Official TJ Admissions Decisions Results for the Class of 2025

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So, I guess TJ needs to stop allowing in kids from private school immediately. And maybe home school kids, too. And kids that go to good middle schools in affluent areas with well-funded PTAs since arguably all of these may give a kid an advantage gaining admission to a publicly funded program.

TJ isn’t denying admission because of extracurricular math opportunities. TJ is just not giving those prepping/gifted/self-studying/private school kids an advantage in admissions for learning content faster.

Just admit it - you think there's no such thing as proving oneself well-suited for an opportunity - and if you're wrong, you're ok with creating a built-in disadvantage for those that have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So, I guess TJ needs to stop allowing in kids from private school immediately. And maybe home school kids, too. And kids that go to good middle schools in affluent areas with well-funded PTAs since arguably all of these may give a kid an advantage gaining admission to a publicly funded program.

TJ isn’t denying admission because of extracurricular math opportunities. TJ is just not giving those prepping/gifted/self-studying/private school kids an advantage in admissions for learning content faster.

Just admit it - you think there's no such thing as proving oneself well-suited for an opportunity - and if you're wrong, you're ok with creating a built-in disadvantage for those that have.

It is all about power. Not about principle. Power to do social engineering. Go for it. Unfortunately you will end up hurting the very people you say you are helping.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I guess I'm perhaps bothered by the idea of a public high school as a "reward" and the pressures it imposes on the people (or parents of people) who desire it. We will see whether the new system will result in admitted TJ students "blooming where they are planted" or not. I hope we can all wish them well rather than hoping for bad outcomes. The new policy may improve the STEM offerings of all FCPS schools if the focus isn't on working towards a TJ prize and those same highly motivated parents seek opportunities for their brilliant, motivated children in their local high schools.

Admission to TJ is not a reward. The bottom half of the kids at TJ will get worse college admission offers and scholarships than they would have if they remained at their base school. The bottom half of kids often consider TJ to be "Torture Jail." The main points of TJ are that it offers some very advanced math and STEM classes that aren't available at other schools, and it has some elite academic extracurricular teams. Kids who are not advanced enough or gifted enough won't gain anything from attending TJ. Every FCPS high school offers AP Calc, one year of post-AP calc, AP Bio/Chem/Physics, AP Comp Sci, etc. If a kid is only going to meet the prerequisites to take those courses, there's no point in doing so at TJ. Likewise, TJ has phenomenal STEM competition teams, which will only benefit the kids who are good enough at those competitions to make the team.

Like it or not, the kids from Curie who were admitted to TJ because they also had the attributes that suggested admission in the old holistic process were highly successful TJ students who could take full advantage of the school and would also have been somewhat under-served at the base school. While I wish the class of 2025 well, it's likely that kids selected on just GPA and one essay with extra weight given to FARMS kids, ESOL kids, etc. are being set up to fail. It's also unlikely that they will be equipped to take advantage of any of the special TJ offerings, as they will not meet the pre-requisites.

This. Best and likely most accurate post in this whole thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So, I guess TJ needs to stop allowing in kids from private school immediately. And maybe home school kids, too. And kids that go to good middle schools in affluent areas with well-funded PTAs since arguably all of these may give a kid an advantage gaining admission to a publicly funded program.

TJ isn’t denying admission because of extracurricular math opportunities. TJ is just not giving those prepping/gifted/self-studying/private school kids an advantage in admissions for learning content faster.

Just admit it - you think there's no such thing as proving oneself well-suited for an opportunity - and if you're wrong, you're ok with creating a built-in disadvantage for those that have.

It is all about power. Not about principle. Power to do social engineering. Go for it. Unfortunately you will end up hurting the very people you say you are helping.

