Well yes, accidentally , but the only way that happens is by lowering the entrance requirements…
How is it accidental? The whole “problem” is that too many of the wrong race are getting in and not enough of the right races are getting in. The new system is explicitly designed so that fewer asians get in.
90% of the current applicants qualify for the lottery. The reason for relaxing (virtually eliminating) these standards to almost nothing is to change the racial mix at the school.
Once again 90% of the current applicants qualify. This is not selective and will destroy the school.
So when republicans implement race neutral but entirely unnecessary voter id requirements to reduce black voter participation, that is racist but when fcps implements an entirely unnecessary dilution in admission standards in order to change the racial mix at the school, race is not being targetted?
It also increases white enrollment. Entirely at the expense of asian enrollment. Is that also a worthy goal? It really seems like you are indifferent to discrimination against asians if there is any benefit to be had for your preferred races. Even if a large part of the benefit of that discrimination will got to whites at the expense of asians.
Racial balancing is your goal, not mine.
I’m interested in providing equal opportunity not equality of results. I do not believe that equality of opportunity will necessarily lead to equality of results. If you want equality of results, then it is up to you come up with a fair and moral way of achieving your goal. I don’t think it is possible but I am open to any proposals you may have.
So you think that a proposal that will result in an increase in every population at the expense of asian kids is not dsicriminatory in any way? I wonder how you would view a facially neutral proposal that would help everyone at the expense of blacks if born of no racial animus (simply the same level of indifference to its effects on black kids as is being shown towards asian kids).
You mean expanding the pool of admits to a random selection of 90% of the applicants?
About 25% of asian applicants get into tjhsst, about 4% of hispanic applicants get in. I think this difference reflects a difference in the academic achievement of the two groups. You think this difference reflects racism or something?
We’ve discussed the disparities between vietnamese refugees and hispanic immigrants and someone explained away vietnamese success by mentioning vietnamese refugees smuggling gold bars into the country in their pants,
And how does that make the admissions process racist?
If the difference between asians and hispanics is ses rather than race based, then why is remedy race based? There are plenty of poor asians in the area.
Let me ask you. Do you have any close asian friends or close asian members of your family? Because you seem to view asians kids as less important than other kids. Their hopes and dreams don’t seem to mean as much to you as the hopes and dreams of other kids.
I don’t think you have.
Yes it is. You may not see it but it is racist.
[quote=“slash2k, post:80, topic:922347”]
Your conclusion is true if and only if GPA correlates (near) perfectly with “merit” (however you are defining that term). Does it really, however, or is GPA more closely correlated with opportunity, parental income, teacher expectations, and/or other factors [not necessarily excluding your parents’ ability to intimidate teachers]?[/quote]
No, my conclusion is valid on its face. Going from a process that selected the top ~480 students based on objective academic criteria is necessarily more selective of academic merit than a process that randomly selects from ~2600 students to fill a class of ~480
Academic achievement. This seems appropriate in this context.
Unless you deny the entire concept of merit, the current method selects for merit much better than the proposed method.
The “accident” in this case is all the middle class white kids getting in at the expense of the asian kids. I don’t think this was intentional but they are fairly indifferent to this effect. A small price for others to pay to assuage their white guilt.
Unless those 90% are actually pretty great students – which, by their GPA, is very possible.
Yes, these two very different circumstances are very different.
That’s not the goal, and that might be a very slight negative, but the other benefits make this new policy superior to the status quo.
I want equal opportunity. We’re working on fixing the systemic racism and discrimination in our society as a long term project. But in the mean time, we might need fixes like this, which aren’t perfect, but still make opportunity more equitable than before.
Yes, multiple Asians in my family, including kids.
I’m very concerned about discrimination against Asians, which is very significant. But you’re focusing on the wrong thing. Asians in America generally have good access to education. They have very good access to education in NoVA, including at the highest levels. Asian Americans generally do not lack for opportunity for education.
But here’s where you should be focusing – where Asian Americans don’t have the same kind of access, or the same kinds of opportunity. Limited societal roles outside of technical fields. Non-technical careers, for example. Politicians, or senior leaders in business. Social scientists. Academics, outside of technical fields. Romantic and social stereotypes, which are often negative or otherwise hold folks back. Athletics, at least outside of martial arts. Music and entertainment. And much more, of course.
That’s where Asian Americans lack opportunity due to discrimination in institutions and broader society, based on my reading, and my conversations with Asian American folks. That’s where you should be focused, if you want to fight the significant levels of anti-Asian discrimination in the US.
What you need to realize is that you should not be thinking of the kids hurt by this as either individuals or as Asian Americans. You should think of them as minorities. They are going to be hurt so other minorities who have less merit can be helped. Sometimes people’s personal interests have to be sacrificed to benefit the team.
Your OP stated:
So, how is “more holistic admissions and more subjective criteria” somehow more objective than the proposed GPA+lottery? EXACTLY what objective criteria are being used now, and on what basis do you conclude those criteria are truly objective and only based on this nebulous and not-yet-defined “merit”?
