TJ Falls to 14th in the Nation Per US News

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TJ applicants all deserve a chance to grow and foster their love of STEM. Even if they weren’t lucky enough to be born into a wealthy family.

TJ exists for learning and enrichment; it’s not just a prize for lucky kids.

If a program is for the most academically gifted students then you should probably be selecting the most academically gifted students without regard to how they became academically gifted.
If you want to level the playing field so that poor kids are as likely to become academically gifted as wealthier kids, what's your plan?
But you are trying to treat all kids as if they are equally academically gifted and treat TJ admissions like a bingo prize.

If you want more poor kids then make the admissions based purely on a test.
NYC does this with its flagship magnet schools and the majority of the students at those schools are on free or reduced lunch.
Holistic admissions and subjective criteria favors kids with resources.

TJ is for qualified students who have an interest in STEM.

It's not supposed to be.

TJ is a governor's school.

"The Virginia Governor's School Program has been designed to assist divisions as they meet the needs of a small population of students whose learning levels are remarkably different from their age-level peers. The foundation of the Virginia Governor's School Program centers on best practices in the field of gifted education and the presentation of advanced content to able learners." https://www.doe.virginia.gov/teaching-learnin...n/governor-s-schools

The pool of qualified students includes about 40% of FCPS
That is how many students in FCPS have 8th grade algebra and at least a 3.5 GPA.
That includes a lot of mediocre students.

Mediocre according to who? Their teachers who are giving them A's don't seem to think so...

Medicare is relative here. I am comparing these students compared to students selected under the previous method. Using that standard, these students are mediocre according to:

PSAT scores
SOL advance pass rates
The TJ math department email to students
The return to base school rates
A metric crap ton of anecdotal evidence.

40% of FCPS 8th graders have a 3.5 GPA of higher. That's not really what I would call selective.

If there are that many qualified students then TJ needs to expand even further!

They're not qualified.
Not for TJ.

You can create another school for the mediocre kids you want to give participation trophies to but humanity needs to develop the smart kids so the mediocre kids can pretend they solved global warming by blocking traffic and throwing tomato soup on the Mona Lisa

I get that you hate the reforms but you really need to stop lying. Sure, the kids getting in now may not have had years of expensive prep but seem to have much greater potential than the third rate preppers that were being admitted in the past.

And yet, the current crop of students need remedial classes, get PSAT scores 100 points lower than before, get lower gpa, just less qualified along every academic metric.

The previous crop of students also had issues. Nothing has really chagned.

You mean aside from the 100 point drop in PSAT
Much lower rates of pass advance SOL.
Fewer Math Olympiad winners
Fewer academic contest winners.
Way more remedial students.
Much higher wash out rates.
A lot has changed, especially at the bottom end of the curve.

The silver lining is that the kids that actually belong there are less stressed because the unqualified kids fill up the bottom half of the curve but they came to TJ for MORE competition, not less.

I know it's sad that the learning loss from virtual school during the pandemic impacted test scores. I'd read that it will be years before we fully recover.

We recovered like 2 years ago. This is publicly available information
https://www.doe.virginia.gov/data-policy-funding/data-reports/statistics-reports/sol-test-pass-rates-other-results
In 2022 when the advance pass rates for almost every other school in FCPS was rising back to previous levels. The SOL advance pass rates at TJ were plummeting.

The PSAT scores barely budged in 2022 except at TJ where they dropped 100 points.
We will not have SAT score information for the new cohort for a while but it should be noted that SAT scores weren't adversely affected by COVID.

It's really crazy because overall scores are still way down after the pandemic but because of test optional reported scores appear higher despite the huge overall drop. People with low scores just don't report which messes with overall stats these days.

So why did test scores everywhere else go up bot go down at TJ and pretty much only TJ?

#fakenews

You damage the credibility of everyone on your side by denying citable facts.
Once again, here is the link to the Virginia DOE SOL results.

https://www.doe.virginia.gov/data-policy-funding/data-reports/statistics-reports/sol-test-pass-rates-other-results

NP. I did some spot checking of TJ pass and pass advanced SOL rates in 2016/2017/2018 and 2021/2022/2023 between TJ and a couple other high schools and the post-pandemic scores are down at all high schools. I didn't see that TJ SOL test scores were worse than other high schools (they are still much higher than at other schools). At all schools, SOL pass advanced rates are down from 2019. SOL scores haven't recovered anywhere in the state, including at TJ. All those people saying that there was no learning loss, or that students have recovered, aren't looking.

That is so intellectually dishonest, it borders on just plain dishonest.
NOONE is saying that TJ's SOLs in 2022 were as high as or higher than they were in 2019.
NOONE is saying that TJ's SOL advance pass rates dropped below base school advance pass rates.

I said that TJ's SOL advance pass rates dropped between 2021 and 2022, the students admitted under the new system were scoring lower on the SOLs than students admitted under the old system.
Then someone asked if this might be a delayed effect of school closures during covid.
So then I compared SOL advance pass rates between 2021 and 2022 at OTHER FCPS schools and did not see the sort of across the board drops we saw at TJ. If this was covid realted, you would expect to see similar profiles at other schools
But, in fact most schools saw improvements between 2021 and 2022.
The schools that saw the most improvements were the schools that used to send a lot of kids to TJ under the old system but send fewer kids under the new system, so they got to keep more of their better students.
The schools that saw the least improvement were the schools that used to send few or no kids to TJ and now send 7-10 of their better students at schools with advance pass rates in the single dfigits, this can make a difference.

We are getting close to the point where if you still think that the students admitted under the new system are as competitive as the students admitted under the old system, you are either lying or stupid.
We will see what the SAT's look like for the current senior class. I suspect that will be the nail in the coffin.

Here is some longer term data, including the time period of 2021 and 2022. Other than learning loss, I can't really draw firm conclusions from it re the admissions changes. You think I'm being dishonest - I think the data doesn't show what you are saying it does. It is sobering to look at this data and some other area high schools and see the continuing effects of the pandemic.

Pass Advanced rates for 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023
Yorktown AlgI: 1 2 7 3 3 7
Algebra II: 30 31 18 12 19 14
Geometry: 17 18 22 3 13 25
Chemistry: 19 22 25 0 25 12

TJ Alg I: 71 76 58 70 29 56
Algebra II: 89 94 94 63 53 58
Geometry: 67 83 63 73 42 41
Chemistry: 87 91 94 52

Langley Alg I:5 6 1 0 3 2
Algebra II: 48 59 39 9 45 55
Geometry: 31 29 34 6 24 21
Chemistry: 39 42 41 8 16 7

Marshall Alg I: 7 4 7 1 5 3
Algebra II: 39 38 23 7 34 24
Geometry: 22 23 18 5 6 14
Chemistry: 34 42 38 5 13 9

Lake Brad Alg I: 26 29 38 15 25 25
Algebra II: 33 33 28 31 15 35
Geometry: 35 34 34 19 23 24
Chemistry: 32 35 35 11 11 6

It's no surprise the pandemic impacts TJ just like other schools.