Yes, it's all about power. Not about principle. Power to do social engineering. Go for it. Unfortunately you will end up hurting the very people you say you are helping.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I guess I'm perhaps bothered by the idea of a public high school as a "reward" and the pressures it imposes on the people (or parents of people) who desire it. We will see whether the new system will result in admitted TJ students "blooming where they are planted" or not. I hope we can all wish them well rather than hoping for bad outcomes. The new policy may improve the STEM offerings of all FCPS schools if the focus isn't on working towards a TJ prize and those same highly motivated parents seek opportunities for their brilliant, motivated children in their local high schools.

Admission to TJ is not a reward. The bottom half of the kids at TJ will get worse college admission offers and scholarships than they would have if they remained at their base school. The bottom half of kids often consider TJ to be "Torture Jail." The main points of TJ are that it offers some very advanced math and STEM classes that aren't available at other schools, and it has some elite academic extracurricular teams. Kids who are not advanced enough or gifted enough won't gain anything from attending TJ. Every FCPS high school offers AP Calc, one year of post-AP calc, AP Bio/Chem/Physics, AP Comp Sci, etc. If a kid is only going to meet the prerequisites to take those courses, there's no point in doing so at TJ. Likewise, TJ has phenomenal STEM competition teams, which will only benefit the kids who are good enough at those competitions to make the team.

Like it or not, the kids from Curie who were admitted to TJ because they also had the attributes that suggested admission in the old holistic process were highly successful TJ students who could take full advantage of the school and would also have been somewhat under-served at the base school. While I wish the class of 2025 well, it's likely that kids selected on just GPA and one essay with extra weight given to FARMS kids, ESOL kids, etc. are being set up to fail. It's also unlikely that they will be equipped to take advantage of any of the special TJ offerings, as they will not meet the pre-requisites.

This. Best and likely most accurate post in this whole thread.

×10

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I guess I'm perhaps bothered by the idea of a public high school as a "reward" and the pressures it imposes on the people (or parents of people) who desire it. We will see whether the new system will result in admitted TJ students "blooming where they are planted" or not. I hope we can all wish them well rather than hoping for bad outcomes. The new policy may improve the STEM offerings of all FCPS schools if the focus isn't on working towards a TJ prize and those same highly motivated parents seek opportunities for their brilliant, motivated children in their local high schools.

Admission to TJ is not a reward. The bottom half of the kids at TJ will get worse college admission offers and scholarships than they would have if they remained at their base school. The bottom half of kids often consider TJ to be "Torture Jail." The main points of TJ are that it offers some very advanced math and STEM classes that aren't available at other schools, and it has some elite academic extracurricular teams. Kids who are not advanced enough or gifted enough won't gain anything from attending TJ. Every FCPS high school offers AP Calc, one year of post-AP calc, AP Bio/Chem/Physics, AP Comp Sci, etc. If a kid is only going to meet the prerequisites to take those courses, there's no point in doing so at TJ. Likewise, TJ has phenomenal STEM competition teams, which will only benefit the kids who are good enough at those competitions to make the team.

Like it or not, the kids from Curie who were admitted to TJ because they also had the attributes that suggested admission in the old holistic process were highly successful TJ students who could take full advantage of the school and would also have been somewhat under-served at the base school. While I wish the class of 2025 well, it's likely that kids selected on just GPA and one essay with extra weight given to FARMS kids, ESOL kids, etc. are being set up to fail. It's also unlikely that they will be equipped to take advantage of any of the special TJ offerings, as they will not meet the pre-requisites.

This. Best and likely most accurate post in this whole thread.

Have to disagree. The Curie kids would be served fine at their home school or gone on to more enrichment at Curie and been fine. It's the kids who lack access to it but are equally gifted that are better served by the new system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Have to disagree. The Curie kids would be served fine at their home school or gone on to more enrichment at Curie and been fine. It's the kids who lack access to it but are equally gifted that are better served by the new system.

Generally kids who have been successful at TJ needed to be extremely hard workers if they were merely bright. The brilliant kids could get away with not being particularly hard workers. The old system identified the brilliant kids through tests, recommendations, Extracurricular awards, and more extensive essays. It additionally admitted a lot of kids, like the Curie kids, who are bright, very hard workers.

The new system has no mechanism to identify brilliant kids at all. It also can't even identify bright, very hard workers. Every kid who is somewhat bright and somewhat hard working can pull off a near 4.0 and Algebra in 8th. So, the new system isn't even slightly giving access to kids who are "equally gifted" but "lack access." All it's doing is providing effectively a random lottery among above average, reasonably good students. Unless TJ is watered down, many of these kids will flunk out of the school and will in the process sabotage their high school transcripts and GPAs.

I'm not saying that the old system was perfect. But, the highest priority should be identifying the truly brilliant kids who need TJ, and then filling the rest of the spots with bright, hardworking kids who are likely to be successful at TJ (again, like it or not, pretty much all of the Curie kids who get accepted to TJ fit this category). Some sort of test should be a part of it. It doesn't need to be heavily weighted, but it can shed light on the brilliant kids who need TJ. High placement in STEM ECs can also identify brilliant kids. Getting rid of teacher recommendations is ludicrous and really makes the process random. 8th grade teachers absolutely can tell which kids are special and beyond the advanced track. It's especially funny that FCPS 2nd grade teachers are trusted absolutely to select kids for AAP, which greatly impacts their academic trajectories in the formative years, but apparently 8th grade AAP teachers can't be trusted at all to identify the cream of the crop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Have to disagree. The Curie kids would be served fine at their home school or gone on to more enrichment at Curie and been fine. It's the kids who lack access to it but are equally gifted that are better served by the new system.

Generally kids who have been successful at TJ needed to be extremely hard workers if they were merely bright. The brilliant kids could get away with not being particularly hard workers. The old system identified the brilliant kids through tests, recommendations, Extracurricular awards, and more extensive essays. It additionally admitted a lot of kids, like the Curie kids, who are bright, very hard workers.

The new system has no mechanism to identify brilliant kids at all. It also can't even identify bright, very hard workers. Every kid who is somewhat bright and somewhat hard working can pull off a near 4.0 and Algebra in 8th. So, the new system isn't even slightly giving access to kids who are "equally gifted" but "lack access." All it's doing is providing effectively a random lottery among above average, reasonably good students. Unless TJ is watered down, many of these kids will flunk out of the school and will in the process sabotage their high school transcripts and GPAs.

I'm not saying that the old system was perfect. But, the highest priority should be identifying the truly brilliant kids who need TJ, and then filling the rest of the spots with bright, hardworking kids who are likely to be successful at TJ (again, like it or not, pretty much all of the Curie kids who get accepted to TJ fit this category). Some sort of test should be a part of it. It doesn't need to be heavily weighted, but it can shed light on the brilliant kids who need TJ. High placement in STEM ECs can also identify brilliant kids. Getting rid of teacher recommendations is ludicrous and really makes the process random. 8th grade teachers absolutely can tell which kids are special and beyond the advanced track. It's especially funny that FCPS 2nd grade teachers are trusted absolutely to select kids for AAP, which greatly impacts their academic trajectories in the formative years, but apparently 8th grade AAP teachers can't be trusted at all to identify the cream of the crop.

A great summary and analysis. Let's see if it gets challenged for being "unfair"...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I guess I'm perhaps bothered by the idea of a public high school as a "reward" and the pressures it imposes on the people (or parents of people) who desire it. We will see whether the new system will result in admitted TJ students "blooming where they are planted" or not. I hope we can all wish them well rather than hoping for bad outcomes. The new policy may improve the STEM offerings of all FCPS schools if the focus isn't on working towards a TJ prize and those same highly motivated parents seek opportunities for their brilliant, motivated children in their local high schools.