You’re the only one I’ve seen claim that they are dumb and lazy.
In fact, in the California UC system, the asian population has been shrinking, largely due to asian students being crowded out by hispanic students.
Asian students are hard working, but this is based on empirical evidence that shows that asian students work harder than white students. Indeed the overwhelming majority of tjhsst used to be white and is now asian, this is not the result of racism. The white population dropped from 75% to 20%, the hispanic population dropped by much lower margins (their population got cut approx. in half). I don’t think that asian kids are any smarter than any other group of students out of the gate but over the course of years and years of focus on academics, I think there might be a difference in their academic ability relative to every other group that does not engage in this long term academic training.
What’s wrong with the parents they have right now?
That’s doesn’t make them value education, that makes them value the political power that got them that undeserved preference.
Once again, the median gpa of the entering class at tjhsst is currently 4.0
A 3.5 gpa is laughably easy to achieve at some schools.
Are you honestly suggesting that this does not represent a dilution of academic standards?
Are you just saying that there is some real chance that the next entering class will be as academically competent as the last one? Do you have any rationale for that belief or is it simply a matter of faith?
It’s the same logic. Racial discrimination under the guise of a facially neutral rule change to achieve results that could not be achieved on the merits.
Once again, your position displays a disturbing indifference to the cost this policy has on asian kids.
And are you sure that increasing the white population isn’t at least part of the goal?
Like many competitive entry high schools tjhsst used to be overwhelmingly white (75% white 20% asian) and is now overwhelmingly asian (75% asian 20% white). The political will for racial balancing didn’t start until white became a minority at these schools. Someone on this site called it “interest convergence”, which implies that at least part of the political traction behind this proposal is due to the benefit it presents to white kids (at the expense of asian kids).
Ultimately, this will destroy the school. It will become a somewhat selective local high school for the immediately surrounding area. And if dismantling specialized high schools is your goal, this is a good way to achieve it.
Kids won’t bus in from herndon and centreville to attend a school with a student population that is comparable to the honors and ib programs at their local high schools.
You say you want equal opportunity but you are directly undermining equal opportunity in favor of equal results. You are assuming that equal opportunity would yield equal results.
You are harming those kids. You are contributing to a culture that says that it is OK to discriminate against them and devalue their efforts and sacrifice. You are teaching them that their efforts get discounted because they are part of a group that is “too successful”.
Thank you for whitesplaining that to me.
They have the exact same access as anyone else. Who is going out of their way to create extra opportunities and access for asian kids like they are for white kids, black kids and hispanic kids. Certainly not you.
Thank you for your opinion about which type of anti-asian discrimination we should be fighting. I think we should fight all anti-asian discrimination. In fact, I think we should be fighting all discrimination and not pick and choose which types of discrimination are acceptable in achieving policy goals.
Maybe they have less money than other parents. Maybe they’re working two jobs. Maybe they don’t speak English. You’ll have to ask Kearsen1 what he has in mind, because he wants to start with equal opportunity at birth. Since all parents aren’t equal, I guess you could remove any cultural or monetary differences for kids by just randomly assigning them to different parents – not everyone will have an equal opportunity, but it won’t be because of their race or the financial situation of their birth parents.
So about 90 asians lose seats that they deserve so that 25 blacks, 25 hispanics and 40 whites can get seats that they don’t deserve and that’s taking one for the team? The overall minority population at tjhsst will shrink by 10% as a result of this proposal. So how do you justify that result if we see all the minorities as part of a single team?
I’ve had this conversation about the “minority partnership” before. How are asians benefiting from this partnership? What sacrifices are the black and hispanic communities making for the benefit of the asian communities? Or are asians supposed to be happy to bear all the cost for policies meant to address shitty things that white people did?
ISTM that asians are unwilling minority partners in this “partnership” and some people seem to think asians should be silent partners. Is it really unreasonable for asians to buck at the notion of paying the freight for assuaging the white guilt of people that claim they aren’t racist?
The current method is not more objective, it is more selective.
It is overwhelmingly based on objective criteria (there are 2 stages to the admissions process, in the first stage, the top 1000 score/gpa students are selected; in the second stage ~450 of these applications are selected based on a second review, the applications are reviewed more carefully where they look at things like (i) the essay written during the test; (ii) math and science grades from 7th and 8th grade; (iii) teacher recommendations; (iv) and the math score from the admissions test.
The concept of merit in this context is academic merit. I can’t believe i have to explain that.
Like I said, if you don’t believe in the concept of merit or you think that the concept of merit is racist then you are going to object to pretty much every competitive selection.
And how are any of these things race based?
AFAICT, the asian students at another selective high school (stuyvesant) are more likely to have these sort of parents than than their fellow stuy students.
