4 ms·

I'm not sure what you mean. Representation is fixed-sum, if some groups saw increased representation other groups need to have reduced representation. What were

I'm not sure what you mean. Representation is fixed-sum, if some groups saw increased representation other groups need to have reduced representation. What were the representation before and after the elimination of tests? Looking on Google, the share of Asians and whites decreased: https://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/amphtml/USA/Education/2021/0623/What-does-fair-look-like-at-America-s-elite-public-schools#aoh=16277623983648&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s https://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/amphtml/USA/Education/2...

UncleMeat 5y ago
If any share of any group dropping is enough to be called racist, then desegregation itself was racist - which is obviously false. There is a reason why I bring up other metrics than just race here. Alongside greater representation of black and latino students was a much much much greater representation of students on free-and-reduced lunch and a much greater representation of students who are neuro-atypical. This makes claims that eliminating testing "hurts minorities" really suspect, since it is more than just and specific group of racial minorities that benefit from eliminating tests. Other minority groups benefit as well. Everybody always says that "it is a class issue" when they want to avoid making changes. So here is a great way to solve this from a class perspective, if you want it. You'll also actually find that the groups advocating for the removal of the test are the most overlapping with the groups advocating for the elimination of limited access to accelerated education in the first place, so criticisms based on the fixed share of access meaning that any drop in south and east asian representation is racist fall apart once you look at what these groups actually want to achieve.
- Manuel_D 5y ago
  Few, if any, are arguing that eliminating testing hurts all minorities. It hurts high achieving groups, it helps lower achieving groups. The example provided by TJ demonstrates this: the share of Asians dropped. Sure, it's valid to have the position that pursing equity over equality is more just. But don't try to ignore and paper over the reality that it will decrease opportunity for higher achieving groups.
  - UncleMeat 5y ago
    Me and my friends are very consistently called racists for supporting eliminating the test. Not specifically against south and east asians. TFA is doing the same thing, insisting that any analysis of racial equity is a priori racist. "Achievement" is also not the same as "did well on the test". It remains to be seen whether the new class will "achieve" at the same rate as prior classes. I don't think that everybody would agree that the new policy does decrease opportunity for "higher achieving groups".
    - Manuel_D 5y ago
      I'm not sure what there is to say here's other than that people need to realize that their worldviews are not universal. What you think it's fair and just is something that other people earnestly think are racist. People who support keeping the test also get consistently called racist. We can argue about semantics all day, but ultimately it's a change away from a race-agnostic admissions process. Plenty of people do earnestly believe that to be racist.
      - UncleMeat 5y ago
        > We can argue about semantics all day, but ultimately it's a change away from a race-agnostic admissions process. The new policy at TJ is race agnostic. Nowhere does the race of an applicant have any effect on the score of a student's application. This is, again, why I bring up other forms of status than just race. I think it is fine that my worldview is not universal. That's normal. What I find frustrating is that the same arguments persist through new data.
        Manuel_D 5y ago
        TJ uses a "holistic admissions" process. This is not race agnostic. This is the same kind of admissions process that Harvard uses, for example. TJ now uses a "Graduate Portrait" with criteria like "ethical citizen" which supposedly measures how an applicant, "Acknowledges and understands diverse perspectives and cultures when considering local, national, and world issues" . These sorts of personality scores are used as proxies for race. Lawsuits are already moving forward to challenge this admissions process: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/thomas-jefferson-high-lawsuit-admissions-changes/2021/03/10/339e7c3c-81c0-11eb-81db-b02f0398f49a_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/thomas-jeffer...

UncleMeat 5y ago

If any share of any group dropping is enough to be called racist, then desegregation itself was racist - which is obviously false. There is a reason why I bring up other metrics than just race here. Alongside greater representation of black and latino students was a much much much greater representation of students on free-and-reduced lunch and a much greater representation of students who are neuro-atypical. This makes claims that eliminating testing "hurts minorities" really suspect, since it is more than just and specific group of racial minorities that benefit from eliminating tests. Other minority groups benefit as well. Everybody always says that "it is a class issue" when they want to avoid making changes. So here is a great way to solve this from a class perspective, if you want it. You'll also actually find that the groups advocating for the removal of the test are the most overlapping with the groups advocating for the elimination of limited access to accelerated education in the first place, so criticisms based on the fixed share of access meaning that any drop in south and east asian representation is racist fall apart once you look at what these groups actually want to achieve.

Manuel_D 5y ago
Few, if any, are arguing that eliminating testing hurts all minorities. It hurts high achieving groups, it helps lower achieving groups. The example provided by TJ demonstrates this: the share of Asians dropped. Sure, it's valid to have the position that pursing equity over equality is more just. But don't try to ignore and paper over the reality that it will decrease opportunity for higher achieving groups.
- UncleMeat 5y ago
  Me and my friends are very consistently called racists for supporting eliminating the test. Not specifically against south and east asians. TFA is doing the same thing, insisting that any analysis of racial equity is a priori racist. "Achievement" is also not the same as "did well on the test". It remains to be seen whether the new class will "achieve" at the same rate as prior classes. I don't think that everybody would agree that the new policy does decrease opportunity for "higher achieving groups".
  - Manuel_D 5y ago
    I'm not sure what there is to say here's other than that people need to realize that their worldviews are not universal. What you think it's fair and just is something that other people earnestly think are racist. People who support keeping the test also get consistently called racist. We can argue about semantics all day, but ultimately it's a change away from a race-agnostic admissions process. Plenty of people do earnestly believe that to be racist.
    - UncleMeat 5y ago
      > We can argue about semantics all day, but ultimately it's a change away from a race-agnostic admissions process. The new policy at TJ is race agnostic. Nowhere does the race of an applicant have any effect on the score of a student's application. This is, again, why I bring up other forms of status than just race. I think it is fine that my worldview is not universal. That's normal. What I find frustrating is that the same arguments persist through new data.
      - Manuel_D 5y ago
        TJ uses a "holistic admissions" process. This is not race agnostic. This is the same kind of admissions process that Harvard uses, for example. TJ now uses a "Graduate Portrait" with criteria like "ethical citizen" which supposedly measures how an applicant, "Acknowledges and understands diverse perspectives and cultures when considering local, national, and world issues" . These sorts of personality scores are used as proxies for race. Lawsuits are already moving forward to challenge this admissions process: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/thomas-jefferson-high-lawsuit-admissions-changes/2021/03/10/339e7c3c-81c0-11eb-81db-b02f0398f49a_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/thomas-jeffer...