Admission to TJ is not a reward. The bottom half of the kids at TJ will get worse college admission offers and scholarships than they would have if they remained at their base school. The bottom half of kids often consider TJ to be "Torture Jail." The main points of TJ are that it offers some very advanced math and STEM classes that aren't available at other schools, and it has some elite academic extracurricular teams. Kids who are not advanced enough or gifted enough won't gain anything from attending TJ. Every FCPS high school offers AP Calc, one year of post-AP calc, AP Bio/Chem/Physics, AP Comp Sci, etc. If a kid is only going to meet the prerequisites to take those courses, there's no point in doing so at TJ. Likewise, TJ has phenomenal STEM competition teams, which will only benefit the kids who are good enough at those competitions to make the team.

Like it or not, the kids from Curie who were admitted to TJ because they also had the attributes that suggested admission in the old holistic process were highly successful TJ students who could take full advantage of the school and would also have been somewhat under-served at the base school. While I wish the class of 2025 well, it's likely that kids selected on just GPA and one essay with extra weight given to FARMS kids, ESOL kids, etc. are being set up to fail. It's also unlikely that they will be equipped to take advantage of any of the special TJ offerings, as they will not meet the pre-requisites.

This. Best and likely most accurate post in this whole thread.

Have to disagree. The Curie kids would be served fine at their home school or gone on to more enrichment at Curie and been fine. It's the kids who lack access to it but are equally gifted that are better served by the new system.

+1 Except I think the new system needs more discernment to identify the strongest kids who lack access. Maybe it's a test that's only slightly weighted? Maybe it's teacher recommendation? I think some stratification by middle school is a good idea--distributes access more widely and will likely improve the STEM EC offerings at more middle schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
+1 Except I think the new system needs more discernment to identify the strongest kids who lack access. Maybe it's a test that's only slightly weighted? Maybe it's teacher recommendation? I think some stratification by middle school is a good idea--distributes access more widely and will likely improve the STEM EC offerings at more middle schools.

14:32 PP here. I certainly don't disagree with anything you've posted here. Identifying brilliant kids who lack access or even bright, exceptionally hardworking kids who lack access is great. The new system does not do this, as it lacks any meaningful metrics. Taking the top 1.5% from each middle school is fine, but they're not taking the correct 1.5% with the new system. Perhaps the best system would be a hybrid approach of the old and new systems. Re-establish the TJ test, but only use it to identify kids who have amazing scores and kids who have scores that are so low that they indicate that the kid will struggle at TJ. For everyone else, they shouldn't really give the test much weight. They can still look at ECs and teacher recommendations, but all students should be evaluated only in comparison to the other kids from their middle school. Math placement also should be evaluated in comparison to the other kids at the same MS. If it's a school where few kids are taking Algebra in 7th, then 8th grade Algebra is fine. If it's a school where 10%+ take Algebra in 7th and even a decent number are taking Algebra II in 8th, then 8th grade Geometry should be the minimum requirement.

FWIW, I think the Curie kids are a bit of a red herring. For the most part, they're taking the LCPS allocated seats and not really competing with FCPS kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
+1 Except I think the new system needs more discernment to identify the strongest kids who lack access. Maybe it's a test that's only slightly weighted? Maybe it's teacher recommendation? I think some stratification by middle school is a good idea--distributes access more widely and will likely improve the STEM EC offerings at more middle schools.

14:32 PP here. I certainly don't disagree with anything you've posted here. Identifying brilliant kids who lack access or even bright, exceptionally hardworking kids who lack access is great. The new system does not do this, as it lacks any meaningful metrics. Taking the top 1.5% from each middle school is fine, but they're not taking the correct 1.5% with the new system. Perhaps the best system would be a hybrid approach of the old and new systems. Re-establish the TJ test, but only use it to identify kids who have amazing scores and kids who have scores that are so low that they indicate that the kid will struggle at TJ. For everyone else, they shouldn't really give the test much weight. They can still look at ECs and teacher recommendations, but all students should be evaluated only in comparison to the other kids from their middle school. Math placement also should be evaluated in comparison to the other kids at the same MS. If it's a school where few kids are taking Algebra in 7th, then 8th grade Algebra is fine. If it's a school where 10%+ take Algebra in 7th and even a decent number are taking Algebra II in 8th, then 8th grade Geometry should be the minimum requirement.

