To be able to still succeed while overcoming great adversity or challenge, is an extremely strong correlator to future success and potential. While a test will completely miss out on this indicator, a holistic review of the student can capture this.
A country that chooses to use a single exam as the determinator wipes out a vast majority of their effective potential, as scores of future prodigies born into circumstances that they had no choice in are grinded away. In this way, there is both a moral and pragmatic reason for reviewing students holistically. You simply miss out on too many people with great potential otherwise.
37% of the students at Stuyvesant are eligible for free lunches. 9% are eligible for reduced price lunches[1]. Given those results it seems obvious that Stuyvesant’s students are poorer than average for New York.
On a separate note fuck equality of outcome. Harrison Bergeron is not a goal to be aimed for.
[1] https://data.nysed.gov/studenteducator.php?year=2018&instid=...
The proposed changes would consider class rank in addition to a standardized test. How is that in any way a form of equality of outcome? Is class rank random?
No, they're generally poor Asians who studied hard. Asians have the highest poverty rate in NYC.
edit: Private school is where those who can afford it send their kids.
edit2: I do find it interesting how discrimination and, I'd call it, racism against Asians is tolerated so much just because they're actually getting their kids out of poverty. Punish those who achieve the wanted goal, eh?
As for discrimination against Asians, what are you referring to exactly?
The idea that an admissions policy is unacceptable if it admits too many Asians is, I assume, the discrimination being referred to.
https://www1.nyc.gov/site/opportunity/poverty-in-nyc/data-to...
This is widespread in NYC. Notice how convenient it is to "democratize" the Science High School exam procedure (where Asians took the most seats) while conveniently avoiding the democratizing of other things (where Asians did not do well.)
For Example - Bard High School and other Private-ish public schools continue to go by the old system. Asians are under represented, and the city conveniently chose not to democratize this.
For a more extreme example, what about about sports teams at NYC high schools. Asians are massively under-represented in basketball and other teams, why aren't these democratized for equal representation?
Why stop at students. Have you noticed how few NYC school principals are Asians? Why aren't these jobs democratized for equal representation? Same for a host of cushy BoE jobs/titles/positions which offer lifetime benefits -- why arent these opened up to Asians?
Basically, when Asians do well, the system is changed to demand equal representation. In places Asians dont do well, the system is kept as is.
This change might help desegregate NYCs public schools by giving white and Asian parents a reason to send their kid to a majority black or Latino school. It could make middle schools more diverse as well.
How would we use this same form of selection to increase Asian representation on high school basketball teams? It's already a de facto class rank system: each high school's basketball team is made of its best players. What's your proposal?
However when it comes to selective schools in particular, if gifted poor and lower middle class students are being edged out by wealthy kids with average-to-above-average abilities, thanks to parental connections and "working the system", then I totally agree with you there.
Though I don't know that your list of advantages are things I think of as "middle class".
Yes, this is why it's so common for the children of Chinese politicians to go to American universities.