Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
28% if the class of 2024 came from one prep company. Multiple TJ students stated in public forums that they had an advance copy of the test. This prep center served almost exclusively children of recent and relatively wealthy Indian immigrants.

If this were true, it would be a cheating scandal. Is there any objective proof that is not hearsay? Perhaps provide links or screenshots of the "public forums" in which this was stated. Which teachers were indicated in this leak? Please provide details, don't just make this a blanket insult to the ethnic group of which PoCs such as our VP are a member.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This country and society are rooted in racism, so to fix the problems we now have, we can’t be race neutral or race blind. I think a lot of the people who have problems with the admissions changes don’t even really understand the history of systemic racism in the US. You can’t treat an entire group of humans as less than for centuries and then say “oh, the system is fair.” No, it’s not fair. Literally nothing in this country is fair for Black people who have to overcome far more obstacles than others. They are not starting from the same starting line; it’s as if everyone else has a head start in a race. And it doesn’t matter if you don’t consider yourself to be affluent; if you are not Black, you will not face the same obstacles.

You are then stigmatizing the blacks who get in as less qualified, plus putting in less qualified people and having them try and perform in a harder setting. Harvard can get all the top blacks. Then the rest of the colleges are dealing with students who should be in a lower tier. And the tier below that like UNC has people who should be in an even lower tier college.

The above commenter has absolutely no idea how anything works and is babbling incoherently while spewing deep racism. -1000

'Deep racism'? Look up college mismatch thesis to learn more. Asking colleges to fix problems of lower level education systems which have their own problems with this systemic racism, inevitably leads to the same results.

1) I would imagine that we are in agreement that working to help fix these issues at the high school level is better than working to fix them at the college level

2) No one who is pro-reform is arguing that we should abandon working to solve issues at the PreK-8 level as well. But leaving generations of students behind while we wait for results doesn't work either and serves to deepen the status quo.

the anti-reform want to focus to be on solving issues prek-8 because that leaves the status quo intact indefinitely.

Exactly. It's so disingenuous when you hear "we need to be fixing these issues at the younger levels and bring these kids up to speed before we start looking at TJ admissions".

These people feign concern for what's going on in those grade levels when they haven't lifted one finger - in 99% of all cases - to actually support issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion.

No matter what changes are made at the younger levels, they will continue to demand that metrics are used which will allow them to leverage their resources to get their kids to the front of the line.

It's an addiction to feeling like a superior parent. It strives to make the admissions process about the efforts and priorities of the parents rather than that of the students.

- So you are advocating not doing anything at lower levels of education but step in to find and promote URM kids into TJ even if they are ill-prepared for the experience? If that is done, and the kids struggle at TJ, the next call will be to reduce standards at TJ. Not implying ALL of them will struggle, but some will and I know you are not asking for a "dumbing down" yet, but you will. Soon.

- What have YOU done "to actually support issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion" other than prattle away on anonymous boards? Please be specific. We are waiting to hear.

One of the commencement speakers at the TJ graduation was a Black kid (not sure if she was native-AA or recent immigrant) going to Harvard. She was talking about how she felt that her accomplishments were considered "suspect" and feared that it will continue to be so in the future as well. This is sad given how smart she is. However, this will ALWAYS be the case as long as someone like her is getting in through a preferential process (which it is regardless of how y'all want to sugarcoat it). How are you going to fix that? Believe me, it won't take care of itself.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This country and society are rooted in racism, so to fix the problems we now have, we can’t be race neutral or race blind. I think a lot of the people who have problems with the admissions changes don’t even really understand the history of systemic racism in the US. You can’t treat an entire group of humans as less than for centuries and then say “oh, the system is fair.” No, it’s not fair. Literally nothing in this country is fair for Black people who have to overcome far more obstacles than others. They are not starting from the same starting line; it’s as if everyone else has a head start in a race. And it doesn’t matter if you don’t consider yourself to be affluent; if you are not Black, you will not face the same obstacles.

You are then stigmatizing the blacks who get in as less qualified, plus putting in less qualified people and having them try and perform in a harder setting. Harvard can get all the top blacks. Then the rest of the colleges are dealing with students who should be in a lower tier. And the tier below that like UNC has people who should be in an even lower tier college.

The above commenter has absolutely no idea how anything works and is babbling incoherently while spewing deep racism. -1000

'Deep racism'? Look up college mismatch thesis to learn more. Asking colleges to fix problems of lower level education systems which have their own problems with this systemic racism, inevitably leads to the same results.