If you can't isolate out that every other school seems to be recovering while TJ is getting worse, then I think you are probably being deliberately ignorant or just incapable of understanding the argument.

Speaking of being deliberately ignorant the data states otherwise. Stop with the gaslighting already and accept that TJ was impacted like other schools and like experts have stated it will take a decade or more to recover.

I don't know who you think you are fooling. If you can't look at the testing data published by the virginia department of education and suss out that everybody else was recovering from covid between 2021 and 2022 while TJ was deteriorating then either you are stupid or you think the rest of the world is.

14:00 here again, who posted SOL data. There are two data points that you are pointing to, the difference between 2021 and 2022 in Algebra I and Geometry, that you are using to show that TJ is declining. You are excluding the difference between 2022 and 2023 for Algebra I, Algebra II, and Geometry, that shows flat or increasing rates of Pass Advanced, as well as some pre-pandemic drops in Pass Advanced scores at TJ, such as Algebra I and Geometry.

Of course the numbers are flat or increasing between 2022 and 2023. Both those classes were admitted under the new system and there is going to be some reversion to pre-pandemic performance.
Once again, if you think I am cherrypicking. Please feel free to post an exhaustive comparison but I cannot find a single school that had across the board drops in advance SOL between 2021 and 2022 like TJ did.

There is data but it is not clear and does not show that the post-admissions change cohort is substandard and getting worse. All that the data shows is learning loss post-pandemic. Some schools seem to have recovered - especially the schools such as Yorktown that had less to go.

Who said the admits are getting worse. The admits under the new system are not getting worse every year. They are admitted under the new system so they are on average inferior to the students selected under the old system but not inferior with respect top each other.
The ONLY school that had across the board losses between 2021 and 2022 (when the new admissions system was implemented) was TJ.
Almost every other school showed recovery between 2021 and 2022.

By and large the new kids seem better and TJ is far less toxic too!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’d be more helpful to include the two years prior and the two years following. And add a few more schools that are more representative of FCPS.

Just comparing two data points for affluent schools isn’t incredibly meaningful.

DP.

The link to all the data is above but here it is again.
https://www.doe.virginia.gov/data-policy-funding/data-reports/statistics-reports/sol-test-pass-rates-other-results
There is nothing for the 2019/2020 school year, SOLs were cancelled that year because of COVID

If you think I'm cherry-picking data, you can look at the data yourself, I picked to two largest feeder pyramids that were likely to see the effects of students that were left behind under the new system.

“Students left behind”

JFC. No one is entitled to a seat at TJ. It’s a community resource; it’s not just for wealthy kids from Langley/McLean.

It is a community resource meant for the most academically gifted kids that need that rigor to get an education that meets their needs.
Whether they are all from carson or all from twain.
If you have a problem with the academic results of students at twain, you should address that problem at twain or the elementary schools that feed into it.

Frankly if you get rid of holistic admissions and relied entirely on the test, you would get fewer kids from carson and more kids from and more kids from places like twain.
The percentage of kids that get into the pool that go on to get offers is higher at wealthier schools and lower at less wealthy schools.
In a recent year twain had 20 kids get into the pool based on test scores and other objective metrics and ZERO get offers because none of them had the compelling essays describing the fantastic life experiences their parents purchased for them. They just studied and played outside with their friends.

“The most” defined by whom and by what measure?

Certainly none of the previous admissions tests which were skewed by the TJ test prep industry.

A merit lottery is the best option for a community resource like TJ.

We could use the same method used by most countries in determining who gets to go to which college.
A test.
Most of asia uses a single test.
Much of europe uses a single test.
The best schools in most of these countries are almost all public schools and spots at those schools are determined by a single test.
That is because it is the fairest way to determine who would should attend the most rigorous schools.
What you call gaming and test prep, the rest of the world calls studying.

No, it is not the fairest way to determine who should (or would should, in your words) attend the most rigorous schools.

Yes, it is true that exams, on some level, are a snapshot of one's command of content. That is the best thing going for them, and even that is a flawed metric because it is just that - a snapshot. It shows no growth, it shows no trend, and it shows no grit or determination.

Whether you all want to admit it, test taking is a skill that can be taught and developed and has tremendous relevance on standardized exams. And it literally has only one value - getting people into elite schools. Test taking ability contributes nothing at all to society and has no other impact whatsoever in a student's life.

Overselecting for test taking ability is just silly, but it's exactly what happens when an admissions exam is used as a gatekeeper. There is no real-world problem that is solved, or even helped, by test-taking ability, and so for us to emphasize it in selection processes is the height of foolishness.

If that were all true then test scores wouldn't be the single best predictor of college performance.

If using test scores as a selection tool were the height of foolishness then why do so many countries use a single test to determine college admissions?

But I am open to the idea of using exactly the method you propose as long as there is a test involved so we can measure actual performance against tested ability.

Time and time again we have seen that tested ability is a far superior measuring tool than subjective judgements about "grit and determination"

Although I've heard this claim about test scores many times, colleges rely more on GPA so have to wonder about its accuracy.

Why wonder when we have peer reviewed studies?

https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/SAT_ACT_on_Grades.pdf

And yet colleges rely more heavily on GPA which factors rigor than on test scores.

That's because colleges are trying to balance classes, not because GPA is a better predictor of success, since it isn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’d be more helpful to include the two years prior and the two years following. And add a few more schools that are more representative of FCPS.

Just comparing two data points for affluent schools isn’t incredibly meaningful.

DP.

The link to all the data is above but here it is again.
https://www.doe.virginia.gov/data-policy-funding/data-reports/statistics-reports/sol-test-pass-rates-other-results
There is nothing for the 2019/2020 school year, SOLs were cancelled that year because of COVID

If you think I'm cherry-picking data, you can look at the data yourself, I picked to two largest feeder pyramids that were likely to see the effects of students that were left behind under the new system.

“Students left behind”

JFC. No one is entitled to a seat at TJ. It’s a community resource; it’s not just for wealthy kids from Langley/McLean.

It is a community resource meant for the most academically gifted kids that need that rigor to get an education that meets their needs.
Whether they are all from carson or all from twain.
If you have a problem with the academic results of students at twain, you should address that problem at twain or the elementary schools that feed into it.

Frankly if you get rid of holistic admissions and relied entirely on the test, you would get fewer kids from carson and more kids from and more kids from places like twain.
The percentage of kids that get into the pool that go on to get offers is higher at wealthier schools and lower at less wealthy schools.
In a recent year twain had 20 kids get into the pool based on test scores and other objective metrics and ZERO get offers because none of them had the compelling essays describing the fantastic life experiences their parents purchased for them. They just studied and played outside with their friends.

“The most” defined by whom and by what measure?

