Anonymous wrote:OP here. Thanks to everyone for your feedback! Today I visited Banneker with my daughter. The building is breathtaking - an open concept with many common spaces, magnificent art room with outdoor art space. If anything seems to be lacking (e.g. electives, restricted foreign languages) this may be because Banneker has long been cramped in tight quarters. Banneker will be able to double in size over time and hire more teachers. There are some misconceptions/outdated information in some of these posts. I specifically asked about math (one post said they do not offer BC Calculus), and was told that although there is not a lot of demand for the most accelerated math they will accommodate students who are ahead. The tour guide said for example that a student had entered ninth grade who had already completed algebra 2/trig and that they accommodated this student. She said that the kids are a studious bunch some of whom take AP macroeconomics as an after school activity. The building is quiet despite it's open concept, and nothing ever gets stolen. They also have many sports and partnerships with other schools if a sport is lacking. They teach Shakespeare and they take the kids to a Shakespeare play every year (except during covid). The tour guide was one of the English teachers, and her commitment to rigorous and engaging instruction really showed. She looked like a really fun teacher, and said that her students were very well prepared for college (even that college was easy for them compared to Banneker). Positive impression of the principal. The IB program sounds small but very rigorous. I would encourage anyone who is interested to get a building tour. There is also a recorded open house online.

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Thanks to everyone for your feedback! Today I visited Banneker with my daughter. The building is breathtaking - an open concept with many common spaces, magnificent art room with outdoor art space. If anything seems to be lacking (e.g. electives, restricted foreign languages) this may be because Banneker has long been cramped in tight quarters. Banneker will be able to double in size over time and hire more teachers. There are some misconceptions/outdated information in some of these posts. I specifically asked about math (one post said they do not offer BC Calculus), and was told that although there is not a lot of demand for the most accelerated math they will accommodate students who are ahead. The tour guide said for example that a student had entered ninth grade who had already completed algebra 2/trig and that they accommodated this student. She said that the kids are a studious bunch some of whom take AP macroeconomics as an after school activity. The building is quiet despite it's open concept, and nothing ever gets stolen. They also have many sports and partnerships with other schools if a sport is lacking. They teach Shakespeare and they take the kids to a Shakespeare play every year (except during covid). The tour guide was one of the English teachers, and her commitment to rigorous and engaging instruction really showed. She looked like a really fun teacher, and said that her students were very well prepared for college (even that college was easy for them compared to Banneker). Positive impression of the principal. The IB program sounds small but very rigorous. I would encourage anyone who is interested to get a building tour. There is also a recorded open house online.

Anonymous wrote:To OP - I’m glad you liked the school and good to hear that they have done a nice job with the school building. A few questions - how will they accommodate advanced math students? What does that actually look like? Seems vague and unclear.

How will they double the size of the school? Is there enough demand for the Banneker model?

Finally, why do they keep the IB program so small and restricted?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm white and graduated from an Ivy. My spouse is Asian and also graduated from an Ivy. We come from working-class backgrounds/first generation college.

The day when elite American colleges can admit whomever they want, however they want, seems to be drawing to a close. Harvard didn't have an easy time of it from 2014-2018 with the Students for Fair Admissions suit, although technically the university was cleared. Harvard's admission rates for Asians has risen by at least 5 percentage points since 2014. Now Edward Blum's Project on Fair Representation has Chapel Hill in its sights. A ruling beating back consideration of race in admissions at a public university would set the tone for private institutions if a precedent assailing affirmative action is established. I'd wager that this Court will go at Chapel Hill in a couple of years. Private colleges and universities in this country aren't entirely private of course, being dependent on government grants and subsidized student loan programs to survive.

The days when AA students can be admitted to elite colleges, both public and private, with SAT scores that are, on average, 400 points lower than those of Asian applicants appear numbered due to Trump's SC appointments. It might behoove the Banneker community to take note.

But why don’t you go after the rich white families with legacy status and low test scores with this much vitriol? I don’t get it. I mean I get it that you have something against AA students that’s crystal clear. AA student still make up a very small percentage of Ivy League and top tier admittance. Yet this seems to be the population with which you have some weird fixation.

Not PP you're responding to, but in fact AA students are OVER-represented at some elite schools, including some Ivies, compared to their percentage of the overall population: https://www.jbhe.com/2021/04/blacks-make-up-18-percent-of-admitted-students-at-harvard-university/

I don't have a problem with that so long as they had to meet the same admissions requirements as everyone else, but they have not had to do that because of longstanding affirmative action advantages granted to them. They get in because of their race, even though they are less qualified, while others do not get in because they are the "wrong" race.

