TJ drop outs under the new admission standards

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids have dropped out of TJ since TJ became a STEM magnate. Froshmores have been accepted at TJ since TJ became a STEM magnate.

Nothing has changed. Kids who are really interested in TJ and were not admitted this year can apply next year.

I would love to see tweaks to the admission process for TJ. Something that reflects the level of kids at each of the MS. Schools should be able to sort kids who are identified as meeting the TJ criteria in a manner that takes into consideration academic achievement. So a school that has kids in Algebra II who meet the requirements should be accepting those kids first, then Geometry, then Algebra 1. If a MS does not have kids in Algebra II, they start with the kids in Geometry and then Algebra 1.

This would drop the number of kids coming with Algebra 1 and, most likely, limit it to kids who are in schools where kids are starting behind because of homelife and have shown that they are capable of acceleration by making it into Algebra 1. While the kids might not be as far ahead in math, they have shown a level of resilience and determination to make it to Algebra 1, potentially with little support at home.

Schools where the kids have more opportunities will end up sending kids with Algebra II and Geometry.

I appreciate the tone of this message and in a vacuum, it makes a lot of sense. But there are, in reality, a couple of reasons why it doesn't make sense to automatically give preference to students based on their level of math advancement.

1) Most importantly, you don't want to create an incentive for parents to artificially accelerate their students beyond their actual level of capability. I've seen far too many students at TJ over the years who enter at a super-high level and then crash and burn when they get to TJ - or worse yet, who get burned out on math because they've been going at it too hard for too long. And if you message to parents that getting your kid to Alg2 in 8th grade is essentially a free ticket to TJ, you will see a reintroduction of that arms race that has a damaging impact on kids and punishes parents who keep their child at merely a very advanced math level.

2) There is SO MUCH MORE to being a quality TJ student than math advancement. TJ is fundamentally an environment built on research and innovation, which requires creative problem solving and non-linear thinking. An absolutely critical feature of any strong TJ class that will actually have an impact in the STEM ecosystem is diversity of thought, approach, experience, and interest. For this reason, you cannot build a strong TJ class without actively seeking students who have strengths in various different areas both inside and outside of STEM.

TJ is at its worst when you have 500 kids in a class who look more or less the same on paper and who are trying to accomplish the same goals along the same path. That's where the toxicity and hyper-competitiveness comes from - and it's not about being too Asian, it's about having too many kids who are trying to take their cars on the same road when there is plenty of room at the destination and plenty of other roads to get there.

1) so, students who are unprepared for TJ, having to go through remedial math, and playing catch up for 4 years will be less subject to burnout?

2) sure, should be more than math. So, why don’t they include other STEM-related info like teachers’ recommendations, STEM awards, outside activities? How ignoring those inputs is any better in selecting a STEM student?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids have dropped out of TJ since TJ became a STEM magnate. Froshmores have been accepted at TJ since TJ became a STEM magnate.

Nothing has changed. Kids who are really interested in TJ and were not admitted this year can apply next year.

I would love to see tweaks to the admission process for TJ. Something that reflects the level of kids at each of the MS. Schools should be able to sort kids who are identified as meeting the TJ criteria in a manner that takes into consideration academic achievement. So a school that has kids in Algebra II who meet the requirements should be accepting those kids first, then Geometry, then Algebra 1. If a MS does not have kids in Algebra II, they start with the kids in Geometry and then Algebra 1.

This would drop the number of kids coming with Algebra 1 and, most likely, limit it to kids who are in schools where kids are starting behind because of homelife and have shown that they are capable of acceleration by making it into Algebra 1. While the kids might not be as far ahead in math, they have shown a level of resilience and determination to make it to Algebra 1, potentially with little support at home.

Schools where the kids have more opportunities will end up sending kids with Algebra II and Geometry.

I appreciate the tone of this message and in a vacuum, it makes a lot of sense. But there are, in reality, a couple of reasons why it doesn't make sense to automatically give preference to students based on their level of math advancement.

1) Most importantly, you don't want to create an incentive for parents to artificially accelerate their students beyond their actual level of capability. I've seen far too many students at TJ over the years who enter at a super-high level and then crash and burn when they get to TJ - or worse yet, who get burned out on math because they've been going at it too hard for too long. And if you message to parents that getting your kid to Alg2 in 8th grade is essentially a free ticket to TJ, you will see a reintroduction of that arms race that has a damaging impact on kids and punishes parents who keep their child at merely a very advanced math level.

