Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Will there be two different curriculums? One for the 100 top performers, and one the the other 400?
Or will it be dumbed down for the 100?
It will be dumbed down, the same thing that's been happening in US public K-12 education since the 1960s.
Quote:
"While students in the bottom quartile have shown slow but steady improvement since the 1960s, average test scores have nonetheless gone down, primarily because of the performance of those in the top quartile. This "highest cohort of achievers," Rudman writes, has shown "the greatest declines across a variety of subjects as well as across age-level groups." Analysts have also found "a substantial drop among those children in the middle range of achievement"
...The contrast was stark: schools that had "severely declining test scores" had "moved determinedly toward heterogeneous grouping" (that is, mixed students of differing ability levels in the same classes), while the "schools who have maintained good SAT [Stanford Achievement Test, for grades K-12] scores" tended "to prefer homogeneous grouping [ability/skill-level grouping, aka tracking]."
If attaining educational excellence is this simple, why have these high-quality schools become so rare? The answer lies in the cultural ferment of the 1960s.
THE INCUBUS OF THE SIXTIES
In every conceivable fashion the reigning ethos of those times was hostile to excellence in education. Individual achievement fell under intense suspicion, as did attempts to maintain standards. Discriminating among students on the basis of ability or performance was branded "elitist." Educational gurus of the day called for essentially nonacademic schools, whose main purpose would be to build habits of social cooperation and equality rather than to train the mind."
I think this black favoritism will have an effect that many of its promoters won't like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachel976
Agree. Especially where doctors is concerned. My eye doctor is about 70, and I know he got in because he was among the best and brightest. As far as younger black doctors, the odds are 2 out of three that he was admitted to his med school due to affirmative action. All this does is hurt the 1 out of 3 young black doctors who got in via merit.
Same thing with TJ. Before, colleges knew a TJ student was among the best and brightest in Fairfax County. Now they’ll wonder if he was merely a good student who got in vis lottery in order to change the racial makeup of the school. It hurts the Asians who would have gotten in via merit, but even more, it hurts the Asians kept out due to a race-based policy change.
I agree, katharsis. It will undermine the achievements of the very groups it claims to help.
My family is multi-racial, and just yesterday we were discussing a summer program where they were specifically recruiting minorities. They gave a list of minorities, but Asians weren't on it. Why would this be? The explanation I've heard is that Asians are 'over-represented' or that there are 'too many Asians' just like top universities discriminate because of 'too many Asians.' Whether they say it out loud or not, it is horrible racism to assume there are 'too many' of any group and then deny things to them based on that.
What happens if the lottery of people with a 3.5 gpa ends up having too many of the same groups? Lower it to 3.0?
That being said, I'm all for figuring out why some kids might not be achieving. If the reason is they don't have access to tutoring or test prep programs, then it would be great to invest tax dollars in programs like that. All the while keeping high standards the same.
This isn’t true. Harvard rarely takes more than 1 student from a school district, especially outside of the NE. All the ivies practice this to keep their schools geographical diversity high. Going to less elite schools always increases your chances of going to an ivy, because Harvard/Ivies likes to pick students from different regions and schools in America. So really good districts outside of the NE are underrepresented because Harvard will take one or two students from the best Texas school districts, when realistically 10-20 from Plano, Katy or Frisco ISDs could easily be in that class. As a result the quality of students at local Texas schools has improved dramatically.
It’s not true that Harvard defended their decision to reject top Asian students by saying they didn’t have the right personality? Liberals are getting more and more desperate to justify affirmative action.
But isn’t that the point of schools. If a bunch of rich and elite kids both economically and education wise make up your school aren’t you by definition, the number one school because of the available student pool.
If these kids are elite, then does it matter what school they go to? A genius is going to be a genius everywhere regardless of school and a rich genius, is not going to suffer by not going to the number one school in the country because their family can afford to live in a Neighborhood zoned to good schools.
Yes, it does matter. The college professor's article I just cited in my recent post made that point perfectly clear:
"While students in the bottom quartile have shown slow but steady improvement since the 1960s, average test scores have nonetheless gone down, primarily because of the performance of those in the top quartile. This "highest cohort of achievers," Rudman writes, has shown "the greatest declines across a variety of subjects as well as across age-level groups." Analysts have also found "a substantial drop among those children in the middle range of achievement"
I agree, katharsis. It will undermine the achievements of the very groups it claims to help.
My family is multi-racial, and just yesterday we were discussing a summer program where they were specifically recruiting minorities. They gave a list of minorities, but Asians weren't on it. Why would this be? The explanation I've heard is that Asians are 'over-represented' or that there are 'too many Asians' just like top universities discriminate because of 'too many Asians.' Whether they say it out loud or not, it is horrible racism to assume there are 'too many' of any group and then deny things to them based on that.
