crt is based in part on the premise that the civil rights movement didn’t go far renough. In that way, it is more malcolm x than mlk. It is a “by any means necessary” ideology.
He doesn’t really consider them significant costs, asians are doing well enough so they can afford to take one for the team (asian kids are not individuals with hopes and dreams, they are asians). Losing 4 asian seats to gain one black seat (and one hispanic seat) is a bargain in his eyes.
For every black seat gained you are losing about 4 asian seats. I would prefer a 1 for 1 loss by asians (if it must be asians that pay the price of assuaging your white guilt). And once you implement this plan, tjhsst will not be a top school for very long. I doubt it will be much better than langley or even woodson. But that seems to be ok with a lot of people. Eliminating the visible disparities seems to be a suitable substitute for eliminating the actual disparities.
We’re not trying to convince you, I understand that no fact or argument can convince you of anything than what you already believe. I don’t think you will ever convince me that discriminating against asian kids is OK but if you could present an argument that asians deserve to be discriminated against in favor of hispanics, my mind could be changed. We are not doing this to convince one another. We are engaging in an argument so others can compare the relative merits of our positions.
90% of the applicants have a 3.5 gpa or higher.
Over 30% of all students have an average of 3.5 or higher.
Given the fact that you cannot identify any unfairness, I think the burden is on you to explain why things are unfair to hispanics relative to asians?
It’s shorthand for “everything is because of racism”
Or just asking what the difference is between asian households and white households. The biggest beneficiary of this policy are white kids, all at the expense of asian kids. Convergence of interests indeed.
You don’t get to demand evidence until you’ve shown us some yourself. Well, you can, but everyone is just going to ignore it. You gave us a personal annecdote about honors students when you were in middle school. This is irrelevant. Regardless of whatever people were or weren’t learning whenever and wherever you were in 8th grade, today, and especially in NOVA, taking Algebra I in 8th grade is nothing special.
This school is not for honors students who are a little bit ahead; regular schools already have content for them. It’s for students who cannot be adequately served by the regular schools.
Doubtless we can construct increasingly bizarre scenarios about edge cases falling through the cracks. I’m sure some neglected student in prealgebra is totally going to be ready for multivariable calculus in three years. But to build a policy around what-ifs, we first need to show that capable students are being left out, then show that the change doesn’t cause more problems than it solves.
What we do know is that for the last year with data, they could have filled the class nearly four times with students who would start in Algebra II or later. And 287 applicants were already in at least Algebra II. This last group are students who, even without any additional acceleration, are likely to run out of material in a regular school. To put them on equal footing with the 874 students in Algebra I who meet the minimum GPA will result in students who are highly advanced being passed over for students who are not.
Setting any academic threshold has a chance of missing edge cases. We could just lottery the whole class to anyone and everyone, because who knows who might be able to “catch up”. I don’t know where the right threshold is, but 80% of the seats being lotteried to any interested Algebra I 8th grader with a 3.5 GPA will result in more students running out of math classes, simply based on the 2022 numbers. Setting the lottery at 70% and requiring geometry (unless you get accepted as part of the 30% – 22 Algebra I students were accepted to the class of 2022) would at least minimize the the chances of kids running out of material.
There is nothing mismatched about being given an education that matches your current level. Sticking a 9th grader into a more advanced class because he or she might have been able to handle it given a different past is a mismatch. For those able to catch up, the school does accept transfer students.
I would also like to throw this wrench into the works: The schools that someone of any race, who lives in Northern Virginia and is just barely below the cutoff for TJ, will attend are excellent. There are probably 10 or 15 states in the Rockies and Plains that do not have a single school as good as any of the 6 or 7 best non-selective public high schools in the TJ catchment area. If you go to the average neighborhood high school in Fairfax and excel then you will have many opportunities for academic enrichment and be an excellent candidate for admission to elite universities. Not getting into the literal best, most rigorous high school because you are in the 98th percentile of students rather than the 99th is not the end of the world for a student of any race in that area.
Good – I have no interest in supporting discrimination against Asian kids in any way. This new proposal doesn’t discriminate against Asian kids at all. Asian kids will have a very fair and equal opportunity to attend this school if they can meet the GPA requirements.
Going further, I’m not sure if the previous policy was actually discriminatory against black kids. I’m not in favor of the new policy because it eliminates discrimination, but because it’s likely that some sort of wider discrimination and bias in society is resulting in virtually no black kids getting a chance to go to this great school (I’m unconvinced that the school will get worse just because now more black and Hispanic kids are attending). This is a flawed corrective measure, not making up for discrimination in this school, but trying to make up, in a small but real way, for discrimination in broader society that results in unequal opportunities for black and Hispanic students. Just like AA in general – except this particular policy doesn’t favor any particular race.
Access to advanced material is not the issue. Nyc has 8 specialized high schools and dozens of others that are merit based. They all offer advanced academic courses. Many of them are probably diverse enough even for the folks here. But they don’t have the reputation that stuy has in nyc or that tjhsst has in northern virginia. It’s almost as if it hurts their feelings that all these asians are doing so well.
When trump proposes to eliminate family reunification immigration, does that discriminate against anyone. It prohibits everyone from from family reunification equally. Does it matter at all who the current beneficiaries of family reunification visas are?
The projected result of this change in policy is to increase the white, hispanic and black population, all at the expense of asians. That is giving a preference to whites, hispanics and blacks at the expense of asians and that preference is every bit as intentional.
So you want to fight likely inarticulable discrimination with actual discrimination?
You are making a very thinly veiled accusation of racism.
Noone is saying that the school will get worse because blacks and hispanics are attending and you know it. You are just trying to imply racism where none exists. The school will absolutely get worse because of relaxing standards. There is no question that the new standards fall far short of current standards. 90% of the current applicants would qualify for the pool. 30% of fcps qualifies for the lottery.
So there is no discrimination in the tjhsst admissions process, but you think there is discrimination elsewhere but you can’t identify or find it so you are going to fix it here by discriminating against asians? And of course it favors a particular race, in fact it favors a bunch of races, including whites, all at the expense of asians.
And what discrimination do hispanics face that asians do not face that would justify giving them a preference at the expense of asian kids?
If you want to provide preferences for income, you would probably be able to increase the blacks and hispanic population without discriminating on the basis of race. The problem is that it would almost eliminate white kids from the population and it would probably increase the asian population a bit too. But that would not serve the convergence of political interests that made this policy possible. Make no mistake, you are in bed with racists (unless of course you think that video is fake news) who are resentful of asian success and many of their rationales are being parroted by you.
Speaking of elite schools, important background is ignored to justify keeping things the same, a lot of the ones looking at lotteries are doing so for recent scandals at colleges and other educational institutions.
Recently news broke that dozens of individuals, including celebrities Felicity Huffman and Lori Loughlin, paid thousands of dollars to buy admission to some of the nation’s elite universities. This spectacularly terrible scandal raises questions about how to build a more fair system. On top of the scandal, other troubling practices such as legacy admissions and donor preferences remind us that admissions is biased toward the wealthy. Some might also think that getting rid of any recognition of an applicant’s race/ethnicity, so-called “race-neutral” admissions, is a step in the right direction.
At face value, the concept of race-neutrality may seem fair. What could be more fair than something that is supposedly neutral? However, I can confidently say that any system that does not address the contexts of racial and economic inequality is deeply unfair. Given the state of educational inequality in our country, solely relying on race-neutral policies does not eliminate discrimination; it reinforces it.
We could, as many scholars have proposed, move toward a lottery, which would go a long way toward making explicit the role of luck in college admissions. But I’m concerned by the way some thinkers discuss a potential admissions lottery. Proponents of a lottery often suggest that there should be some baseline level of “merit” in order to enter the lottery. Such a formulation of the lottery doesn’t entail a rejection of our metrics of merit, meaning it would likely reproduce existing inequalities. To avoid that, a lottery would need to not use simple random selection, but instead be carefully calibrated to ensure the resulting class is not just representative of the pool (in which wealthy white students are overrepresented), but of graduating high school students. That could be achieved by assigning different weights to students depending on their background, or by using a form of stratified random selection, in which the applicant pool would be divided into smaller pools based on, for example, demographic factors, and a certain number of students would be accepted at random from each pool.
As for the general view that lotteries should be seen as evil, you should know that Public and private Charter schools have used weighted lotteries for awhile, they also do take diversity into account too.
I have no doubt there are anti-Asian racists who happen to be on my “side” on this particular issue. As I’m sure you have no doubt there are anti-Black racists who happen to be on your “side” on this particular issue. Both types of racists suck, but their existence doesn’t invalidate any of our arguments.
I don’t feel that lotteries, are inherently evil but lets stop pretending that they are not racist or based upon merit either.
If the goal is diversity, merit be damned, then lotteries perform as intended.
When things like your year old article are found, they need to be punished. When enough of them are found, then maybe you have evidence for policy change.
What he is saying and what I have known for along while is that you are a tried and true CRTist, for every woe and ill that finds the black community, the answer, to you, is racism. When it has been shown that you accept any policy that benefits the black community, you care little who else it harms in the process, because racism! Here you have found that your preferred policy is racist, you don’t care, you are for it whole-heartedly.
You simply refuse to believe that some of the woes and ills of the black community are self inflicted.
“They are repeat players, who engaged in the conspiracy again and again, over years,” Lelling said in a sentencing memo.
Hodge paid bribes totaling $850,000 over nearly 11 years to get two of his children into Georgetown University and two others into the University of Southern California with embellished skills and qualifications.
You support policies that discriminate against Asian kids. You just agreed with me that your motivations are immaterial, so it doesn’t matter what your interests are.
The intent in this case is clear. They are trying to increase the black and hispanic population. A worthy goal that comes at a discriminatory price.
This particular writer is a fairly active anti-asian academic. She and a colleague of hers in the gender/cultural studies department are two of the primary apologists of anti-asian discrimination in affirmative action.
Lotteries are not evil. They are just a stupid way of selecting for academic merit. And when you go from a reasonably good way of selecting for academic merit to a stupid way and the end result is a tradeoff of 4 fewer asian students to achieve an increase of 1 black student 1 hispanic student and 2 white students, it is discriminatory against asians.
What’s the god in this religion? I’m very suspicious of religions, and I don’t like what I have seen of CRT so far.
This is what bothers me. People are individuals, not just members of a group. All these quotas and such are just another way of turning away an otherwise qualified kid because of the colour of their skin. Discrimination. If some organisation tried to change their entry criteria to reduce the number black people qualifying, it would be transparently obvious they were being racist, even if they had some other rationale.
He’s got ‘nothing has changed in 60 years’ - obviously false. Argument from personal incredulity, and the point that the lottery isn’t inherently racist - but neither was the old method. Is there anything else?
As long as you’re making a litany of false assertions about my views (not the first time you’ve falsely represented my views, and probably won’t be the last time), how about a cite for this one?
Another method for selection that will cut down the numbers is when the students do get into the school, you basically work them to death and make them toe the line. That is what they do at our local magnet Sumner Academy. Also they must maintain a 2.5 GPA or they can be kicked out. They can expect 2 plus hours of homework every night. Also if they cause any trouble they are out. The school does have sports.