1) I would imagine that we are in agreement that working to help fix these issues at the high school level is better than working to fix them at the college level

2) No one who is pro-reform is arguing that we should abandon working to solve issues at the PreK-8 level as well. But leaving generations of students behind while we wait for results doesn't work either and serves to deepen the status quo.

the anti-reform want to focus to be on solving issues prek-8 because that leaves the status quo intact indefinitely.

Exactly. It's so disingenuous when you hear "we need to be fixing these issues at the younger levels and bring these kids up to speed before we start looking at TJ admissions".

These people feign concern for what's going on in those grade levels when they haven't lifted one finger - in 99% of all cases - to actually support issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion.

No matter what changes are made at the younger levels, they will continue to demand that metrics are used which will allow them to leverage their resources to get their kids to the front of the line.

It's an addiction to feeling like a superior parent. It strives to make the admissions process about the efforts and priorities of the parents rather than that of the students.

- So you are advocating not doing anything at lower levels of education but step in to find and promote URM kids into TJ even if they are ill-prepared for the experience? If that is done, and the kids struggle at TJ, the next call will be to reduce standards at TJ. Not implying ALL of them will struggle, but some will and I know you are not asking for a "dumbing down" yet, but you will. Soon.

- What have YOU done "to actually support issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion" other than prattle away on anonymous boards? Please be specific. We are waiting to hear.

One of the commencement speakers at the TJ graduation was a Black kid (not sure if she was native-AA or recent immigrant) going to Harvard. She was talking about how she felt that her accomplishments were considered "suspect" and feared that it will continue to be so in the future as well. This is sad given how smart she is. However, this will ALWAYS be the case as long as someone like her is getting in through a preferential process (which it is regardless of how y'all want to sugarcoat it). How are you going to fix that? Believe me, it won't take care of itself.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This country and society are rooted in racism, so to fix the problems we now have, we can’t be race neutral or race blind. I think a lot of the people who have problems with the admissions changes don’t even really understand the history of systemic racism in the US. You can’t treat an entire group of humans as less than for centuries and then say “oh, the system is fair.” No, it’s not fair. Literally nothing in this country is fair for Black people who have to overcome far more obstacles than others. They are not starting from the same starting line; it’s as if everyone else has a head start in a race. And it doesn’t matter if you don’t consider yourself to be affluent; if you are not Black, you will not face the same obstacles.

You are then stigmatizing the blacks who get in as less qualified, plus putting in less qualified people and having them try and perform in a harder setting. Harvard can get all the top blacks. Then the rest of the colleges are dealing with students who should be in a lower tier. And the tier below that like UNC has people who should be in an even lower tier college.

The above commenter has absolutely no idea how anything works and is babbling incoherently while spewing deep racism. -1000

'Deep racism'? Look up college mismatch thesis to learn more. Asking colleges to fix problems of lower level education systems which have their own problems with this systemic racism, inevitably leads to the same results.

1) I would imagine that we are in agreement that working to help fix these issues at the high school level is better than working to fix them at the college level

2) No one who is pro-reform is arguing that we should abandon working to solve issues at the PreK-8 level as well. But leaving generations of students behind while we wait for results doesn't work either and serves to deepen the status quo.

the anti-reform want to focus to be on solving issues prek-8 because that leaves the status quo intact indefinitely.

Exactly. It's so disingenuous when you hear "we need to be fixing these issues at the younger levels and bring these kids up to speed before we start looking at TJ admissions".

These people feign concern for what's going on in those grade levels when they haven't lifted one finger - in 99% of all cases - to actually support issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion.

No matter what changes are made at the younger levels, they will continue to demand that metrics are used which will allow them to leverage their resources to get their kids to the front of the line.

It's an addiction to feeling like a superior parent. It strives to make the admissions process about the efforts and priorities of the parents rather than that of the students.

Anonymous wrote:
28% if the class of 2024 came from one prep company. Multiple TJ students stated in public forums that they had an advance copy of the test. This prep center served almost exclusively children of recent and relatively wealthy Indian immigrants.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No. It is true that 28% of the class did, though. We know this because that very prep center published the first and last names of every student who was admitted to either TJ, or Loudoun's Academy of Science or Academy of Engineering and Technology. 133 names were indicated on this list.

