Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion In the news - fair & equitable admissions criteria

Sheesh, indeed!

Even after re-reading this thread, I would still summarize it as Meritocracy -vs- quotatocracy.
Specifically: Admissions via Meritocracy (test scores) -vs- admissions by quotatocracy (demographics).

Upthread, you described an institution keeping women, Jewish people, Asian students out regardless of ability.
Such policies of admissions/rejection based on demographics would be an example of quotatocracy, rather than meritocracy.

No need; those interested can read your post upthread.

Some may say that your post frames a difficult discussion as an us-vs-them thing: dividing by income.

By contrast, the OP shows that three NYC specialty schools serve a population of whom at least 60% are low income, qualifying for free or reduced price lunch. Therefore your division by income appears to be erroneous.

Due to the number of low income students at three of the NYC specialty schools (as expressed in the OP), your division by income appears to be an oversimplification.

This thread has included exploration of various factors impacting student success and admission to NYC specialty high schools, beyond the government-provided schools... including level of parental support... valuing education... providing and/or seeking out-of-school enrichment opportunities... learning about specialty schools... registering one's child to take the SHSAT admissions test.

It seems you may agree with me on this idea?
(The article suggests two new schools to increase the number of seats.)
I have been suggesting creating more seats to meet demand, for about 5 years.
Purpose being: admissions by meritocracy (not quotatocracy... not lottery).

Income-based admissions punishes parents for working. How do you define low-income in New York City? Suppose say you say below $70K, and suppose the excess value of attending a selective high school for four years is $40K. Then you are imposing a huge marginal tax rate right around an income of $70K, which is unfair to people earning slightly more.

Yes, income-based admissions is a type of quotatocracy, not a meritocracy.

What if two schools were changed from gen ed to meet "demand" for advanced academics (no lottery)... admissions were based on merit (test scores)... and without selection based on income or other demographic criteria... ? The student population might be found to be 60% qualifying for free or reduced price lunch (mirroring current enrollment stats, as described upthread).

Val, would this meet your preference for a lot of slots for low-income students?

Bostonian, would this pass muster as being fair to families just above the low-income threshold?

The notion that test scores constitute a meritocracy is deeply flawed.

Precisely.

amylou, please describe how you would determine which students need the advanced academics and intellectual peers of the specialty high schools in order to continue their growth and development, therefore "merit" admission to these schools?

If there was a valid and equitable measure available, I don't think we would be having this discussion.

Given that we do not live in a perfect world... what do you believe is the most valid and equitable measure available...?
- test scores
- demographics
- other (please specify)

Maybe we can develop a test for quirkiness, sensitivity, and overexcitabilities as this seems to be the way people define giftedness and not academic or intellectual ability 😛

To clarify:
- There is a process for identifying gifted individuals, usually involving an IQ test and often a private psychologist.
- There is a process for selecting students who are a good "fit" for a particular program of a government school's advanced academics, usually involving an achievement test.

This thread did not raise the question of gifted identification, but rather use or discontinuation of admissions testing for NYC public specialty high schools.