Certainly none of the previous admissions tests which were skewed by the TJ test prep industry.

A merit lottery is the best option for a community resource like TJ.

We could use the same method used by most countries in determining who gets to go to which college.
A test.
Most of asia uses a single test.
Much of europe uses a single test.
The best schools in most of these countries are almost all public schools and spots at those schools are determined by a single test.
That is because it is the fairest way to determine who would should attend the most rigorous schools.
What you call gaming and test prep, the rest of the world calls studying.

No, it is not the fairest way to determine who should (or would should, in your words) attend the most rigorous schools.

Yes, it is true that exams, on some level, are a snapshot of one's command of content. That is the best thing going for them, and even that is a flawed metric because it is just that - a snapshot. It shows no growth, it shows no trend, and it shows no grit or determination.

Whether you all want to admit it, test taking is a skill that can be taught and developed and has tremendous relevance on standardized exams. And it literally has only one value - getting people into elite schools. Test taking ability contributes nothing at all to society and has no other impact whatsoever in a student's life.

Overselecting for test taking ability is just silly, but it's exactly what happens when an admissions exam is used as a gatekeeper. There is no real-world problem that is solved, or even helped, by test-taking ability, and so for us to emphasize it in selection processes is the height of foolishness.

New poster. You misunderstand the point completely. The point you are responding to is that tests are the "fairest" way to determine who gets to attend the most rigorous schools -- the very schools that are trying to select the most capable so that material can be taught at a more advanced level. You go on to point out possible flaws with tests, but so what? You're attacking a strawman. No method is perfect; no one claims tests are perfect. You do nothing to suggest that any other metric is "fairer" than tests, with their flaws and all. And if you had a shred of objectivity, I think you would be forced to concede that trying to measure "growth," a "trend," or a kid's "grit or determination" is about as subjective as can be and therefore ripe for the abuse of racial or class balancing or whatever the day's whims are. Tell me all how about how Asians are lacking in "leadership qualities."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’d be more helpful to include the two years prior and the two years following. And add a few more schools that are more representative of FCPS.

Just comparing two data points for affluent schools isn’t incredibly meaningful.

DP.

The link to all the data is above but here it is again.
https://www.doe.virginia.gov/data-policy-funding/data-reports/statistics-reports/sol-test-pass-rates-other-results
There is nothing for the 2019/2020 school year, SOLs were cancelled that year because of COVID

If you think I'm cherry-picking data, you can look at the data yourself, I picked to two largest feeder pyramids that were likely to see the effects of students that were left behind under the new system.

“Students left behind”

JFC. No one is entitled to a seat at TJ. It’s a community resource; it’s not just for wealthy kids from Langley/McLean.

It is a community resource meant for the most academically gifted kids that need that rigor to get an education that meets their needs.
Whether they are all from carson or all from twain.
If you have a problem with the academic results of students at twain, you should address that problem at twain or the elementary schools that feed into it.

Frankly if you get rid of holistic admissions and relied entirely on the test, you would get fewer kids from carson and more kids from and more kids from places like twain.
The percentage of kids that get into the pool that go on to get offers is higher at wealthier schools and lower at less wealthy schools.
In a recent year twain had 20 kids get into the pool based on test scores and other objective metrics and ZERO get offers because none of them had the compelling essays describing the fantastic life experiences their parents purchased for them. They just studied and played outside with their friends.

“The most” defined by whom and by what measure?

Certainly none of the previous admissions tests which were skewed by the TJ test prep industry.

A merit lottery is the best option for a community resource like TJ.

We could use the same method used by most countries in determining who gets to go to which college.
A test.
Most of asia uses a single test.
Much of europe uses a single test.
The best schools in most of these countries are almost all public schools and spots at those schools are determined by a single test.
That is because it is the fairest way to determine who would should attend the most rigorous schools.
What you call gaming and test prep, the rest of the world calls studying.

No, it is not the fairest way to determine who should (or would should, in your words) attend the most rigorous schools.

Yes, it is true that exams, on some level, are a snapshot of one's command of content. That is the best thing going for them, and even that is a flawed metric because it is just that - a snapshot. It shows no growth, it shows no trend, and it shows no grit or determination.

Whether you all want to admit it, test taking is a skill that can be taught and developed and has tremendous relevance on standardized exams. And it literally has only one value - getting people into elite schools. Test taking ability contributes nothing at all to society and has no other impact whatsoever in a student's life.

Overselecting for test taking ability is just silly, but it's exactly what happens when an admissions exam is used as a gatekeeper. There is no real-world problem that is solved, or even helped, by test-taking ability, and so for us to emphasize it in selection processes is the height of foolishness.

If that were all true then test scores wouldn't be the single best predictor of college performance.

If using test scores as a selection tool were the height of foolishness then why do so many countries use a single test to determine college admissions?

But I am open to the idea of using exactly the method you propose as long as there is a test involved so we can measure actual performance against tested ability.

Time and time again we have seen that tested ability is a far superior measuring tool than subjective judgements about "grit and determination"

Although I've heard this claim about test scores many times, colleges rely more on GPA so have to wonder about its accuracy.

Why wonder when we have peer reviewed studies?

https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/SAT_ACT_on_Grades.pdf

And yet colleges rely more heavily on GPA which factors rigor than on test scores.

That's because colleges are trying to balance classes, not because GPA is a better predictor of success, since it isn't.

Not sure that's true. If tests were a better predictor, colleges would prioritize tests but they don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’d be more helpful to include the two years prior and the two years following. And add a few more schools that are more representative of FCPS.

Just comparing two data points for affluent schools isn’t incredibly meaningful.

DP.

The link to all the data is above but here it is again.
https://www.doe.virginia.gov/data-policy-funding/data-reports/statistics-reports/sol-test-pass-rates-other-results
There is nothing for the 2019/2020 school year, SOLs were cancelled that year because of COVID

If you think I'm cherry-picking data, you can look at the data yourself, I picked to two largest feeder pyramids that were likely to see the effects of students that were left behind under the new system.

“Students left behind”

JFC. No one is entitled to a seat at TJ. It’s a community resource; it’s not just for wealthy kids from Langley/McLean.

It is a community resource meant for the most academically gifted kids that need that rigor to get an education that meets their needs.
Whether they are all from carson or all from twain.
If you have a problem with the academic results of students at twain, you should address that problem at twain or the elementary schools that feed into it.

Frankly if you get rid of holistic admissions and relied entirely on the test, you would get fewer kids from carson and more kids from and more kids from places like twain.
The percentage of kids that get into the pool that go on to get offers is higher at wealthier schools and lower at less wealthy schools.
In a recent year twain had 20 kids get into the pool based on test scores and other objective metrics and ZERO get offers because none of them had the compelling essays describing the fantastic life experiences their parents purchased for them. They just studied and played outside with their friends.

“The most” defined by whom and by what measure?

