepare for in advance.
Actually the PP said exactly the bolded part in their argument, so yes, someone is.
As to your question, I'm not arguing tests should be wholesale off the table, but likewise they shouldn't be elevated as some sort of objective county-wide gold standard. They should be used appropriately, and a singular test for all students regardless of background and circumstances is simply incorporating those disparities into the outcomes. If we compare a students academic performance against other students who have experienced generally similar circumstances (rather than "everyone in the entire county"), we might at least take one step towards identifying the highest potential students within each cohort. Given the economic/racial housing segregation we have, taking top x% per ES is a reasonable (albeit imperfect) better-than-nothing proxy for that. You could also do at least some small degree of age-norming (like CogAT and other standardized tests do) since there can be over a year's delta amongst students within a given grade, so that the oldest students in the grade don't inherit an artificial advantage.
The optimal way to build a rocket doesn't depend on the whether the engineer was a poor black kid from the inner city. The optimal way to write a software program doesn't depend on whether the programmer is a first generation hispanic DACA recipient. The optimal way to perform neural surgery doesn't depend on whether the doctor is the first BIPOC woman from her family to go to college. And the best way to test for academic potential doesn't depend on childrens' backgrounds
I grew up in India, and started college at a time and a place where college started in 11th grade. The day we went for enrollment (in person), they had us ordered by grades. The girl in front of me had scored fewer points on the test than me, but was ahead, because of other factors, in her case, caste. We got to talking, and it turned out that she was an orphan, raised by her older brother, who was a subsistence farmer. She had no electricity in her home, and studied under street lights. I would say that someone like her, who grew up in serious poverty, with so much motivation and the brains, is MUCH more likely to have what it takes to be successful as a rocket scientist or brain surgeon, than most of the rest of us there that day, that had every advantage.
Cool story bro.
Happens to be true. She struggled in college initially because of language issues; she learned in the local language, and had to translate everything to it from the texts written in English. I helped translate, although not successfully all the time, because I didn’t know names of even some of the simple scientific terms (we were in the science track) in local language. I left for the US before I finished out the year. We corresponded by mail for a few years before I lost touch. She was going into a nursing program with the intent to move abroad once finished, and that would’ve been a huge accomplishment for her. If she had better supports, she could’ve gone even further. She was a lovely person, dignified in the face of a lot of adversity.
And her kids would be openly discriminated against if her kids applied to TJ.
Her kids didn’t overcome the adversity. She did.
Parents have got to stop with this tired narrative that their children should get credit for their struggles, or that they should get credit for their children’s achievements.
You didn't think through your comment, did you?
Oh, I did. I fully understand the point you are trying to make, but it comes from a place of not understanding the difference in the way that Black and Asian CHILDREN are perceived in the educational environment and the opportunities that THEY have.
Anonymous wrote:The problem with TJ admissions is that the school board was hoping for a catch-all solution to a diverse set of problems. In the end, their motive turned into a desperate, flailing "Smart kids are the problem. Why can't everyone be the same?" The end result was that the primary metric for a "successful" strategy was good conformance to population distribution.
In reality, there are a number of different issues which have been raised, each of which varies in solution space and degree of seriousness:
Academic aptitude may vary in race due to cultural or societal factors. However, the idea that there's a fundamental difference in peak academic capability due to race should be rejected on principle. If merit-based measures are showing high sensitivity to race, then that suggests that either (a) the merit-based metrics we're using aren't as good as we'd hope at measuring merit, or (b) if the merit-based measures are good, then some kids are somehow falling off the radar for non-merit based reasons. Either is unjust.
There should be a greater commitment to ensuring income-neutral resources for kids that want to be challenged or who want to "get ahead."
We're concerned that there are some easy but very superficial steps that students can take which can significantly impact their appearance of merit, without being particularly reflective of actual merit. This is especially true if those steps are accessible to some students but not to others. (the "prep" argument)
The academic status quo is too rigid, and it's too easy for students to get locked into "elite" or "dumb" tracks. Once they're stuck in the wrong track, they lose access to opportunities, and also lose access to the financial and societal means to pursue those opportunities. The system should be a lot more flexible and forgiving.
Smart people are too intimidating to the majority of the population which is not especially smart. We should really take elite schools like TJ down a notch. At the very least, take away the mystique that being "elite" means anything more that having a high GPA and/or skills that can be bought.
We finally admit that we're racist, but there are so many Asians, and honestly it makes us uncomfortable.
If admissions to elite education is entirely merit-based, what's to stop the Russians from infiltrating our elite institutions?
If we do not give the school board the utmost control and flexibility in deciding educational outcomes, how will our great and glorious leaders be able to ensure that they have relatively the best possible education for their children?
If you allow that academic aptitude may vary in race due to cultural or societal factors, then it's irrational to claim that it is unjust for merit-based metrics to identify candidates that reflect this variance.
The idea that academic aptitude (natural ability) varies by race is *drumroll* racist. Societal and cultural factors might impact academic *performance*, though even there it’s BOTH race and class/income (and other factors) that affect a child’s ability to perform up to potential in their schooling. I’d rather we focus more on identifying and cultivating academic potential, and focus less on “absolute performance to date” and preppable test taking skills as those conveniently paper over and perpetuate the systemic issues that give certain groups significant disadvantages in those supposedly objective measures of “merit” (yuck).
No one is arguing for the bolded part. Per your recommendation that we focus on identifying and cultivating academic potential, how do you go about doing that if measuring academic performance through tests is off the table? In other words, show me a test that you can't prepare for in advance.
Actually the PP said exactly the bolded part in their argument, so yes, someone is.