2) There is SO MUCH MORE to being a quality TJ student than math advancement. TJ is fundamentally an environment built on research and innovation, which requires creative problem solving and non-linear thinking. An absolutely critical feature of any strong TJ class that will actually have an impact in the STEM ecosystem is diversity of thought, approach, experience, and interest. For this reason, you cannot build a strong TJ class without actively seeking students who have strengths in various different areas both inside and outside of STEM.

TJ is at its worst when you have 500 kids in a class who look more or less the same on paper and who are trying to accomplish the same goals along the same path. That's where the toxicity and hyper-competitiveness comes from - and it's not about being too Asian, it's about having too many kids who are trying to take their cars on the same road when there is plenty of room at the destination and plenty of other roads to get there.

#1. Agree, but the best solution for this is to encourage harsher grading for the Honors sections of Algebra I and beyond. A kid accelerated "beyond their actual level of capability" should not be able to pull straight As in their math classes. If they are earning As with very incomplete comprehension, then the grading is too watered down.

#2. This is an argument to give "bonus points" to AIME qualifiers and Mathcounts State top 10 kids. Kids like that are experts at creative problem solving and non-linear thinking. Also, only around 30 kids in the TJ catchment will be at this level, so you wouldn't be flooding TJ with 500 kids who look the same and are trying to accomplish the same thing. Instead, you'd be admitting 30 kids out of a class of 550 who are elite at math.

We largely agree on both counts!

WRT to #2, however, I would caution against the framing of "bonus points" in favor of an actually holistic evaluation that does not use a scoring rubric. In my experience, while most of the students who fit that profile end up being wildly successful at TJ, there are others who either don't take other aspects of their academic profile seriously enough or would end up having a negative impact on the overall academic environment in a way that would likely be sussed out by teacher recommendations - which are a necessary reintroduction if we're trying to get at the students who are most deserving from each school.

I think it would be likely that, if there were 30 students applying to TJ who were in that category, my ideal admissions process would probably capture 25 or so of them. It should not be an automatic qualifier, but a supermajority of students who achieve it should be captured.

And it should be noted, I'm probably the loudest and most informed pro-reform advocate on these boards. I prefer today's process to yesterday's, but there is a middle path in my mind that would achieve the best of both worlds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids have dropped out of TJ since TJ became a STEM magnate. Froshmores have been accepted at TJ since TJ became a STEM magnate.

Nothing has changed. Kids who are really interested in TJ and were not admitted this year can apply next year.

I would love to see tweaks to the admission process for TJ. Something that reflects the level of kids at each of the MS. Schools should be able to sort kids who are identified as meeting the TJ criteria in a manner that takes into consideration academic achievement. So a school that has kids in Algebra II who meet the requirements should be accepting those kids first, then Geometry, then Algebra 1. If a MS does not have kids in Algebra II, they start with the kids in Geometry and then Algebra 1.

This would drop the number of kids coming with Algebra 1 and, most likely, limit it to kids who are in schools where kids are starting behind because of homelife and have shown that they are capable of acceleration by making it into Algebra 1. While the kids might not be as far ahead in math, they have shown a level of resilience and determination to make it to Algebra 1, potentially with little support at home.

Schools where the kids have more opportunities will end up sending kids with Algebra II and Geometry.

I appreciate the tone of this message and in a vacuum, it makes a lot of sense. But there are, in reality, a couple of reasons why it doesn't make sense to automatically give preference to students based on their level of math advancement.

1) Most importantly, you don't want to create an incentive for parents to artificially accelerate their students beyond their actual level of capability. I've seen far too many students at TJ over the years who enter at a super-high level and then crash and burn when they get to TJ - or worse yet, who get burned out on math because they've been going at it too hard for too long. And if you message to parents that getting your kid to Alg2 in 8th grade is essentially a free ticket to TJ, you will see a reintroduction of that arms race that has a damaging impact on kids and punishes parents who keep their child at merely a very advanced math level.

2) There is SO MUCH MORE to being a quality TJ student than math advancement. TJ is fundamentally an environment built on research and innovation, which requires creative problem solving and non-linear thinking. An absolutely critical feature of any strong TJ class that will actually have an impact in the STEM ecosystem is diversity of thought, approach, experience, and interest. For this reason, you cannot build a strong TJ class without actively seeking students who have strengths in various different areas both inside and outside of STEM.

