Reply to What are the new TJ feeders

Forum Index » Advanced Academic Programs (AAP)

Reply to "What are the new TJ feeders"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]The decisions are not race blind, there wouldn’t be a box for race if they were.

As for the comment about playing basketball for 5 hours…  Basketballs are inexpensive and there are free courts all around. You don’t need the internet or transportation. Lots of kids are playing basketball, not many are doing math for fun. A smart kid is not seeing other kids doing math in that neighborhood. Environment matters and we all know it.[/quote]

Race is considered and the most important factor under the current admissions system. [/quote]

Considering race sounds illegal. I'm pretty sure they CAN'T do that and if they did there would be lawsuits.[/quote]

There was a lawsuit filed by parents of Asian students.

They won, initially.

The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, reversed.  After that, the parents sought certiori to the S.Ct.

Unlike the misinformation distributed by FCPS, the county DID NOT “WIN” AT THE SUPREME COURT LEVEL.

The court denied certiori, which they can do for myriad reasons.  Those reasons are rarely divulged.

[b]For all we know, the Court agreed with the Asian parents claim FCPS unlawfully discriminated against TJ applicants on the basis of race.[/b]

IMO, what FCPS has done is, at best, employ “proxies” for race, meaning FARMS kids are more likely to be URMs (LatinX / Black), and that capping the big 3 at 1.5% would more likely yield kids from MS with fewer Asian / Indian kids.

Using proxies can achieve the same or similar racial outcomes, but  it would allow FCPS to make misleading claims it did not directly consider race (not individually, anyway).

[/quote]

It would be quite a staggering indictment of this Court if they believed that the petitioner in a very high-profile case was in the right on a matter of civil rights and declined to hear the case.

The far more likely explanation is that the petitioners didn't do enough to make their case for anyone other than Alito and Thomas.[/quote]
Once the case got in front of a real judge they laughed it out of court.[/quote]

That is misinformation, but you knew that.

As for the denial of certiori, it is more likely the Court felt the issue was already addressed by Students for Fair Admission v. Harvard, and therefore best resolved by application of existing precedent rather than a decision specifically addressing selective race-based admission to a small number of public high schools, such as TJ.[/quote]
I thought the decision was earlier than the Harvard case, and since TJ admissions were already race blind that wasn't really a factor.[/quote]

Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard was issued by the Supreme Court on June 29, 2023, which was prior to the denial of cert in the TJ case on February 20, 2024:

From Wiki:

The Fourth Circuit, by a 2 to 1 vote, reversed the district court and restored the new admission plan. The Fourth Circuit's decision was appealed to the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court rejected to review the case on February 20, 2024 with Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito dissenting from the denial.[46]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_High_School_for_Science_and_Technology#Demographics_and_exam_controversy

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics