White kids should be made to ride the bus in bombay as part of the admission process.

This is ridiculous. Wasn't the original desegregation court order meant to ensure that there wouldn't be too many white students at the expense of non-white students?

Does this mean that non-Asian minorities also have to score higher than whites to get admission into the school? Wow.

“Children should be judged on the content of their character, not on the color of their skin,” said Dr. Anjan Rau, the girl’s dad,

These kinds of excuse-making parents give us hard charging South Asian achievers a bad name.

White kids should be made to ride the bus in bombay as part of the admission process.

Why would you wish that on any child? Especially after the discussion going on over on the other thread?

There's joking and then there's hurting.

Ironically, now that they've dumbed down the SATs and given elite college admissions policies, she's probably got a better shot going to a random bad public school than a magnet school--but, that's her and her family's call, not mine--hope they win!!

This is ridiculous. Wasn't the original desegregation court order meant to ensure that there wouldn't be too many white students at the expense of non-white students?

oops, it was the other way around- In 1972, the NAACP brought suit in Hart V. Community School Board 21 in the United States District Court, charging that Mark Twain Junior High School 239 was unconstitutionally segregated. The school is located in Coney Island, a predominantly African American and Hispanic section of the school district and in fact had about an 85% percent minority enrollment. Judge Weinstein found the plaintiffs were correct in that the school was unconstitutionally segregated. (here)

It's funny how things work out. I wonder how the NAACP would react to this...

I'd say this thread is going to be a train wreck, but that would be doing a disservice to trains and wrecks everywhere...

This is ridiculous.

Why?

Why?

I can understand colleges looking at race when it comes to admissions, but I don't think racial quotas are really appropriate when it comes to admissions to *middle* and high schools. I understand that the playing field isn't level even at that stage of education, but what's ridiculous about this situation isn't even that she didn't get in because Asians are overrepresented but because of an arcane desegregation ruling. I wonder what the percentage of Black & Latino students at this school even is? Totally defeats the original purpose of the ruling.

Imagine what goes on at this school, the non-white kids saying to the white kids, 'You only got in cuz you're white.'

What do you guys think is the solution? Either bring down blacks and hispanics without the quotas for the sake of privalaged Indians or keep it the way it is. For the good of all society you would think to keep the quotas and if that means sacraficing a rich Indian, that will most likely go to another good school anyway, so be it. I think its called alturistic behavior or something, to sacrafice yourself for the good of the whole population, and if I remember freshmen ecologly correctly the fitness of alturistic populations are high.

Amardeep also blogged about Nikita earlier this summer.

much props SM Intern... I knew this story sounded a tad familiar...

Hmm.. so she is about 11 right now, and her father has already decided that she has to attend Harvard, Yale or Princeton! *sigh*

I'm extremely mixed about affirmative action, and I think it's ridiculous that the HYP complex is being instilled in a child at such a young age. Overambitious parents make me want to shoot myself sometimes.

Hmm.. so she is about 11 right now, and her father has already decided that she has to attend Harvard, Yale or Princeton! *sigh*

I KNOW! It is this kind of waffling that leads kids like Nikita to underachieve. The parents should have picked out a specific school to target by her tenth birthday!

I can understand colleges looking at race when it comes to admissions, but I don't think racial quotas are really appropriate when it comes to admissions to *middle* and high schools. I understand that the playing field isn't level even at that stage of education, but what's ridiculous about this situation isn't even that she didn't get in because Asians are overrepresented but because of an arcane desegregation ruling.

If the playing field isn't level, why is affirmative action inappropriate? The real problem is that desegregation has become a strange goal given how urban communities have evolved into ethnically homogeneous neighborhoods. As for your point about Asians, I don't know how minorities are counted, but I would be surprised and disappointed if all minorities were part of one coarse group with no discrimination between them. (I'd be interested in hearing more about how desegregation is actually implemented from people knowledgeable about the education system here on SM).

17 · Rahul said

The parents should have picked out a specific school to target by her tenth birthday!

Well, the REALLY pretentious ones pick out a good school for their kid before they're born.

I KNOW! It is this kind of waffling that leads kids like Nikita to underachieve. The parents should have picked out a specific school to target by her tenth birthday!

Hah! No way! Tenth b'day is too soon. It is better to wait till they become teenagers. Then the hormones start really kicking in, the self-doubts start arising etc. That is the time to provide some clarity. Like: get into H/Y/P or be a loser for life. That's the kind of clarity that converts kids into winners.

now that they've dumbed down the SATs

Anyway, IS 239 is supposed to be great (great principal and teachers) but it's got 1200+ students in three grades. Gifted or not, I wouldn't willingly send my child to a school that big. Not in those fragile early adolescent years.

What do you guys think is the solution? Either bring down blacks and hispanics without the quotas for the sake of privalaged Indians or keep it the way it is. For the good of all society you would think to keep the quotas and if that means sacraficing a rich Indian, that will most likely go to another good school anyway, so be it. I think its called alturistic behavior or something, to sacrafice yourself for the good of the whole population, and if I remember freshmen ecologly correctly the fitness of alturistic populations are high.

Did you read the article? She's not being kept out because there's a higher bar for Asians, but because there's a higher bar for non-whites (including blacks & latinos) than there is for whites. As for the 'altruism' argument in general, little Nikita sure seems privileged considering that her parents both go by Dr. Rau, but not every South Asian American comes from a similar background, nor are all blacks & latinos impoverished. I would favor SES-based affirmative action instead.

If the playing field isn't level, why is affirmative action inappropriate? The real problem is that desegregation has become a strange goal given how urban communities have evolved into ethnically homogeneous neighborhoods. As for your point about Asians, I don't know how minorities are counted, but I would be surprised and disappointed if all minorities were part of one coarse group with no discrimination between them. (I'd be interested in hearing more about how desegregation is actually implemented from people knowledgeable about the education system here on SM).

I just don't think public secondary schools should use race-based quota systems. There's been some controversy in NYC about the specialized high schools (like Stuy) not having enough black & Latino students, and while I understand the concern, I really don't think a quota system is the solution. There are several programs that recruit students from low-SES backgrounds or racially underrepresented communities and prep them extra-hard to get into these schools (like Prep for Prep; and Stuy has its own summer program and actually lets in kids who were in the program who only score borderline on the admissions test, provided they go to summer school the year before they start there). Hunter (HCHS) has a lower cutoff on its admissions test for students from financially disadvantaged backgrounds, which is something I can get behind. The problem isn't desegregation itself--no one is surprised that the schools in Flushing are mostly Asian and that the schools in Bed-Stuy are mostly black--but that the 'elite' public schools/programs that require admissions tests have so few black & Latino students, and for many people, 'too many' Asians. I would sympathize more with this concern if it usually didn't come with that latter addition, especially because it totally ignores the fact that not all Asian-American/South Asian-American kids come from privileged backgrounds, especially not in NYC.

The problem here is not the inherent rightness or wrongness of AA, that can be debated separately. Clearly some kids have REAL disadvantages and do deserve some special consideration. The problem is that affirmative action is no longer acting as a 'leveler,' but as means to social engineering here. What should happen is once a minority is sufficiently represented, that minority should no longer be classed as a 'minority.' Instead, as is done in other places, the term 'underrepresented minorities,' is a description of who actually should get some special help. Personally I am not completely against AA. I live in a district with a similar test-based public high school. Here we have a preponderance of Indian/Asian kids. These kids are shoved into expensive academies to prepare for the test....it is hardly a level playing field. However I think Affirmative Action can be replaced by a combination of non-raced based reforms which would improve the quality of the students at a particular school, and not promote the same social discord that AA does today.