As to your question, I'm not arguing tests should be wholesale off the table, but likewise they shouldn't be elevated as some sort of objective county-wide gold standard. They should be used appropriately, and a singular test for all students regardless of background and circumstances is simply incorporating those disparities into the outcomes. If we compare a students academic performance against other students who have experienced generally similar circumstances (rather than "everyone in the entire county"), we might at least take one step towards identifying the highest potential students within each cohort. Given the economic/racial housing segregation we have, taking top x% per ES is a reasonable (albeit imperfect) better-than-nothing proxy for that. You could also do at least some small degree of age-norming (like CogAT and other standardized tests do) since there can be over a year's delta amongst students within a given grade, so that the oldest students in the grade don't inherit an artificial advantage.
The optimal way to build a rocket doesn't depend on the whether the engineer was a poor black kid from the inner city. The optimal way to write a software program doesn't depend on whether the programmer is a first generation hispanic DACA recipient. The optimal way to perform neural surgery doesn't depend on whether the doctor is the first BIPOC woman from her family to go to college. And the best way to test for academic potential doesn't depend on childrens' backgrounds
I grew up in India, and started college at a time and a place where college started in 11th grade. The day we went for enrollment (in person), they had us ordered by grades. The girl in front of me had scored fewer points on the test than me, but was ahead, because of other factors, in her case, caste. We got to talking, and it turned out that she was an orphan, raised by her older brother, who was a subsistence farmer. She had no electricity in her home, and studied under street lights. I would say that someone like her, who grew up in serious poverty, with so much motivation and the brains, is MUCH more likely to have what it takes to be successful as a rocket scientist or brain surgeon, than most of the rest of us there that day, that had every advantage.
Cool story bro.
Happens to be true. She struggled in college initially because of language issues; she learned in the local language, and had to translate everything to it from the texts written in English. I helped translate, although not successfully all the time, because I didn’t know names of even some of the simple scientific terms (we were in the science track) in local language. I left for the US before I finished out the year. We corresponded by mail for a few years before I lost touch. She was going into a nursing program with the intent to move abroad once finished, and that would’ve been a huge accomplishment for her. If she had better supports, she could’ve gone even further. She was a lovely person, dignified in the face of a lot of adversity.
And her kids would be openly discriminated against if her kids applied to TJ.
Her kids didn’t overcome the adversity. She did.
Parents have got to stop with this tired narrative that their children should get credit for their struggles, or that they should get credit for their children’s achievements.
You didn't think through your comment, did you?
Oh, I did. I fully understand the point you are trying to make, but it comes from a place of not understanding the difference in the way that Black and Asian CHILDREN are perceived in the educational environment and the opportunities that THEY have.
You have zero clue. Not having lived either the Asian experience or the Black experience. You just come from a place of ignorance.
Anonymous wrote:The problem with TJ admissions is that the school board was hoping for a catch-all solution to a diverse set of problems. In the end, their motive turned into a desperate, flailing "Smart kids are the problem. Why can't everyone be the same?" The end result was that the primary metric for a "successful" strategy was good conformance to population distribution.
In reality, there are a number of different issues which have been raised, each of which varies in solution space and degree of seriousness:
Academic aptitude may vary in race due to cultural or societal factors. However, the idea that there's a fundamental difference in peak academic capability due to race should be rejected on principle. If merit-based measures are showing high sensitivity to race, then that suggests that either (a) the merit-based metrics we're using aren't as good as we'd hope at measuring merit, or (b) if the merit-based measures are good, then some kids are somehow falling off the radar for non-merit based reasons. Either is unjust.
There should be a greater commitment to ensuring income-neutral resources for kids that want to be challenged or who want to "get ahead."
We're concerned that there are some easy but very superficial steps that students can take which can significantly impact their appearance of merit, without being particularly reflective of actual merit. This is especially true if those steps are accessible to some students but not to others. (the "prep" argument)
The academic status quo is too rigid, and it's too easy for students to get locked into "elite" or "dumb" tracks. Once they're stuck in the wrong track, they lose access to opportunities, and also lose access to the financial and societal means to pursue those opportunities. The system should be a lot more flexible and forgiving.
Smart people are too intimidating to the majority of the population which is not especially smart. We should really take elite schools like TJ down a notch. At the very least, take away the mystique that being "elite" means anything more that having a high GPA and/or skills that can be bought.
We finally admit that we're racist, but there are so many Asians, and honestly it makes us uncomfortable.
If admissions to elite education is entirely merit-based, what's to stop the Russians from infiltrating our elite institutions?
If we do not give the school board the utmost control and flexibility in deciding educational outcomes, how will our great and glorious leaders be able to ensure that they have relatively the best possible education for their children?
If you allow that academic aptitude may vary in race due to cultural or societal factors, then it's irrational to claim that it is unjust for merit-based metrics to identify candidates that reflect this variance.
The idea that academic aptitude (natural ability) varies by race is *drumroll* racist. Societal and cultural factors might impact academic *performance*, though even there it’s BOTH race and class/income (and other factors) that affect a child’s ability to perform up to potential in their schooling. I’d rather we focus more on identifying and cultivating academic potential, and focus less on “absolute performance to date” and preppable test taking skills as those conveniently paper over and perpetuate the systemic issues that give certain groups significant disadvantages in those supposedly objective measures of “merit” (yuck).
No one is arguing for the bolded part. Per your recommendation that we focus on identifying and cultivating academic potential, how do you go about doing that if measuring academic performance through tests is off the table? In other words, show me a test that you can't prepare for in advance.
Actually the PP said exactly the bolded part in their argument, so yes, someone is.
As to your question, I'm not arguing tests should be wholesale off the table, but likewise they shouldn't be elevated as some sort of objective county-wide gold standard. They should be used appropriately, and a singular test for all students regardless of background and circumstances is simply incorporating those disparities into the outcomes. If we compare a students academic performance against other students who have experienced generally similar circumstances (rather than "everyone in the entire county"), we might at least take one step towards identifying the highest potential students within each cohort. Given the economic/racial housing segregation we have, taking top x% per ES is a reasonable (albeit imperfect) better-than-nothing proxy for that. You could also do at least some small degree of age-norming (like CogAT and other standardized tests do) since there can be over a year's delta amongst students within a given grade, so that the oldest students in the grade don't inherit an artificial advantage.