TJ is at its worst when you have 500 kids in a class who look more or less the same on paper and who are trying to accomplish the same goals along the same path. That's where the toxicity and hyper-competitiveness comes from - and it's not about being too Asian, it's about having too many kids who are trying to take their cars on the same road when there is plenty of room at the destination and plenty of other roads to get there.

1) so, students who are unprepared for TJ, having to go through remedial math, and playing catch up for 4 years will be less subject to burnout?

2) sure, should be more than math. So, why don’t they include other STEM-related info like teachers’ recommendations, STEM awards, outside activities? How ignoring those inputs is any better in selecting a STEM student?

I think you're suggesting that I believe the current system to be flawless. I don't. But with that being said, it's simply not true that you have this cohort of significance who are going through remedial math or trying to play catch up. That doesn't exist.

I would also agree that there is a place in an improved version of the current admissions process for some of those things to be considered as part of a genuinely holistic process. But it should never be the case that any specific accomplishment guarantees a student a seat at TJ.

[Anonymous]

2) sure, should be more than math. So, why don’t they include other STEM-related info like teachers’ recommendations, STEM awards, outside activities? How ignoring those inputs is any better in selecting a STEM student?

Fundamentally, I think there is a difference of opinion about what TJ is, and I think this comment illustrates that difference.

Does TJ exist to "supercharge" kids who are already being enriched at home? If so, then taking into account a bunch of accomplishments achieved before the age of 13 makes sense. Competition math ($$$), juried music competitions ($$$), STEM awards ($$ + connections), and teacher's recommendations (subject to bias) are all metrics that can be used, but whether they should be used is up for discussion.

Or does TJ as a public high school exist to identify and nurture talented students, even if they have not been able to access superior enrichment at home so far? This would mean looking at kids who have not racked up STEM awards in middle school, who maybe have not had their parents spend tens of thousands of dollars on piano/violin/ukulele lessons.

I think it's the second one, but not everyone agrees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

2) sure, should be more than math. So, why don’t they include other STEM-related info like teachers’ recommendations, STEM awards, outside activities? How ignoring those inputs is any better in selecting a STEM student?

Fundamentally, I think there is a difference of opinion about what TJ is, and I think this comment illustrates that difference.

Does TJ exist to "supercharge" kids who are already being enriched at home? If so, then taking into account a bunch of accomplishments achieved before the age of 13 makes sense. Competition math ($$$), juried music competitions ($$$), STEM awards ($$ + connections), and teacher's recommendations (subject to bias) are all metrics that can be used, but whether they should be used is up for discussion.

Or does TJ as a public high school exist to identify and nurture talented students, even if they have not been able to access superior enrichment at home so far? This would mean looking at kids who have not racked up STEM awards in middle school, who maybe have not had their parents spend tens of thousands of dollars on piano/violin/ukulele lessons.

I think it's the second one, but not everyone agrees.

I strongly agree with you! Thank you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

2) sure, should be more than math. So, why don’t they include other STEM-related info like teachers’ recommendations, STEM awards, outside activities? How ignoring those inputs is any better in selecting a STEM student?

Fundamentally, I think there is a difference of opinion about what TJ is, and I think this comment illustrates that difference.

Does TJ exist to "supercharge" kids who are already being enriched at home? If so, then taking into account a bunch of accomplishments achieved before the age of 13 makes sense. Competition math ($$$), juried music competitions ($$$), STEM awards ($$ + connections), and teacher's recommendations (subject to bias) are all metrics that can be used, but whether they should be used is up for discussion.

Or does TJ as a public high school exist to identify and nurture talented students, even if they have not been able to access superior enrichment at home so far? This would mean looking at kids who have not racked up STEM awards in middle school, who maybe have not had their parents spend tens of thousands of dollars on piano/violin/ukulele lessons.

I think it's the second one, but not everyone agrees.

The issue is that under the current admissions, they're also identifying kids who are privileged and who have accessed the super enrichment, but have not achieved anything despite their advantages.

It's great that kids from less privileged backgrounds are being given a chance at TJ, and I support some level of per school or per pyramid allotment of seats. It's less great that the admissions process lacks the ability to distinguish between the highly gifted elites and the mediocre privileged kids within a high SES school. If you're comparing one Longfellow kid against another Longfellow kid, then math level and STEM accomplishments should be taken into account.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids have dropped out of TJ since TJ became a STEM magnate. Froshmores have been accepted at TJ since TJ became a STEM magnate.

