Reflections on the "TJ Papers"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait, TJ has Math 1 this year? That’s ridiculous! My kid is a senior and I am trying to stay out of all the drama over this.

TJ always has at least one Math 1 class. There are a few more this year. It's really not a big deal in any way.

It is though, down the line. Math 1 kids can’t access the higher level physics and CS classes. Or the higher level math classes. So why are they there again?

...because there are other things to do at TJ at a very high level besides math, physics, and CS? And other things for those students to potentially contribute to the overall school culture and dynamic?

lol

Why lol? It is true you need to be well founded in Mary if you want to pursue the sciences. But not all scientists need or should be super accelerated in math. Getting to calculus senior year does not disqualify you from pursuing a physics PhD if you want. Screening only for math ability in 9th grade is actually a pretty poor way to select students to an elite STEM program.

Maybe that's why the admissions exam also had a scientific reasoning section. It wasn't just math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: Screening only for math ability in 9th grade is actually a pretty poor way to select students to an elite STEM program.

Maybe that's why no one has suggested that TJ do so. Math ability as demonstrated in 9th grade shouldn't and never has counted for everything. It should, however, count for something. Kids who are taking Algebra in 8th may have some other amazing STEM talent to contribute to the school. I would imagine that would be covered in the essays, tests, extracurricular achievements, and teacher recommendations, if they still had a comprehensive application. It's also possible that the kid taking Algebra in 8th is good enough to get As in school, but not particularly talented in any way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Screening only for math ability in 9th grade is actually a pretty poor way to select students to an elite STEM program.

Maybe that's why no one has suggested that TJ do so. Math ability as demonstrated in 9th grade shouldn't and never has counted for everything. It should, however, count for something. Kids who are taking Algebra in 8th may have some other amazing STEM talent to contribute to the school. I would imagine that would be covered in the essays, tests, extracurricular achievements, and teacher recommendations, if they still had a comprehensive application. It's also possible that the kid taking Algebra in 8th is good enough to get As in school, but not particularly talented in any way.

I'm probably the loudest pro-reform person on these boards and I am also of the opinion that the application should be more comprehensive so as to get a better picture of the student's overall contributions to the school. It was a mistake to remove teacher recommendations rather than re-imagining them, and would have been extremely valuable in identifying the right students from each school.

Having a diverse group of students entering the school by definition means that there should be a significant number for whom their math achievement IS their carrying trait. It just doesn't need to be everyone or even many of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Screening only for math ability in 9th grade is actually a pretty poor way to select students to an elite STEM program.

Maybe that's why no one has suggested that TJ do so. Math ability as demonstrated in 9th grade shouldn't and never has counted for everything. It should, however, count for something. Kids who are taking Algebra in 8th may have some other amazing STEM talent to contribute to the school. I would imagine that would be covered in the essays, tests, extracurricular achievements, and teacher recommendations, if they still had a comprehensive application. It's also possible that the kid taking Algebra in 8th is good enough to get As in school, but not particularly talented in any way.

I'm probably the loudest pro-reform person on these boards and I am also of the opinion that the application should be more comprehensive so as to get a better picture of the student's overall contributions to the school. It was a mistake to remove teacher recommendations rather than re-imagining them, and would have been extremely valuable in identifying the right students from each school.

Having a diverse group of students entering the school by definition means that there should be a significant number for whom their math achievement IS their carrying trait. It just doesn't need to be everyone or even many of them.

I'm probably the 2nd loudest pro-reform and agree with this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Screening only for math ability in 9th grade is actually a pretty poor way to select students to an elite STEM program.

Maybe that's why no one has suggested that TJ do so. Math ability as demonstrated in 9th grade shouldn't and never has counted for everything. It should, however, count for something. Kids who are taking Algebra in 8th may have some other amazing STEM talent to contribute to the school. I would imagine that would be covered in the essays, tests, extracurricular achievements, and teacher recommendations, if they still had a comprehensive application. It's also possible that the kid taking Algebra in 8th is good enough to get As in school, but not particularly talented in any way.

I'm probably the loudest pro-reform person on these boards and I am also of the opinion that the application should be more comprehensive so as to get a better picture of the student's overall contributions to the school. It was a mistake to remove teacher recommendations rather than re-imagining them, and would have been extremely valuable in identifying the right students from each school.

Having a diverse group of students entering the school by definition means that there should be a significant number for whom their math achievement IS their carrying trait. It just doesn't need to be everyone or even many of them.