What should happen is that the 'testing' component should be reduced in weight. A writing component and interview should be added. Special weight should be given to talented performers in non-academic fields. Finally a 'score' should be given for the individual childs socio-economic circumstance...parents education level, income, number of siblings etc. If you have a policy that admits kids on a broad-based non-racial platform, you will naturally get kids that range across the talent spectrum, and most probably get a ethnic distribution that mirrors the community at large.

Oh but this case doesn't really have anything to do with what I talked about in #22. This particular desegregation ruling is just arcane, and I'd be surprised if the NAACP continued to support it now, especially if all non-whites are grouped together.

21 · tamasha now that they've dumbed down the SATs

They took out a lot of the more difficult questions, so now there's more clumping/differences are more due to random error. So, colleges get more "discretion" re: who to take, and I'm pretty sure that doesn't help kids like Nikita.

I think that if one is serious about getting into an elite college, an overlooked strategy is going to a not-so-good high school, and being the "standout" there. That might be a lot better than being #10 at an "elite" high school. But your mileage may vary--I'm not saying it's right for everyone, just on average, overlooked (esp. if you can learn well on your own).

What should happen is that the 'testing' component should be reduced in weight. A writing component and interview should be added. Special weight should be given to talented performers in non-academic fields. Finally a 'score' should be given for the individual childs socio-economic circumstance...parents education level, income, number of siblings etc. If you have a policy that admits kids on a broad-based non-racial platform, you will naturally get kids that range across the talent spectrum, and most probably get a ethnic distribution that mirrors the community at large.

So it'll basically be like college admissions. But that's the thing, I just don't think secondary schools should have to do that if what they're looking for are kids who are good at school in a typically nerdy way, nor do public school administrators probably have the time (especially if there are as many applicants as there are in NYC, which is what I'm familiar with). And this sounds like you're saying that Asian/Indian kids wouldn't have as much non-academic talent.

Whoa! Mark Twain JHS in Brooklyn was one of the schools that I had applied to when I was her age. I didn't get in either, and neither did any of my desi friends. I guess this explains a lot for what we went through back then...

That kid as cute as a button. I don't see why she couldn't just study harder. Only scored a 79? And she calls herself Asian - pah! Next time she should worker harder at her maths.

[by the way, that whole para. is sarcastic]

Rahul, different districts interpret "minority" in different ways. In many areas Asian Americans are not included in this calculus (leading to the use of terms "underrepresented minority" vs. "minority"), or they are not disaggregated in a way that is useful re: diversity/representation (due in part to the aggregation that takes place by using U.S. Census markers for race). It's late, but I'll think more and see if I can remember anything from the recent Seattle case.

I think that if one is serious about getting into an elite college, an overlooked strategy is going to a not-so-good high school, and being the "standout" there. That might be a lot better than being #10 at an "elite" high school. But your mileage may vary--I'm not saying it's right for everyone, just on average, overlooked (esp. if you can learn well on your own).

For example, let's say schools are scored between 5 (low) to 10 (high). If I have a 3.0 from a 10 school, my index number might be 3*10 = 30. Conversely, if I had a 4.0 from a 5 school, I wouldn't even break even despite my superior performance (4.0*5=20). And, for many students who are disserviced by inadequate preparatory education anyway, there isn't much choice -- whether by virtue of the local district, or by income constraints -- or difference between schools. Instead there is hyper-competition for a few coveted spots at the few "performing" magnet schools within a public district.

nala, a growing number of colleges are adopting AA programs that pair SES and race to get at exactly those communities that are underserved by the current "umbrella" model -- i.e., low-income communities of color (including Asian Americans / South Asian Americans).

With respect to diversity in K-12 education, I do think there's an argument for the value of diversity in teaching cultural competency, etc., etc., that does not happen in mono-racial schools.

Wouldnt she be the dumbest minority there if she wore accepted anyway? The reason she needed to score that high is because other minorities scored at that level or beyond. Maybe next year she will only need to score a 50 because other minorites scored at that level, but whites might still need to score a 77 or what ever the number is?

For the good of all society you would think to keep the quotas and if that means sacraficing a rich Indian, that will most likely go to another good school anyway, so be it.

So they can go back to their country right?

So they can go back to their country right?

Exactly! Finally someone understands me.

That kid as cute as a button. I don't see why she couldn't just study harder. Only scored a 79? And she calls herself Asian - pah! Next time she should worker harder at her maths.

[by the way, that whole para. is sarcastic]

So, you're saying the kid isn't cute, Camille? Wow, the poor child is going to be plagued by insecurites about her looks for the rest of her life.

I just don't think public secondary schools should use race-based quota systems.

Rahul, different districts interpret "minority" in different ways. In many areas Asian Americans are not included in this calculus (leading to the use of terms "underrepresented minority" vs. "minority"), or they are not disaggregated in a way that is useful re: diversity/representation (due in part to the aggregation that takes place by using U.S. Census markers for race). It's late, but I'll think more and see if I can remember anything from the recent Seattle case.

Thanks, I do think race should be combined with a hefty weighting of SES for better decisions. The problem is being exacerbated these days with the emergence of techniques like genetic testing, which identify miniscule fractions of AA/Hispanic genes in people who are basically white in every aspect of their upbringing and opportunities, but allows them to claim minority status according to the letter of the law.

I would favor SES-based affirmative action instead.

Radhika on January 15, 2008 09:48 PM · Direct link · “Quote”(?)

17 · Rahul said

The parents should have picked out a specific school to target by her tenth birthday!

Well, the REALLY pretentious ones pick out a good school for their kid before they're born.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My uncle infact did that before my cousin was born. Assured her admission to a popular south Mumbai school before birth ;-)

29 · Camille What many people don't realize is that most elite colleges use an indexed system to gauge the "difficulty" of one's high school program vis-a-vis their high school's overall performance, which in turn affects your admissions score. For example, let's say schools are scored between 5 (low) to 10 (high). If I have a 3.0 from a 10 school, my index number might be 3*10 = 30. Conversely, if I had a 4.0 from a 5 school, I wouldn't even break even despite my superior performance (4.0*5=20).

Yikes, well--my gambit wouldn't work then! I do think that most colleges want at least *some* students from less elite high schools, so wouldn't want to rule out everyone with such a mechanical index, but I guess it's complicated.

Does anyone know where the 6:4 ratio came from? Is it based on population patterns or plucked from thin air (as I suspect)?

37 · Bong Breaker said

Does anyone know where the 6:4 ratio came from? Is it based on population patterns or plucked from thin air (as I suspect)?

From what I understand, the idea was to integrate white kids into a school in a primarily African American/Latin@ area. The incentive was that they'd build a good school. Nice, no? I'm reading through the case, but I haven't gotten to the 6:4 ratio yet and I'm too tired.

If the kid is genuinely intelligent, it doesn't really matter where the kid goes to school. Read Steve Levitt's Freakonomics. It discusses how students who did not attend Chicago magnet schools did just as well at a local high school. The study was on the high-school level, but perhaps the same can be said on the middle school level.

Good point Kiddo. Why do "gifted" kids need special schools? Arent they just going to learn this stuff on thier own anyway?

If I am a gifted athelete then I dont need the $30,000 Jordan basketball camp. I just play in the backyard and I would still beat your ass up and down the court, even though you went to the camp, because you see I am gifted.

I agree. I went to an elite private high school and none of the minorities (African Americans) needed special admissions becuase they all had money and had the privilege of going to a good high school,

I'd argue that if any one of those students were in the wrong place and the wrong time, are equally likely to have a plunger up the ass.

Good point Kiddo. Why do "gifted" kids need special schools? Arent they just going to learn this stuff on thier own anyway?

If I am a gifted athelete then I dont need the $30,000 Jordan basketball camp. I just play in the backyard and I would still beat your ass up and down the court, even though you went to the camp, because you see I am gifted.

