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]"the seats allocated to each middle school are extremely limited (no FCPS middle school has more than a dozen guaranteed seats, see App. at 240a), there are few unallocated seats, and Asian- American applicants from feeder schools are at a marked disadvantage for the limited number of unallocated seats." so the coalition's logic is both that few seats are allocated and that few seats are unallocated? [/quote] They are describing the mechanism designed by the board whereby Asian students who were previously eligible to apply, are now unable to apply for a majority of the seat positions. [/quote] But this is true of every student in the County. That's why this is a specious argument. The students who are at Poe also have a limited number of seats that they can apply to. Same with Hughes, same with Rocky Run, same with Luther Jackson. This might be the single worst argument that one could make.[/quote] The purpose of the paragraph is to say FCPS's TJ plan is not the same as Texas's "Top Ten Percent" plan. FCPS had previously argued that upending the TJ plan is in essence also upending Texas's "Top Ten Percent" plan. By invalidating the TJ plan you're going against precedent. The coalition is saying allocating no more than a dozen kids from each school hardly constitutes strict comparison to the "Top Ten Percent" plan. The rest of the paragraph outlines other reasons why the TJ plan isn't tied to the hip of the "Top Ten Percent" plan. Essentially, the previous court's decision on the "Top Ten Percent" plan has limited bearing on the constitutionality of the TJ plan. There are too many differences, and the TJ plan needs to be judged on its own merits.[/quote] Here is where they were semi-correct: "Asian-American applicants from feeder schools are at a marked disadvantage for the limited number of unallocated seats". But there are two problems with this assertion: 1) Students of other races at those feeder schools were ALSO disadvantaged in exactly the same way, and at none of those schools do Asians constitute a majority; 2) Asian-American students at non-feeder schools were ADVANTAGED by the new process. [/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