The optimal way to build a rocket doesn't depend on the whether the engineer was a poor black kid from the inner city. The optimal way to write a software program doesn't depend on whether the programmer is a first generation hispanic DACA recipient. The optimal way to perform neural surgery doesn't depend on whether the doctor is the first BIPOC woman from her family to go to college. And the best way to test for academic potential doesn't depend on childrens' backgrounds
I grew up in India, and started college at a time and a place where college started in 11th grade. The day we went for enrollment (in person), they had us ordered by grades. The girl in front of me had scored fewer points on the test than me, but was ahead, because of other factors, in her case, caste. We got to talking, and it turned out that she was an orphan, raised by her older brother, who was a subsistence farmer. She had no electricity in her home, and studied under street lights. I would say that someone like her, who grew up in serious poverty, with so much motivation and the brains, is MUCH more likely to have what it takes to be successful as a rocket scientist or brain surgeon, than most of the rest of us there that day, that had every advantage.
Cool story bro.
Happens to be true. She struggled in college initially because of language issues; she learned in the local language, and had to translate everything to it from the texts written in English. I helped translate, although not successfully all the time, because I didn’t know names of even some of the simple scientific terms (we were in the science track) in local language. I left for the US before I finished out the year. We corresponded by mail for a few years before I lost touch. She was going into a nursing program with the intent to move abroad once finished, and that would’ve been a huge accomplishment for her. If she had better supports, she could’ve gone even further. She was a lovely person, dignified in the face of a lot of adversity.
And her kids would be openly discriminated against if her kids applied to TJ.
Her kids didn’t overcome the adversity. She did.
Parents have got to stop with this tired narrative that their children should get credit for their struggles, or that they should get credit for their children’s achievements.
You didn't think through your comment, did you?
Oh, I did. I fully understand the point you are trying to make, but it comes from a place of not understanding the difference in the way that Black and Asian CHILDREN are perceived in the educational environment and the opportunities that THEY have.
Anonymous wrote:The problem with TJ admissions is that the school board was hoping for a catch-all solution to a diverse set of problems. In the end, their motive turned into a desperate, flailing "Smart kids are the problem. Why can't everyone be the same?" The end result was that the primary metric for a "successful" strategy was good conformance to population distribution.
In reality, there are a number of different issues which have been raised, each of which varies in solution space and degree of seriousness:
Academic aptitude may vary in race due to cultural or societal factors. However, the idea that there's a fundamental difference in peak academic capability due to race should be rejected on principle. If merit-based measures are showing high sensitivity to race, then that suggests that either (a) the merit-based metrics we're using aren't as good as we'd hope at measuring merit, or (b) if the merit-based measures are good, then some kids are somehow falling off the radar for non-merit based reasons. Either is unjust.
There should be a greater commitment to ensuring income-neutral resources for kids that want to be challenged or who want to "get ahead."
We're concerned that there are some easy but very superficial steps that students can take which can significantly impact their appearance of merit, without being particularly reflective of actual merit. This is especially true if those steps are accessible to some students but not to others. (the "prep" argument)
The academic status quo is too rigid, and it's too easy for students to get locked into "elite" or "dumb" tracks. Once they're stuck in the wrong track, they lose access to opportunities, and also lose access to the financial and societal means to pursue those opportunities. The system should be a lot more flexible and forgiving.
Smart people are too intimidating to the majority of the population which is not especially smart. We should really take elite schools like TJ down a notch. At the very least, take away the mystique that being "elite" means anything more that having a high GPA and/or skills that can be bought.
We finally admit that we're racist, but there are so many Asians, and honestly it makes us uncomfortable.
If admissions to elite education is entirely merit-based, what's to stop the Russians from infiltrating our elite institutions?
If we do not give the school board the utmost control and flexibility in deciding educational outcomes, how will our great and glorious leaders be able to ensure that they have relatively the best possible education for their children?
If you allow that academic aptitude may vary in race due to cultural or societal factors, then it's irrational to claim that it is unjust for merit-based metrics to identify candidates that reflect this variance.
The idea that academic aptitude (natural ability) varies by race is *drumroll* racist. Societal and cultural factors might impact academic *performance*, though even there it’s BOTH race and class/income (and other factors) that affect a child’s ability to perform up to potential in their schooling. I’d rather we focus more on identifying and cultivating academic potential, and focus less on “absolute performance to date” and preppable test taking skills as those conveniently paper over and perpetuate the systemic issues that give certain groups significant disadvantages in those supposedly objective measures of “merit” (yuck).
No one is arguing for the bolded part. Per your recommendation that we focus on identifying and cultivating academic potential, how do you go about doing that if measuring academic performance through tests is off the table? In other words, show me a test that you can't prepare for in advance.
Actually the PP said exactly the bolded part in their argument, so yes, someone is.
As to your question, I'm not arguing tests should be wholesale off the table, but likewise they shouldn't be elevated as some sort of objective county-wide gold standard. They should be used appropriately, and a singular test for all students regardless of background and circumstances is simply incorporating those disparities into the outcomes. If we compare a students academic performance against other students who have experienced generally similar circumstances (rather than "everyone in the entire county"), we might at least take one step towards identifying the highest potential students within each cohort. Given the economic/racial housing segregation we have, taking top x% per ES is a reasonable (albeit imperfect) better-than-nothing proxy for that. You could also do at least some small degree of age-norming (like CogAT and other standardized tests do) since there can be over a year's delta amongst students within a given grade, so that the oldest students in the grade don't inherit an artificial advantage.