Additionally, nearly 70 of the TJ admits were also admitted to AOS or AET, meaning that those students were Loudoun residents. Given that Loudoun receives between 100-120 spaces at TJ every year, that means an ENORMOUS percentage of the Loudoun delegation came from this one prep center.

But we're supposed to believe that the old process identified giftedness.

But part of the problem is that the prep center supposedly had a copy of the exact test. This is a problem that can be solved without removing testing altogether. Really, they could stop using any standardized test, and then just write their own test each year. They could sponsor their own math, science, engineering, debate, whatever contests for 8th graders, and then keep track of how kids perform as data. There are so many avenues to find gifted kids. Using basically just GPAs is ill conceived and will do nothing to ensure that gifted kids are selected for TJ.

Anonymous wrote:
No. It is true that 28% of the class did, though. We know this because that very prep center published the first and last names of every student who was admitted to either TJ, or Loudoun's Academy of Science or Academy of Engineering and Technology. 133 names were indicated on this list.

Additionally, nearly 70 of the TJ admits were also admitted to AOS or AET, meaning that those students were Loudoun residents. Given that Loudoun receives between 100-120 spaces at TJ every year, that means an ENORMOUS percentage of the Loudoun delegation came from this one prep center.

But we're supposed to believe that the old process identified giftedness.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This country and society are rooted in racism, so to fix the problems we now have, we can’t be race neutral or race blind. I think a lot of the people who have problems with the admissions changes don’t even really understand the history of systemic racism in the US. You can’t treat an entire group of humans as less than for centuries and then say “oh, the system is fair.” No, it’s not fair. Literally nothing in this country is fair for Black people who have to overcome far more obstacles than others. They are not starting from the same starting line; it’s as if everyone else has a head start in a race. And it doesn’t matter if you don’t consider yourself to be affluent; if you are not Black, you will not face the same obstacles.

You are then stigmatizing the blacks who get in as less qualified, plus putting in less qualified people and having them try and perform in a harder setting. Harvard can get all the top blacks. Then the rest of the colleges are dealing with students who should be in a lower tier. And the tier below that like UNC has people who should be in an even lower tier college.

The above commenter has absolutely no idea how anything works and is babbling incoherently while spewing deep racism. -1000

'Deep racism'? Look up college mismatch thesis to learn more. Asking colleges to fix problems of lower level education systems which have their own problems with this systemic racism, inevitably leads to the same results.

1) I would imagine that we are in agreement that working to help fix these issues at the high school level is better than working to fix them at the college level

2) No one who is pro-reform is arguing that we should abandon working to solve issues at the PreK-8 level as well. But leaving generations of students behind while we wait for results doesn't work either and serves to deepen the status quo.

the anti-reform want to focus to be on solving issues prek-8 because that leaves the status quo intact indefinitely.

Exactly. It's so disingenuous when you hear "we need to be fixing these issues at the younger levels and bring these kids up to speed before we start looking at TJ admissions".

These people feign concern for what's going on in those grade levels when they haven't lifted one finger - in 99% of all cases - to actually support issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion.

No matter what changes are made at the younger levels, they will continue to demand that metrics are used which will allow them to leverage their resources to get their kids to the front of the line.

It's an addiction to feeling like a superior parent. It strives to make the admissions process about the efforts and priorities of the parents rather than that of the students.

You and your typical SJW high and mighty talk. Some people actually believe its better to help URM reach the bar rather than lowering it. Hand up vs. Handout has plenty of data behind it.

1) I'm betting you and most here have taken zero concrete steps to actually help with helping folks from underrepresented groups reach the artifically set bar

2) It's not about lowering any bar, it's about fixing the bar so that irrelevant metrics like standardized exams aren't used as barriers to entry.

1. I pay taxes for schools and teachers. They need to do their job. I also support school choice and vouchers.
2. Then can we agree to take race off of the application and identify truly gifted kids objectively n a race-blind application process? Or is race an inherent barrier to entry in your book?
2.

The problem is the metric isn't objective if it allows people to buy their way in with prep classes giving them a distinct advantage over others

Is it true that a third of last year's entering class came from the same prep center?

No. It is true that 28% of the class did, though. We know this because that very prep center published the first and last names of every student who was admitted to either TJ, or Loudoun's Academy of Science or Academy of Engineering and Technology. 133 names were indicated on this list.

Additionally, nearly 70 of the TJ admits were also admitted to AOS or AET, meaning that those students were Loudoun residents. Given that Loudoun receives between 100-120 spaces at TJ every year, that means an ENORMOUS percentage of the Loudoun delegation came from this one prep center.

But we're supposed to believe that the old process identified giftedness.

So which prep center do Fairfax County residents use?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This country and society are rooted in racism, so to fix the problems we now have, we can’t be race neutral or race blind. I think a lot of the people who have problems with the admissions changes don’t even really understand the history of systemic racism in the US. You can’t treat an entire group of humans as less than for centuries and then say “oh, the system is fair.” No, it’s not fair. Literally nothing in this country is fair for Black people who have to overcome far more obstacles than others. They are not starting from the same starting line; it’s as if everyone else has a head start in a race. And it doesn’t matter if you don’t consider yourself to be affluent; if you are not Black, you will not face the same obstacles.

You are then stigmatizing the blacks who get in as less qualified, plus putting in less qualified people and having them try and perform in a harder setting. Harvard can get all the top blacks. Then the rest of the colleges are dealing with students who should be in a lower tier. And the tier below that like UNC has people who should be in an even lower tier college.

The above commenter has absolutely no idea how anything works and is babbling incoherently while spewing deep racism. -1000

'Deep racism'? Look up college mismatch thesis to learn more. Asking colleges to fix problems of lower level education systems which have their own problems with this systemic racism, inevitably leads to the same results.

1) I would imagine that we are in agreement that working to help fix these issues at the high school level is better than working to fix them at the college level

2) No one who is pro-reform is arguing that we should abandon working to solve issues at the PreK-8 level as well. But leaving generations of students behind while we wait for results doesn't work either and serves to deepen the status quo.

the anti-reform want to focus to be on solving issues prek-8 because that leaves the status quo intact indefinitely.

Exactly. It's so disingenuous when you hear "we need to be fixing these issues at the younger levels and bring these kids up to speed before we start looking at TJ admissions".

These people feign concern for what's going on in those grade levels when they haven't lifted one finger - in 99% of all cases - to actually support issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion.

No matter what changes are made at the younger levels, they will continue to demand that metrics are used which will allow them to leverage their resources to get their kids to the front of the line.

It's an addiction to feeling like a superior parent. It strives to make the admissions process about the efforts and priorities of the parents rather than that of the students.

You and your typical SJW high and mighty talk. Some people actually believe its better to help URM reach the bar rather than lowering it. Hand up vs. Handout has plenty of data behind it.

1) I'm betting you and most here have taken zero concrete steps to actually help with helping folks from underrepresented groups reach the artifically set bar

2) It's not about lowering any bar, it's about fixing the bar so that irrelevant metrics like standardized exams aren't used as barriers to entry.

1. I pay taxes for schools and teachers. They need to do their job. I also support school choice and vouchers.
2. Then can we agree to take race off of the application and identify truly gifted kids objectively n a race-blind application process? Or is race an inherent barrier to entry in your book?
2.

The problem is the metric isn't objective if it allows people to buy their way in with prep classes giving them a distinct advantage over others

Is it true that a third of last year's entering class came from the same prep center?

No. It is true that 28% of the class did, though. We know this because that very prep center published the first and last names of every student who was admitted to either TJ, or Loudoun's Academy of Science or Academy of Engineering and Technology. 133 names were indicated on this list.

Additionally, nearly 70 of the TJ admits were also admitted to AOS or AET, meaning that those students were Loudoun residents. Given that Loudoun receives between 100-120 spaces at TJ every year, that means an ENORMOUS percentage of the Loudoun delegation came from this one prep center.

But we're supposed to believe that the old process identified giftedness.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This country and society are rooted in racism, so to fix the problems we now have, we can’t be race neutral or race blind. I think a lot of the people who have problems with the admissions changes don’t even really understand the history of systemic racism in the US. You can’t treat an entire group of humans as less than for centuries and then say “oh, the system is fair.” No, it’s not fair. Literally nothing in this country is fair for Black people who have to overcome far more obstacles than others. They are not starting from the same starting line; it’s as if everyone else has a head start in a race. And it doesn’t matter if you don’t consider yourself to be affluent; if you are not Black, you will not face the same obstacles.

You are then stigmatizing the blacks who get in as less qualified, plus putting in less qualified people and having them try and perform in a harder setting. Harvard can get all the top blacks. Then the rest of the colleges are dealing with students who should be in a lower tier. And the tier below that like UNC has people who should be in an even lower tier college.

The above commenter has absolutely no idea how anything works and is babbling incoherently while spewing deep racism. -1000

'Deep racism'? Look up college mismatch thesis to learn more. Asking colleges to fix problems of lower level education systems which have their own problems with this systemic racism, inevitably leads to the same results.

1) I would imagine that we are in agreement that working to help fix these issues at the high school level is better than working to fix them at the college level

2) No one who is pro-reform is arguing that we should abandon working to solve issues at the PreK-8 level as well. But leaving generations of students behind while we wait for results doesn't work either and serves to deepen the status quo.

the anti-reform want to focus to be on solving issues prek-8 because that leaves the status quo intact indefinitely.

Exactly. It's so disingenuous when you hear "we need to be fixing these issues at the younger levels and bring these kids up to speed before we start looking at TJ admissions".

These people feign concern for what's going on in those grade levels when they haven't lifted one finger - in 99% of all cases - to actually support issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion.

No matter what changes are made at the younger levels, they will continue to demand that metrics are used which will allow them to leverage their resources to get their kids to the front of the line.

It's an addiction to feeling like a superior parent. It strives to make the admissions process about the efforts and priorities of the parents rather than that of the students.

You and your typical SJW high and mighty talk. Some people actually believe its better to help URM reach the bar rather than lowering it. Hand up vs. Handout has plenty of data behind it.

1) I'm betting you and most here have taken zero concrete steps to actually help with helping folks from underrepresented groups reach the artifically set bar

2) It's not about lowering any bar, it's about fixing the bar so that irrelevant metrics like standardized exams aren't used as barriers to entry.

1. I pay taxes for schools and teachers. They need to do their job. I also support school choice and vouchers.
2. Then can we agree to take race off of the application and identify truly gifted kids objectively n a race-blind application process? Or is race an inherent barrier to entry in your book?
2.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This country and society are rooted in racism, so to fix the problems we now have, we can’t be race neutral or race blind. I think a lot of the people who have problems with the admissions changes don’t even really understand the history of systemic racism in the US. You can’t treat an entire group of humans as less than for centuries and then say “oh, the system is fair.” No, it’s not fair. Literally nothing in this country is fair for Black people who have to overcome far more obstacles than others. They are not starting from the same starting line; it’s as if everyone else has a head start in a race. And it doesn’t matter if you don’t consider yourself to be affluent; if you are not Black, you will not face the same obstacles.

You are then stigmatizing the blacks who get in as less qualified, plus putting in less qualified people and having them try and perform in a harder setting. Harvard can get all the top blacks. Then the rest of the colleges are dealing with students who should be in a lower tier. And the tier below that like UNC has people who should be in an even lower tier college.

The above commenter has absolutely no idea how anything works and is babbling incoherently while spewing deep racism. -1000

'Deep racism'? Look up college mismatch thesis to learn more. Asking colleges to fix problems of lower level education systems which have their own problems with this systemic racism, inevitably leads to the same results.

1) I would imagine that we are in agreement that working to help fix these issues at the high school level is better than working to fix them at the college level

2) No one who is pro-reform is arguing that we should abandon working to solve issues at the PreK-8 level as well. But leaving generations of students behind while we wait for results doesn't work either and serves to deepen the status quo.

the anti-reform want to focus to be on solving issues prek-8 because that leaves the status quo intact indefinitely.

Exactly. It's so disingenuous when you hear "we need to be fixing these issues at the younger levels and bring these kids up to speed before we start looking at TJ admissions".

These people feign concern for what's going on in those grade levels when they haven't lifted one finger - in 99% of all cases - to actually support issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion.

No matter what changes are made at the younger levels, they will continue to demand that metrics are used which will allow them to leverage their resources to get their kids to the front of the line.

It's an addiction to feeling like a superior parent. It strives to make the admissions process about the efforts and priorities of the parents rather than that of the students.

You and your typical SJW high and mighty talk. Some people actually believe its better to help URM reach the bar rather than lowering it. Hand up vs. Handout has plenty of data behind it.

1) I'm betting you and most here have taken zero concrete steps to actually help with helping folks from underrepresented groups reach the artifically set bar

2) It's not about lowering any bar, it's about fixing the bar so that irrelevant metrics like standardized exams aren't used as barriers to entry.