What happens if the lottery of people with a 3.5 gpa ends up having too many of the same groups? Lower it to 3.0?
That being said, I'm all for figuring out why some kids might not be achieving. If the reason is they don't have access to tutoring or test prep programs, then it would be great to invest tax dollars in programs like that. All the while keeping high standards the same.
Same thing happened with Jews in the 40s. They were “overrepresented” in the Ivies, so the doors slammed shut. (Might have had something to do with antisemitism rampant at that time, as well.)
Yes, it does matter. The college professor's article I just cited in my recent post made that point perfectly clear:
"While students in the bottom quartile have shown slow but steady improvement since the 1960s, average test scores have nonetheless gone down, primarily because of the performance of those in the top quartile. This "highest cohort of achievers," Rudman writes, has shown "the greatest declines across a variety of subjects as well as across age-level groups." Analysts have also found "a substantial drop among those children in the middle range of achievement"
That’s what happens. It’s teaching to the lowest common denominator.
This isn’t brain science, folks. When you lower admissions standards, the students who would have gotten in at the higher standards pay the price. We should be rewarding and encouraging the exceptional students, not telling them the regular school is good enough for them because we need to give people who have achieved less more of a chance. The people who have achieved less still have a chance in the regular schools.
So many lies, accusations, and unfair characterizations of the purpose of TJ due to your bias that I’m not going to even bother with it all. You are missing key elements of this situation due to your boss against wealthy people.
My uncle, raised in poverty, got into Brooklyn Tech on MERIT. if you’re among the best and brightest, you’re among the best and brightest. And believe me, his parents didn’t have money for a tutor or test prep *which probably didn’t even exist back then).
And as far as your (correct) that Fairfax County is wealthy and even poor kids get a better education than most, why not leave the poor kids in the regular schools, where they are getting a better education, rather than switch things around so that poor kids go to TJ via a lottery, and the best and brightest Asian kids have to stay in the regular schools?
It’s an awful policy change which lowers the caliber of TJ and punishes deserving hundreds of high-achieving Asians would would have gotten in based on merit. All because liberals think diversity is more important than excellence.
What are you talking about an increase from 0.06% to 25% means that poor Asians, Whites, Blacks and Hispanics all now go to the school. The number of poor Asian kids at the school statistically likely increased 1000%.
Your proving my point by bringing up your Uncle. Test prep didn’t exist back then, so the wealth gap between students didn’t matter as much. Now that thousands can be allocated to test prep for the upper middle class. Wealthy kids have a massive advantage over the wealthy kids of decades ago. They certainly
Have an advantage over poor kids of today.
Hence the new policy allowing more whites, similar number of Asians (class size increased from 480-550, so statistically 71% of 480 Isn’t far from 54% of 550).
My point is the schools goal is to educate, unless you believe the school should just nurture geniuses. Your argument could easily be flipped around and you could say economically disadvantaged kids deserve better schools more than kids who already have some fo the best schools zoned to them.
I think it’s better to have a society where poor kids, especially smart ones aren’t segregated from the upper middle class and wealthy.
Absolutely! The students getting a 3.5 in a marginal, poor-performing school are now eligible for the lottery, competing with the best and brightest. The only thing is, the entire school will drop down, so the best and brightest only number 100, so it might not be as hard in the new “dumb-downed” TJ.
As I said, the ones who pay the price are the top 101 - 500 students, who WOULD have gotten in under the old system, and will now be thrown in with the lottery.
I live a few blocks from this school. Inferior students may get invited to attend, but they better not dumb down the standards to allow them to stay. When I was in college, the freshman class was huge. The majority of the faces never returned for the next semester.
Again with the mommy and daddy paying? Upthread we discussed how poor but bright students get into these advanced schools as well. This is such an excuse: “kids only do well because they have money and get tutoring.” I NEVER had a tutor in my life, and if I told you my ranking in high school and college, well....I don’t want to brag.
TJ has a “problem” because the Asian kids always score on top, and the school isn’t diverse enough for the liberal Fairfax Board. The fact remains that less qualified kids will get in, TAKING THE SPOTS OF ASIANS who would have gotten in without the change.
It’s just about race. Like everything with the liberals.
Finally, if all the NoVa schools are good, why can’t the kids who wouldn’t have qualified before the change just stay in the good schools? After all, you’re saying a “regular” school is good enough for the Asians; why isn’t it good enough for the blacks and Latinos who wouldn’t have scored as well (if scores weren’t eliminated).
This is actually an anti-Asian policy change.
Again, the GPA requirement was raised. Why do you have a problem with that? How would less qualified students get in?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