Because 'gifted' kids waste away in classrooms where they're unchallenged and in environments where they're discouraged from being enthusiastic about learning.

A few observations
1) I do not think this is a case of pure affirmative action. It is to ensure a public school system where defacto segregation doesn't take place. At least, that's what I am getting from this article. Creating a good community takes precedence over pure merit at the pre college level. I am not saying that is my view, but it is a valid view held by some.
2) Seriously, while it is very possible she has some untapped genius as of now, from what she has accomplished, I think the news articles are jumping the gun by labeling her brilliant. She still did not score high enough to be part of the 40% of the school demographics;. She can still get into Harvard but not if she goes to this school and maintains the same kind of relative score.
3) Is the 6-4 ratio random or does it reflect the reality of the white to minority racial distribution in that area?

She scored a freaking 79, just two points over the 77 needed by a white person to qualify. And this dad is whining about her not getting into Harvard? Come on, that is statistically not very large. I wish the paper would tell us how many minorities scored above the 79 and less than the 84 needed to qualify.

This is why they should open up more of these kind of schools so a kid doesn't have just two choices - either score enough to qualify for a magnet school or be a part of her local neighborhood school. The second choice is totally on luck - where you have limited say on the quality of your local school.

Seriously, this didn't deserve a post on sepia guys. The kid didn't make the cut - sucks to be her. But there's a ton of other school where she can go. What's the biggie? This place is turning into whine/moan/bitch central.

Get a perspective on life. There are a ton of kids in India who can't even afford a decent meal. How about doing something about them.

This is pretty damn stupid, having racial quotas at all. In what way does this benefit society at all? Let the kids who deserve it get in. It's should actually be more insulting to those admitted through AA that society thinks they're racially prone to stupidity. Even in places where blacks and Latinos are admitted to fill quotas, it's still a stupid system. Ideally, they should judge each student on his or her circumstances AND performance. If a black kid grows up in Compton, but manages to maintain a 3.6, he or she could and should be reasonably admitted to a school like say, UC Berkeley. If a black kid grows up in Manhattan and graduates with a 2.5, there really is no logically justifiable reason why he'd fall under the AA umbrella.

I have news for the whiny father who thinks his naturalized US Citizenship gives him some special powers(judging by his tone in the article). Harvard admitted mediocrities like Rahul Gandhi. Is he going to file a lawsuit against legacy or politcially connected admission when his precious kid doesn't make it into Harvard?

It's funny how things work out. I wonder how the NAACP would react to this...

I dont think it would be a priority. Hell, I know that some city in the midwest(was it KC?) that had to attract whites to some state of the art public school located in the city.

Look. this is not a case of affirmative action for whites even if it ends up being that. The following year, you could easily have a white needing an 85 to get into this school, even if it is not very likely. In a society where whites run away from neighborhoods at the sight of a colored person moving in, these measures were considered necessary at one time. As with any generic broad based public policy, you are going to come up with silly situations like this. But society in the US brought it on itself with its race based outlook. Obviously, this is not the perfect solution. But there was a reason for putting in ratios.

Pravin on January 16, 2008 04:54 AM · Direct link · “Quote”(?)
I have news for the whiny father who thinks his naturalized US Citizenship gives him some special powers(judging by his tone in the article). Harvard admitted mediocrities like Rahul Gandhi. Is he going to file a lawsuit against legacy or politcially connected admission when his precious kid doesn't make it into Harvard?

You mean Harvard doesn't admit kids on SAT scores? Aiyoooo you mean I spent years busting my balls for nothing? Now I don't have any friends, weigh 90 lbs, suck at sports and my glasses are as thick as a soda bottle. Did I mention I am still a virgin? But I hav a 4.0 GPA and a 1600 on the SAT.

What do you guys think is the solution? Either bring down blacks and hispanics without the quotas for the sake of privalaged Indians or keep it the way it is. For the good of all society you would think to keep the quotas and if that means sacraficing a rich Indian, that will most likely go to another good school anyway, so be it. I think its called alturistic behavior or something, to sacrafice yourself for the good of the whole population, and if I remember freshmen ecologly correctly the fitness of alturistic populations are high.

We all know what the real solution is: classify asians as white for purposes of affirmative action :)

Of course, the real solution is more schools. But the real-estate tax supported public school system without an opt out option (where they get part of the money back) has kept the competition at essentially zero (in the middle class market segment where it matters most).

Oh, well.

With the dems coming back to the presidency with a democratic congress, goodbye school choice. Poor and smart kids: tough; better luck in the next birth!

I agree. As much as I identify with progressives, they got it plain wrong on public schools. They need to reform it. For me, the frustrating thing about Hillary is she knows what it takes to reform schools judging by the Clintons early efforts in Arkansas, but over time they sold out to the teachers unions. I know some racists and religious fundamentalists want school choice to get out of their "evil integrated secular" schools. But I actually think the lack of school choice leads to more segregation with the neighborhood school concept which dominates public school education in the U.S. Progressives could have it both ways. Encourage school vouchers for private schools that have close to a general population ratio of races. This will help the liberals and the conservatives achieve their respective goals. Private schools will deliver better education while there is a good deal amount of diversity in the class to help students grow socially and not in some homogeneous cocoon. There is no perfect system, but school choice will help a poor black family escape from the tyranny of their local school board which they are powerless to reform by the time their kids finish a phase of their education.

How many times have we heard Indian parents talk about " oh there are blacks in that school, I need to find a house in a school system with no blacks." While I understand that some of them mean they really want a better publc school, and it's not personal against blacks, I do see many Indian parents who outright dismiss even exploring the school system. Well if we have vouchers rewarding private schools that are not segregated, it will be interesting that the same silly parents will end up sending their kids to schools with blacks because Indians really value education over race when it comes down to it.

It discusses how students who did not attend Chicago magnet schools did just as well at a local high school. The study was on the high-school level, but perhaps the same can be said on the middle school level.

Private schools will deliver better education while there is a good deal amount of diversity in the class to help students grow socially and not in some homogeneous cocoon.

Camille, i meant for many kids who hail from bad school districts and their only option would be to move to another neighborhood, usually one that is either more expensive, or very inconvenient for their daily life, or both. If you can let private schools that are not segregated use vouchers, then you can get the best of both worlds, as long as one can live with the fact that there is rarely a perfect educational system, if there is one.

Pravin, why are you calling democrats "progressives" ?

No offense, but many of Levitt's arguments in Freakonomics are bunk. Chicago schools had a different financing scheme and equalization initiative going throughthe 1980s-90s, a feature (and funding) that many other urban schools across the country did not have access to. If you look outside of the Chicago context, there are many schools in which "talented" or "gifted" students are not afforded the same opportunity to succeed because classrooms are overcrowded, college preparatory classes are not offered, or the coursework is not sufficiently challenging.

I agree with Camille's statement above, at least with respect to magnet schools. Dubner and Levitt (of Freakonomics) recently issued an article in which they defined what characteristics make a star (actually their review of another author, Ericcson's, work). In the end, they argued it wasn't talent but rather focused repetitive practice. Thus, seemingly, contradicting their own work in Freakonomics.

I quote:

Their work [Ericcson's], compiled in the "Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance," a 900-page academic book that will be published next month, makes a rather startling assertion: the trait we commonly call talent is highly overrated. Or, put another way, expert performers — whether in memory or surgery, ballet or computer programming — are nearly always made, not born. And yes, practice does make perfect. These may be the sort of clichés that parents are fond of whispering to their children. But these particular clichés just happen to be true.

Students should be taught to follow their interests earlier in their schooling, the better to build up their skills and acquire meaningful feedback. (end quote)

I've experienced the difference between a magnet school in NYC and a "regular" public school. The difference can be night and day. Magnet schools have less students and therefore, teachers have a better opportunity to give more attention to individual students and provide that necessary feedback. More that that, as Camille eluded to, the course work tends to be more rigorous. Additionally, the magnet schools are generally safer places than regular public schools, which, in my experience, was probably the most important component.