The optimal way to build a rocket doesn't depend on the whether the engineer was a poor black kid from the inner city. The optimal way to write a software program doesn't depend on whether the programmer is a first generation hispanic DACA recipient. The optimal way to perform neural surgery doesn't depend on whether the doctor is the first BIPOC woman from her family to go to college. And the best way to test for academic potential doesn't depend on childrens' backgrounds
I grew up in India, and started college at a time and a place where college started in 11th grade. The day we went for enrollment (in person), they had us ordered by grades. The girl in front of me had scored fewer points on the test than me, but was ahead, because of other factors, in her case, caste. We got to talking, and it turned out that she was an orphan, raised by her older brother, who was a subsistence farmer. She had no electricity in her home, and studied under street lights. I would say that someone like her, who grew up in serious poverty, with so much motivation and the brains, is MUCH more likely to have what it takes to be successful as a rocket scientist or brain surgeon, than most of the rest of us there that day, that had every advantage.
Cool story bro.
Happens to be true. She struggled in college initially because of language issues; she learned in the local language, and had to translate everything to it from the texts written in English. I helped translate, although not successfully all the time, because I didn’t know names of even some of the simple scientific terms (we were in the science track) in local language. I left for the US before I finished out the year. We corresponded by mail for a few years before I lost touch. She was going into a nursing program with the intent to move abroad once finished, and that would’ve been a huge accomplishment for her. If she had better supports, she could’ve gone even further. She was a lovely person, dignified in the face of a lot of adversity.
And her kids would be openly discriminated against if her kids applied to TJ.
Her kids didn’t overcome the adversity. She did.
Parents have got to stop with this tired narrative that their children should get credit for their struggles, or that they should get credit for their children’s achievements.
You didn't think through your comment, did you?
Oh, I did. I fully understand the point you are trying to make, but it comes from a place of not understanding the difference in the way that Black and Asian CHILDREN are perceived in the educational environment and the opportunities that THEY have.
Anonymous wrote:The problem with TJ admissions is that the school board was hoping for a catch-all solution to a diverse set of problems. In the end, their motive turned into a desperate, flailing "Smart kids are the problem. Why can't everyone be the same?" The end result was that the primary metric for a "successful" strategy was good conformance to population distribution.
In reality, there are a number of different issues which have been raised, each of which varies in solution space and degree of seriousness:
Academic aptitude may vary in race due to cultural or societal factors. However, the idea that there's a fundamental difference in peak academic capability due to race should be rejected on principle. If merit-based measures are showing high sensitivity to race, then that suggests that either (a) the merit-based metrics we're using aren't as good as we'd hope at measuring merit, or (b) if the merit-based measures are good, then some kids are somehow falling off the radar for non-merit based reasons. Either is unjust.
There should be a greater commitment to ensuring income-neutral resources for kids that want to be challenged or who want to "get ahead."
We're concerned that there are some easy but very superficial steps that students can take which can significantly impact their appearance of merit, without being particularly reflective of actual merit. This is especially true if those steps are accessible to some students but not to others. (the "prep" argument)
The academic status quo is too rigid, and it's too easy for students to get locked into "elite" or "dumb" tracks. Once they're stuck in the wrong track, they lose access to opportunities, and also lose access to the financial and societal means to pursue those opportunities. The system should be a lot more flexible and forgiving.
Smart people are too intimidating to the majority of the population which is not especially smart. We should really take elite schools like TJ down a notch. At the very least, take away the mystique that being "elite" means anything more that having a high GPA and/or skills that can be bought.
We finally admit that we're racist, but there are so many Asians, and honestly it makes us uncomfortable.
If admissions to elite education is entirely merit-based, what's to stop the Russians from infiltrating our elite institutions?
If we do not give the school board the utmost control and flexibility in deciding educational outcomes, how will our great and glorious leaders be able to ensure that they have relatively the best possible education for their children?
If you allow that academic aptitude may vary in race due to cultural or societal factors, then it's irrational to claim that it is unjust for merit-based metrics to identify candidates that reflect this variance.
The idea that academic aptitude (natural ability) varies by race is *drumroll* racist. Societal and cultural factors might impact academic *performance*, though even there it’s BOTH race and class/income (and other factors) that affect a child’s ability to perform up to potential in their schooling. I’d rather we focus more on identifying and cultivating academic potential, and focus less on “absolute performance to date” and preppable test taking skills as those conveniently paper over and perpetuate the systemic issues that give certain groups significant disadvantages in those supposedly objective measures of “merit” (yuck).
No one is arguing for the bolded part. Per your recommendation that we focus on identifying and cultivating academic potential, how do you go about doing that if measuring academic performance through tests is off the table? In other words, show me a test that you can't prepare for in advance.
Actually the PP said exactly the bolded part in their argument, so yes, someone is.
As to your question, I'm not arguing tests should be wholesale off the table, but likewise they shouldn't be elevated as some sort of objective county-wide gold standard. They should be used appropriately, and a singular test for all students regardless of background and circumstances is simply incorporating those disparities into the outcomes. If we compare a students academic performance against other students who have experienced generally similar circumstances (rather than "everyone in the entire county"), we might at least take one step towards identifying the highest potential students within each cohort. Given the economic/racial housing segregation we have, taking top x% per ES is a reasonable (albeit imperfect) better-than-nothing proxy for that. You could also do at least some small degree of age-norming (like CogAT and other standardized tests do) since there can be over a year's delta amongst students within a given grade, so that the oldest students in the grade don't inherit an artificial advantage.
The optimal way to build a rocket doesn't depend on the whether the engineer was a poor black kid from the inner city. The optimal way to write a software program doesn't depend on whether the programmer is a first generation hispanic DACA recipient. The optimal way to perform neural surgery doesn't depend on whether the doctor is the first BIPOC woman from her family to go to college. And the best way to test for academic potential doesn't depend on childrens' backgrounds
I grew up in India, and started college at a time and a place where college started in 11th grade. The day we went for enrollment (in person), they had us ordered by grades. The girl in front of me had scored fewer points on the test than me, but was ahead, because of other factors, in her case, caste. We got to talking, and it turned out that she was an orphan, raised by her older brother, who was a subsistence farmer. She had no electricity in her home, and studied under street lights. I would say that someone like her, who grew up in serious poverty, with so much motivation and the brains, is MUCH more likely to have what it takes to be successful as a rocket scientist or brain surgeon, than most of the rest of us there that day, that had every advantage.
