Reply to TJ Admissions Roundup

Forum Index » Advanced Academic Programs (AAP)

Reply to "TJ Admissions Roundup"

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]Kids from economically-disadvantaged, Asian families were practically nonexistent at TJ before the admissions change. It helped them more than other groups, per the appellate judicial opinion. 
[/quote]

[b]Poor asian kids were about as well represented as poor kids from ANY background.  [/b]

The group that was helped the most were white students.
The year before the the change, 86 white students were admitted.  This year, 140 white students were admitted.  An increase of 54 students.
The year before the change 16 hispanic students were admitted.  This year it was 41.  An increase of 25.
The year before the change 7 black students were admitted.  This year, it was 19.  An increase of 12.
Asian admissions went down by 40 despite a 64 seat increase in class size.[/quote]

Right. There was almost zero representation of kids from low-income families.

Majority opinion: 
"Nevertheless, in the 2021 application cycle, Asian American students attending middle schools historically underrepresented at TJ saw [b]a sixfold increase in offers[/b], and the number of low-income Asian American admittees to TJ [b]increased to 51 — from a mere one in 2020[/b]."
[/quote]
Asian admissions went down.
White admissions went up more than all other groups combined.

50 of the 138 FARM kids were asian.  So?  That is a by product of their attempts to racially balance the entering class.  if they could have figured out how to create a [b]race neutral process[/b] that would have  had all 138 of the FARM kids be URM with no whites or asians, they would have done it.  The intent behind the change was racially driven.[/quote]

That's not how "race-neutral" works. By definition, a process that seeks to attain a specific racial outcome is not "race-neutral" unless that outcome is "representative of the demographics of the applicant pool".

You're just mad because the old process that favored parents who leveraged their resources to tip the scales in favor of their kids doesn't exist anymore. Because interest was higher from Asian families, that meant that the old process significantly favored Asian applicants.[/quote]

The interest is higher from asians because asians are more interested in education generally.  Especially in STEM.
22% of asians get a 750 or higher in math section of SAT, no other major group gets higher than 4%
9% of asians get a 1500 or higher than a on the SAT, no other group gets higher than 2% https://satsuite.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/sat-percentile-ranks-gender-race-ethnicity.pdf
Asians simply value education more and work harder. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1406402111

As for the new process...
The process is race neutral, the intent behind the change was racist, the fact that the way they achieved their racist goal was to try to mirror the general population makes it no less racist.
When major league baseball capped the number of black players on the team because blacks wer3e over-represented, that was still racist even though blacks were over-represented relative to the population.

Take a look at page 7 of this report https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/BWE23Y004896/$file/TJ%20White%20Paper%2011.17.2020.pdf
ISTM that the URMs have been URMs for a very long time at TJ
When asians came along asians weren't crowding out URMs, there were never a lot of them to crowd out
They were crowding out white kids.
This change is moving the needle back in the other direction.
This might be what Derrick Bell might call convergence of interests.  
This would never have happened back when white kids were still over-represented.  They would never have sacrificed merit for proportional representation when whites were over-represented.
White kids are coattailing on a policy that is supposed to help black kids, but it is helping 12 black kids white it helps 86 white kids.
This is what it looks like when white people use black people as an excuse to discriminate against asian people for the benefit of white kids.

They could have tailored this to target the benefit at URMs.  Use the 1.5 rule but make the other seats merit based.  The problem is that you would have gotten more poor kids with a large URM bump but the kids that get pushed out to make room for the 1.5% would have been proportionally divided between affluent white and asian kids.  
Of the ~480 kids getting in, 140 would have been from schools that have historically sent 0-2 kids per year and most of them would not have otherwise qualified.
The other 340 would have gotten in under merit and the ratio between asian and white studnents would have probably moved even more in favor of asian kids.  
So instead of 140 white kids we see in this year's entering class, we would have seen about 80.[/quote]

Do you not see that it is racist to suggest that one race is “…more interested in education…” than another? How can people not see how this is racist?
[/quote]

Because it is true?

However, there is a caveat.  People are looking at one subset of a race.  The same race in their home country, the same stereotype doesn't apply.  Many people send kids to work rather than school.[/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