To make elite schools ‘fair,’ city will punish poor Asians

[zarus tathra]

link

New York’s specialized high schools, including Stuyvesant and the equally storied Bronx High School of Science, along with Brooklyn Technical High School and five smaller schools, have produced 14 Nobel laureates â€" more than most countries.

For more than 70 years, admission to these schools has been based upon a competitive examination of math, verbal and logical reasoning skills. In 1971, the state legislature, heading off city efforts to scrap the merit selection test as culturally biased against minorities, reaffirmed that admission to the schools be based on the competitive exam.

But now, troubled by declining black and Hispanic enrollment at the schools, opponents of the exam have resurfaced. The NAACP Legal Defense Fund has filed a civil-rights complaint challenging the admissions process. A bill in Albany to eliminate the test requirement has garnered the support of Sheldon Silver, the powerful Assembly speaker.

And new Mayor Bill de Blasio, whose son, Dante, attends Brooklyn Tech, has called for changing the admissions criteria. The mayor argues that relying solely on the test creates a “rich-get-richer” dynamic that benefits the wealthy, who can afford expensive test preparation.

As Ting’s story illustrates, however, the reality is just the opposite. It’s not affluent whites, but rather the city’s burgeoning population of Asian-American immigrants â€" a group that, despite its successes, remains disproportionately poor and working-class â€" whose children have aced the exam in overwhelming numbers.

And, ironically, the more “holistic” and subjective admissions criteria that de Blasio and the NAACP favor would be much more likely to benefit children of the city’s professional elite than African-American and Latino applicants â€" while penalizing lower-middle-class Asian-American kids like Ting. The result would not be a specialized high school student body that “looks like New York,” but rather one that looks more like Bill de Blasio’s upscale Park Slope neighborhood in Brooklyn.

tl;dr An elite New York high school is modifying its admissions policy because it doesn't have enough black people and is therefore "racist," even though these same "racist" standards have resulted in a school that is 73% Asian.

This will be more than a little biased, since I'm Chinese myself, but I'd like to focus attention on one paragraph:

And, ironically, the more “holistic” and subjective admissions criteria that de Blasio and the NAACP favor would be much more likely to benefit children of the city’s professional elite than African-American and Latino applicants â€" while penalizing lower-middle-class Asian-American kids like Ting. The result would not be a specialized high school student body that “looks like New York,” but rather one that looks more like Bill de Blasio’s upscale Park Slope neighborhood in Brooklyn.

If I were accustomed to making accusations, then I'd say that that might be the real plan. Maybe the one-sided focus of "multiculturalism" on populations that have failed to acclimate to industrial society is designed to distract from minority populations that might compete with the white middle class. I do remember reading about how elite Silicon Valley schools became really competitive after Asian people started attending them. These same "elites" who are the most pressured by meritocracy are the ones who fund and accommodate these quasi-populist movements that are tailor-made to infantilize and marginalize non-white populations. It might not even be a conscious thing, it might arise naturally from a fear of acknowledging the competition.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Go the other way, the way many conservatives like and the curriculum will become bible study and science? Oh, we don't need no science and while they're at it turn it into a for profit charter school. Be careful what you wish for because you might just get it.

[zarus tathra]

That's why we need a third way. Like libertarianism, or technocracy. We need something free of the influence of rednecks and the underclass and their apologists.

[Nam]

That's why we need a third way. Like libertarianism, or technocracy. We need something free of the influence of rednecks and the underclass and their apologists.

If libertarianism ran this country all schools would be for-profit and what you're ranting about wouldn't matter.

If technocratics ran this country, only the rich would go to school, and who they deem "worthy".

-Nam

[billhilly]

Asians and Jews have been getting fucked by racial diversity programs for a while now.  Shortly, it will be blacks getting fucked by Hispanics.  We really need to do the meritocracy thing and quit trying to favor the racial groups most likely to vote for a particular party.  Nah, that would be discriminatory.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

What we really need to do is to cut the shit and stop funding schools with property taxes where wealthy communities can afford everything for their kids while kids in poor areas are lucky to get a 29 year old used history book and a bible.

[zarus tathra]

If libertarianism ran this country all schools would be for-profit and what you're ranting about wouldn't matter.

Right because private schools are so shitty. They're actually more efficient about spending money, partly because they don't waste tons of money trying to "educate" the viciously reckless poor and the mentally retarded.

If technocratics ran this country, only the rich would go to school, and who they deem "worthy".

If they were real technocrats and not just the servants of money, then they'd care about economic productivity, scientific progress, military readiness etc. more than "preserving the structure of society" or some other bourgeois political slogan. Most of the people calling themselves "technocrats" are basically glorified accountants. If you don't believe in a currency based on some relevant physical quantity or solid economic metric, then you're not a technocrat. If you don't have numerical impact estimations to allow people to judge your policies before and after they're deployed, then you're not a technocrat.