Certainly none of the previous admissions tests which were skewed by the TJ test prep industry.

A merit lottery is the best option for a community resource like TJ.

We could use the same method used by most countries in determining who gets to go to which college.
A test.
Most of asia uses a single test.
Much of europe uses a single test.
The best schools in most of these countries are almost all public schools and spots at those schools are determined by a single test.
That is because it is the fairest way to determine who would should attend the most rigorous schools.
What you call gaming and test prep, the rest of the world calls studying.

No, it is not the fairest way to determine who should (or would should, in your words) attend the most rigorous schools.

Yes, it is true that exams, on some level, are a snapshot of one's command of content. That is the best thing going for them, and even that is a flawed metric because it is just that - a snapshot. It shows no growth, it shows no trend, and it shows no grit or determination.

Whether you all want to admit it, test taking is a skill that can be taught and developed and has tremendous relevance on standardized exams. And it literally has only one value - getting people into elite schools. Test taking ability contributes nothing at all to society and has no other impact whatsoever in a student's life.

Overselecting for test taking ability is just silly, but it's exactly what happens when an admissions exam is used as a gatekeeper. There is no real-world problem that is solved, or even helped, by test-taking ability, and so for us to emphasize it in selection processes is the height of foolishness.

New poster. You misunderstand the point completely. The point you are responding to is that tests are the "fairest" way to determine who gets to attend the most rigorous schools -- the very schools that are trying to select the most capable so that material can be taught at a more advanced level. You go on to point out possible flaws with tests, but so what? You're attacking a strawman. No method is perfect; no one claims tests are perfect. You do nothing to suggest that any other metric is "fairer" than tests, with their flaws and all. And if you had a shred of objectivity, I think you would be forced to concede that trying to measure "growth," a "trend," or a kid's "grit or determination" is about as subjective as can be and therefore ripe for the abuse of racial or class balancing or whatever the day's whims are. Tell me all how about how Asians are lacking in "leadership qualities."

And in this particular instance people were buying the test answers which made the test especially useless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’d be more helpful to include the two years prior and the two years following. And add a few more schools that are more representative of FCPS.

Just comparing two data points for affluent schools isn’t incredibly meaningful.

DP.

The link to all the data is above but here it is again.
https://www.doe.virginia.gov/data-policy-funding/data-reports/statistics-reports/sol-test-pass-rates-other-results
There is nothing for the 2019/2020 school year, SOLs were cancelled that year because of COVID

If you think I'm cherry-picking data, you can look at the data yourself, I picked to two largest feeder pyramids that were likely to see the effects of students that were left behind under the new system.

“Students left behind”

JFC. No one is entitled to a seat at TJ. It’s a community resource; it’s not just for wealthy kids from Langley/McLean.

It is a community resource meant for the most academically gifted kids that need that rigor to get an education that meets their needs.
Whether they are all from carson or all from twain.
If you have a problem with the academic results of students at twain, you should address that problem at twain or the elementary schools that feed into it.

Frankly if you get rid of holistic admissions and relied entirely on the test, you would get fewer kids from carson and more kids from and more kids from places like twain.
The percentage of kids that get into the pool that go on to get offers is higher at wealthier schools and lower at less wealthy schools.
In a recent year twain had 20 kids get into the pool based on test scores and other objective metrics and ZERO get offers because none of them had the compelling essays describing the fantastic life experiences their parents purchased for them. They just studied and played outside with their friends.

“The most” defined by whom and by what measure?

Certainly none of the previous admissions tests which were skewed by the TJ test prep industry.

A merit lottery is the best option for a community resource like TJ.

We could use the same method used by most countries in determining who gets to go to which college.
A test.
Most of asia uses a single test.
Much of europe uses a single test.
The best schools in most of these countries are almost all public schools and spots at those schools are determined by a single test.
That is because it is the fairest way to determine who would should attend the most rigorous schools.
What you call gaming and test prep, the rest of the world calls studying.

No, it is not the fairest way to determine who should (or would should, in your words) attend the most rigorous schools.

Yes, it is true that exams, on some level, are a snapshot of one's command of content. That is the best thing going for them, and even that is a flawed metric because it is just that - a snapshot. It shows no growth, it shows no trend, and it shows no grit or determination.

Whether you all want to admit it, test taking is a skill that can be taught and developed and has tremendous relevance on standardized exams. And it literally has only one value - getting people into elite schools. Test taking ability contributes nothing at all to society and has no other impact whatsoever in a student's life.

Overselecting for test taking ability is just silly, but it's exactly what happens when an admissions exam is used as a gatekeeper. There is no real-world problem that is solved, or even helped, by test-taking ability, and so for us to emphasize it in selection processes is the height of foolishness.

New poster. You misunderstand the point completely. The point you are responding to is that tests are the "fairest" way to determine who gets to attend the most rigorous schools -- the very schools that are trying to select the most capable so that material can be taught at a more advanced level. You go on to point out possible flaws with tests, but so what? You're attacking a strawman. No method is perfect; no one claims tests are perfect. You do nothing to suggest that any other metric is "fairer" than tests, with their flaws and all. And if you had a shred of objectivity, I think you would be forced to concede that trying to measure "growth," a "trend," or a kid's "grit or determination" is about as subjective as can be and therefore ripe for the abuse of racial or class balancing or whatever the day's whims are. Tell me all how about how Asians are lacking in "leadership qualities."

And in this particular instance people were buying the test answers which made the test especially useless.

That is an isolated issue that is easy to fix (though overstated, no?). No reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’d be more helpful to include the two years prior and the two years following. And add a few more schools that are more representative of FCPS.

Just comparing two data points for affluent schools isn’t incredibly meaningful.

DP.

The link to all the data is above but here it is again.
https://www.doe.virginia.gov/data-policy-funding/data-reports/statistics-reports/sol-test-pass-rates-other-results
There is nothing for the 2019/2020 school year, SOLs were cancelled that year because of COVID

If you think I'm cherry-picking data, you can look at the data yourself, I picked to two largest feeder pyramids that were likely to see the effects of students that were left behind under the new system.

“Students left behind”

JFC. No one is entitled to a seat at TJ. It’s a community resource; it’s not just for wealthy kids from Langley/McLean.

It is a community resource meant for the most academically gifted kids that need that rigor to get an education that meets their needs.
Whether they are all from carson or all from twain.
If you have a problem with the academic results of students at twain, you should address that problem at twain or the elementary schools that feed into it.

Frankly if you get rid of holistic admissions and relied entirely on the test, you would get fewer kids from carson and more kids from and more kids from places like twain.
The percentage of kids that get into the pool that go on to get offers is higher at wealthier schools and lower at less wealthy schools.
In a recent year twain had 20 kids get into the pool based on test scores and other objective metrics and ZERO get offers because none of them had the compelling essays describing the fantastic life experiences their parents purchased for them. They just studied and played outside with their friends.