I'm probably the 2nd loudest pro-reform and agree with this.

So what are you proposing? Drawing Tippy the Turtle? Spelling Bee? Feats of Strength?

[Anonymous]

Getting rid of the teacher recommendations was a big mistake. My kid still got in, but I hope they bring back the recommendations in the future. A teacher who knows the student can provide a lot more insight than just grades, particularly when with grade inflation there are tons of kids applying with straight As. Even the colleges that have decided not to consider SAT/ACT (such as the UC schools) continue to require teacher recommendations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of the teacher recommendations was a big mistake. My kid still got in, but I hope they bring back the recommendations in the future. A teacher who knows the student can provide a lot more insight than just grades, particularly when with grade inflation there are tons of kids applying with straight As. Even the colleges that have decided not to consider SAT/ACT (such as the UC schools) continue to require teacher recommendations.

Pro-reform and completely agree. They need to be re-engineered and evaluators need to be trained to detect bias within a group of recommendations, but eliminating them takes away the single best way to get a sense of how a student contributes to the overall academic environment outside of their grades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Screening only for math ability in 9th grade is actually a pretty poor way to select students to an elite STEM program.

Maybe that's why no one has suggested that TJ do so. Math ability as demonstrated in 9th grade shouldn't and never has counted for everything. It should, however, count for something. Kids who are taking Algebra in 8th may have some other amazing STEM talent to contribute to the school. I would imagine that would be covered in the essays, tests, extracurricular achievements, and teacher recommendations, if they still had a comprehensive application. It's also possible that the kid taking Algebra in 8th is good enough to get As in school, but not particularly talented in any way.

Then why are we having this argument about removing a test that focused on advanced math techniques and discussing the number of students who need “remedial” math? It is totally fine to let in students who demonstrate STEM ability but not acceleration in math. Even desirable. Of course students who are math geniuses should also be admitted. But I am not sure math acceleration is the way to identify that talent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow lots to read but thank you for the summary. Early identification of URM students and early mentoring can help achieve equity without discrimination against another group.

Perhaps, but simply ensuring that smart kids from all schools get a fair chance just not wealthy areas who can afford CUire seems like a better option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow lots to read but thank you for the summary. Early identification of URM students and early mentoring can help achieve equity without discrimination against another group.

Perhaps, but simply ensuring that smart kids from all schools get a fair chance just not wealthy areas who can afford CUire seems like a better option.

Meh. The number of applications to TJ declined for the Class of 2026 compared to the Class of 2025. Fewer kids want to apply to a school that is embroiled in constant controversy and bickering among adults. RIP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Then why are we having this argument about removing a test that focused on advanced math techniques and discussing the number of students who need “remedial” math? It is totally fine to let in students who demonstrate STEM ability but not acceleration in math. Even desirable. Of course students who are math geniuses should also be admitted. But I am not sure math acceleration is the way to identify that talent.

The problem now is that the math geniuses are not being identified and admitted. The current admissions process is so sparse that all above average kids look more or less the same. Removing the Quant test is just another way that the math geniuses were not identified. The number of students who need "remedial" math would be fine if those kids demonstrated high level STEM ability in other areas. They did not do so. There was nothing in the application to allow them to do so.

Again, no one has suggested looking at math acceleration as the only factor in identifying extreme math talent. Math acceleration + grades in these higher level math classes + teacher recommendations + math awards/achievements in math extracurriculars is what you'd use to identify extreme math talent. I'd be very suspicious of a kid who was highly accelerated and got As, but had no notable math achievements and a meh teacher recommendation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow lots to read but thank you for the summary. Early identification of URM students and early mentoring can help achieve equity without discrimination against another group.

Perhaps, but simply ensuring that smart kids from all schools get a fair chance just not wealthy areas who can afford CUire seems like a better option.

Meh. The number of applications to TJ declined for the Class of 2026 compared to the Class of 2025. Fewer kids want to apply to a school that is embroiled in constant controversy and bickering among adults. RIP.

Not by much. The number was still WAY the hell higher than it was before the changes. Nearly 3K as opposed to 2500 for 2024.

(Over 2900 applied for 2026, 2540 have been evaluated as meeting the minimum standard for evaluation. Likely the other 400 faltered with their grades in the first quarter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Then why are we having this argument about removing a test that focused on advanced math techniques and discussing the number of students who need “remedial” math? It is totally fine to let in students who demonstrate STEM ability but not acceleration in math. Even desirable. Of course students who are math geniuses should also be admitted. But I am not sure math acceleration is the way to identify that talent.