Nothing has changed. Kids who are really interested in TJ and were not admitted this year can apply next year.

I would love to see tweaks to the admission process for TJ. Something that reflects the level of kids at each of the MS. Schools should be able to sort kids who are identified as meeting the TJ criteria in a manner that takes into consideration academic achievement. So a school that has kids in Algebra II who meet the requirements should be accepting those kids first, then Geometry, then Algebra 1. If a MS does not have kids in Algebra II, they start with the kids in Geometry and then Algebra 1.

This would drop the number of kids coming with Algebra 1 and, most likely, limit it to kids who are in schools where kids are starting behind because of homelife and have shown that they are capable of acceleration by making it into Algebra 1. While the kids might not be as far ahead in math, they have shown a level of resilience and determination to make it to Algebra 1, potentially with little support at home.

Schools where the kids have more opportunities will end up sending kids with Algebra II and Geometry.

I appreciate the tone of this message and in a vacuum, it makes a lot of sense. But there are, in reality, a couple of reasons why it doesn't make sense to automatically give preference to students based on their level of math advancement.

1) Most importantly, you don't want to create an incentive for parents to artificially accelerate their students beyond their actual level of capability. I've seen far too many students at TJ over the years who enter at a super-high level and then crash and burn when they get to TJ - or worse yet, who get burned out on math because they've been going at it too hard for too long. And if you message to parents that getting your kid to Alg2 in 8th grade is essentially a free ticket to TJ, you will see a reintroduction of that arms race that has a damaging impact on kids and punishes parents who keep their child at merely a very advanced math level.

2) There is SO MUCH MORE to being a quality TJ student than math advancement. TJ is fundamentally an environment built on research and innovation, which requires creative problem solving and non-linear thinking. An absolutely critical feature of any strong TJ class that will actually have an impact in the STEM ecosystem is diversity of thought, approach, experience, and interest. For this reason, you cannot build a strong TJ class without actively seeking students who have strengths in various different areas both inside and outside of STEM.

TJ is at its worst when you have 500 kids in a class who look more or less the same on paper and who are trying to accomplish the same goals along the same path. That's where the toxicity and hyper-competitiveness comes from - and it's not about being too Asian, it's about having too many kids who are trying to take their cars on the same road when there is plenty of room at the destination and plenty of other roads to get there.

I agree with you, that TJ seems to attract too many kids who are too similar and that is not healthy. But I don't think that the changes in the application process actually addresses those issues. One of the potential positives to TJ dropping in the rankings might be that the families who are so focused on it because of the prestige will stop seeing it as the goal for their kid and it will allow for an application process where more kids who are interested in STEM apply as to a goal that parents are shooting for from kindergarten.

The reality is that the new system has done nothing to stop the acceleration. I know a kid who is going to miss summer camp with friends so he can do Geometry online this summer. Why? He is applying to TJ next year and wants to be in Algebra II when he applies. It doesn't matter if the classes are going to provide a bump or not, what matters is that they are ahead. I don't understand why it matters that much, I don't come from that culture. We are white and our friends think we are a bit crazy because our kid loves math competitions and is excited about taking Algebra in 7th grade. So I guess what we think is acceptable for a kid is relative to our own experiences.

As for TJ being about more then math, you are right, it is. But math is the only subject that allows for any type of real differentiation. All kids applying to THJ have to have Honors or AAP Science so there is not real way to differentiate there. You cannot use Science Fiars and competitions because not all schools have access to those opportunities and you don't want to penalize a kid who is at a school that doesn't have a Science Fair or Science competition club. LA and Social Studies are Honors or AAP and are the same across the schools. So parents accelerate in math because it is available.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids have dropped out of TJ since TJ became a STEM magnate. Froshmores have been accepted at TJ since TJ became a STEM magnate.

Nothing has changed. Kids who are really interested in TJ and were not admitted this year can apply next year.

I would love to see tweaks to the admission process for TJ. Something that reflects the level of kids at each of the MS. Schools should be able to sort kids who are identified as meeting the TJ criteria in a manner that takes into consideration academic achievement. So a school that has kids in Algebra II who meet the requirements should be accepting those kids first, then Geometry, then Algebra 1. If a MS does not have kids in Algebra II, they start with the kids in Geometry and then Algebra 1.