Lastly, for everyone forced into a desi profession (doctor or lawyer), they make this conclusion:

Ericsson's research suggests a third cliché as well: when it comes to choosing a life path, you should do what you love — because if you don't love it, you are unlikely to work hard enough to get very good. Most people naturally don't like to do things they aren't "good" at. So they often give up, telling themselves they simply don't possess the talent for math or skiing or the violin. But what they really lack is the desire to be good and to undertake the deliberate practice that would make them better.

The article is at the NYTimes.

I don't get this new fashion in economics. They can't event predict the direction of change, for heaven's sake, and now that they have completely botched their chosen profession for everyone to see, they go and tell others how to run their business. Extreme case of physics envy, methinks.

To provide some background, the C.I. or Coney, (Coney Island) has for the greater part of the last 30 years been a tough place to live. (Maybe not as tough as Brownsville, Bklyn but anyplace called Browns-ville would inherently be tougher. ;) Seriously, Brownsville is scary dangerous.) It's only been recently in the last 10+ years that, Coney, has seen a bit of an economic resurgence. The resurgence is partly due to the investment in the Coney Island amusement area and in part, to the arrival of new immigrant groups. I don't know IS 239, but, the fact that it has 1200 students would worry the heck out of me as a parent, for many reasons (see my post upthread). I would assume most people would try and get their child to a school that would offer them the maximum in security and education.

Pravin, why are you calling democrats "progressives" ?

If I did, it may be out of habit. I do draw a distinction between real progressives and "progressives" in the Democratic party. I think the two sets share many of the same goals, but real progressives will not be wedded to a certain way of achieving the result they desire. The result should be better education. Now if they can find a way to improve public school education regardless of the neighborhood you live in, I will be on board with that. But I find it funny that progressives in the Democratic Party want the government to subsidize healthcare choice to all citizens, but get pissy when you suggest school choice.

Since whites seem to have a lower average bringing their cutoff to 77, and the girl scored a 79, you gotta wonder if she would actually get into the school if they just opened up admissions to everyone. Wouldn't the cutoff be somewhere between 77 and 84(the cutoff for the minorities)? It would be interesting if that cutoff was actually above 79 rendering the case moot. You would think there were quite a few minorities rejected who got between 79 and 84.

Since whites seem to have a lower average bringing their cutoff to 77, and the girl scored a 79, you gotta wonder if she would actually get into the school if they just opened up admissions to everyone.

Or if she had used Fair and Lovely.

Wouldn't the cutoff be somewhere between 77 and 84(the cutoff for the minorities)?

A great application of convexity!

Pravin,
What is a "real progressive" ? To me progressive means someone who either supports progress, or tries to achive progress; as a greneral goal. Depending on the circumstances, this might or might not be the right thing. The way I understand it, a progressive is not the same as one who supports individual liberty. Case in point, (I don't know how well versed you are with indian goings on), Singur. A progressive might conceivably support the government's action of taking away farmers' land ( footnotes apply, courtesy local leftist politics ) in the name of promised potential development and "greater good"; but that would go straight against the tenet of individual liberty.

To me liberty seems to be the correct goal to pursue.

The photo is heartbreaking- you read the full weight of that 'harvard-stanford-yale' line right there.

It has been said that the course of true love is never smooth. This can be said often enough of the course of true achievement. I think Nikita can find her way to it, once she discovers her real interests and is determined to develop them, though its course may or may not lie through Harvard or Yale or Princeton. And I would not underestimate the difference between genuine and conventional achievement.

So Nikita didn't get admission,so what? Both the parents are in a financially privileged position, I'm assuming. Put her in another school. Her father is being silly. Why make a federal case of it.

To me liberty seems to be the correct goal to pursue.

Which is why I differentiated a real progressive from the Democratic Party progressive. A real progressive would factor in liberty because liberty is also an essential quality of life for many citizens. But at the same time we do live in a society and we have made a lot of compromises in other areas. So there will be some compromises. The trick is to minimize such compromises. This is why my comments here seem to be from both ends of the spectrum. I understand the need to use public education money in getting kids to interact in a diverse environment because that is part of an education, not just getting the top scores like in Indian schools. At the same time, you got to give underprivileged kids an opportunity to escape the tyranny of a local school board which has no urgency in reforming the local school. This is where I support school choice.

66 · bulbul said

Why make a federal case of it.

14th ammendment, equal protection clause.

when I read this post I think that Aamir Khan wasted his time and money by making TZP. Desi parents just push and push their kids so much.
This poor kid now has her picture on the internet, getting unnecessary attention from people.

Has the father asked this girl her opinion abt getting into that school or Harvard?
This is the classic example of parents trying to achieve their own unfulfilled dreams through their kids.

If the father thinks his daughter is gifted, then does it matter which school she goes to? If she is gifted then she will be successful in life in spite of which school she attends.

A real progressive would factor in liberty because liberty is also an essential quality of life for many citizens

Dude, you and I might agree on the voucher issue; but I read what you wrote above as "individual liberty is to be tolerated so long it suits 'greater good' and is a 'quality-of-life issue' ". Don't bother seeking my vote if you run for election

Which is why I differentiated a real progressive from the Democratic Party progressive

Also, I thought I made it quite clear that being a progressive (going by dictionary meaning) and being a supporter of individual liberty are at best orthogonal, and at worse antagonistic.

That line about "real xyz" is something I have heard so often from Bengali communists that it is sickening. (CPI(M) is not a "real" communist party, that's why you see so much corruption / Bengal is backward ).

That line about "real xyz" is something I have heard so often from Bengali communists that it is sickening. (CPI(M) is not a "real" communist party, that's why you see so much corruption / Bengal is backward ).

And the Bengali communists are not real "progressives", so there is no need to use that as a yardstick for measuring social justice.

And the Bengali communists are not real "progressives", so there is no need to use that as a yardstick for measuring social justice.

Comment wasn't about social justice. It was entirely about linguistic quirks that reveal a penchant for selective oversight. Pl give yourself brownie points for selective quotes.

This again?!!

When I came to America, I was under the impression that people would be treated as individuals in all walks of life, not as members of this race, that religion or that ethnicity.

I usually not wrong.

M. Nam

Pl give yourself brownie points for selective quotes.

Will do. Although I take serious offence at your encroachment of my individual liberty by telling me what I should do.

When I came to America, I was under the impression that people would be treated as individuals in all walks of life, not as members of this race, that religion or that ethnicity.

Whatever gave you that idea? Systematic privilege has always been extended to white protestant males at the expense of all others. That's been the basis of politics in this country since it began. Even restrictions against Catholic and Jewish white males voting weren't lifted until the 1830s and 1840s. White women didn't get the franchise until 1920, and African Americans didn't get effective suffrage across America until the 1960s.

Sorry, that should be restrictions against Jewish and Catholic white male franchise weren't dropped until the 1820s and 1830s.

Woah. CorporateSerf. If I consider individual liberty as something to nourish as part of a progressive agenda, why should they be mutually exclusive? Freedom of speech, freedom to take pot and then use those tax revenues to fund rehab centers lessening the burden on society while giving the individual the freedom to do what he wants. I dont even know how one brings up a comparison to Indian Communists. I am talking from an American perspective. One country's liberal can be another country's conservative.

I usually not wrong.

Moornam, you are right.

The announcement came just hours after the Center for Individual Rights filed suit against the DOE on behalf of Nikita Rau, the 11-year-old daughter of Indian immigrants whose application the school rejected because it had already reached its pre-designated allotment of non-white students.

Good job by CIR. A victory for individual rights.