“The most” defined by whom and by what measure?

Certainly none of the previous admissions tests which were skewed by the TJ test prep industry.

A merit lottery is the best option for a community resource like TJ.

We could use the same method used by most countries in determining who gets to go to which college.
A test.
Most of asia uses a single test.
Much of europe uses a single test.
The best schools in most of these countries are almost all public schools and spots at those schools are determined by a single test.
That is because it is the fairest way to determine who would should attend the most rigorous schools.
What you call gaming and test prep, the rest of the world calls studying.

No, it is not the fairest way to determine who should (or would should, in your words) attend the most rigorous schools.

Yes, it is true that exams, on some level, are a snapshot of one's command of content. That is the best thing going for them, and even that is a flawed metric because it is just that - a snapshot. It shows no growth, it shows no trend, and it shows no grit or determination.

Whether you all want to admit it, test taking is a skill that can be taught and developed and has tremendous relevance on standardized exams. And it literally has only one value - getting people into elite schools. Test taking ability contributes nothing at all to society and has no other impact whatsoever in a student's life.

Overselecting for test taking ability is just silly, but it's exactly what happens when an admissions exam is used as a gatekeeper. There is no real-world problem that is solved, or even helped, by test-taking ability, and so for us to emphasize it in selection processes is the height of foolishness.

New poster. You misunderstand the point completely. The point you are responding to is that tests are the "fairest" way to determine who gets to attend the most rigorous schools -- the very schools that are trying to select the most capable so that material can be taught at a more advanced level. You go on to point out possible flaws with tests, but so what? You're attacking a strawman. No method is perfect; no one claims tests are perfect. You do nothing to suggest that any other metric is "fairer" than tests, with their flaws and all. And if you had a shred of objectivity, I think you would be forced to concede that trying to measure "growth," a "trend," or a kid's "grit or determination" is about as subjective as can be and therefore ripe for the abuse of racial or class balancing or whatever the day's whims are. Tell me all how about how Asians are lacking in "leadership qualities."

And in this particular instance people were buying the test answers which made the test especially useless.

That is an isolated issue that is easy to fix (though overstated, no?). No reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I don't honestly think it's fixable. People will find ways to game this. I don't doubt that high stakes tests have their value but up until recently most colleges were even phasing them out. I feel that the many tests used by actual teachers to determine things like GPA are the best way to predict outcomes. If a teacher gives a student an A+, this equates to a strong recommendation even.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’d be more helpful to include the two years prior and the two years following. And add a few more schools that are more representative of FCPS.

Just comparing two data points for affluent schools isn’t incredibly meaningful.

DP.

The link to all the data is above but here it is again.
https://www.doe.virginia.gov/data-policy-funding/data-reports/statistics-reports/sol-test-pass-rates-other-results
There is nothing for the 2019/2020 school year, SOLs were cancelled that year because of COVID

If you think I'm cherry-picking data, you can look at the data yourself, I picked to two largest feeder pyramids that were likely to see the effects of students that were left behind under the new system.

“Students left behind”

JFC. No one is entitled to a seat at TJ. It’s a community resource; it’s not just for wealthy kids from Langley/McLean.

It is a community resource meant for the most academically gifted kids that need that rigor to get an education that meets their needs.
Whether they are all from carson or all from twain.
If you have a problem with the academic results of students at twain, you should address that problem at twain or the elementary schools that feed into it.

Frankly if you get rid of holistic admissions and relied entirely on the test, you would get fewer kids from carson and more kids from and more kids from places like twain.
The percentage of kids that get into the pool that go on to get offers is higher at wealthier schools and lower at less wealthy schools.
In a recent year twain had 20 kids get into the pool based on test scores and other objective metrics and ZERO get offers because none of them had the compelling essays describing the fantastic life experiences their parents purchased for them. They just studied and played outside with their friends.

“The most” defined by whom and by what measure?

Certainly none of the previous admissions tests which were skewed by the TJ test prep industry.

A merit lottery is the best option for a community resource like TJ.

We could use the same method used by most countries in determining who gets to go to which college.
A test.
Most of asia uses a single test.
Much of europe uses a single test.
The best schools in most of these countries are almost all public schools and spots at those schools are determined by a single test.
That is because it is the fairest way to determine who would should attend the most rigorous schools.
What you call gaming and test prep, the rest of the world calls studying.

No, it is not the fairest way to determine who should (or would should, in your words) attend the most rigorous schools.

Yes, it is true that exams, on some level, are a snapshot of one's command of content. That is the best thing going for them, and even that is a flawed metric because it is just that - a snapshot. It shows no growth, it shows no trend, and it shows no grit or determination.

Whether you all want to admit it, test taking is a skill that can be taught and developed and has tremendous relevance on standardized exams. And it literally has only one value - getting people into elite schools. Test taking ability contributes nothing at all to society and has no other impact whatsoever in a student's life.

Overselecting for test taking ability is just silly, but it's exactly what happens when an admissions exam is used as a gatekeeper. There is no real-world problem that is solved, or even helped, by test-taking ability, and so for us to emphasize it in selection processes is the height of foolishness.

If that were all true then test scores wouldn't be the single best predictor of college performance.

If using test scores as a selection tool were the height of foolishness then why do so many countries use a single test to determine college admissions?

But I am open to the idea of using exactly the method you propose as long as there is a test involved so we can measure actual performance against tested ability.

Time and time again we have seen that tested ability is a far superior measuring tool than subjective judgements about "grit and determination"

Although I've heard this claim about test scores many times, colleges rely more on GPA so have to wonder about its accuracy.

Why wonder when we have peer reviewed studies?

https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/SAT_ACT_on_Grades.pdf

And yet colleges rely more heavily on GPA which factors rigor than on test scores.

That's because colleges are trying to balance classes, not because GPA is a better predictor of success, since it isn't.

Not sure that's true. If tests were a better predictor, colleges would prioritize tests but they don't.

Not if certain groups don't do well enough on tests to be part of the applicant pool. Now that the supreme court has said you can't consider race, test importance will drop even more at school that want to stay diverse

https://www.browndailyherald.com/article/2024/01/sat-act-scores-more-predictive-of-academic-success-at-ivy-plus-schools-than-high-school-grades-new-study-suggests

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’d be more helpful to include the two years prior and the two years following. And add a few more schools that are more representative of FCPS.

Just comparing two data points for affluent schools isn’t incredibly meaningful.

DP.

The link to all the data is above but here it is again.
https://www.doe.virginia.gov/data-policy-funding/data-reports/statistics-reports/sol-test-pass-rates-other-results
There is nothing for the 2019/2020 school year, SOLs were cancelled that year because of COVID

If you think I'm cherry-picking data, you can look at the data yourself, I picked to two largest feeder pyramids that were likely to see the effects of students that were left behind under the new system.

“Students left behind”

JFC. No one is entitled to a seat at TJ. It’s a community resource; it’s not just for wealthy kids from Langley/McLean.