This would drop the number of kids coming with Algebra 1 and, most likely, limit it to kids who are in schools where kids are starting behind because of homelife and have shown that they are capable of acceleration by making it into Algebra 1. While the kids might not be as far ahead in math, they have shown a level of resilience and determination to make it to Algebra 1, potentially with little support at home.

Schools where the kids have more opportunities will end up sending kids with Algebra II and Geometry.

I appreciate the tone of this message and in a vacuum, it makes a lot of sense. But there are, in reality, a couple of reasons why it doesn't make sense to automatically give preference to students based on their level of math advancement.

1) Most importantly, you don't want to create an incentive for parents to artificially accelerate their students beyond their actual level of capability. I've seen far too many students at TJ over the years who enter at a super-high level and then crash and burn when they get to TJ - or worse yet, who get burned out on math because they've been going at it too hard for too long. And if you message to parents that getting your kid to Alg2 in 8th grade is essentially a free ticket to TJ, you will see a reintroduction of that arms race that has a damaging impact on kids and punishes parents who keep their child at merely a very advanced math level.

2) There is SO MUCH MORE to being a quality TJ student than math advancement. TJ is fundamentally an environment built on research and innovation, which requires creative problem solving and non-linear thinking. An absolutely critical feature of any strong TJ class that will actually have an impact in the STEM ecosystem is diversity of thought, approach, experience, and interest. For this reason, you cannot build a strong TJ class without actively seeking students who have strengths in various different areas both inside and outside of STEM.

TJ is at its worst when you have 500 kids in a class who look more or less the same on paper and who are trying to accomplish the same goals along the same path. That's where the toxicity and hyper-competitiveness comes from - and it's not about being too Asian, it's about having too many kids who are trying to take their cars on the same road when there is plenty of room at the destination and plenty of other roads to get there.

I agree with you, that TJ seems to attract too many kids who are too similar and that is not healthy. But I don't think that the changes in the application process actually addresses those issues. One of the potential positives to TJ dropping in the rankings might be that the families who are so focused on it because of the prestige will stop seeing it as the goal for their kid and it will allow for an application process where more kids who are interested in STEM apply as to a goal that parents are shooting for from kindergarten.

The reality is that the new system has done nothing to stop the acceleration. I know a kid who is going to miss summer camp with friends so he can do Geometry online this summer. Why? He is applying to TJ next year and wants to be in Algebra II when he applies. It doesn't matter if the classes are going to provide a bump or not, what matters is that they are ahead. I don't understand why it matters that much, I don't come from that culture. We are white and our friends think we are a bit crazy because our kid loves math competitions and is excited about taking Algebra in 7th grade. So I guess what we think is acceptable for a kid is relative to our own experiences.

As for TJ being about more then math, you are right, it is. But math is the only subject that allows for any type of real differentiation. All kids applying to THJ have to have Honors or AAP Science so there is not real way to differentiate there. You cannot use Science Fiars and competitions because not all schools have access to those opportunities and you don't want to penalize a kid who is at a school that doesn't have a Science Fair or Science competition club. LA and Social Studies are Honors or AAP and are the same across the schools. So parents accelerate in math because it is available.

There are also a lot of smart kids who should not be held back. My DD is finishing pre-calculus now. She usually finish most of her homework at school and didn't have to take summer courses (had her 7 grade in another state). Honestly, math courses are pretty easy in the US compared with those in other countries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids have dropped out of TJ since TJ became a STEM magnate. Froshmores have been accepted at TJ since TJ became a STEM magnate.

Nothing has changed. Kids who are really interested in TJ and were not admitted this year can apply next year.

I would love to see tweaks to the admission process for TJ. Something that reflects the level of kids at each of the MS. Schools should be able to sort kids who are identified as meeting the TJ criteria in a manner that takes into consideration academic achievement. So a school that has kids in Algebra II who meet the requirements should be accepting those kids first, then Geometry, then Algebra 1. If a MS does not have kids in Algebra II, they start with the kids in Geometry and then Algebra 1.

This would drop the number of kids coming with Algebra 1 and, most likely, limit it to kids who are in schools where kids are starting behind because of homelife and have shown that they are capable of acceleration by making it into Algebra 1. While the kids might not be as far ahead in math, they have shown a level of resilience and determination to make it to Algebra 1, potentially with little support at home.