FWIW, I think the Curie kids are a bit of a red herring. For the most part, they're taking the LCPS allocated seats and not really competing with FCPS kids.

Good recommendations. If the intent is to actually create a fair system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
+1 Except I think the new system needs more discernment to identify the strongest kids who lack access. Maybe it's a test that's only slightly weighted? Maybe it's teacher recommendation? I think some stratification by middle school is a good idea--distributes access more widely and will likely improve the STEM EC offerings at more middle schools.

14:32 PP here. I certainly don't disagree with anything you've posted here. Identifying brilliant kids who lack access or even bright, exceptionally hardworking kids who lack access is great. The new system does not do this, as it lacks any meaningful metrics. Taking the top 1.5% from each middle school is fine, but they're not taking the correct 1.5% with the new system. Perhaps the best system would be a hybrid approach of the old and new systems. Re-establish the TJ test, but only use it to identify kids who have amazing scores and kids who have scores that are so low that they indicate that the kid will struggle at TJ. For everyone else, they shouldn't really give the test much weight. They can still look at ECs and teacher recommendations, but all students should be evaluated only in comparison to the other kids from their middle school. Math placement also should be evaluated in comparison to the other kids at the same MS. If it's a school where few kids are taking Algebra in 7th, then 8th grade Algebra is fine. If it's a school where 10%+ take Algebra in 7th and even a decent number are taking Algebra II in 8th, then 8th grade Geometry should be the minimum requirement.

FWIW, I think the Curie kids are a bit of a red herring. For the most part, they're taking the LCPS allocated seats and not really competing with FCPS kids.

I agree with this. The prior approach was not working; the new approach lacks meaningful discernment. I personally think it will be easier to add meaningful metrics to improve the new system than to have meaningfully tweaked the old system, but who knows really. I think advocates should definitely focus on finding meaningful improvements that increase access and identify strongest students distributed across FCPS (and Arlington/LCPS etc).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
+1 Except I think the new system needs more discernment to identify the strongest kids who lack access. Maybe it's a test that's only slightly weighted? Maybe it's teacher recommendation? I think some stratification by middle school is a good idea--distributes access more widely and will likely improve the STEM EC offerings at more middle schools.

14:32 PP here. I certainly don't disagree with anything you've posted here. Identifying brilliant kids who lack access or even bright, exceptionally hardworking kids who lack access is great. The new system does not do this, as it lacks any meaningful metrics. Taking the top 1.5% from each middle school is fine, but they're not taking the correct 1.5% with the new system. Perhaps the best system would be a hybrid approach of the old and new systems. Re-establish the TJ test, but only use it to identify kids who have amazing scores and kids who have scores that are so low that they indicate that the kid will struggle at TJ. For everyone else, they shouldn't really give the test much weight. They can still look at ECs and teacher recommendations, but all students should be evaluated only in comparison to the other kids from their middle school. Math placement also should be evaluated in comparison to the other kids at the same MS. If it's a school where few kids are taking Algebra in 7th, then 8th grade Algebra is fine. If it's a school where 10%+ take Algebra in 7th and even a decent number are taking Algebra II in 8th, then 8th grade Geometry should be the minimum requirement.

FWIW, I think the Curie kids are a bit of a red herring. For the most part, they're taking the LCPS allocated seats and not really competing with FCPS kids.

I agree with this. The prior approach was not working; the new approach lacks meaningful discernment. I personally think it will be easier to add meaningful metrics to improve the new system than to have meaningfully tweaked the old system, but who knows really. I think advocates should definitely focus on finding meaningful improvements that increase access and identify strongest students distributed across FCPS (and Arlington/LCPS etc).