It is a community resource meant for the most academically gifted kids that need that rigor to get an education that meets their needs.
Whether they are all from carson or all from twain.
If you have a problem with the academic results of students at twain, you should address that problem at twain or the elementary schools that feed into it.

Frankly if you get rid of holistic admissions and relied entirely on the test, you would get fewer kids from carson and more kids from and more kids from places like twain.
The percentage of kids that get into the pool that go on to get offers is higher at wealthier schools and lower at less wealthy schools.
In a recent year twain had 20 kids get into the pool based on test scores and other objective metrics and ZERO get offers because none of them had the compelling essays describing the fantastic life experiences their parents purchased for them. They just studied and played outside with their friends.

“The most” defined by whom and by what measure?

Certainly none of the previous admissions tests which were skewed by the TJ test prep industry.

A merit lottery is the best option for a community resource like TJ.

We could use the same method used by most countries in determining who gets to go to which college.
A test.
Most of asia uses a single test.
Much of europe uses a single test.
The best schools in most of these countries are almost all public schools and spots at those schools are determined by a single test.
That is because it is the fairest way to determine who would should attend the most rigorous schools.
What you call gaming and test prep, the rest of the world calls studying.

No, it is not the fairest way to determine who should (or would should, in your words) attend the most rigorous schools.

Yes, it is true that exams, on some level, are a snapshot of one's command of content. That is the best thing going for them, and even that is a flawed metric because it is just that - a snapshot. It shows no growth, it shows no trend, and it shows no grit or determination.

Whether you all want to admit it, test taking is a skill that can be taught and developed and has tremendous relevance on standardized exams. And it literally has only one value - getting people into elite schools. Test taking ability contributes nothing at all to society and has no other impact whatsoever in a student's life.

Overselecting for test taking ability is just silly, but it's exactly what happens when an admissions exam is used as a gatekeeper. There is no real-world problem that is solved, or even helped, by test-taking ability, and so for us to emphasize it in selection processes is the height of foolishness.

New poster. You misunderstand the point completely. The point you are responding to is that tests are the "fairest" way to determine who gets to attend the most rigorous schools -- the very schools that are trying to select the most capable so that material can be taught at a more advanced level. You go on to point out possible flaws with tests, but so what? You're attacking a strawman. No method is perfect; no one claims tests are perfect. You do nothing to suggest that any other metric is "fairer" than tests, with their flaws and all. And if you had a shred of objectivity, I think you would be forced to concede that trying to measure "growth," a "trend," or a kid's "grit or determination" is about as subjective as can be and therefore ripe for the abuse of racial or class balancing or whatever the day's whims are. Tell me all how about how Asians are lacking in "leadership qualities."

And in this particular instance people were buying the test answers which made the test especially useless.

That is an isolated issue that is easy to fix (though overstated, no?). No reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

How? If you have parents willing to spend thousands if not tens of thousands over the course of years to prep their kids and you specifically don't want those kids to be over represented, how do you fix it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’d be more helpful to include the two years prior and the two years following. And add a few more schools that are more representative of FCPS.

Just comparing two data points for affluent schools isn’t incredibly meaningful.

DP.

The link to all the data is above but here it is again.
https://www.doe.virginia.gov/data-policy-funding/data-reports/statistics-reports/sol-test-pass-rates-other-results
There is nothing for the 2019/2020 school year, SOLs were cancelled that year because of COVID

If you think I'm cherry-picking data, you can look at the data yourself, I picked to two largest feeder pyramids that were likely to see the effects of students that were left behind under the new system.

“Students left behind”

JFC. No one is entitled to a seat at TJ. It’s a community resource; it’s not just for wealthy kids from Langley/McLean.

It is a community resource meant for the most academically gifted kids that need that rigor to get an education that meets their needs.
Whether they are all from carson or all from twain.
If you have a problem with the academic results of students at twain, you should address that problem at twain or the elementary schools that feed into it.

Frankly if you get rid of holistic admissions and relied entirely on the test, you would get fewer kids from carson and more kids from and more kids from places like twain.
The percentage of kids that get into the pool that go on to get offers is higher at wealthier schools and lower at less wealthy schools.
In a recent year twain had 20 kids get into the pool based on test scores and other objective metrics and ZERO get offers because none of them had the compelling essays describing the fantastic life experiences their parents purchased for them. They just studied and played outside with their friends.

“The most” defined by whom and by what measure?

Certainly none of the previous admissions tests which were skewed by the TJ test prep industry.

A merit lottery is the best option for a community resource like TJ.

We could use the same method used by most countries in determining who gets to go to which college.
A test.
Most of asia uses a single test.
Much of europe uses a single test.
The best schools in most of these countries are almost all public schools and spots at those schools are determined by a single test.
That is because it is the fairest way to determine who would should attend the most rigorous schools.
What you call gaming and test prep, the rest of the world calls studying.

No, it is not the fairest way to determine who should (or would should, in your words) attend the most rigorous schools.

Yes, it is true that exams, on some level, are a snapshot of one's command of content. That is the best thing going for them, and even that is a flawed metric because it is just that - a snapshot. It shows no growth, it shows no trend, and it shows no grit or determination.

Whether you all want to admit it, test taking is a skill that can be taught and developed and has tremendous relevance on standardized exams. And it literally has only one value - getting people into elite schools. Test taking ability contributes nothing at all to society and has no other impact whatsoever in a student's life.

Overselecting for test taking ability is just silly, but it's exactly what happens when an admissions exam is used as a gatekeeper. There is no real-world problem that is solved, or even helped, by test-taking ability, and so for us to emphasize it in selection processes is the height of foolishness.

If that were all true then test scores wouldn't be the single best predictor of college performance.

If using test scores as a selection tool were the height of foolishness then why do so many countries use a single test to determine college admissions?

But I am open to the idea of using exactly the method you propose as long as there is a test involved so we can measure actual performance against tested ability.

Time and time again we have seen that tested ability is a far superior measuring tool than subjective judgements about "grit and determination"

Although I've heard this claim about test scores many times, colleges rely more on GPA so have to wonder about its accuracy.

Why wonder when we have peer reviewed studies?

https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/SAT_ACT_on_Grades.pdf

And yet colleges rely more heavily on GPA which factors rigor than on test scores.

That's because colleges are trying to balance classes, not because GPA is a better predictor of success, since it isn't.

Not sure that's true. If tests were a better predictor, colleges would prioritize tests but they don't.

Not if certain groups don't do well enough on tests to be part of the applicant pool. Now that the supreme court has said you can't consider race, test importance will drop even more at school that want to stay diverse

https://www.browndailyherald.com/article/2024/01/sat-act-scores-more-predictive-of-academic-success-at-ivy-plus-schools-than-high-school-grades-new-study-suggests

Testing has come back and no school wants to be diverse especially at the risk of lawsuits so you logic is flawed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’d be more helpful to include the two years prior and the two years following. And add a few more schools that are more representative of FCPS.

