3 ms·

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

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 these elements can be considered proxies for race and therefore racist, why can't test scores? The prior system was constructed too, it wasn't handed to us by the universe. It is also worth knowing that activists didn't want the holistic system, but instead wanted a merit lottery - which leaves no room for this correlation. The merit lottery was also called racist. Regardless, TFA isn't just arguing about the details but about the very concept itself.

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 these elements can be considered proxies for race and therefore racist, why can't test scores? The prior system was constructed too, it wasn't handed to us by the universe. It is also worth knowing that activists didn't want the holistic system, but instead wanted a merit lottery - which leaves no room for this correlation. The merit lottery was also called racist. Regardless, TFA isn't just arguing about the details but about the very concept itself.