If you want a truly fair system for elite institutions, drop all the legacy, athletics, rich parent preferences being granted to (mainly) white applicants, and drop the affirmative action advantages too. Base it on scores and grades and recommendations, and if you want to give anyone a leg up, make it because of their socioeconomic disadvantage, not the color of their skin.

totally agree with this. Legacie admits are insane and don't exist in other countries, and basically amount to affirmative action for white people. Look at the racial breakdown at schools that dont admit legacies, like MIT -- whites are not in the majority.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm white and graduated from an Ivy. My spouse is Asian and also graduated from an Ivy. We come from working-class backgrounds/first generation college.

The day when elite American colleges can admit whomever they want, however they want, seems to be drawing to a close. Harvard didn't have an easy time of it from 2014-2018 with the Students for Fair Admissions suit, although technically the university was cleared. Harvard's admission rates for Asians has risen by at least 5 percentage points since 2014. Now Edward Blum's Project on Fair Representation has Chapel Hill in its sights. A ruling beating back consideration of race in admissions at a public university would set the tone for private institutions if a precedent assailing affirmative action is established. I'd wager that this Court will go at Chapel Hill in a couple of years. Private colleges and universities in this country aren't entirely private of course, being dependent on government grants and subsidized student loan programs to survive.

The days when AA students can be admitted to elite colleges, both public and private, with SAT scores that are, on average, 400 points lower than those of Asian applicants appear numbered due to Trump's SC appointments. It might behoove the Banneker community to take note.

But why don’t you go after the rich white families with legacy status and low test scores with this much vitriol? I don’t get it. I mean I get it that you have something against AA students that’s crystal clear. AA student still make up a very small percentage of Ivy League and top tier admittance. Yet this seems to be the population with which you have some weird fixation.

Not PP you're responding to, but in fact AA students are OVER-represented at some elite schools, including some Ivies, compared to their percentage of the overall population: https://www.jbhe.com/2021/04/blacks-make-up-18-percent-of-admitted-students-at-harvard-university/

I don't have a problem with that so long as they had to meet the same admissions requirements as everyone else, but they have not had to do that because of longstanding affirmative action advantages granted to them. They get in because of their race, even though they are less qualified, while others do not get in because they are the "wrong" race.

If you want a truly fair system for elite institutions, drop all the legacy, athletics, rich parent preferences being granted to (mainly) white applicants, and drop the affirmative action advantages too. Base it on scores and grades and recommendations, and if you want to give anyone a leg up, make it because of their socioeconomic disadvantage, not the color of their skin.

DP but man you are stupid. This is for ONE class (2025) at ONE University.
Now why don't you talk about how Asians are OVER-represented at many elite schools compare to their percentage of the overall population?

I'm the PP you are calling stupid. Yes, that is for one class at Harvard. Here are some other stats that show high percentages of AA students at top universities: (These are from stats gathered a few years ago and are likely higher for more recent classes)

https://www.jbhe.com/2018/01/black-first-year-students-at-nations-leading-research-universities/

As I said, I have no problem w/ any racial or ethnic group being over-represented at any institution, as long as they got there by meeting the same requirements as everyone else. Today that would likely mean a much higher percentage of Asian students at many of our nation's top schools. Great! They did the work and got the scores and grades to get in. They earned those places.

What I have a problem with is decades of lowered standards for affirmative action, legacy, and athletic applicants. It's unfair to all students to lower standards for some. I agree with the poster upthread that schools will start facing more lawsuits about this in the years to come. Good. We shouldn't be punishing hardworking students from ANY racial or ethnic group, but right now we are. A class-based system that looks at economic disadvantage as a factor, as well as what the military service academies do for remedial needs of students, would go a much longer way to giving all students greater opportunities.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm white and graduated from an Ivy. My spouse is Asian and also graduated from an Ivy. We come from working-class backgrounds/first generation college.

The day when elite American colleges can admit whomever they want, however they want, seems to be drawing to a close. Harvard didn't have an easy time of it from 2014-2018 with the Students for Fair Admissions suit, although technically the university was cleared. Harvard's admission rates for Asians has risen by at least 5 percentage points since 2014. Now Edward Blum's Project on Fair Representation has Chapel Hill in its sights. A ruling beating back consideration of race in admissions at a public university would set the tone for private institutions if a precedent assailing affirmative action is established. I'd wager that this Court will go at Chapel Hill in a couple of years. Private colleges and universities in this country aren't entirely private of course, being dependent on government grants and subsidized student loan programs to survive.

The days when AA students can be admitted to elite colleges, both public and private, with SAT scores that are, on average, 400 points lower than those of Asian applicants appear numbered due to Trump's SC appointments. It might behoove the Banneker community to take note.

But why don’t you go after the rich white families with legacy status and low test scores with this much vitriol? I don’t get it. I mean I get it that you have something against AA students that’s crystal clear. AA student still make up a very small percentage of Ivy League and top tier admittance. Yet this seems to be the population with which you have some weird fixation.