1. I pay taxes for schools and teachers. They need to do their job. I also support school choice and vouchers.
2. Then can we agree to take race off of the application and identify truly gifted kids objectively n a race-blind application process? Or is race an inherent barrier to entry in your book?
2.

The problem is the metric isn't objective if it allows people to buy their way in with prep classes giving them a distinct advantage over others

Is it true that a third of last year's entering class came from the same prep center?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This country and society are rooted in racism, so to fix the problems we now have, we can’t be race neutral or race blind. I think a lot of the people who have problems with the admissions changes don’t even really understand the history of systemic racism in the US. You can’t treat an entire group of humans as less than for centuries and then say “oh, the system is fair.” No, it’s not fair. Literally nothing in this country is fair for Black people who have to overcome far more obstacles than others. They are not starting from the same starting line; it’s as if everyone else has a head start in a race. And it doesn’t matter if you don’t consider yourself to be affluent; if you are not Black, you will not face the same obstacles.

You are then stigmatizing the blacks who get in as less qualified, plus putting in less qualified people and having them try and perform in a harder setting. Harvard can get all the top blacks. Then the rest of the colleges are dealing with students who should be in a lower tier. And the tier below that like UNC has people who should be in an even lower tier college.

The above commenter has absolutely no idea how anything works and is babbling incoherently while spewing deep racism. -1000

'Deep racism'? Look up college mismatch thesis to learn more. Asking colleges to fix problems of lower level education systems which have their own problems with this systemic racism, inevitably leads to the same results.

1) I would imagine that we are in agreement that working to help fix these issues at the high school level is better than working to fix them at the college level

2) No one who is pro-reform is arguing that we should abandon working to solve issues at the PreK-8 level as well. But leaving generations of students behind while we wait for results doesn't work either and serves to deepen the status quo.

the anti-reform want to focus to be on solving issues prek-8 because that leaves the status quo intact indefinitely.

Exactly. It's so disingenuous when you hear "we need to be fixing these issues at the younger levels and bring these kids up to speed before we start looking at TJ admissions".

These people feign concern for what's going on in those grade levels when they haven't lifted one finger - in 99% of all cases - to actually support issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion.

No matter what changes are made at the younger levels, they will continue to demand that metrics are used which will allow them to leverage their resources to get their kids to the front of the line.

It's an addiction to feeling like a superior parent. It strives to make the admissions process about the efforts and priorities of the parents rather than that of the students.

You and your typical SJW high and mighty talk. Some people actually believe its better to help URM reach the bar rather than lowering it. Hand up vs. Handout has plenty of data behind it.

1) I'm betting you and most here have taken zero concrete steps to actually help with helping folks from underrepresented groups reach the artifically set bar

2) It's not about lowering any bar, it's about fixing the bar so that irrelevant metrics like standardized exams aren't used as barriers to entry.

1. I pay taxes for schools and teachers. They need to do their job. I also support school choice and vouchers.
2. Then can we agree to take race off of the application and identify truly gifted kids objectively n a race-blind application process? Or is race an inherent barrier to entry in your book?
2.

The problem is the metric isn't objective if it allows people to buy their way in with prep classes giving them a distinct advantage over others

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This country and society are rooted in racism, so to fix the problems we now have, we can’t be race neutral or race blind. I think a lot of the people who have problems with the admissions changes don’t even really understand the history of systemic racism in the US. You can’t treat an entire group of humans as less than for centuries and then say “oh, the system is fair.” No, it’s not fair. Literally nothing in this country is fair for Black people who have to overcome far more obstacles than others. They are not starting from the same starting line; it’s as if everyone else has a head start in a race. And it doesn’t matter if you don’t consider yourself to be affluent; if you are not Black, you will not face the same obstacles.

You are then stigmatizing the blacks who get in as less qualified, plus putting in less qualified people and having them try and perform in a harder setting. Harvard can get all the top blacks. Then the rest of the colleges are dealing with students who should be in a lower tier. And the tier below that like UNC has people who should be in an even lower tier college.

The above commenter has absolutely no idea how anything works and is babbling incoherently while spewing deep racism. -1000

'Deep racism'? Look up college mismatch thesis to learn more. Asking colleges to fix problems of lower level education systems which have their own problems with this systemic racism, inevitably leads to the same results.