Ugh. While I agree with the sentiments of the latest posts, I can't let stand the swipe at the "prior approach" which produced the top school in the nation. If there's a better metric, I'm all ears. And the primary criticism is one of "equity" based almost solely on race, with claims of "not fair!" for those who prioritized and actually prepared for entrance exams...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
+1 Except I think the new system needs more discernment to identify the strongest kids who lack access. Maybe it's a test that's only slightly weighted? Maybe it's teacher recommendation? I think some stratification by middle school is a good idea--distributes access more widely and will likely improve the STEM EC offerings at more middle schools.

14:32 PP here. I certainly don't disagree with anything you've posted here. Identifying brilliant kids who lack access or even bright, exceptionally hardworking kids who lack access is great. The new system does not do this, as it lacks any meaningful metrics. Taking the top 1.5% from each middle school is fine, but they're not taking the correct 1.5% with the new system. Perhaps the best system would be a hybrid approach of the old and new systems. Re-establish the TJ test, but only use it to identify kids who have amazing scores and kids who have scores that are so low that they indicate that the kid will struggle at TJ. For everyone else, they shouldn't really give the test much weight. They can still look at ECs and teacher recommendations, but all students should be evaluated only in comparison to the other kids from their middle school. Math placement also should be evaluated in comparison to the other kids at the same MS. If it's a school where few kids are taking Algebra in 7th, then 8th grade Algebra is fine. If it's a school where 10%+ take Algebra in 7th and even a decent number are taking Algebra II in 8th, then 8th grade Geometry should be the minimum requirement.

FWIW, I think the Curie kids are a bit of a red herring. For the most part, they're taking the LCPS allocated seats and not really competing with FCPS kids.

I agree with this. The prior approach was not working; the new approach lacks meaningful discernment. I personally think it will be easier to add meaningful metrics to improve the new system than to have meaningfully tweaked the old system, but who knows really. I think advocates should definitely focus on finding meaningful improvements that increase access and identify strongest students distributed across FCPS (and Arlington/LCPS etc).

Ugh. While I agree with the sentiments of the latest posts, I can't let stand the swipe at the "prior approach" which produced the top school in the nation. If there's a better metric, I'm all ears. And the primary criticism is one of "equity" based almost solely on race, with claims of "not fair!" for those who prioritized and actually prepared for entrance exams...

The top school just means their bulk test scores were high but will be more or less the same with the new system. That much is clear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
+1 Except I think the new system needs more discernment to identify the strongest kids who lack access. Maybe it's a test that's only slightly weighted? Maybe it's teacher recommendation? I think some stratification by middle school is a good idea--distributes access more widely and will likely improve the STEM EC offerings at more middle schools.

14:32 PP here. I certainly don't disagree with anything you've posted here. Identifying brilliant kids who lack access or even bright, exceptionally hardworking kids who lack access is great. The new system does not do this, as it lacks any meaningful metrics. Taking the top 1.5% from each middle school is fine, but they're not taking the correct 1.5% with the new system. Perhaps the best system would be a hybrid approach of the old and new systems. Re-establish the TJ test, but only use it to identify kids who have amazing scores and kids who have scores that are so low that they indicate that the kid will struggle at TJ. For everyone else, they shouldn't really give the test much weight. They can still look at ECs and teacher recommendations, but all students should be evaluated only in comparison to the other kids from their middle school. Math placement also should be evaluated in comparison to the other kids at the same MS. If it's a school where few kids are taking Algebra in 7th, then 8th grade Algebra is fine. If it's a school where 10%+ take Algebra in 7th and even a decent number are taking Algebra II in 8th, then 8th grade Geometry should be the minimum requirement.

FWIW, I think the Curie kids are a bit of a red herring. For the most part, they're taking the LCPS allocated seats and not really competing with FCPS kids.

LCPS has 130 seats?