The problem now is that the math geniuses are not being identified and admitted. The current admissions process is so sparse that all above average kids look more or less the same. Removing the Quant test is just another way that the math geniuses were not identified. The number of students who need "remedial" math would be fine if those kids demonstrated high level STEM ability in other areas. They did not do so. There was nothing in the application to allow them to do so.

Again, no one has suggested looking at math acceleration as the only factor in identifying extreme math talent. Math acceleration + grades in these higher level math classes + teacher recommendations + math awards/achievements in math extracurriculars is what you'd use to identify extreme math talent. I'd be very suspicious of a kid who was highly accelerated and got As, but had no notable math achievements and a meh teacher recommendation.

Previous poster doesn’t understand the point of the Quant-Q or why the prep programs basically made it a pointless exam.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Then why are we having this argument about removing a test that focused on advanced math techniques and discussing the number of students who need “remedial” math? It is totally fine to let in students who demonstrate STEM ability but not acceleration in math. Even desirable. Of course students who are math geniuses should also be admitted. But I am not sure math acceleration is the way to identify that talent.

The problem now is that the math geniuses are not being identified and admitted. The current admissions process is so sparse that all above average kids look more or less the same. Removing the Quant test is just another way that the math geniuses were not identified. The number of students who need "remedial" math would be fine if those kids demonstrated high level STEM ability in other areas. They did not do so. There was nothing in the application to allow them to do so.

Again, no one has suggested looking at math acceleration as the only factor in identifying extreme math talent. Math acceleration + grades in these higher level math classes + teacher recommendations + math awards/achievements in math extracurriculars is what you'd use to identify extreme math talent. I'd be very suspicious of a kid who was highly accelerated and got As, but had no notable math achievements and a meh teacher recommendation.

Previous poster doesn’t understand the point of the Quant-Q or why the prep programs basically made it a pointless exam.

My DC is in the class of 2022. DC didn’t do one second of preparation and I certainly did not pay for a prep class. Plus sometime I feel that the prep class angle is over played. Those showing a desire to put in extra work in whatever it is (sports trainers, tutors, outside classes/camps in a particular subject, street play, etc) should count for something. When it comes to education we should be intervening in the early years not creating policy to adjust for our inability to create a more diverse student body from early on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Then why are we having this argument about removing a test that focused on advanced math techniques and discussing the number of students who need “remedial” math? It is totally fine to let in students who demonstrate STEM ability but not acceleration in math. Even desirable. Of course students who are math geniuses should also be admitted. But I am not sure math acceleration is the way to identify that talent.

The problem now is that the math geniuses are not being identified and admitted. The current admissions process is so sparse that all above average kids look more or less the same. Removing the Quant test is just another way that the math geniuses were not identified. The number of students who need "remedial" math would be fine if those kids demonstrated high level STEM ability in other areas. They did not do so. There was nothing in the application to allow them to do so.

Again, no one has suggested looking at math acceleration as the only factor in identifying extreme math talent. Math acceleration + grades in these higher level math classes + teacher recommendations + math awards/achievements in math extracurriculars is what you'd use to identify extreme math talent. I'd be very suspicious of a kid who was highly accelerated and got As, but had no notable math achievements and a meh teacher recommendation.

Previous poster doesn’t understand the point of the Quant-Q or why the prep programs basically made it a pointless exam.

My DC is in the class of 2022. DC didn’t do one second of preparation and I certainly did not pay for a prep class. Plus sometime I feel that the prep class angle is over played. Those showing a desire to put in extra work in whatever it is (sports trainers, tutors, outside classes/camps in a particular subject, street play, etc) should count for something. When it comes to education we should be intervening in the early years not creating policy to adjust for our inability to create a more diverse student body from early on.

While I appreciate your point, you should know that your DC (congrats, by the way) benefited from being in the class at TJ that was the least influenced by prep. Your child applied during the first year of the most recent set of new exams, which the prep companies were not ready for yet. Had you done the same thing in future years, your child would have been competing against a much more sophisticated and prepared TJ prep complex. Those programs taught TJ applicants in the class of 2023 and 2024 how to solve the problems on the Quant-Q exam based on information they got from their clients in the class of 2022.