Cool story bro.
Happens to be true. She struggled in college initially because of language issues; she learned in the local language, and had to translate everything to it from the texts written in English. I helped translate, although not successfully all the time, because I didn’t know names of even some of the simple scientific terms (we were in the science track) in local language. I left for the US before I finished out the year. We corresponded by mail for a few years before I lost touch. She was going into a nursing program with the intent to move abroad once finished, and that would’ve been a huge accomplishment for her. If she had better supports, she could’ve gone even further. She was a lovely person, dignified in the face of a lot of adversity.
And her kids would be openly discriminated against if her kids applied to TJ.
Her kids didn’t overcome the adversity. She did.
Parents have got to stop with this tired narrative that their children should get credit for their struggles, or that they should get credit for their children’s achievements.
You didn't think through your comment, did you?
Oh, I did. I fully understand the point you are trying to make, but it comes from a place of not understanding the difference in the way that Black and Asian CHILDREN are perceived in the educational environment and the opportunities that THEY have.
Then maybe it's time to stop that perception and the first step is stopping the "experience points" because all they do is perpetuate the WRONG idea that black students are not as capable.
According to the Virginia School Board Association, a school board member can be held liable in a court of law for actions he/she took while under authority of his/her school board. According to a VSBA official, school board members can be the object of a lawsuit and can be made to pay penalties and awards set in civil actions.
"They used to be immune, now they can be sued, corporately or individually," said Frank Barnham of the VSBA. "So, it depends on the suit and the judge's ruling. The way the law was changed, they can be held personally and corporately liable."
Anonymous wrote:The problem with TJ admissions is that the school board was hoping for a catch-all solution to a diverse set of problems. In the end, their motive turned into a desperate, flailing "Smart kids are the problem. Why can't everyone be the same?" The end result was that the primary metric for a "successful" strategy was good conformance to population distribution.
In reality, there are a number of different issues which have been raised, each of which varies in solution space and degree of seriousness:
Academic aptitude may vary in race due to cultural or societal factors. However, the idea that there's a fundamental difference in peak academic capability due to race should be rejected on principle. If merit-based measures are showing high sensitivity to race, then that suggests that either (a) the merit-based metrics we're using aren't as good as we'd hope at measuring merit, or (b) if the merit-based measures are good, then some kids are somehow falling off the radar for non-merit based reasons. Either is unjust.
There should be a greater commitment to ensuring income-neutral resources for kids that want to be challenged or who want to "get ahead."
We're concerned that there are some easy but very superficial steps that students can take which can significantly impact their appearance of merit, without being particularly reflective of actual merit. This is especially true if those steps are accessible to some students but not to others. (the "prep" argument)
The academic status quo is too rigid, and it's too easy for students to get locked into "elite" or "dumb" tracks. Once they're stuck in the wrong track, they lose access to opportunities, and also lose access to the financial and societal means to pursue those opportunities. The system should be a lot more flexible and forgiving.
Smart people are too intimidating to the majority of the population which is not especially smart. We should really take elite schools like TJ down a notch. At the very least, take away the mystique that being "elite" means anything more that having a high GPA and/or skills that can be bought.
We finally admit that we're racist, but there are so many Asians, and honestly it makes us uncomfortable.
If admissions to elite education is entirely merit-based, what's to stop the Russians from infiltrating our elite institutions?
If we do not give the school board the utmost control and flexibility in deciding educational outcomes, how will our great and glorious leaders be able to ensure that they have relatively the best possible education for their children?
If you allow that academic aptitude may vary in race due to cultural or societal factors, then it's irrational to claim that it is unjust for merit-based metrics to identify candidates that reflect this variance.
The idea that academic aptitude (natural ability) varies by race is *drumroll* racist. Societal and cultural factors might impact academic *performance*, though even there it’s BOTH race and class/income (and other factors) that affect a child’s ability to perform up to potential in their schooling. I’d rather we focus more on identifying and cultivating academic potential, and focus less on “absolute performance to date” and preppable test taking skills as those conveniently paper over and perpetuate the systemic issues that give certain groups significant disadvantages in those supposedly objective measures of “merit” (yuck).
No one is arguing for the bolded part. Per your recommendation that we focus on identifying and cultivating academic potential, how do you go about doing that if measuring academic performance through tests is off the table? In other words, show me a test that you can't prepare for in advance.
Actually the PP said exactly the bolded part in their argument, so yes, someone is.
As to your question, I'm not arguing tests should be wholesale off the table, but likewise they shouldn't be elevated as some sort of objective county-wide gold standard. They should be used appropriately, and a singular test for all students regardless of background and circumstances is simply incorporating those disparities into the outcomes. If we compare a students academic performance against other students who have experienced generally similar circumstances (rather than "everyone in the entire county"), we might at least take one step towards identifying the highest potential students within each cohort. Given the economic/racial housing segregation we have, taking top x% per ES is a reasonable (albeit imperfect) better-than-nothing proxy for that. You could also do at least some small degree of age-norming (like CogAT and other standardized tests do) since there can be over a year's delta amongst students within a given grade, so that the oldest students in the grade don't inherit an artificial advantage.
The optimal way to build a rocket doesn't depend on the whether the engineer was a poor black kid from the inner city. The optimal way to write a software program doesn't depend on whether the programmer is a first generation hispanic DACA recipient. The optimal way to perform neural surgery doesn't depend on whether the doctor is the first BIPOC woman from her family to go to college. And the best way to test for academic potential doesn't depend on childrens' backgrounds
I grew up in India, and started college at a time and a place where college started in 11th grade. The day we went for enrollment (in person), they had us ordered by grades. The girl in front of me had scored fewer points on the test than me, but was ahead, because of other factors, in her case, caste. We got to talking, and it turned out that she was an orphan, raised by her older brother, who was a subsistence farmer. She had no electricity in her home, and studied under street lights. I would say that someone like her, who grew up in serious poverty, with so much motivation and the brains, is MUCH more likely to have what it takes to be successful as a rocket scientist or brain surgeon, than most of the rest of us there that day, that had every advantage.