1) I would imagine that we are in agreement that working to help fix these issues at the high school level is better than working to fix them at the college level

2) No one who is pro-reform is arguing that we should abandon working to solve issues at the PreK-8 level as well. But leaving generations of students behind while we wait for results doesn't work either and serves to deepen the status quo.

the anti-reform want to focus to be on solving issues prek-8 because that leaves the status quo intact indefinitely.

Exactly. It's so disingenuous when you hear "we need to be fixing these issues at the younger levels and bring these kids up to speed before we start looking at TJ admissions".

These people feign concern for what's going on in those grade levels when they haven't lifted one finger - in 99% of all cases - to actually support issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion.

No matter what changes are made at the younger levels, they will continue to demand that metrics are used which will allow them to leverage their resources to get their kids to the front of the line.

It's an addiction to feeling like a superior parent. It strives to make the admissions process about the efforts and priorities of the parents rather than that of the students.

You and your typical SJW high and mighty talk. Some people actually believe its better to help URM reach the bar rather than lowering it. Hand up vs. Handout has plenty of data behind it.

1) I'm betting you and most here have taken zero concrete steps to actually help with helping folks from underrepresented groups reach the artifically set bar

2) It's not about lowering any bar, it's about fixing the bar so that irrelevant metrics like standardized exams aren't used as barriers to entry.

1. I pay taxes for schools and teachers. They need to do their job. I also support school choice and vouchers.
2. Then can we agree to take race off of the application and identify truly gifted kids objectively n a race-blind application process? Or is race an inherent barrier to entry in your book?
2.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh wow.

28% if the class of 2024 came from one prep company. Multiple TJ students stated in public forums that they had an advance copy of the test. This prep center served almost exclusively children of recent and relatively wealthy Indian immigrants.

And that is the problem in a nutshell.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This country and society are rooted in racism, so to fix the problems we now have, we can’t be race neutral or race blind. I think a lot of the people who have problems with the admissions changes don’t even really understand the history of systemic racism in the US. You can’t treat an entire group of humans as less than for centuries and then say “oh, the system is fair.” No, it’s not fair. Literally nothing in this country is fair for Black people who have to overcome far more obstacles than others. They are not starting from the same starting line; it’s as if everyone else has a head start in a race. And it doesn’t matter if you don’t consider yourself to be affluent; if you are not Black, you will not face the same obstacles.

You are then stigmatizing the blacks who get in as less qualified, plus putting in less qualified people and having them try and perform in a harder setting. Harvard can get all the top blacks. Then the rest of the colleges are dealing with students who should be in a lower tier. And the tier below that like UNC has people who should be in an even lower tier college.

The above commenter has absolutely no idea how anything works and is babbling incoherently while spewing deep racism. -1000

'Deep racism'? Look up college mismatch thesis to learn more. Asking colleges to fix problems of lower level education systems which have their own problems with this systemic racism, inevitably leads to the same results.

1) I would imagine that we are in agreement that working to help fix these issues at the high school level is better than working to fix them at the college level

2) No one who is pro-reform is arguing that we should abandon working to solve issues at the PreK-8 level as well. But leaving generations of students behind while we wait for results doesn't work either and serves to deepen the status quo.

the anti-reform want to focus to be on solving issues prek-8 because that leaves the status quo intact indefinitely.

Exactly. It's so disingenuous when you hear "we need to be fixing these issues at the younger levels and bring these kids up to speed before we start looking at TJ admissions".

These people feign concern for what's going on in those grade levels when they haven't lifted one finger - in 99% of all cases - to actually support issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion.

No matter what changes are made at the younger levels, they will continue to demand that metrics are used which will allow them to leverage their resources to get their kids to the front of the line.

It's an addiction to feeling like a superior parent. It strives to make the admissions process about the efforts and priorities of the parents rather than that of the students.

You and your typical SJW high and mighty talk. Some people actually believe its better to help URM reach the bar rather than lowering it. Hand up vs. Handout has plenty of data behind it.

1) I'm betting you and most here have taken zero concrete steps to actually help with helping folks from underrepresented groups reach the artifically set bar

2) It's not about lowering any bar, it's about fixing the bar so that irrelevant metrics like standardized exams aren't used as barriers to entry.

1. I pay taxes for schools and teachers. They need to do their job. I also support school choice and vouchers.
2. Then can we agree to take race off of the application and identify truly gifted kids objectively n a race-blind application process? Or is race an inherent barrier to entry in your book?
2.