Not PP you're responding to, but in fact AA students are OVER-represented at some elite schools, including some Ivies, compared to their percentage of the overall population: https://www.jbhe.com/2021/04/blacks-make-up-18-percent-of-admitted-students-at-harvard-university/

I don't have a problem with that so long as they had to meet the same admissions requirements as everyone else, but they have not had to do that because of longstanding affirmative action advantages granted to them. They get in because of their race, even though they are less qualified, while others do not get in because they are the "wrong" race.

If you want a truly fair system for elite institutions, drop all the legacy, athletics, rich parent preferences being granted to (mainly) white applicants, and drop the affirmative action advantages too. Base it on scores and grades and recommendations, and if you want to give anyone a leg up, make it because of their socioeconomic disadvantage, not the color of their skin.

DP but man you are stupid. This is for ONE class (2025) at ONE University.
Now why don't you talk about how Asians are OVER-represented at many elite schools compare to their percentage of the overall population?

I'm the PP you are calling stupid. Yes, that is for one class at Harvard. Here are some other stats that show high percentages of AA students at top universities: (These are from stats gathered a few years ago and are likely higher for more recent classes)

https://www.jbhe.com/2018/01/black-first-year-students-at-nations-leading-research-universities/

As I said, I have no problem w/ any racial or ethnic group being over-represented at any institution, as long as they got there by meeting the same requirements as everyone else. Today that would likely mean a much higher percentage of Asian students at many of our nation's top schools. Great! They did the work and got the scores and grades to get in. They earned those places.

What I have a problem with is decades of lowered standards for affirmative action, legacy, and athletic applicants. It's unfair to all students to lower standards for some. I agree with the poster upthread that schools will start facing more lawsuits about this in the years to come. Good. We shouldn't be punishing hardworking students from ANY racial or ethnic group, but right now we are. A class-based system that looks at economic disadvantage as a factor, as well as what the military service academies do for remedial needs of students, would go a much longer way to giving all students greater opportunities.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, we need to stop viewing it as an Asian slot is going to an AA student who isn’t qualified. Students are not accepted or rejected to colleges solely based on race or ethnicity.

Come on, Harvard was found mainly to be rejecting Asians on the basis of their collective undesirable personalities (much too low-key for Harvard as a group, not "likeable" enough).

We're in an alternative universe when one poor Asian applicant after another with SATs of 1400-1600 can't compete with poor AAs with SATs of 1000-1200 for the same spots at our nation's top colleges and universities. This sort of unequal treatment in admissions has gone too far for too long. That's why Harvard and Chapel Hill have been sued. That's why more colleges will be sued over race-based admissions if the Supreme Court punts on the Chapel Hill case, or rules in favor of the defendant.

Asian applicants also cant complete with relatively lower-scoring whites who bump way more Asian from selective college spots than do black applicants, who apply in much lower numbers.

So are no Asians being accepted to top tier schools?

I’m black, but I’d say that Asians aren’t interchangeable. So the fact that many Asians meet the higher standards they are held to as a group, is of no consequence to the rejected Asian that would have had a materially better shot at admission had they been a URM (or even white perhaps).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm white and graduated from an Ivy. My spouse is Asian and also graduated from an Ivy. We come from working-class backgrounds/first generation college.

The day when elite American colleges can admit whomever they want, however they want, seems to be drawing to a close. Harvard didn't have an easy time of it from 2014-2018 with the Students for Fair Admissions suit, although technically the university was cleared. Harvard's admission rates for Asians has risen by at least 5 percentage points since 2014. Now Edward Blum's Project on Fair Representation has Chapel Hill in its sights. A ruling beating back consideration of race in admissions at a public university would set the tone for private institutions if a precedent assailing affirmative action is established. I'd wager that this Court will go at Chapel Hill in a couple of years. Private colleges and universities in this country aren't entirely private of course, being dependent on government grants and subsidized student loan programs to survive.

The days when AA students can be admitted to elite colleges, both public and private, with SAT scores that are, on average, 400 points lower than those of Asian applicants appear numbered due to Trump's SC appointments. It might behoove the Banneker community to take note.

But why don’t you go after the rich white families with legacy status and low test scores with this much vitriol? I don’t get it. I mean I get it that you have something against AA students that’s crystal clear. AA student still make up a very small percentage of Ivy League and top tier admittance. Yet this seems to be the population with which you have some weird fixation.

Not PP you're responding to, but in fact AA students are OVER-represented at some elite schools, including some Ivies, compared to their percentage of the overall population: https://www.jbhe.com/2021/04/blacks-make-up-18-percent-of-admitted-students-at-harvard-university/

I don't have a problem with that so long as they had to meet the same admissions requirements as everyone else, but they have not had to do that because of longstanding affirmative action advantages granted to them. They get in because of their race, even though they are less qualified, while others do not get in because they are the "wrong" race.

