Anonymous wrote:So, perhaps it's gender then?

What information do you base this on?

And are you saying that girls are being given preference over better-qualified boys, or that boys are being given preference over better-qualified girls?

Anonymous wrote:So, perhaps it's gender then?

At the Eastern info meeting, a parent asked this question (about race and gender preferences/weights). the answer was "NO". The presenter also pointed out that if this was the case Eastern would not be mostly female (I believe around 70%) and Takoma Park would not be mostly male!!
Gender might be a factor in the elementary school HGC programs but race is definitely not at either the ES or MS competitive magnet programs.

So, perhaps it's gender then?

Don't think race is a factor. DD had all scores above the median scores of the accetped students years ago but didn't get into the HGC. DS had two scores below the median but got in two years ago. DS is out going and his teacher loved him. They are AA.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Assuming that they take the race into consideration.

But they don't. So why make the assumption.

+1

Anonymous wrote:There is a score minimum for admittance to an HGC.

What is it? Where did you get that statistic or info?

Anonymous wrote:They said that at the margins they occasionally take gender into account. There is no evidence that they take race into account.

Who is "they"? Who said this, in what context, where?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This appears to be a very old lawsuit about this issue:
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/Unpublished/011583.U.pdf

Appeal affirming dismissal.

Can you provide the title of this case? I can't seem to access via the link.

Try searching Ethan Rosenfeld v. MCPS

Thanks. This case appears to be one of many around the same period (late 90s) with similar fact patterns -- some kind of magnet program or transfer policy that incorporated preferences or other mechanisms that ensured that minorities were admitted. Another similar case was Eisenberg v. MCPS. I'm not an attorney, but there's a long and varied case law in this area with many cases testing many different ways of ensuring diversity in academic admissions (to schools or special programs or transfers). As I understand it, the law is pretty clear that race can not be the determinative factor in admissions.

In general, I think the education system community (public school systems and all universities) has moved on to other ways of trying to ensure diversity through use of other kinds of status markers that are proxies to some extent for race (by geography, by socioeconomic status, by "hardship", by guaranteeing admission for the top %age of a class, etc.) and also increased outreach to the target communities educating about special programs, encouraging applications, offering application assistance, and creating support networks for those who are admitted.

Anonymous wrote:

Assuming that they take the race into consideration.

But they don't. So why make the assumption.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Simple question:

Assuming that they take the race into consideration, how do they figure out the applicant's race? I don't recall I ever filled out my DS's race in the application form.

They don't ask race. Also, at our HGC the non- HGc is almost all non-white and the HGC is almost all white. If they are taking race into account they aren't doing it effectively.

You either self identify whe you register initially or whoever registers you make a judgement and marks it down. I'm assuming this stays in your record from K going forward unchanged unless you change it.

Right but it's not on the HGC app.

Anonymous wrote:Simple question:

Assuming that they take the race into consideration, how do they figure out the applicant's race? I don't recall I ever filled out my DS's race in the application form.

They just look at the name. They can tell.

I mean, as long as we're assuming.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Simple question:

Assuming that they take the race into consideration, how do they figure out the applicant's race? I don't recall I ever filled out my DS's race in the application form.

They don't ask race. Also, at our HGC the non- HGc is almost all non-white and the HGC is almost all white. If they are taking race into account they aren't doing it effectively.

You either self identify whe you register initially or whoever registers you make a judgement and marks it down. I'm assuming this stays in your record from K going forward unchanged unless you change it.

Anonymous wrote:Simple question:

Assuming that they take the race into consideration, how do they figure out the applicant's race? I don't recall I ever filled out my DS's race in the application form.

They don't ask race. Also, at our HGC the non- HGc is almost all non-white and the HGC is almost all white. If they are taking race into account they aren't doing it effectively.

Simple question:

Assuming that they take the race into consideration, how do they figure out the applicant's race? I don't recall I ever filled out my DS's race in the application form.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How on earth did you get that I was upset from what I posted? My child is in an HGC, I always assumed that kids got in by merit. What I said is it's not unreasonable to wonder if there might be a preference for URM based on other competitive admissions programs.

Perhaps my AA child is not that aware of the full historical context; but he too wonders why certain white children are in the magnet programs.

Great post! I also read a great study about how "other factors", outside of grades test scores show Asians primarily but other groups also being discriminated against in most major colleges in favor of whites. Discretionary admittance keeps the old guard in place. I'm sure this can be extrapolated to many different areas including magnets. I've seen it time and time again where the "image" of intelligence trumps actual demonstration of intelligence. This bias gives whites unfair preferential treatment.

Please post that study. I would be interested to read that.

Not pp, but....

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-myth-of-american-meritocracy/

From the article - "The research certainly supports the widespread perception that non-academic factors play a major role in the process, including athletic ability and “legacy” status. But as we saw earlier, even more significant are racial factors, with black ancestry being worth the equivalent of 310 points, Hispanics gaining 130 points, and Asian students being penalized by 140 points, all relative to white applicants on the 1600 point Math and Reading SAT scale."

I'd be interested to see SAT score comparisons with all legacy and athletic recruits removed.