Just comparing two data points for affluent schools isn’t incredibly meaningful.

DP.

The link to all the data is above but here it is again.
https://www.doe.virginia.gov/data-policy-funding/data-reports/statistics-reports/sol-test-pass-rates-other-results
There is nothing for the 2019/2020 school year, SOLs were cancelled that year because of COVID

If you think I'm cherry-picking data, you can look at the data yourself, I picked to two largest feeder pyramids that were likely to see the effects of students that were left behind under the new system.

“Students left behind”

JFC. No one is entitled to a seat at TJ. It’s a community resource; it’s not just for wealthy kids from Langley/McLean.

It is a community resource meant for the most academically gifted kids that need that rigor to get an education that meets their needs.
Whether they are all from carson or all from twain.
If you have a problem with the academic results of students at twain, you should address that problem at twain or the elementary schools that feed into it.

Frankly if you get rid of holistic admissions and relied entirely on the test, you would get fewer kids from carson and more kids from and more kids from places like twain.
The percentage of kids that get into the pool that go on to get offers is higher at wealthier schools and lower at less wealthy schools.
In a recent year twain had 20 kids get into the pool based on test scores and other objective metrics and ZERO get offers because none of them had the compelling essays describing the fantastic life experiences their parents purchased for them. They just studied and played outside with their friends.

“The most” defined by whom and by what measure?

Certainly none of the previous admissions tests which were skewed by the TJ test prep industry.

A merit lottery is the best option for a community resource like TJ.

We could use the same method used by most countries in determining who gets to go to which college.
A test.
Most of asia uses a single test.
Much of europe uses a single test.
The best schools in most of these countries are almost all public schools and spots at those schools are determined by a single test.
That is because it is the fairest way to determine who would should attend the most rigorous schools.
What you call gaming and test prep, the rest of the world calls studying.

No, it is not the fairest way to determine who should (or would should, in your words) attend the most rigorous schools.

Yes, it is true that exams, on some level, are a snapshot of one's command of content. That is the best thing going for them, and even that is a flawed metric because it is just that - a snapshot. It shows no growth, it shows no trend, and it shows no grit or determination.

Whether you all want to admit it, test taking is a skill that can be taught and developed and has tremendous relevance on standardized exams. And it literally has only one value - getting people into elite schools. Test taking ability contributes nothing at all to society and has no other impact whatsoever in a student's life.

Overselecting for test taking ability is just silly, but it's exactly what happens when an admissions exam is used as a gatekeeper. There is no real-world problem that is solved, or even helped, by test-taking ability, and so for us to emphasize it in selection processes is the height of foolishness.

If that were all true then test scores wouldn't be the single best predictor of college performance.

If using test scores as a selection tool were the height of foolishness then why do so many countries use a single test to determine college admissions?

But I am open to the idea of using exactly the method you propose as long as there is a test involved so we can measure actual performance against tested ability.

Time and time again we have seen that tested ability is a far superior measuring tool than subjective judgements about "grit and determination"

Although I've heard this claim about test scores many times, colleges rely more on GPA so have to wonder about its accuracy.

Why wonder when we have peer reviewed studies?

https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/SAT_ACT_on_Grades.pdf

And yet colleges rely more heavily on GPA which factors rigor than on test scores.

That's because colleges are trying to balance classes, not because GPA is a better predictor of success, since it isn't.

Not sure that's true. If tests were a better predictor, colleges would prioritize tests but they don't.

Not if certain groups don't do well enough on tests to be part of the applicant pool. Now that the supreme court has said you can't consider race, test importance will drop even more at school that want to stay diverse

https://www.browndailyherald.com/article/2024/01/sat-act-scores-more-predictive-of-academic-success-at-ivy-plus-schools-than-high-school-grades-new-study-suggests

You're suggesting there's some conspiracy and there really isn't. The reason they prioritize grades over the high-stakes testing you seem to like is its must be an even better predictor. Unlike these universities we don't have access to the data like they do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’d be more helpful to include the two years prior and the two years following. And add a few more schools that are more representative of FCPS.

Just comparing two data points for affluent schools isn’t incredibly meaningful.

DP.

The link to all the data is above but here it is again.
https://www.doe.virginia.gov/data-policy-funding/data-reports/statistics-reports/sol-test-pass-rates-other-results
There is nothing for the 2019/2020 school year, SOLs were cancelled that year because of COVID

If you think I'm cherry-picking data, you can look at the data yourself, I picked to two largest feeder pyramids that were likely to see the effects of students that were left behind under the new system.

“Students left behind”

JFC. No one is entitled to a seat at TJ. It’s a community resource; it’s not just for wealthy kids from Langley/McLean.

It is a community resource meant for the most academically gifted kids that need that rigor to get an education that meets their needs.
Whether they are all from carson or all from twain.
If you have a problem with the academic results of students at twain, you should address that problem at twain or the elementary schools that feed into it.

Frankly if you get rid of holistic admissions and relied entirely on the test, you would get fewer kids from carson and more kids from and more kids from places like twain.
The percentage of kids that get into the pool that go on to get offers is higher at wealthier schools and lower at less wealthy schools.
In a recent year twain had 20 kids get into the pool based on test scores and other objective metrics and ZERO get offers because none of them had the compelling essays describing the fantastic life experiences their parents purchased for them. They just studied and played outside with their friends.

“The most” defined by whom and by what measure?

Certainly none of the previous admissions tests which were skewed by the TJ test prep industry.

A merit lottery is the best option for a community resource like TJ.

We could use the same method used by most countries in determining who gets to go to which college.
A test.
Most of asia uses a single test.
Much of europe uses a single test.
The best schools in most of these countries are almost all public schools and spots at those schools are determined by a single test.
That is because it is the fairest way to determine who would should attend the most rigorous schools.
What you call gaming and test prep, the rest of the world calls studying.

No, it is not the fairest way to determine who should (or would should, in your words) attend the most rigorous schools.

Yes, it is true that exams, on some level, are a snapshot of one's command of content. That is the best thing going for them, and even that is a flawed metric because it is just that - a snapshot. It shows no growth, it shows no trend, and it shows no grit or determination.

Whether you all want to admit it, test taking is a skill that can be taught and developed and has tremendous relevance on standardized exams. And it literally has only one value - getting people into elite schools. Test taking ability contributes nothing at all to society and has no other impact whatsoever in a student's life.

Overselecting for test taking ability is just silly, but it's exactly what happens when an admissions exam is used as a gatekeeper. There is no real-world problem that is solved, or even helped, by test-taking ability, and so for us to emphasize it in selection processes is the height of foolishness.

If that were all true then test scores wouldn't be the single best predictor of college performance.

If using test scores as a selection tool were the height of foolishness then why do so many countries use a single test to determine college admissions?

