Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:well. kids may as well learn about affirmative action over merit earlier than later. it's the liberal way.
Do you have any evidence to support this claim about affirmative action or is this just a case of sour grapes?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:If the county's top-secret illegal agenda was to increase diversity in the magnets, they failed miserably since it's still 75%+ White and Asian.
Yes. It is a failure in multiple dimensions. But at least they successfully reduced the Asian "over-representation," Discerning public should think more carefully whether this kind of divisive policy and social engineering is good for anyone.
Cohort method appears to be a big win for the county since it helps more kids achieve while reducing bussing costs.
https://theblackandwhite.net/59776/news/boe-holds-community-meeting-addresses-staffing-new-curriculum-mental-health/
At least on of these strong-peer-cohort middle school pricipal is on the record saying the new classes won't be much different.
Anonymous wrote:
Yes. It is a failure in multiple dimensions. But at least they successfully reduced the Asian "over-representation," Discerning public should think more carefully whether this kind of divisive policy and social engineering is good for anyone.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:If the county's top-secret illegal agenda was to increase diversity in the magnets, they failed miserably since it's still 75%+ White and Asian.
Yes. It is a failure in multiple dimensions. But at least they successfully reduced the Asian "over-representation," Discerning public should think more carefully whether this kind of divisive policy and social engineering is good for anyone.
Cohort method appears to be a big win for the county since it helps more kids achieve while reducing bussing costs.
Anonymous wrote:If the county's top-secret illegal agenda was to increase diversity in the magnets, they failed miserably since it's still 75%+ White and Asian.
Anonymous wrote:well. kids may as well learn about affirmative action over merit earlier than later. it's the liberal way.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:If the county's top-secret illegal agenda was to increase diversity in the magnets, they failed miserably since it's still 75%+ White and Asian.
Yes. It is a failure in multiple dimensions. But at least they successfully reduced the Asian "over-representation," Discerning public should think more carefully whether this kind of divisive policy and social engineering is good for anyone.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
BOTTOM LINE the top 2.5% of 4000 (2018 application pool) beats out the top 16% of 600 (2017 application pool)
BUT BUT 4000 kids selected to test because of high grades and test scores isn't the same as the 600 kids selected by their parents!!
I didn't know half of the down county students have high grades and test scores. I might have believed you if they only tested 1000 or 1500. A whole 50% of kids?
Anonymous wrote:If the county's top-secret illegal agenda was to increase diversity in the magnets, they failed miserably since it's still 75%+ White and Asian.
Anonymous wrote:The cohort method is a better use of the country's finite resources. Less money spent on bussing while helping more high-achievers find an academic cohort. I'm sorry that some parents feel slighted but it will work out fine.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
BOTTOM LINE the top 2.5% of 4000 (2018 application pool) beats out the top 16% of 600 (2017 application pool)
BUT BUT 4000 kids selected to test because of high grades and test scores isn't the same as the 600 kids selected by their parents!!
Anonymous wrote:
and you are perfectly ok with that, but never would be ok with any policy that discriminates against blacks. Who exactly is racist here?
MCPS is discriminating against people based on where they live, which in this case, is a proxy for race because most of the rejected students with top scores happen to be white/asian on the western side.
MCPS wanted more URM in the magnets, so they widened the testing net. Perfectly fine and acceptable. But if those students could get in without having to lower the threshold, then why change the testing, why stop reporting median test scores of accepted students, why look at "peer cohort" which disproportionately affects students from the western side? They couldn't figure out a way to increase URM admittance rate without having to change something.
Any policy which gives favor to one side over the other is not a fair policy. Remember the policy the US had about favoring European immigrants over others, like Asians? Some of the Trump supporters want to bring back this policy, which is favoring one location over another. Wouldn't you agree that was not a fair policy? Yet somehow MCPS policy of favoring one group based on location over the other is ok to you.
Anonymous wrote:The cohort method is a better use of the country's finite resources. Less money spent on bussing while helping more high-achievers find an academic cohort. I'm sorry that some parents feel slighted but it will work out fine.