The whole notion of “Asian success” is because the Asian American population is very heavy with post-1965 immigrants and their descendents, unlike the European American or African American population. Post-1965 immigration from Asia to the US selects for skilled workers and PhD students (about 50% of Chinese and 70% of Indian immigrants have bachelor’s degrees, far higher than the general populations of the US, China, and India). That immigrant selection effect becomes seen as a racial thing because people look at race first before any other demographic factor.
But note that some other Asian American ethnicities are much less biased to toward the educational elite from their national origins. Also, notice that Hawaii is not known for being educationally elite despite a high Asian American population, because the historical immigration there was not so biased toward the educational elite.
@ucbalumnus I agree. Asians are just people like everyone else, neither superhumans nor robots. Nigerians and Russians have similar levels of educational attainment as Asians.
It’s those that advocate for race-conscious policies that are missing the point. Don’t penalize Asians just because they were subject to stricter immigration policies and happen to have a bit different skin color than everyone else in America.
I don’t support eliminating the test because I don’t think it’s necessary. I think there are other paths to improving diversity in top programs, which I do think is a worthy goal.
The basic lesson is you don’t need to be white and/or wealthy to succeed in this system. If Black and Hispanic families want the outcomes, they have to up their game.
I got the impression that most Black and Hispanic parents are not interested in sending their kids to schools like Stuy. Then why do we force the issue? I bet most of the people on this thread are not black nor Hispanic.
The issue is really access and awareness. As the article in #122 points out, many of the kids interviewed didn’t know about the specialized HSs and the test until quite late in the game. Seems like the administration could start with identifying academically talented kids in poorly performing elementary schools and make sure that they and their families know about applying to better middle schools and provide help to get them there. Kids in that article (and in many other articles) have pointed to the importance of someone outside of their families, either at the school or, in one case, a tutor who went out of their way to give the student the information about these schools.
At the very least, in 6th grade, the middle schools should identify promising kids in low performing schools and mentor them on the path to gaining entrance not just to the SHSAT test schools but to all of the better high schools. If kids don’t have that information or if their parents don’t have the skills or interest to navigate the complex path to applying to middle school and high school, these kids will be left behind. Does that mean that all of these kids will get into the test dependent schools? Of course not, but they will at least have a shot.
Agree that the test should not be eliminated - there has to be a way to distinguish students as there has to be more students with straight As than there are seats. That doesn’t mean there can’t be other factors taken into account. Given what data10 pointed out above, the test results don’t seem to be used in a clear, transparent way.
I don’t see how it’s less clear or transparent than any other standardized test. Maybe there’s a misunderstanding, but there’s no human judgment used in assembling the composite score.
I was referring to the acceptances, not the scores. Upthread data10 posted this:
From what you are saying in #127 why wasn’t Kid#2 accepted over Kid#1 when clearly their 98th and 94th percentiles are higher than Kid #1’s 99th and 76th?
Look at the chart—the difference between getting 30 and 40 questions right is 42 points but the difference between getting 40 and 50 questions is 128 points. So the 99 percentile in one subject is really worth that much, whereas the difference between the 76 and 94 is probably not all that great. (Note: it’s impossible based on this information to convert the percentiles to the number of correct answers)
Why are there different classes of middle schools? All of them should be good. Who are the students these “academically talented” kids are leaving behind to attend the “better” middle school? What’s being done to make them better prepared to succeed academically?
I should note that this is much more transparent than other standardized tests like the SAT and ACT, which must be curved to normalize scores for different editions of the test, not to mention the writing section which doesn’t have a clear and consistent rubric.
“At the very least, in 6th grade, the middle schools should identify promising kids in low performing schools and mentor them on the path to gaining entrance not just to the SHSAT test schools but to all of the better high schools. If kids don’t have that information or if their parents don’t have the skills or interest to navigate the complex path to applying to middle school and high school, these kids will be left behind.”
I think this is critical and interesting.
Even though the world is a far more information-friendly place these days, sometimes one must need to know to look for that information.
Sometimes one needs contact with persons who can help to tamp down the skeptical and negative voices which eek into the heads of bright, motivated kids with an eye toward applying to schools and programs outside of the familiar. Those voices can be so persistent; so loud.
OK. I see what you are saying in that getting one wrong drops the score 50 points while getting 2 wrong only drops it 61 points so that the 99th percentile is very unusual and counts for much more than the 98th percentile. Are all the questions equally difficult? If a kid gets the “tail” question but makes a math error on an easier one does that count the same as the score for missing the hardest question? That is what the SAT does differently (or at least used to).
@data10 do you have combined percentiles or total scores for your examples? Seems like that is what counts not the individual sections.
@austinmshauri: “Why are there different classes of middle schools? All of them should be good. Who are the students these “academically talented” kids are leaving behind to attend the “better” middle school? What’s being done to make them better prepared to succeed academically?”
This is a conversation which has swirled, and in a heated fashion, in NYC for decades.
I think part of a strategy for addressing this was the charter school, in its earliest days, where young educators and newly graduated college students formed neighborhood charters without the necessity for lottery or exam for entry. (Seems that the charter school is no longer based on any part of that model in many places around the country, though I do not know if NYC requires the lottery for entry).
Another strategy had been the schools-within-the schools programs, where specialized areas of study were the hallmark of the programs, though the programs themselves were housed within established public schools.
The standard practice in designing tests like these is to create questions with varying levels of difficulty, from quite easy to extremely hard, to better guage a student’s true talent level.
There is still a lottery for charter school admissions. There is also an application process for middle school programs that is similar to, but less heinous than, the high school process.
I think communication and marketing could really help. To help kids who don’t feel comfortable succeeding academically, and to help the families who don’t feel comfortable seeking options outside the specialized schools.
Staten Island is different in many ways, but there are some differences that I think are kind of intriguing about the public schools. In the other boroughs, the schools encompass much smaller geographic areas, so they are actually less diverse than Staten Island’s schools, which encompass students from many different neighborhoods. Additionally, having only one specialized school, which is considered unacceptable to a very large percentage of parents whose kids would be likely to qualify, has pushed those kids and their parents’ support and resources into very diverse public schools, whose programs are quite successful. It’s considered absolutely acceptable for kids of all races to attend those top programs in the local public schools. There’s no stigma attached because the commute to Manhattan from certain parts of the Island is a deal breaker.
@hzhao2004: “I got the impression that most Black and Hispanic parents are not interested in sending their kids to schools like Stuy. Then why do we force the issue? I bet most of the people on this thread are not black nor Hispanic.”
Don’t know what has led you to that feeling, and don’t know the pulse of the city at this time, but historically, when Black parents of very bright kids knew about the specialized high school exams, they definitely encouraged and signed their kids up to sit for the exam. That does not mean those parents had enough information to know how to help their kid prepare for the exam, or even that preparation was necessary.
When your kid is among the brightest over the course of elementary school, you fairly assume that said-bright-kid is going to do what said-bright-kid has always done and ace yet another exam.
There may definitely be a dearth of information for parents from low-SES backgrounds, or those whose children are attending school and excelling in a school based in an area with a majority of students receiving free lunch, and where few families own where they live.
That’s probably a better strategy for getting into elite colleges, if the kid is able to excel at a recruit-able level. Even better if a more obscure sport like water polo or crew or fencing…
I attended one of those in a public JHS. My mom knew about it, which was a big advantage.