Good job by CIR

What is CIR? Is that like ACLU, but for WASPs?

If I consider individual liberty as something to nourish as part of a progressive agenda, why should they be mutually exclusive?

Dude, calm down and read what I said.

1. You are talking about "progressive" as it is used in the US, which does not seem to have an exact definition but is a mish mash of views from the left. Thus economic protectionism is considered progressive by this definition. I am talking about a "progressive" who encourages/supports progress. Under this, one can be a progressive and support restriction of individual liberty, even when the exercise of that liberty does not directly restrict anyone else's liberty. The prime example of this is Singur, where all ("real") progressives tend to support land acquisition for industrial development by private parties.

2. I did not compare your political beliefs to those of Indian communists. I drew attention to the similarity of a linguistic construction that you used, (and persist in using) to phrases used by communist sympathizers when arguing for the essential justice and efficiency of a communist dictatorship. It should be clear that you are not making that argument. You are using the same phraseology. Incidentally, I have heard similar phrases from libertarians (such-and-such is not a real libertarian because ... ). In all instances, I believe the speakers were earnest and well-meaning, as you surely are. They were also wrong.

3. Reading comprehension standards need to improve. Time for school vouchers.

Will do. Although I take serious offence at your encroachment of my individual liberty by telling me what I should do

:)

I know a place where you can buy cheap outrage. Just mention my name and you will get plenty

81 · Rahul said

Is that like ACLU, but for WASPs?

if WASP stands for Wheatish Asian SAT Powermonger, Yes.

I would love to see this father's indignation when he realizes colleges like Harvard use many factors for admissions, test scores not being the sole determining factors. I know more than a few colleges weigh geographic diversity. He may need a family lawyer.

This thread is so painful to read...

All of the comments saying something along the lines of, 'The father is just being silly. He should learn to deal with it!' - you do realize that you're suggesting the most model minority-esque thing of all, to just sit back and take things as they're dealt to you, don't you? When desis are suing the system for something they feel should be theirs, then we've arrived, baby. As for whether she would get in even without the racial quotas, I can't quite figure it out, but the Asian/White ratio at other public gifted programs in the city usually ends up at 50/50 or 60/40, when there are no racial quotas or preferences of any kind. I still support their lawsuit though, because I think racial quotas at public secondary schools are freaking insane.

1200 students in three grades actually doesn't seem like a lot to me. Ok, that's a giveaway that I went to NYC public schools. :) But seriously, I'd say that the kids are a lot safer in that school regardless of overcrowding since it's a nerd school.

I agree with Camille's statement above, at least with respect to magnet schools. Dubner and Levitt (of Freakonomics) recently issued an article in which they defined what characteristics make a star (actually their review of another author, Ericcson's, work). In the end, they argued it wasn't talent but rather focused repetitive practice. Thus, seemingly, contradicting their own work in Freakonomics.

Dammit! My parents were right...

regrding the update, i do not see where the ruling is applied to the class to which this girl belongs to. It seemed to indicate that it will be applied to the next batch of applicants.
And even if it were to be applied this year, I do not see anything in that article which points out that Nikita will qualify based on a 79 unless all the minorities who scored between 79 and 84 have no desire to reapply.

Just because he's suing over a racial QUOTA system in a public school doesn't necessarily mean that he will sue Harvard, a private university that's not explicit about how it factors race in, if she doesn't get in, though he may be unnecessarily bitter. Jeez, people, give him a break. If this happened to someone I know I'd be pretty pissed too.

'The father is just being silly. He should learn to deal with it!' - you do realize that you're suggesting the most model minority-esque thing of all, to just sit back and take things as they're dealt to you, don't you? When desis are suing the system for something they feel should be theirs, then we've arrived, baby

No, it is not a question of "just dealing with it". It means that if you believe in principles of social justice, it should trump parochial loyalties - this is also why I am not on board the train of logic that says you should vote for presidential candidate X or Y because (s)he will be good for Indians.

89 · Rahul said

No, it is not a question of "just dealing with it". It means that if you believe in principles of social justice, it should trump parochial loyalties - this is also why I am not on board the train of logic that says you should vote for presidential candidate X or Y because (s)he will be good for Indians.

where did mr. rau or his lawyers make the "good for indians" argument? i thought they rested their argument on equal protection under the law.

Rahul,
>>It means that if you believe in principles of social justice, it should trump parochial loyalties

A father should give up the loyalty towards his child's future because of some vague, non-deterministic principles of social justice that someone else drafted for him?

>>- this is also why I am not on board the train of logic that says you should vote for presidential candidate X or Y because (s)he will be good for Indians.

The more pertinent question is: Should you NOT vote for a candidate X or Y because (s)he will be indirectly bad for you as an individual because the person is bad for Indians (and you are one)?

M. Nam

No, it is not a question of "just dealing with it". It means that if you believe in principles of social justice, it should trump parochial loyalties - this is also why I am not on board the train of logic that says you should vote for presidential candidate X or Y because (s)he will be good for Indians.

'Social justice'? In other cases it might be more buy-able, but in this case? Oh no, those poor little white kids! It's laughable.

The problem with 'social justice' is that it's rarely enacted in the way it was meant to be. I support schools giving extra consideration to students from financially disadvantaged backgrounds (like Hunter) or providing summer programs for students from racially underrepresented groups to prep for the admissions test (like Stuy), but frankly I think racial quotas are just freaking insane and indefensible. It's unfortunate that the gifted public schools/programs in NYC aren't more 'diverse,' but I don't think such challenging schools should lower their standards for anyone who can't make the cut [without racial preferences].

Oh no, those poor little white kids! It's laughable.

I don't know the economic/racial of this specific community, and I fully agree with you that a purely race based system is bad policy. I don't understand tje details of school district policies and their interaction with demographics (the Seattle case details are too foggy in my memory now) well enough to comment more, so I will just wait to be educated on this issue by folks here :)

Based on my knowledge of the demographics of the other public school gifted programs in the city, I'd say most of the white kids are probably children of Russian/Eastern European immigrants, and heavily Jewish (especially since it's in Coney Island). And most of the non-whites are probably children of East & South Asian immigrants. All the wealthy residents of Park Slope are probably sending their children to hippie private schools.

Just because he's suing over a racial QUOTA system in a public school doesn't necessarily mean that he will sue Harvard, a private university that's not explicit about how it factors race in, if she doesn't get in, though he may be unnecessarily bitter. Jeez, people, give him a break. If this happened to someone I know I'd be pretty pissed too.

It has explicitly given admission to clearly unqualified candidates like Rahul Gandhi in the past and will do so in the future to other unqualified candidates. So are you saying that it is preferable if the school system made it very vague the criteria under which they factor in test scores versus diversity?

This is not a girl who scored a 79. Tests are meant to be a measure of achievement, but are not precise indicators. She could have just as easly scored a 76. Who knows. The thing is I am not going to feel sorry for a girl who is on the borderline regardless of the racial preferences. If she or her father is intent on getting her into a college she wants, then they better be prepared to score well above a rough cutoff because there are going to be other non test related factors that colleges will look at and there is no guarantee.

By the way, I do not mean to defend that specific 60-40 ratio. It looks like it was some old outdated ratio. Also I am not sure if this ratio was meant as affirmative action or to create an integrated environment. If it's an integrated environment, I would not dismiss it as out of bounds since social interaction is part of the educational experience. Otherwise one could suggest students telecommute part of the time and free up classrooms to include more students. Hey, I didn't need to be in a classroom for most of my high school if you just go by learning what was assigned to us.

It has explicitly given admission to clearly unqualified candidates like Rahul Gandhi in the past and will do so in the future to other unqualified candidates. So are you saying that it is preferable if the school system made it very vague the criteria under which they factor in test scores versus diversity?

