Recently, the San Francisco Unified School District voted to replace their merit admissions process at Lowell High School, one of the best high schools in America and also happens to be 61% Asian, with a lottery-based system.
When Asian-American parents opposed the school district’s plans to enact its new “lottery” system in late October, the school district blasted the parents by stating they were “racist” and responsible for the “toxic culture” at the school. Parents were accused of furthering the “Asian supremacy” agenda by making their children work so hard; their children’s achievements were demoralizing African-American and Latino students.
LOL this is pure histrionics from some quasi-news blog.
Students are getting "pass" or "fail" grades this year because COVID-19 has disrupted the school year, so the high school is using a lottery-based admissions system. But that doesn't fit Trausti's racialist narrative.
If those upset really long for a merit-based system, it seems what public school their children attend shouldn't matter to that degree. After all, it was the performance of the student and not the reputation and resources of the school which have thus far allowed that student to demonstrate their merit, no?
If those upset really long for a merit-based system, it seems what public school their children attend shouldn't matter to that degree. After all, it was the performance of the student and not the reputation and resources of the school which have thus far allowed that student to demonstrate their merit, no?
A student's merit is based on her academic aptitude and achievement. If a school decides that it will cater to the students with the highest merit, it ought select those students with the highest aptitude and achievement. The school benefits and the students benefit.
When I went to university, I was selected based on my academic merit. Why should it be otherwise?
That only works as a definition of 'merit' when students have roughly equal advantage setting aside, perhaps, their own innate abilities. We have no way of verifying if that happens as there are lots of ways to push for advantage beyond merit, and some of them relate to inequity. Inequity may benefit that particular school, and it may benefit the students who manage to gain admission, at least as far as trading on the reputation of their school when it comes time to apply to post secondary. But there exists a very real possibility that this approach impoverishes that school system overall.
When I went to university, I was selected based on my academic merit. Why should it be otherwise?
Universities don't operate the same as public school systems. The requirements of admissions systems and the aims of each are materially different.
That only works as a definition of 'merit' when students have roughly equal advantage setting aside, perhaps, their own innate abilities.
We have no way of verifying if that happens as there are lots of ways to push for advantage beyond merit, and some of them relate to inequity. Inequity may benefit that particular school, and it may benefit the students who manage to gain admission, at least as far as trading on the reputation of their school when it comes time to apply to post secondary. But there exists a very real possibility that this approach impoverishes that school system overall.
That only works as a definition of 'merit' when students have roughly equal advantage setting aside, perhaps, their own innate abilities. We have no way of verifying if that happens as there are lots of ways to push for advantage beyond merit, and some of them relate to inequity. Inequity may benefit that particular school, and it may benefit the students who manage to gain admission, at least as far as trading on the reputation of their school when it comes time to apply to post secondary. But there exists a very real possibility that this approach impoverishes that school system overall.
When I went to university, I was selected based on my academic merit. Why should it be otherwise?
Universities don't operate the same as public school systems. The requirements of admissions systems and the aims of each are materially different.
But this is talking about "magnet" schools that are part of the public school system, but generally exist because they don't share the same aims as a regular public school.
That's the point. Arguing meritocracy to access an institution which promote inequity within the same system is just fucking weird unless you come at it from the perspective that what is longed for, ultimately, is not meritocracy, but advantage or accolades.
I get all my news from Asian Dawn, because they are so reliable.