[Nam]

Right because private schools are so shitty. They're actually more efficient about spending money, partly because they don't waste tons of money trying to "educate" the viciously reckless poor and the mentally retarded.

And why are they "viciously reckless poor" and "mentally retarded" in the first place?

If they were real technocrats and not just the servants of money, then they'd care about economic productivity, scientific progress, military readiness etc. more than "preserving the structure of society" or some other bourgeois political slogan. Most of the people calling themselves "technocrats" are basically glorified accountants. If you don't believe in a currency based on some relevant physical quantity or solid economic metric, then you're not a technocrat. If you don't have numerical impact estimations to allow people to judge your policies before and after they're deployed, then you're not a technocrat.

Your opinion, like mine, like most others, means jack shit in concern on who is Trueâ,,¢ and who isn't.

-Nam

[zarus tathra]

And why are they "viciously reckless poor" and "mentally retarded" in the first place?

The mentally retarded are mentally retarded because of genetics.

The viciously reckless poor are that way because our culture glorifies them.

Your opinion, like mine, like most others, means jack shit in concern on who is Trueâ,,¢ and who isn't.

When I said "technocracy" I had a very specific form of government in mind. It does not matter to me whether or not other people deliberately bastardize the terms I use.

[Nam]

The mentally retarded are mentally retarded because of genetics.

Define: "mentally retarded".

The viciously reckless poor are that way because our culture glorifies them.

Evidence?

When I said "technocracy" I had a very specific form of government in mind. It does not matter to me whether or not other people deliberately bastardize the terms I use.

How would others know your specific term rather than the general defined term?

-Nam

[Shiranu]

Let's see...

The average private school tuition in the U.S. for a non-sectarian elementary school is $15,945 a year, and $27,302 a year for secondary school.

Oh, cool... so only the rich can afford to be educated... that has worked out brilliantly historically.

Well, unless you want to go to a religious school...

Catholic elementary school will run you on average $4,944 for elementary school and $7,826 for secondary school; other religious schools average $6,576 for elementary and $10,493 for secondary.

...in which case you need to be above-average middle class and accept lies or sexual and social guilt in place of an actual education. Because, you know, that has worked out so well historically!

Okay, and let's look at the undeniable fact that, if you are rich enough to afford private school, you will do better in school. Except there is one key compontent in that which tends to be over-looked...

In a 2007 study, "Are Private High Schools Better Academically Than Public High Schools?" the Center on Education Policy (CEP) found that once key family background characteristics were considered, public high school students do as well as private school students. "When we controlled for other factors, family background was the biggest determinator of how a kid was going to do," says Diane Stark Rentner, Deputy Director of the CEP.

So before you hop on the libertarian wet-dream of, "Yay, money runs the schools instead of government! Such freedom... wait, why cant I afford school... OH WELL AT LEAST I'M FREE!!!!!!!"... you might want to look at what every child development specialist will tell you...

CEP found that private schools contain a larger proportion of children whose parents have characteristics (such as higher levels of education) that contribute to learning than do public schools. These characteristics are what appear to make the difference.

"We are our kids' best advocate," says Rentner. "Private schools aren't perfect; public schools aren't perfect," she says. "What is critical is parental involvement."

As someone who went to a religious private school; fuck private schools. The one's that are good are for the rich, and the ones for the lower and middle classes are for religious brainwashing.

http://theweek.com/article/index/244142/is-private-school-worth-it

Basically you are crying, "Wah this hurts minorities!" so your solution is, "Let's hurt minorities!".

This is why no one takes libertarianism seriously, and I honestly don't understand why that is so hard to grasp for you guys.

[zarus tathra]

Even the Catholic ones are apparently better, even when adjusted for demographics.

Basically you are crying, "Wah this hurts minorities!" so your solution is, "Let's hurt minorities!"

Asians aren't hurt by school choice.

Define: "mentally retarded".

Wow. Yeah, I have no reason to read anything you say from this point on. Feel free to return the favor.

[Solitary]

The test apply to everyone, how can that be construed as discriminatory? If minorities that don't measure up on the tests who's fault is that? My son's Chinese girlfriend, a minority in this country, would ace every tests, I'm sure of it. I've not known anyone, including a friend of mine that is an Engineering Physicist, that comes close to her as a technocrat and intelligence. Solitary 

[AllPurposeAtheist]

We need something free of the influence of rednecks and the underclass and their apologists.

Yeah, us underclass motherfuckers are coming for your guns to then cut your heads off at the guillotines we have stored away.
Actually I can pretty much sum up underclass sentiment with take your snobby ass back where it came from. You've lost ALL credibility with your 'elitist' bullshit.

[zarus tathra]

I probably shouldn't have said "the apologists of the underclass." The underclass probably couldn't care less about getting into these schools. I think it's more accurate to say "the elites who cynically use the underclass as a political and financial weapon."