I'm saying I don't give a shit what criteria Harvard uses. What I care about is public secondary schools not using a quota system such that one group of students is, by rule of law, granted admission into gifted programs even if it has a lower score than another group of students, simply on the basis of race. Like I said, it's freaking insane, and like Manju said, it's simply unconstitutional.

This is not a girl who scored a 79. Tests are meant to be a measure of achievement, but are not precise indicators. She could have just as easly scored a 76. Who knows. The thing is I am not going to feel sorry for a girl who is on the borderline regardless of the racial preferences. If she or her father is intent on getting her into a college she wants, then they better be prepared to score well above a rough cutoff because there are going to be other non test related factors that colleges will look at and there is no guarantee.

Uh, she did score a 79... if she were white, she would've gotten in, for sure. When the only criterion used for admission is the test, doesn't that strike you as patently unfair? As for the test not being a 'precise indicator'--in this case, it was supposed to be a precise indicator of achievement, i.e. if you scored above a certain cutoff score, you were given admission, but the problem is that there were different cutoff scores for people of different races. Again, I don't give a shit about how tests factor or don't factor into her college chances, what I care about is this particular case.

By the way, I do not mean to defend that specific 60-40 ratio. It looks like it was some old outdated ratio. Also I am not sure if this ratio was meant as affirmative action or to create an integrated environment. If it's an integrated environment, I would not dismiss it as out of bounds since social interaction is part of the educational experience. Otherwise one could suggest students telecommute part of the time and free up classrooms to include more students. Hey, I didn't need to be in a classroom for most of my high school if you just go by learning what was assigned to us.

Diversity is overrated. Nerds are nerds, what they'll have a problem dealing with in the real world is being a nerd among normal people.

And it was meant to create an integrated environment for black and white students. Here's some more info I found:

Mark Twain became a magnet school for the gifted and talented in 1975 as part of a court-ordered desegregation plan. Under the terms of the court order, the racial balance must be within 5 percentage points of the racial makeup of the district, which is roughly half white and half nonwhite. Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians are grouped together and compete against one another for spots; whites compete against other whites for spots.

This is the racial make-up of the school: Ethnicity %: 55 W 12 B 6 H 29 A

Now I wonder how people would feel if it were a black or Hispanic student that scored borderline and didn't get in.

Children are admitted either on the basis of their overall academic achievement or on the basis of a demonstrated talent in one of ten areas: art, athletics, computer math, creative writing, dance, drama, instrumental music, photo media, science, or vocal music. In addition to regular course work, children take six extra periods a week in their "talent" area. The school's facilities are impressive, and students have access to sophisticated equipment.

Oh, look at that! It does admit students on the basis of non-academic 'talents' like Roger suggested upthread. I wonder if that's how they maintain some racial 'diversity.'

1200 students in three grades actually doesn't seem like a lot to me. Ok, that's a giveaway that I went to NYC public schools. :) But seriously, I'd say that the kids are a lot safer in that school regardless of overcrowding since it's a nerd school.

Nala,

Don't sleep on nerds. First, I imagine a good portion of them probably are viewing and commenting on this site. So be wary! Second, the nerds of today are the silicon valley kings of tomm. (feel free to insert your own stereotypical desi profession). Third, have you ever been hit with a T-square or stabbed with a compass, or shanked with a jagged edge of a protractor. Let me tell you, Nerds don't play fair.

Dammit! My parents were right...

Didn't you know... your parents are always right even when they're wrong.

Don't sleep on nerds. First, I imagine a good portion of them probably are viewing and commenting on this site. So be wary! Second, the nerds of today are the silicon valley kings of tomm. (feel free to insert your own stereotypical desi profession). Third, have you ever been hit with a T-square or stabbed with a compass, or shanked with a jagged edge of a protractor. Let me tell you, Nerds don't play fair.

Hahaha! It's ok, I can say it, I'm a nerd too.

And when we were younger, I would annoy my brother by poking him with pencils, and he would actually hit me with his T-square. :D

Camille, i meant for many kids who hail from bad school districts and their only option would be to move to another neighborhood, usually one that is either more expensive, or very inconvenient for their daily life, or both. If you can let private schools that are not segregated use vouchers, then you can get the best of both worlds, as long as one can live with the fact that there is rarely a perfect educational system, if there is one.

The way I understand it, a progressive is not the same as one who supports individual liberty. Case in point, (I don't know how well versed you are with indian goings on), Singur. A progressive might conceivably support the government's action of taking away farmers' land ( footnotes apply, courtesy local leftist politics ) in the name of promised potential development and "greater good"; but that would go straight against the tenet of individual liberty.

...It means that if you believe in principles of social justice, it should trump parochial loyalties...

nala, are you arguing that she should be considered white and thus accepted into the school? Why should diversity (both racial, SES, etc.) only be "relevant" for higher education? These are both claims you've made, and I'm curious.

26 · nala said

What should happen is that the 'testing' component should be reduced in weight. A writing component and interview should be added. Special weight should be given to talented performers in non-academic fields. Finally a 'score' should be given for the individual childs socio-economic circumstance...parents education level, income, number of siblings etc. If you have a policy that admits kids on a broad-based non-racial platform, you will naturally get kids that range across the talent spectrum, and most probably get a ethnic distribution that mirrors the community at large.

So it'll basically be like college admissions. But that's the thing, I just don't think secondary schools should have to do that if what they're looking for are kids who are good at school in a typically nerdy way, nor do public school administrators probably have the time (especially if there are as many applicants as there are in NYC, which is what I'm familiar with). And this sounds like you're saying that Asian/Indian kids wouldn't have as much non-academic talent.

Interviews and essays already ARE a part of many a middle and high school entrance process in NYC.

Ugh, the quoting thing does not work. Only the last sentence is mine.

nala, are you arguing that she should be considered white and thus accepted into the school? Why should diversity (both racial, SES, etc.) only be "relevant" for higher education? These are both claims you've made, and I'm curious.

I never argued that she should be considered white and thus accepted into the school. I'm saying that if the only criterion for admission is a test, there shouldn't be a cutoff score for children from different races, only the top X % should get in regardless of race. As for diversity not being as relevant to secondary education- I simply don't think public school administrators have the time or energy required to perform the same type of admissions review that colleges do, nor should they be obligated to, especially in places like NYC where the top schools get thousands of applicants. Specialized science high schools (Stuyvesant, Bronx Science, etc.) have a very 'typical nerd' sort of academic, college-prep focus, and I don't think they should be obligated to accept students who don't satisfy their requirements for admission (scoring high enough on the admission test) simply for the sake of diversity. It would be like asking LaGuardia (a performing arts high school) to accept more tone-deaf students who bombed their auditions for the sake of diversity. Colleges, on the other hand, are looking for different types of students and a more 'well-rounded' student body and have more/different admissions criteria.

Uh, she did score a 79...

But like I said before, I'm all for programs (I was part of one...) for students from financially disadvantaged/racially underrepresented backgrounds that prep them extra-hard for these admissions tests. I just don't think the school itself should be obligated to fulfill quotas.

Camille, I think the problem with the studies on current charter schools and private school vouchers is there has been so much resistance, I do not think many good people who want to get into the business do not bother because of all the politics. Also I would not mind increasing size of vouchers payments for families whose kids demonstrate effort through attendance and/or recommendations. I am just throwing out ideas. I am not saying this is the way things should be. But i would like to see more serious brainstorming by public school advocates on alternatives. And there could be restrictions where schools that take vouchers provide complementary scholarships to students whose financial background is not good enough but who qualify otherwise. Whatever we have now is simply not working. That we know.

I hate Affirmative Action / Reservation /Quotas.

104 · nala said

Specialized science high schools (Stuyvesant, Bronx Science, etc.) have a very 'typical nerd' sort of academic, college-prep focus, and I don't think they should be obligated to accept students who don't satisfy their requirements for admission (scoring high enough on the admission test) simply for the sake of diversity.