Schools where the kids have more opportunities will end up sending kids with Algebra II and Geometry.

I appreciate the tone of this message and in a vacuum, it makes a lot of sense. But there are, in reality, a couple of reasons why it doesn't make sense to automatically give preference to students based on their level of math advancement.

1) Most importantly, you don't want to create an incentive for parents to artificially accelerate their students beyond their actual level of capability. I've seen far too many students at TJ over the years who enter at a super-high level and then crash and burn when they get to TJ - or worse yet, who get burned out on math because they've been going at it too hard for too long. And if you message to parents that getting your kid to Alg2 in 8th grade is essentially a free ticket to TJ, you will see a reintroduction of that arms race that has a damaging impact on kids and punishes parents who keep their child at merely a very advanced math level.

2) There is SO MUCH MORE to being a quality TJ student than math advancement. TJ is fundamentally an environment built on research and innovation, which requires creative problem solving and non-linear thinking. An absolutely critical feature of any strong TJ class that will actually have an impact in the STEM ecosystem is diversity of thought, approach, experience, and interest. For this reason, you cannot build a strong TJ class without actively seeking students who have strengths in various different areas both inside and outside of STEM.

TJ is at its worst when you have 500 kids in a class who look more or less the same on paper and who are trying to accomplish the same goals along the same path. That's where the toxicity and hyper-competitiveness comes from - and it's not about being too Asian, it's about having too many kids who are trying to take their cars on the same road when there is plenty of room at the destination and plenty of other roads to get there.

I agree with you, that TJ seems to attract too many kids who are too similar and that is not healthy. But I don't think that the changes in the application process actually addresses those issues. One of the potential positives to TJ dropping in the rankings might be that the families who are so focused on it because of the prestige will stop seeing it as the goal for their kid and it will allow for an application process where more kids who are interested in STEM apply as to a goal that parents are shooting for from kindergarten.

The reality is that the new system has done nothing to stop the acceleration. I know a kid who is going to miss summer camp with friends so he can do Geometry online this summer. Why? He is applying to TJ next year and wants to be in Algebra II when he applies. It doesn't matter if the classes are going to provide a bump or not, what matters is that they are ahead. I don't understand why it matters that much, I don't come from that culture. We are white and our friends think we are a bit crazy because our kid loves math competitions and is excited about taking Algebra in 7th grade. So I guess what we think is acceptable for a kid is relative to our own experiences.

As for TJ being about more then math, you are right, it is. But math is the only subject that allows for any type of real differentiation. All kids applying to THJ have to have Honors or AAP Science so there is not real way to differentiate there. You cannot use Science Fiars and competitions because not all schools have access to those opportunities and you don't want to penalize a kid who is at a school that doesn't have a Science Fair or Science competition club. LA and Social Studies are Honors or AAP and are the same across the schools. So parents accelerate in math because it is available.

There are also a lot of smart kids who should not be held back. My DD is finishing pre-calculus now. She usually finish most of her homework at school and didn't have to take summer courses (had her 7 grade in another state). Honestly, math courses are pretty easy in the US compared with those in other countries.

As a PhD in the Humanities who only took math up to Algebra II in high school, I respectfully disagree. Math was very difficult for me. My son has plenty of classmates who struggle in regular math. I know kids in his advanced Math group who are struggling. Just because math is easy for a subset of kids, does not mean that it is easy.

As for math and how it is taught in other countries, I would not want my child to have a similar academic experience to the kids I hear about in most Asian countries. I have no problem with enrichment, if a child wants enrichment, but I don't think the norm should be kids taking hours of additional academic classes and music classes and studying until all hours of the night. I believe that there needs to be a balance between academics and enrichment and down time. I have friends from South Korea, Japan, and Singapore and the school systems and after school enrichment/tutoring sounds like a nightmare.

I am not sure that I love the European system with it's tracking into college prep offerings starting in 5th grade. It adds a level of stress that is unnecessary at too young of an age.

I do think that the US needs to have more votech and trades based opportunities for students starting in MS for kids who are less interested in academics and are looking for different types of future career paths. I think that FCPS is woefully under developed in its votech offerins. I think the academies are too small and too hard to work with. I think that there should be votech schools, like we have TJ for STEM, there should be votech schools that kids can apply to and attend starting in MS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

2) sure, should be more than math. So, why don’t they include other STEM-related info like teachers’ recommendations, STEM awards, outside activities? How ignoring those inputs is any better in selecting a STEM student?