Cool story bro.
The systemic oppression of the caste system in India and poverty is not a "cool story bro."
Anonymous wrote:The problem with TJ admissions is that the school board was hoping for a catch-all solution to a diverse set of problems. In the end, their motive turned into a desperate, flailing "Smart kids are the problem. Why can't everyone be the same?" The end result was that the primary metric for a "successful" strategy was good conformance to population distribution.
In reality, there are a number of different issues which have been raised, each of which varies in solution space and degree of seriousness:
Academic aptitude may vary in race due to cultural or societal factors. However, the idea that there's a fundamental difference in peak academic capability due to race should be rejected on principle. If merit-based measures are showing high sensitivity to race, then that suggests that either (a) the merit-based metrics we're using aren't as good as we'd hope at measuring merit, or (b) if the merit-based measures are good, then some kids are somehow falling off the radar for non-merit based reasons. Either is unjust.
There should be a greater commitment to ensuring income-neutral resources for kids that want to be challenged or who want to "get ahead."
We're concerned that there are some easy but very superficial steps that students can take which can significantly impact their appearance of merit, without being particularly reflective of actual merit. This is especially true if those steps are accessible to some students but not to others. (the "prep" argument)
The academic status quo is too rigid, and it's too easy for students to get locked into "elite" or "dumb" tracks. Once they're stuck in the wrong track, they lose access to opportunities, and also lose access to the financial and societal means to pursue those opportunities. The system should be a lot more flexible and forgiving.
Smart people are too intimidating to the majority of the population which is not especially smart. We should really take elite schools like TJ down a notch. At the very least, take away the mystique that being "elite" means anything more that having a high GPA and/or skills that can be bought.
We finally admit that we're racist, but there are so many Asians, and honestly it makes us uncomfortable.
If admissions to elite education is entirely merit-based, what's to stop the Russians from infiltrating our elite institutions?
If we do not give the school board the utmost control and flexibility in deciding educational outcomes, how will our great and glorious leaders be able to ensure that they have relatively the best possible education for their children?
If you allow that academic aptitude may vary in race due to cultural or societal factors, then it's irrational to claim that it is unjust for merit-based metrics to identify candidates that reflect this variance.
The idea that academic aptitude (natural ability) varies by race is *drumroll* racist. Societal and cultural factors might impact academic *performance*, though even there it’s BOTH race and class/income (and other factors) that affect a child’s ability to perform up to potential in their schooling. I’d rather we focus more on identifying and cultivating academic potential, and focus less on “absolute performance to date” and preppable test taking skills as those conveniently paper over and perpetuate the systemic issues that give certain groups significant disadvantages in those supposedly objective measures of “merit” (yuck).
No one is arguing for the bolded part. Per your recommendation that we focus on identifying and cultivating academic potential, how do you go about doing that if measuring academic performance through tests is off the table? In other words, show me a test that you can't prepare for in advance.
Actually the PP said exactly the bolded part in their argument, so yes, someone is.
As to your question, I'm not arguing tests should be wholesale off the table, but likewise they shouldn't be elevated as some sort of objective county-wide gold standard. They should be used appropriately, and a singular test for all students regardless of background and circumstances is simply incorporating those disparities into the outcomes. If we compare a students academic performance against other students who have experienced generally similar circumstances (rather than "everyone in the entire county"), we might at least take one step towards identifying the highest potential students within each cohort. Given the economic/racial housing segregation we have, taking top x% per ES is a reasonable (albeit imperfect) better-than-nothing proxy for that. You could also do at least some small degree of age-norming (like CogAT and other standardized tests do) since there can be over a year's delta amongst students within a given grade, so that the oldest students in the grade don't inherit an artificial advantage.
The optimal way to build a rocket doesn't depend on the whether the engineer was a poor black kid from the inner city. The optimal way to write a software program doesn't depend on whether the programmer is a first generation hispanic DACA recipient. The optimal way to perform neural surgery doesn't depend on whether the doctor is the first BIPOC woman from her family to go to college. And the best way to test for academic potential doesn't depend on childrens' backgrounds
I grew up in India, and started college at a time and a place where college started in 11th grade. The day we went for enrollment (in person), they had us ordered by grades. The girl in front of me had scored fewer points on the test than me, but was ahead, because of other factors, in her case, caste. We got to talking, and it turned out that she was an orphan, raised by her older brother, who was a subsistence farmer. She had no electricity in her home, and studied under street lights. I would say that someone like her, who grew up in serious poverty, with so much motivation and the brains, is MUCH more likely to have what it takes to be successful as a rocket scientist or brain surgeon, than most of the rest of us there that day, that had every advantage.
Cool story bro.
Happens to be true. She struggled in college initially because of language issues; she learned in the local language, and had to translate everything to it from the texts written in English. I helped translate, although not successfully all the time, because I didn’t know names of even some of the simple scientific terms (we were in the science track) in local language. I left for the US before I finished out the year. We corresponded by mail for a few years before I lost touch. She was going into a nursing program with the intent to move abroad once finished, and that would’ve been a huge accomplishment for her. If she had better supports, she could’ve gone even further. She was a lovely person, dignified in the face of a lot of adversity.
And her kids would be openly discriminated against if her kids applied to TJ.
Her kids didn’t overcome the adversity. She did.
Parents have got to stop with this tired narrative that their children should get credit for their struggles, or that they should get credit for their children’s achievements.
You didn't think through your comment, did you?