These schools are also intense. Students who are unprepared for the work may flunk out. I think an underrepresented minority is better of being a B student at a local school rather then being a D student at Stuyvesant.

These kinds of excuse-making parents give us hard charging South Asian achievers a bad name.

lol! lol! lol!

101 · Camille said

corporate serf, your definition is about 100 years outdated. What you've described is utilitarianism, which was used extensively by Teddy Roosevelt and his old school Bull Moose (a.k.a. Progressive) Party. Incidentally, while he used eminent domain in the name of the so-called "greater good," it was also often used to benefit wealthy elites. A notable example is the Los Angeles National Forest, which has no trees (for details, see: Cadillac Desert).

Camille,
In a globalized world American usages of common terms don't have primacy.

101 · Camille said

While there are certainly excellent private schools in poor areas, my experience has been that relatively affluent/rich members of a community (say, the Oakland hills) will send their (mostly white) kids to these schools, while even parents with vouchers (read: low-income people of color) still cannot afford these elite schools. Instead, they spend their vouchers on sub-par private schools, bend over backwards to pay the difference in fees, and in the end their kids still don't have much of an advantage. I guess my underlying question is why you believe that private schools inherently deliver a better education.

Thank you for making this distinction Camille! There is a spectrum of private schools, a fact that is glossed over in the voucher debate, and unfortunately results in lumping all private schools into one box, accompanied by obligatory ribbon and halo, of course. People fawn over the sub-par private schools because of the brand value of being a private school.

I'm intimately familiar with one private high school which was not any more academically rigorous or focused than the nearby public high schools. It's comparative advantage was that it could invest heavily in sports programs and it was pretty intense on college advisory services and counseling (complete with mandatory personality surveys, career surveys, workshops, mandatory attendance when recruiters visit, etc. It called itself a "College Prep"*** school so the services were its bread and butter, as well as the 4-year school attendance rate). Anyhow, this school (let's call it College Prep HS) became a classic case of a Giffen good and exposed some gaping holes in the information market. It's tuition rose only incrementally from $4,000 to $6,000 per year in a span of 8 years without experiencing any deviation in # of applicants, applicants accepted, or wait-listed applicants. The elite private schools in the area charged $20,000+ and their rejected applicants chose to attend the public schools as opposed to College Prep HS. The board at CPHS wanted to pry some of the elite rejects away from the public schools and the board, like boards at universities, found there was substantial value in being able to market to the public a low accepted applicant rate. They found the best way to achieve a low rate was to raise tuition, which could do two things- 1) send a signal to the public that the school being pricier was suddenly better and 2) fatten its coffers. Lo and behold, the # of applicants doubled, the acceptance rate plummeted, tuition revenue went up, and the sub-par curriculum remained sub-par. Great success!

Do vouchers programs address this issue? No. Do vouchers reasonably bridge the tuition gap at elite schools to improve access? No. Do vouchers acknowledge the intricacies of the education market and the factors inform/misinform parents when making decisions in this market? Not sufficiently. I've got a better idea, well it's not my idea- cut the chord that ties property taxes to school funding!

*** note, I'm not referring to the College Prep in Piedmont

I forgot to mention that the board at CPHS raised the tuition to $12,000 per year and when the decision was finalized the tuition was $7,000 and some change.

Amd to preempt some lurking econo-nazi, the situation as described above resembles a Veblen good more than a Giffen good, though both postulates have something to say about the CPHS tuition increase and preferences.

Do vouchers programs address this issue? No. Do vouchers reasonably bridge the tuition gap at elite schools to improve access? No. Do vouchers acknowledge the intricacies of the education market and the factors inform/misinform parents when making decisions in this market? Not sufficiently. I've got a better idea, well it's not my idea- cut the chord that ties property taxes to school funding!

Well i agree with the last statement. That will take care of parents being held hostage to their kids education when it comes to buying a house.

But I disagree on vouchers. Just because some of us support vouchers doesn't mean we support current voucher proposals. There are many workarounds. I am not endorsing all of these ideas, but just bringing up a few possibilities - tie in vouchers with a tuition cap at participating institutions, tie in vouchers with scholarships for the needy at participating schools with no caps, increase voucher payments for needy but deserving students(come up with whatever criteria the community is comfortable with). The thing is you may need to use a combination or even modify some of these suggestions. But to say some variant of vouchers hasnt worked makes it a bad idea is like someone saying Public School education has not worked in quite a few communities, so let's scrap it. With vouchers, at least you give a parent the choice. Now if they choose to put their kids in an overhyped private school that does not really deliver, at least that is their choice.

While I agree with you on the need for workarounds and modifications, the more tinkering that is done, the less it resembles a voucher and begins to a resemble a scholarship for the gifted. The Gates Foundation and other philanthropic organizations do that already. Can the state mandate that a participating private school initiate tuition caps? Doesn't that relinquish some of the autonomy that pro-voucher groups cite as a specific advantage that privately funded schools have over public?

i thought, for all practical purposes, most vouchers go to catholic schools, which are relatively inexpensive, and that this was one of arguments against them...ie they are a ruse meant to benefit one religion and therefore in violation of the establishment clause.

i'm curiuous about one thing, if there are any lawyers out there. my understanding is that govt sponsored racial discrimination is more or less unconstitutional, with the narrow exception carved out in bakke: for the sake of diversity in an educational setting. now bakke is not relevant here b/c we are talking about a strict quota, which bakke outlaws, so i suppose the issue here was righting past discrimination.

so my question is what is the constitutional status of that justification for discrimination. i know forced busing was allowed but can schools still make the argument that they are can racially discriminate in order to remedy past discrimination?

Can the state mandate that a participating private school initiate tuition caps? Doesn't that relinquish some of the autonomy that pro-voucher groups cite as a specific advantage that privately funded schools have over public?

I was hesitant to put out the details for this very reason. These are just initial ideas one comes up with. I am sure with some finetuning it could be part of a better system. If one nitpicked all the public school negatives in the past, we would not have a public school system to begin with because of all the possible downsides. But since you bring it up, according to my initial proposal, no one is forcing a school to take vouchers if they don't want to institute a cap or provide scholarships. Once again, I am not even wedded to this. I just brought up that idea for those who suggest most people do not like to see their public money go to subsidizing some rich guy sending his son to an expensive school.

corporate serf, in a U.S.-oriented blog, it helps if your definitions have (regional) context. I just provided a definition which aligned the most with the description you provided. If you would like to provide a definition that better serves your intent, I am sure it would be edifying for everyone.

Do vouchers programs address this issue? No. Do vouchers reasonably bridge the tuition gap at elite schools to improve access? No. Do vouchers acknowledge the intricacies of the education market and the factors inform/misinform parents when making decisions in this market? Not sufficiently. I've got a better idea, well it's not my idea- cut the chord that ties property taxes to school funding!

*** note, I'm not referring to the College Prep in Piedmont

Manju, some argue over the "backdoor financing" of religious schools. To be honest, that doesn't bother me as much as watching families struggle to scrape together the tuition for a supbar education for their kids. It's also perplexing, because unless you know the intricate world of private school testing standards, these schools aren't even required to provide an education that meets state standards. I would rather money be reinvested into public schools in a way that helps revitalize affordable and accessible primary education for all kids instead of siphoning funds away into cockamamie schools that use the illusion of choice to advance their argument.

i know forced busing was allowed but can schools still make the argument that they are can racially discriminate in order to remedy past discrimination?

so my question is what is the constitutional status of that justification for discrimination. i know forced busing was allowed but can schools still make the argument that they are can racially discriminate in order to remedy past discrimination?