Fundamentally, I think there is a difference of opinion about what TJ is, and I think this comment illustrates that difference.

Does TJ exist to "supercharge" kids who are already being enriched at home? If so, then taking into account a bunch of accomplishments achieved before the age of 13 makes sense. Competition math ($$$), juried music competitions ($$$), STEM awards ($$ + connections), and teacher's recommendations (subject to bias) are all metrics that can be used, but whether they should be used is up for discussion.

Or does TJ as a public high school exist to identify and nurture talented students, even if they have not been able to access superior enrichment at home so far? This would mean looking at kids who have not racked up STEM awards in middle school, who maybe have not had their parents spend tens of thousands of dollars on piano/violin/ukulele lessons.

I think it's the second one, but not everyone agrees.

If you really believed it was the second one, you would be advocating for TJ admissions to be based purely on IQ test results, which are far less coachable ($$$) than the current portrait of a graduate questionz

[Anonymous]

Attempting to teach advanced math to every student and expecting them to get it equally well, is like forcefully teaching intestive basketball and expecting everyone to dribble and shoot like a AAU regional team member.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

2) sure, should be more than math. So, why don’t they include other STEM-related info like teachers’ recommendations, STEM awards, outside activities? How ignoring those inputs is any better in selecting a STEM student?

Fundamentally, I think there is a difference of opinion about what TJ is, and I think this comment illustrates that difference.

Does TJ exist to "supercharge" kids who are already being enriched at home? If so, then taking into account a bunch of accomplishments achieved before the age of 13 makes sense. Competition math ($$$), juried music competitions ($$$), STEM awards ($$ + connections), and teacher's recommendations (subject to bias) are all metrics that can be used, but whether they should be used is up for discussion.

Or does TJ as a public high school exist to identify and nurture talented students, even if they have not been able to access superior enrichment at home so far? This would mean looking at kids who have not racked up STEM awards in middle school, who maybe have not had their parents spend tens of thousands of dollars on piano/violin/ukulele lessons.

I think it's the second one, but not everyone agrees.

I strongly agree with you! Thank you!

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Attempting to teach advanced math to every student and expecting them to get it equally well, is like forcefully teaching intestive basketball and expecting everyone to dribble and shoot like a AAU regional team member.

🏀 🏀

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

2) sure, should be more than math. So, why don’t they include other STEM-related info like teachers’ recommendations, STEM awards, outside activities? How ignoring those inputs is any better in selecting a STEM student?

Fundamentally, I think there is a difference of opinion about what TJ is, and I think this comment illustrates that difference.

Does TJ exist to "supercharge" kids who are already being enriched at home? If so, then taking into account a bunch of accomplishments achieved before the age of 13 makes sense. Competition math ($$$), juried music competitions ($$$), STEM awards ($$ + connections), and teacher's recommendations (subject to bias) are all metrics that can be used, but whether they should be used is up for discussion.

Or does TJ as a public high school exist to identify and nurture talented students, even if they have not been able to access superior enrichment at home so far? This would mean looking at kids who have not racked up STEM awards in middle school, who maybe have not had their parents spend tens of thousands of dollars on piano/violin/ukulele lessons.

I think it's the second one, but not everyone agrees.

Sure, but how throwing away relevant information helps selecting talented from non-talented students

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

2) sure, should be more than math. So, why don’t they include other STEM-related info like teachers’ recommendations, STEM awards, outside activities? How ignoring those inputs is any better in selecting a STEM student?

Fundamentally, I think there is a difference of opinion about what TJ is, and I think this comment illustrates that difference.

Does TJ exist to "supercharge" kids who are already being enriched at home? If so, then taking into account a bunch of accomplishments achieved before the age of 13 makes sense. Competition math ($$$), juried music competitions ($$$), STEM awards ($$ + connections), and teacher's recommendations (subject to bias) are all metrics that can be used, but whether they should be used is up for discussion.

Or does TJ as a public high school exist to identify and nurture talented students, even if they have not been able to access superior enrichment at home so far? This would mean looking at kids who have not racked up STEM awards in middle school, who maybe have not had their parents spend tens of thousands of dollars on piano/violin/ukulele lessons.

I think it's the second one, but not everyone agrees.

I agree 100%.