Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Look up "paper bag test"
So the little girl isn't black enough for you? Good to know.
Anonymous wrote:Look up "paper bag test"
Anonymous wrote:They couldn't find a stock photo with even one black child who would not have passed the paper bag test back in the day? That is even worse.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: I stood in line last year and I know who was there with me. The waitlist went exactly as expected, and the line-standers were not even close to all affluent white parents. I'm sure somebody took some camera phone pictures so they could see exactly who was there. I get that some people don't like the line-standing practice, but it is hardly non-transparent.
That's because all the non "affluent white people" were paid linestanders.
Well, then the people that paid them got screwed, because I see those "paid linestanders" at the PTA meetings.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: I stood in line last year and I know who was there with me. The waitlist went exactly as expected, and the line-standers were not even close to all affluent white parents. I'm sure somebody took some camera phone pictures so they could see exactly who was there. I get that some people don't like the line-standing practice, but it is hardly non-transparent.
That's because all the non "affluent white people" were paid linestanders.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Or maybe, they want to take time and evaluate how it's working before leaping in blind.
+1
Or maybe, that's yu ying's cover story so it will have an out after a year or two by saying "we have carefullly assessed .... After full consideration ..... Commitment to our families and to our Mission .... Blah blah blah .......... We have decided to maintain our current lottery process that we feel is working well to support our unique Mission."
And then they'll get to keep their NON-TRANSPARENT process of loading up the waitlist with affluent white parents, parents with a Chinese daughter, and the 1-2 families in DC each year who already know/speak some Mandarin at home.
That's the great thing about telling the truth - it's really easy to repeat, because you don't to try to remember what you said. Just say what you did. Sound policy.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Or maybe, they want to take time and evaluate how it's working before leaping in blind.
+1
Or maybe, that's yu ying's cover story so it will have an out after a year or two by saying "we have carefullly assessed .... After full consideration ..... Commitment to our families and to our Mission .... Blah blah blah .......... We have decided to maintain our current lottery process that we feel is working well to support our unique Mission."
And then they'll get to keep their NON-TRANSPARENT process of loading up the waitlist with affluent white parents, parents with a Chinese daughter, and the 1-2 families in DC each year who already know/speak some Mandarin at home.
Anonymous wrote: I stood in line last year and I know who was there with me. The waitlist went exactly as expected, and the line-standers were not even close to all affluent white parents. I'm sure somebody took some camera phone pictures so they could see exactly who was there. I get that some people don't like the line-standing practice, but it is hardly non-transparent.

Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Or maybe, they want to take time and evaluate how it's working before leaping in blind.
+1
Or maybe, that's yu ying's cover story so it will have an out after a year or two by saying "we have carefullly assessed .... After full consideration ..... Commitment to our families and to our Mission .... Blah blah blah .......... We have decided to maintain our current lottery process that we feel is working well to support our unique Mission."
And then they'll get to keep their NON-TRANSPARENT process of loading up the waitlist with affluent white parents, parents with a Chinese daughter, and the 1-2 families in DC each year who already know/speak some Mandarin at home.
I really don't want to go down this road yet again, but what evidence do you have that the waitlist is non-transparent? I stood in line last year and I know who was there with me. The waitlist went exactly as expected, and the line-standers were not even close to all affluent white parents. I'm sure somebody took some camera phone pictures so they could see exactly who was there. I get that some people don't like the line-standing practice, but it is hardly non-transparent.
It is transparent, or obvious I guess, to see who is standing in line with you, that is true. You know what number you got.
What you don't know is who is online, and what numbers they get. You don't see the mixture of the online applicants synchronized with the on-the-street applicants, and how their numbers shake out.
You also don't see clearly who is plucked from the back of the line on the day you were there and given a seat ahead of you. Maybe they have a sibling, or, like my colleague, maybe they don't.