In order to be constitutional, using race in such instances has to satisfy the highest level of constitutional scrutiny: it has to serve a compelling governmental interest and use the least restrictive means possible to achieve an objective. For example, at the University of Michigan both the undergrad and law schools had different race-based plans that were used in admissions. The undergrad plan was deemed unconstitutional because was too rigid and gave race too much weight. It wasn't the least restrictive means. But the law school plan was constitutional because it took race into account as one factor among many. (Gratz v. Bollinger, Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)) It's a pretty subjective test, but in order to use race the plan has to show that it can stand up to strict scrutiny.

Also, I can't help but feel awful for this little girl..if her father was rigid enough to sue and take this case public, I can't even imagine the kind of belittling and punishment ('you can't go to the mall! you have to stay home and study so you can go to Harvard!) that she has been subjected to..

122 · teacup said

In order to be constitutional, using race in such instances has to satisfy the highest level of constitutional scrutiny: it has to serve a compelling governmental interest

i gather that the "compelling governmental interest" in the UMich cases was diversity, ie a narrowly tailored use of race in admissions to obtain educational benefits flowing from a diverse student body. would it be accurate to say that rectifying past discrimination is no longer considered a govt interest compelling enough to allow the govt to take race into consideration, presumably b/c such historical grievances are addressed by civil rights laws and other non-discriminatory govt policies?

would it be accurate to say that rectifying past discrimination is no longer considered a govt interest compelling enough to allow the govt to take race into consideration, presumably b/c such historical grievances are addressed by civil rights laws and other non-discriminatory govt policies?

Based on the cases I've read about the use of race in public education, I would agree with you. The courts generally formulate their decisions to reflect a movement forward to prevent discrimination from happening in the future, not get bogged down in remedying past wrongs. Retroactive policies are, as far as I can tell, extremely rare if they exist at all.

124 · teacup said

The courts generally formulate their decisions to reflect a movement forward to prevent discrimination from happening in the future, not get bogged down in remedying past wrongs.

i'm not sure if i'd even go that far, teacup. in bakke and the bollinger cases the courts allowed the govt to take race into consideration only for educational reasons, ie students benefit from being around others from different cultural backgrounds, but not for discrimination reasons, past or future. so presumably if we were talking about an employment setting, race could not be taken into consideration at all. i think. but then i do still hear about minority lending and govt contract programs. so i'm not sure.

if we were talking about an employment setting, race could not be taken into consideration at all.

It's hard to tell..there haven't been any Supreme Court decisions about the use of race in public employment, and the circuit courts are split on this issue... there have been decisions which go both ways.

120 · Camille said

corporate serf, in a U.S.-oriented blog, it helps if your definitions have (regional) context. I just provided a definition which aligned the most with the description you provided. If you would like to provide a definition that better serves your intent, I am sure it would be edifying for everyone.

So you would characterize this blog as one for primarily ABDs?

thanks for the edification

Manju and Teacup,

There are Supreme Court decisions that allow the use of race as a preference in the issuance of government contracts. For example, in the sale of radio airwave licenses by the FCC to minority owned radio stations to insure there is a diversity of programming. The case is Metro Broadcasting v. FCC. Additionally, in Adarand (don't remember the full name), the court recognized that the government could use racial/gender preferences to issue gov't contracts to minority/women owned business to remedy past discrimination. (Ex. Construction contracts). So race while not explicitly used in the employment context, it can be a factor in the issuance of gov't contracts to companies that are likely to have minorities employees.

Aargh, that last line should read minority employees.

thanks JJ. i would be careful about extrapolating cases involving radio airwaves out to other areas, since the limited supply and public ownership of the airways apparently entitles them to a lower level of constitutional scrutiny even when it comes to the first amendment (think "fairness" doctrine, which would be clearly unconstitutional if applied to the print press, for example).

it's also interesting to note that some private financiers--start-up ibanks and vc firm--often explicitly discriminate on the basis of race and gender (only investing in women or POC led business) and have not come under any '64 civil rights act challenges, as far as i know.

Manju,

Fair enough on the lower scrutiny applied to radio airwaves. My mention of them was to simply an illustration that race is considered in other contexts. The equal protection clause of the Constitution only applies to public entities or government intervention. Discrimination in the workplace (hiring or firing based on race) would be restricted by a whole host of laws and constitutional clauses, 13th Amendment, Commerce Clause and Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Private entities such as Ibanks and VC firms that use private funds (hence free from gov't involvement) are free to invest in whom they choose. If they choose to invest in only one type of group, I don't see that as being impermissible.

131 · Jangali Janwar said

If they choose to invest in only one type of group, I don't see that as being impermissible.

actually, if a vc firm only invested in white-owned business, i think the govt would come down hard using the '64 civil rights act, no? i understand the public/private dichotomy and perhaps bringing up private actors is a little peripheral to this post, but i was just curious as to what extent the law allows for favorable treatment of POC and women. my guess is in public education it is now very narrow, in public employment there is a little more leeway but scotus hasn't quite got to it yet, and in private employment its a free for all. but i could be wrong.

actually, if a vc firm only invested in white-owned business, i think the govt would come down hard using the '64 civil rights act, no?

Manju,

I'm not aware of any provision in the act or a case that follows your conclusion. I may be missing something in the analysis. If you know or come across something that supports your hypothesis, please let me know. I mean that sincerely. (I say without any hint of prickishness - I really am interested).

133 · Jangali Jaanwar said

I'm not aware of any provision in the act or a case that follows your conclusion. I may be missing something in the analysis. If you know or come across something that supports your hypothesis, please let me know. I mean that sincerely. (I say without any hint of prickishness - I really am interested).

well, i know of no investment firms that only invest in white-owned business', but if one had such a charter i'd assume they'd fall under provisions outlawing employment discrimination (especially in the venture business where the investment firm essentially owns the start-up outright) or public-accommodations clause since such a bank would be telling prospective entrepreneurs that they can't approach the bank for financing, based on their race. and this is a bank that would be otherwise open to the rest of the public, as one look at their website, replete with e-mails, phone #'s, and instructions on how to submit a b-plan would indicate that they are open to the public.

i mean, if commercial banks can't discriminate on the basis of race when it comes to lending, why would ibanks or vc firms be allowed to when it comes to investing?

21 · tamasha said

now that they've dumbed down the SATs

How have they dumbed it down?

Anyway, IS 239 is supposed to be great (great principal and teachers) but it's got 1200+ students in three grades. Gifted or not, I wouldn't willingly send my child to a school that big. Not in those fragile early adolescent years.

I went to one such school and I survived. Meh...It builds character. NYC public education all the way!

While I agree with the premise of the parents' suit, its naive to believe her attaining a Harvard education is stifled by her not attending this particular school. Ultimately, where one went to junior high school won't be a hindrance on getting into the ivys. Your intelligence (and numbers) will qualify you, and that's prioritized before the name of your JHS or HS.

So you would characterize this blog as one for primarily ABDs?

Anyone see this article a few months ago?

Who are these mediocre white students getting into institutions such as Harvard, Wellesley, Notre Dame, Duke, and the University of Virginia? A sizable number are recruited athletes who, research has shown, will perform worse on average than other students with similar academic profiles, mainly as a result of the demands their coaches will place on them.....A larger share, however, are students who gained admission through their ties to people the institution wanted to keep happy, with alumni, donors, faculty members, administrators, and politicians topping the list. ...Applicants who stood no chance of gaining admission without connections are only the most blatant beneficiaries of such admissions preferences. Except perhaps at the very summit of the applicant pile - that lofty place occupied by young people too brilliant for anyone in their right mind to turn down - colleges routinely favor those who have connections over those who don't. While some applicants gain admission by legitimately beating out their peers, many others get into exclusive colleges the same way people get into trendy night clubs, by knowing the management or flashing cash at the person manning the velvet rope.