No idea. Why? It’s Kearsen1’s goal to start having equal opportunities at birth somehow. I can’t figure out how to do that, but I do know how to get rid of any racial aspect – assign kids at random to parents at birth. That way, kids from rich homes will be there by accident, same with kids from poor homes. White parents will have Asian kids, Black parents will have white kids, etc., all random. That would be a great way to rid the country of racism. Obviously, I’m not advocating this.
Since I don’t know how to give kids equal opportunity from birth, I think this plan gets you a tiny bit closer to equal opportunity just before high school – a race-blind admissions policy that takes in high achieving kids at random. If NoVa has a problem with grade inflation at the middle school level, they should tackle that problem as well, but that’s not up to the high school to solve.
It will destroy tjhsst as it exists today. It will change the caliber of the average student from exceptionally smart kids to a schoolwide honors program.
It will turn the best high school in virginia into a school that probably won’t even be the best high school in fairfax county.
Well, as long as we’re being hyperbolic…
I say that this new system will completely eliminate racism in Virginia and the newly admitted students will all be billionaires.
Back to reality, how would it not still be the best in Fairfax county? All the students who go there will have gotten 3.5 GPAs at their middle schools, as opposed to the rest of the high schools who take all comers. You’re not making sense.
ETA: And, all the students there care enough about school to apply to get in and to deal with a longer journey to school. So, you’ll have a class of highly motivated, high performing students, and it won’t be the best class in Fairfax county? Seems unlikely.
So far you’ve failed to make the case that this is an instance of anti-Asian discrimination.
There is a hierarchy in the minority community. It is basic intersectionality. Black people are on top, then American Indians, then Hispanics, and then Asians. Once all discrimination against black people is over and black people have equal outcomes to white people, then everyone else will be moved up one step. You just have to wait your turn and one day it will be Asians’ turn.
What do you mean by “academic merit” (“the quality of being particularly good or worthy”)? Are you looking for the kids with the highest IQ, or the kids who work the hardest, or the kids who are most interested in science and technology, or the kids who have had the best preparatory classes in STEM fields, or the kids who have had the best academic preparation overall, or the kids who are most motivated to learn, or what? If the student with the highest IQ and the best work ethic didn’t have the best previous set of teachers, are they more or less meritorious than the student with a slightly lower IQ but more interest in STEM and better preparation? Who is the target “ideal student” for this school?
If you can’t (or won’t) define that, then how do you know whether the “objective”/“selective” measures you’ve chosen are measuring and selecting for what you seek?
For example, teacher recommendations depend quite heavily on the student’s luck in whose class they were assigned in the year before applying to this school. If you have the bad luck to be assigned to one who doesn’t write good recommendations (doesn’t know how to write good letters, isn’t interested in writing good ones, has taken a visceral dislike to a student, whatever), how is “teacher recommendations” more selective of true merit as you have chosen to define it? Also, there has been some research (one sample) on how teachers and counselors writing letters of recommendation for students applying to college tend to use different language depending on the student’s race and sex. In the workplace, research has shown a tendency for bosses to write better letters/reports about subordinates of the same race than of different races, so you can end up where your “selective” measure is really selecting for students who are of the same racial background as the selectors; how is that “merit”?
When you use essays as a measure, what are you selecting for? The ability to write a good essay in the style preferred by the essay readers is a real talent, but is it the talent most significant for your definition of “merit”? What do the abilities of your previous English writing teachers have to say about your IQ or interest in STEM fields, for example?
Nothing hyperbolic about my post.
3.5 is an absolutely mundane GPA.
The median GPA of current admitted is 4.0.
This will destroy the school as it exists today.
ETA, the good students will no longer have any incentive to go there. They will stay at their local schools with their friends.
I don’t think anything would convince you.
But the door has been cast. We will see what happens.
If you don’t know what academic merit means, then what are you doing in this conversation?
Maybe that’s all for the best, then. If someone thinks that someone who scores a 3.5 GPA isn’t smart or capable enough to handle advanced coursework, then maybe they should stay in their local school. Maybe being in a school with mundanes will teach them that not all mundanes are drooling idiots. Maybe they will see that being a big fish in a small pond has its psychological advantages.
Academic merit means different things to different people. For example, I think a school like TJHSST should be looking for the kids with the greatest aptitude for math and science as demonstrated by their test scores and previous performance in math and science classes. Would you agree that’s a reasonable definition?
However, if you’re looking at essays, then you are selecting based on ability to conform to the norms of English-language essay writing, which in turn depends on factors such as a broad English vocabulary. A kid whose primary language isn’t English is going to be at a disadvantage there; so is one who had exceptional math teachers but only so-so writing instruction. Now, what does a lack of fluency in written English tell you about the student’s innate worth or merit or ability to handle science classes?
If you are not willing to grapple with questions like that, then all you are doing is tossing around meaningless phrases. “Academic merit” is not by itself a measurable thing; you have to define what you mean by that term and then determine how to measure what really matters. You can for example measure fluency in standard written English if that is what matters; does it?