Oh, I did. I fully understand the point you are trying to make, but it comes from a place of not understanding the difference in the way that Black and Asian CHILDREN are perceived in the educational environment and the opportunities that THEY have.
Black children from educated families have plenty of educational opportunities.
Anonymous wrote:The problem with TJ admissions is that the school board was hoping for a catch-all solution to a diverse set of problems. In the end, their motive turned into a desperate, flailing "Smart kids are the problem. Why can't everyone be the same?" The end result was that the primary metric for a "successful" strategy was good conformance to population distribution.
In reality, there are a number of different issues which have been raised, each of which varies in solution space and degree of seriousness:
Academic aptitude may vary in race due to cultural or societal factors. However, the idea that there's a fundamental difference in peak academic capability due to race should be rejected on principle. If merit-based measures are showing high sensitivity to race, then that suggests that either (a) the merit-based metrics we're using aren't as good as we'd hope at measuring merit, or (b) if the merit-based measures are good, then some kids are somehow falling off the radar for non-merit based reasons. Either is unjust.
There should be a greater commitment to ensuring income-neutral resources for kids that want to be challenged or who want to "get ahead."
We're concerned that there are some easy but very superficial steps that students can take which can significantly impact their appearance of merit, without being particularly reflective of actual merit. This is especially true if those steps are accessible to some students but not to others. (the "prep" argument)
The academic status quo is too rigid, and it's too easy for students to get locked into "elite" or "dumb" tracks. Once they're stuck in the wrong track, they lose access to opportunities, and also lose access to the financial and societal means to pursue those opportunities. The system should be a lot more flexible and forgiving.
Smart people are too intimidating to the majority of the population which is not especially smart. We should really take elite schools like TJ down a notch. At the very least, take away the mystique that being "elite" means anything more that having a high GPA and/or skills that can be bought.
We finally admit that we're racist, but there are so many Asians, and honestly it makes us uncomfortable.
If admissions to elite education is entirely merit-based, what's to stop the Russians from infiltrating our elite institutions?
If we do not give the school board the utmost control and flexibility in deciding educational outcomes, how will our great and glorious leaders be able to ensure that they have relatively the best possible education for their children?
If you allow that academic aptitude may vary in race due to cultural or societal factors, then it's irrational to claim that it is unjust for merit-based metrics to identify candidates that reflect this variance.
The idea that academic aptitude (natural ability) varies by race is *drumroll* racist. Societal and cultural factors might impact academic *performance*, though even there it’s BOTH race and class/income (and other factors) that affect a child’s ability to perform up to potential in their schooling. I’d rather we focus more on identifying and cultivating academic potential, and focus less on “absolute performance to date” and preppable test taking skills as those conveniently paper over and perpetuate the systemic issues that give certain groups significant disadvantages in those supposedly objective measures of “merit” (yuck).
No one is arguing for the bolded part. Per your recommendation that we focus on identifying and cultivating academic potential, how do you go about doing that if measuring academic performance through tests is off the table? In other words, show me a test that you can't prepare for in advance.
Actually the PP said exactly the bolded part in their argument, so yes, someone is.
As to your question, I'm not arguing tests should be wholesale off the table, but likewise they shouldn't be elevated as some sort of objective county-wide gold standard. They should be used appropriately, and a singular test for all students regardless of background and circumstances is simply incorporating those disparities into the outcomes. If we compare a students academic performance against other students who have experienced generally similar circumstances (rather than "everyone in the entire county"), we might at least take one step towards identifying the highest potential students within each cohort. Given the economic/racial housing segregation we have, taking top x% per ES is a reasonable (albeit imperfect) better-than-nothing proxy for that. You could also do at least some small degree of age-norming (like CogAT and other standardized tests do) since there can be over a year's delta amongst students within a given grade, so that the oldest students in the grade don't inherit an artificial advantage.
The optimal way to build a rocket doesn't depend on the whether the engineer was a poor black kid from the inner city. The optimal way to write a software program doesn't depend on whether the programmer is a first generation hispanic DACA recipient. The optimal way to perform neural surgery doesn't depend on whether the doctor is the first BIPOC woman from her family to go to college. And the best way to test for academic potential doesn't depend on childrens' backgrounds
I grew up in India, and started college at a time and a place where college started in 11th grade. The day we went for enrollment (in person), they had us ordered by grades. The girl in front of me had scored fewer points on the test than me, but was ahead, because of other factors, in her case, caste. We got to talking, and it turned out that she was an orphan, raised by her older brother, who was a subsistence farmer. She had no electricity in her home, and studied under street lights. I would say that someone like her, who grew up in serious poverty, with so much motivation and the brains, is MUCH more likely to have what it takes to be successful as a rocket scientist or brain surgeon, than most of the rest of us there that day, that had every advantage.
Cool story bro.
Happens to be true. She struggled in college initially because of language issues; she learned in the local language, and had to translate everything to it from the texts written in English. I helped translate, although not successfully all the time, because I didn’t know names of even some of the simple scientific terms (we were in the science track) in local language. I left for the US before I finished out the year. We corresponded by mail for a few years before I lost touch. She was going into a nursing program with the intent to move abroad once finished, and that would’ve been a huge accomplishment for her. If she had better supports, she could’ve gone even further. She was a lovely person, dignified in the face of a lot of adversity.
And her kids would be openly discriminated against if her kids applied to TJ.
Her kids didn’t overcome the adversity. She did.
Parents have got to stop with this tired narrative that their children should get credit for their struggles, or that they should get credit for their children’s achievements.
You didn't think through your comment, did you?
Oh, I did. I fully understand the point you are trying to make, but it comes from a place of not understanding the difference in the way that Black and Asian CHILDREN are perceived in the educational environment and the opportunities that THEY have.
You have zero clue. Not having lived either the Asian experience or the Black experience. You just come from a place of ignorance.
