Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Advanced Academic Programs (AAP)
Reply to "U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts on Friday called for a response from a Virginia school"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Anyone knows FCPS response to Roberts' request that was due on Wednesday?[/quote] Link shared on page 34. As expected, the argument runs along the line of showing the applicant-vs-offered ratio, completely ignoring the fact that the new policy disqualifies previously eligible Asians from applying in the first place. [/quote] Who precisely is disqualified from even applying as a result of the new admissions process? That's a new take.[/quote] The previously qualified Asians are not eligible to apply for one of the allocated seats because the allocation rule blocks them from applying. [/quote] That's completely false. The allocation rule doesn't block anyone at all from applying. What makes you think that it does? The only thing that the allocation rule does is it makes students from previous "feeder" schools - which are still very much "feeder" schools, by the way - slightly less likely to gain admission than they were previously. But in no way are they enjoined from being a part of the application process. Asian students from other non-feeder schools now have a significantly higher chance to get in than they did previously, and only two of the schools impacted - Carson and Rocky Run - are plurality (not even majority) Asian. The new process vastly improved access to TJ for thousands of Asian students across FCPS.[/quote] This is justification put forth for poll taxes. It was equitably applied to all just a minor issue of disparate impact. [/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