Reply to Coalition4TJ’s request to block TJ admissions process DENIED 6-3 by Supreme Court

Forum Index » Advanced Academic Programs (AAP)

Reply to "Coalition4TJ’s request to block TJ admissions process DENIED 6-3 by Supreme Court"

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][quote=Anonymous]PP. I don't have a dog in this fight, but I just want to take a 50,000 ft view of the issues being debated here. [b]The fact that the current Supreme Court, as conservative as they are. still let the new admissions policy stand should be a signal that the war is lost.[/b] Even if there will still be changes to the new admissions system, it seems highly unlikely to ever go back to the way it was.

I sympathize with the old admissions system, but I also don't think it was ever appropriate to set up a public school in this way. This is what private schools should be for. A private school can offer financial aid to those who can't afford it.

I also think all TJ parents need to take a step back and consider whether TJ is really the best thing for their kids. Having so many high-achieving kids clumped together in that school actually makes it harder for them to be accepted to a top school. MIT isn't going to admit 50 TJ kids in any given year. It is very much harder to stand out there. I get that iron sharpens iron, but it also comes with a significant risk of having nothing to show for all the effort than if they had just gone to their local high school.

I married into an Asian family, and I know that many times the drive to go TJ is from the parents who demand the kids to go to the "best" school or the "prestigious" school without considering that it is more than likely not going to be the big stepping stone they think it will be. Even the guy who wrote the op-ed in the Washington Post, while I respect his accomplishments, he could gotten into the Naval Academy and had all his success coming from any of the other excellent public schools in the area, because kids do it all the time. It's not like he invented the iPhone or made the next major scientific discovery, which is what the intense nature of TJ would lead one to believe is going to happen.

[/quote]

You must be high. I also don't have a dog in this fight but it's not clear at all that this racist admissions policy will be allowed to stand in the long term. Roberts has been very vocal about his negative view on affirmative action and any other racially motificated government policies that discriminate on the basis of race, even if it is done through proxies of facially neutral measures. Note that the Supreme Court's decision on the application to vacate is not a ruling on the merits of the case, but consideration of procedural/administrative issues. In this case, I suspect that Roberts, Barrett, and Kavanaugh considered the potential impact on the current batch of students if the stay was vacated, because FCPS did not prepare for an alternative admission process. Despite concerns of students having their constitutional rights violated by the new admissions policy, the courts, including SCOTUS, tend to let existing procedures stand unless there was some serious procedural error made in the appeals court.

Now, onto the rest of your points. I don't understand why you find selectivity to be an issue for publicly funded educational institutions. Are you saying there should be no public colleges, and that if we do have public colleges, every single one of them should admit every student that applies? Aside from admissions, there are a lot of achievement-based opportunities and privileges even inside any given public high school. A student doesn't go into the next level of higher math until they've achieved a sufficient grade in a prerequisite class. Just because the bar is often set fairly low doesn't change the fact that there is a bar, and that failing students do not advance. Being able to take the next level class is not automatic, but an earned privilege that is the outcome of some prior achievement. Being able to get into TJ based on demonstrated merit is the same concept in this sense.

The rest of your rationalizing about whether TJ is healthy or unhealthy, and the existence of alternatives is relevant to exactly one person: you. These are subjective opinions and are no more valid than any one else's, including those of parents who find that the rigor of TJ is a great fit for their kids, and that it is the place where their kids can obtain a superior education and be exceptionally well prepared for future studies and professional work in STEM fields.

Lastly, none of what you wrote, regardless of the underlying logic and passion, excuses the fact that the new admissions policy was implemented with racist intent and effect. Shame on you for making excuses for its continued existence. [/quote]

Well said! [/quote]

[b]It's not racist to want to include a broader cross section of Fairfax County[/b]. Basically anything that reduced Asian representation would be called racist. That people think there can't be a change in policy the might change the racial composition of TJ so Asians aren't 60-70 percent of the school indefinitely seems crazy. It's a public school and its admissions should not be skewed toward people who can afford $4,000 test prep centers. Then those who pay for those prep centers claim their kids are just inherently more intelligent and so more deserving than other kids who don't score as high on the test without equivalent prep. If your kid is so inherently bright, they'll succeed anywhere. Why all the angst?[/quote]

If that "broader cross section" is done on the basis of race, it is racist and illegal per our laws. Go ask black people "why all the angst" when they were raging against the racist laws during the civil rights movement. [/quote]

The new policy does not mention race. It's based on allocation slots to various middle schools and a lottery.[/quote]

For the n-th time for the benefit of the ignorant - [b]facially neutral policies implemented with racist intent are still illegal.[/b] [/quote]

Wanting to serve a broader cross section of the county isn't racist. It's valid to want more kids from each MS admitted to TJ. Asian kids from all middle schools are given the same opportunity as everyone else under the new system.[/quote]

Facially neutral policies that discriminate are still discrimination. I think others have covered this here. But part of what they look at are the demographics. Who is screened in/out vs. representation in the population. I have no idea how this will come out but I do think Asians could potentially lose on this. They are, based on what I've seen, over-represented vs. the FCPS population. [b]Opening it up to other under-represented groups seems like it could be sanctioned by the courts.[/b] Of course, there are many wrinkles but, GENERALLY speaking, I think the new standards will stand. [/quote]

yeah, this is called "diversity."  It's legal.  Lots of appellate and SC decisions on this.  I agree, plaintiffs will lose.[/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