If you want a truly fair system for elite institutions, drop all the legacy, athletics, rich parent preferences being granted to (mainly) white applicants, and drop the affirmative action advantages too. Base it on scores and grades and recommendations, and if you want to give anyone a leg up, make it because of their socioeconomic disadvantage, not the color of their skin.

DP but man you are stupid. This is for ONE class (2025) at ONE University.
Now why don't you talk about how Asians are OVER-represented at many elite schools compare to their percentage of the overall population?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, we need to stop viewing it as an Asian slot is going to an AA student who isn’t qualified. Students are not accepted or rejected to colleges solely based on race or ethnicity.

Come on, Harvard was found mainly to be rejecting Asians on the basis of their collective undesirable personalities (much too low-key for Harvard as a group, not "likeable" enough).

We're in an alternative universe when one poor Asian applicant after another with SATs of 1400-1600 can't compete with poor AAs with SATs of 1000-1200 for the same spots at our nation's top colleges and universities. This sort of unequal treatment in admissions has gone too far for too long. That's why Harvard and Chapel Hill have been sued. That's why more colleges will be sued over race-based admissions if the Supreme Court punts on the Chapel Hill case, or rules in favor of the defendant.

Asian applicants also cant complete with relatively lower-scoring whites who bump way more Asian from selective college spots than do black applicants, who apply in much lower numbers.

So are no Asians being accepted to top tier schools?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm white and graduated from an Ivy. My spouse is Asian and also graduated from an Ivy. We come from working-class backgrounds/first generation college.

The day when elite American colleges can admit whomever they want, however they want, seems to be drawing to a close. Harvard didn't have an easy time of it from 2014-2018 with the Students for Fair Admissions suit, although technically the university was cleared. Harvard's admission rates for Asians has risen by at least 5 percentage points since 2014. Now Edward Blum's Project on Fair Representation has Chapel Hill in its sights. A ruling beating back consideration of race in admissions at a public university would set the tone for private institutions if a precedent assailing affirmative action is established. I'd wager that this Court will go at Chapel Hill in a couple of years. Private colleges and universities in this country aren't entirely private of course, being dependent on government grants and subsidized student loan programs to survive.

The days when AA students can be admitted to elite colleges, both public and private, with SAT scores that are, on average, 400 points lower than those of Asian applicants appear numbered due to Trump's SC appointments. It might behoove the Banneker community to take note.

But why don’t you go after the rich white families with legacy status and low test scores with this much vitriol? I don’t get it. I mean I get it that you have something against AA students that’s crystal clear. AA student still make up a very small percentage of Ivy League and top tier admittance. Yet this seems to be the population with which you have some weird fixation.

Not PP you're responding to, but in fact AA students are OVER-represented at some elite schools, including some Ivies, compared to their percentage of the overall population: https://www.jbhe.com/2021/04/blacks-make-up-18-percent-of-admitted-students-at-harvard-university/

I don't have a problem with that so long as they had to meet the same admissions requirements as everyone else, but they have not had to do that because of longstanding affirmative action advantages granted to them. They get in because of their race, even though they are less qualified, while others do not get in because they are the "wrong" race.

If you want a truly fair system for elite institutions, drop all the legacy, athletics, rich parent preferences being granted to (mainly) white applicants, and drop the affirmative action advantages too. Base it on scores and grades and recommendations, and if you want to give anyone a leg up, make it because of their socioeconomic disadvantage, not the color of their skin.

Anonymous wrote:I'm impressed by how sure everyone is about their conclusions. (Except that legacy and athletic admits should be dumped. That's clear.)

Yes, it makes no sense that people with the similar socioeconomic backgrounds are treated differently. Except that Asian students are highly overrepresented among applicants with high test scores.

https://www.brookings.edu/research/race-gaps-in-sat-scores-highlight-inequality-and-hinder-upward-mobility/

"But in fact, among top scorers—those scoring between a 750 and 800—60 percent are Asian and 33 percent are white, compared to 5 percent Latino and 2 percent black."

So drop test scores, because they are clearly biased, right? Except what do you think is harder to game? SATs or essays? Grades are also hard to game, but what about the talented kids from bad schools? Admissions experts can correct me, but it seems that those grades from those schools are pretty meaningless, but good test scores can offset that.

But weighting test scores, along with grades, which are more important, would result in black and Hispanic students being even more underrepresented at selective schools. There's no reason to think that they are less talented, driven, and capable of being successful, so there's something clearly wrong about that outcome. However, if they are too underprepared, then perhaps very demanding schools aren't a good fit.

As selective schools always say, there are many more qualified students than they can admit. So why not choose 3 times as many as they can admit and randomly draw from them? Of course, that will never happen.

This is damn hard, and there are no simple answers.