You do realize that many of Asian children are kids of first gen brown immigrants who faced massive challenges in just being able to even get work visas? Things that most people take for granted. They are in general far from being elitist and rich and know the pain of lack of access to opportunity. The problem is that the board didn't have one person who spoke for the majority of the parents at TJ and tried to humiliate them, take them for granted and ram changes down their throat. In a targeted, mean and racist way.
Anonymous wrote:The problem with TJ admissions is that the school board was hoping for a catch-all solution to a diverse set of problems. In the end, their motive turned into a desperate, flailing "Smart kids are the problem. Why can't everyone be the same?" The end result was that the primary metric for a "successful" strategy was good conformance to population distribution.
In reality, there are a number of different issues which have been raised, each of which varies in solution space and degree of seriousness:
Academic aptitude may vary in race due to cultural or societal factors. However, the idea that there's a fundamental difference in peak academic capability due to race should be rejected on principle. If merit-based measures are showing high sensitivity to race, then that suggests that either (a) the merit-based metrics we're using aren't as good as we'd hope at measuring merit, or (b) if the merit-based measures are good, then some kids are somehow falling off the radar for non-merit based reasons. Either is unjust.
There should be a greater commitment to ensuring income-neutral resources for kids that want to be challenged or who want to "get ahead."
We're concerned that there are some easy but very superficial steps that students can take which can significantly impact their appearance of merit, without being particularly reflective of actual merit. This is especially true if those steps are accessible to some students but not to others. (the "prep" argument)
The academic status quo is too rigid, and it's too easy for students to get locked into "elite" or "dumb" tracks. Once they're stuck in the wrong track, they lose access to opportunities, and also lose access to the financial and societal means to pursue those opportunities. The system should be a lot more flexible and forgiving.
Smart people are too intimidating to the majority of the population which is not especially smart. We should really take elite schools like TJ down a notch. At the very least, take away the mystique that being "elite" means anything more that having a high GPA and/or skills that can be bought.
We finally admit that we're racist, but there are so many Asians, and honestly it makes us uncomfortable.
If admissions to elite education is entirely merit-based, what's to stop the Russians from infiltrating our elite institutions?
If we do not give the school board the utmost control and flexibility in deciding educational outcomes, how will our great and glorious leaders be able to ensure that they have relatively the best possible education for their children?
If you allow that academic aptitude may vary in race due to cultural or societal factors, then it's irrational to claim that it is unjust for merit-based metrics to identify candidates that reflect this variance.
The idea that academic aptitude (natural ability) varies by race is *drumroll* racist. Societal and cultural factors might impact academic *performance*, though even there it’s BOTH race and class/income (and other factors) that affect a child’s ability to perform up to potential in their schooling. I’d rather we focus more on identifying and cultivating academic potential, and focus less on “absolute performance to date” and preppable test taking skills as those conveniently paper over and perpetuate the systemic issues that give certain groups significant disadvantages in those supposedly objective measures of “merit” (yuck).
No one is arguing for the bolded part. Per your recommendation that we focus on identifying and cultivating academic potential, how do you go about doing that if measuring academic performance through tests is off the table? In other words, show me a test that you can't prepare for in advance.
Actually the PP said exactly the bolded part in their argument, so yes, someone is.
As to your question, I'm not arguing tests should be wholesale off the table, but likewise they shouldn't be elevated as some sort of objective county-wide gold standard. They should be used appropriately, and a singular test for all students regardless of background and circumstances is simply incorporating those disparities into the outcomes. If we compare a students academic performance against other students who have experienced generally similar circumstances (rather than "everyone in the entire county"), we might at least take one step towards identifying the highest potential students within each cohort. Given the economic/racial housing segregation we have, taking top x% per ES is a reasonable (albeit imperfect) better-than-nothing proxy for that. You could also do at least some small degree of age-norming (like CogAT and other standardized tests do) since there can be over a year's delta amongst students within a given grade, so that the oldest students in the grade don't inherit an artificial advantage.
The optimal way to build a rocket doesn't depend on the whether the engineer was a poor black kid from the inner city. The optimal way to write a software program doesn't depend on whether the programmer is a first generation hispanic DACA recipient. The optimal way to perform neural surgery doesn't depend on whether the doctor is the first BIPOC woman from her family to go to college. And the best way to test for academic potential doesn't depend on childrens' backgrounds
I grew up in India, and started college at a time and a place where college started in 11th grade. The day we went for enrollment (in person), they had us ordered by grades. The girl in front of me had scored fewer points on the test than me, but was ahead, because of other factors, in her case, caste. We got to talking, and it turned out that she was an orphan, raised by her older brother, who was a subsistence farmer. She had no electricity in her home, and studied under street lights. I would say that someone like her, who grew up in serious poverty, with so much motivation and the brains, is MUCH more likely to have what it takes to be successful as a rocket scientist or brain surgeon, than most of the rest of us there that day, that had every advantage.
Cool story bro.
Happens to be true. She struggled in college initially because of language issues; she learned in the local language, and had to translate everything to it from the texts written in English. I helped translate, although not successfully all the time, because I didn’t know names of even some of the simple scientific terms (we were in the science track) in local language. I left for the US before I finished out the year. We corresponded by mail for a few years before I lost touch. She was going into a nursing program with the intent to move abroad once finished, and that would’ve been a huge accomplishment for her. If she had better supports, she could’ve gone even further. She was a lovely person, dignified in the face of a lot of adversity.
And her kids would be openly discriminated against if her kids applied to TJ.
Her kids didn’t overcome the adversity. She did.
Parents have got to stop with this tired narrative that their children should get credit for their struggles, or that they should get credit for their children’s achievements.
You didn't think through your comment, did you?
Oh, I did. I fully understand the point you are trying to make, but it comes from a place of not understanding the difference in the way that Black and Asian CHILDREN are perceived in the educational environment and the opportunities that THEY have.
Black children from educated families have plenty of educational opportunities.
Forum Index
»
Advanced Academic Programs (AAP)
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}