But I am open to the idea of using exactly the method you propose as long as there is a test involved so we can measure actual performance against tested ability.

Time and time again we have seen that tested ability is a far superior measuring tool than subjective judgements about "grit and determination"

Although I've heard this claim about test scores many times, colleges rely more on GPA so have to wonder about its accuracy.

Why wonder when we have peer reviewed studies?

https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/SAT_ACT_on_Grades.pdf

And yet colleges rely more heavily on GPA which factors rigor than on test scores.

That's because colleges are trying to balance classes, not because GPA is a better predictor of success, since it isn't.

Not sure that's true. If tests were a better predictor, colleges would prioritize tests but they don't.

Not if certain groups don't do well enough on tests to be part of the applicant pool. Now that the supreme court has said you can't consider race, test importance will drop even more at school that want to stay diverse

https://www.browndailyherald.com/article/2024/01/sat-act-scores-more-predictive-of-academic-success-at-ivy-plus-schools-than-high-school-grades-new-study-suggests

Testing has come back and no school wants to be diverse especially at the risk of lawsuits so you logic is flawed

Testing has come back because it has SOME value, BUT the reason it was phased out to begin with was it just wasn't as meaningful as many seem to believe. It only has value in the context of things like GPA and course rigor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’d be more helpful to include the two years prior and the two years following. And add a few more schools that are more representative of FCPS.

Just comparing two data points for affluent schools isn’t incredibly meaningful.

DP.

The link to all the data is above but here it is again.
https://www.doe.virginia.gov/data-policy-funding/data-reports/statistics-reports/sol-test-pass-rates-other-results
There is nothing for the 2019/2020 school year, SOLs were cancelled that year because of COVID

If you think I'm cherry-picking data, you can look at the data yourself, I picked to two largest feeder pyramids that were likely to see the effects of students that were left behind under the new system.

“Students left behind”

JFC. No one is entitled to a seat at TJ. It’s a community resource; it’s not just for wealthy kids from Langley/McLean.

It is a community resource meant for the most academically gifted kids that need that rigor to get an education that meets their needs.
Whether they are all from carson or all from twain.
If you have a problem with the academic results of students at twain, you should address that problem at twain or the elementary schools that feed into it.

Frankly if you get rid of holistic admissions and relied entirely on the test, you would get fewer kids from carson and more kids from and more kids from places like twain.
The percentage of kids that get into the pool that go on to get offers is higher at wealthier schools and lower at less wealthy schools.
In a recent year twain had 20 kids get into the pool based on test scores and other objective metrics and ZERO get offers because none of them had the compelling essays describing the fantastic life experiences their parents purchased for them. They just studied and played outside with their friends.

“The most” defined by whom and by what measure?

Certainly none of the previous admissions tests which were skewed by the TJ test prep industry.

A merit lottery is the best option for a community resource like TJ.

We could use the same method used by most countries in determining who gets to go to which college.
A test.
Most of asia uses a single test.
Much of europe uses a single test.
The best schools in most of these countries are almost all public schools and spots at those schools are determined by a single test.
That is because it is the fairest way to determine who would should attend the most rigorous schools.
What you call gaming and test prep, the rest of the world calls studying.

No, it is not the fairest way to determine who should (or would should, in your words) attend the most rigorous schools.

Yes, it is true that exams, on some level, are a snapshot of one's command of content. That is the best thing going for them, and even that is a flawed metric because it is just that - a snapshot. It shows no growth, it shows no trend, and it shows no grit or determination.

Whether you all want to admit it, test taking is a skill that can be taught and developed and has tremendous relevance on standardized exams. And it literally has only one value - getting people into elite schools. Test taking ability contributes nothing at all to society and has no other impact whatsoever in a student's life.

Overselecting for test taking ability is just silly, but it's exactly what happens when an admissions exam is used as a gatekeeper. There is no real-world problem that is solved, or even helped, by test-taking ability, and so for us to emphasize it in selection processes is the height of foolishness.

If that were all true then test scores wouldn't be the single best predictor of college performance.

If using test scores as a selection tool were the height of foolishness then why do so many countries use a single test to determine college admissions?

But I am open to the idea of using exactly the method you propose as long as there is a test involved so we can measure actual performance against tested ability.

Time and time again we have seen that tested ability is a far superior measuring tool than subjective judgements about "grit and determination"

Although I've heard this claim about test scores many times, colleges rely more on GPA so have to wonder about its accuracy.

Why wonder when we have peer reviewed studies?

https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/SAT_ACT_on_Grades.pdf

And yet colleges rely more heavily on GPA which factors rigor than on test scores.

That's because colleges are trying to balance classes, not because GPA is a better predictor of success, since it isn't.

Not sure that's true. If tests were a better predictor, colleges would prioritize tests but they don't.

Not if certain groups don't do well enough on tests to be part of the applicant pool. Now that the supreme court has said you can't consider race, test importance will drop even more at school that want to stay diverse

https://www.browndailyherald.com/article/2024/01/sat-act-scores-more-predictive-of-academic-success-at-ivy-plus-schools-than-high-school-grades-new-study-suggests

Testing has come back and no school wants to be diverse especially at the risk of lawsuits so you logic is flawed

Testing has come back because it has SOME value, BUT the reason it was phased out to begin with was it just wasn't as meaningful as many seem to believe. It only has value in the context of things like GPA and course rigor.

The reason test scores were phased out is because students were getting the wrong results, or stated more accurately, the wrong type of students were getting good test scores. Test scores are coming back because it has a lot of value at predicting college success. Colleges want diverse student bodies - they also want students who graduate. They work hard to combine those two goals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’d be more helpful to include the two years prior and the two years following. And add a few more schools that are more representative of FCPS.

Just comparing two data points for affluent schools isn’t incredibly meaningful.

DP.

The link to all the data is above but here it is again.
https://www.doe.virginia.gov/data-policy-funding/data-reports/statistics-reports/sol-test-pass-rates-other-results
There is nothing for the 2019/2020 school year, SOLs were cancelled that year because of COVID

If you think I'm cherry-picking data, you can look at the data yourself, I picked to two largest feeder pyramids that were likely to see the effects of students that were left behind under the new system.

“Students left behind”

JFC. No one is entitled to a seat at TJ. It’s a community resource; it’s not just for wealthy kids from Langley/McLean.

It is a community resource meant for the most academically gifted kids that need that rigor to get an education that meets their needs.
Whether they are all from carson or all from twain.
If you have a problem with the academic results of students at twain, you should address that problem at twain or the elementary schools that feed into it.

Frankly if you get rid of holistic admissions and relied entirely on the test, you would get fewer kids from carson and more kids from and more kids from places like twain.
The percentage of kids that get into the pool that go on to get offers is higher at wealthier schools and lower at less wealthy schools.
In a recent year twain had 20 kids get into the pool based on test scores and other objective metrics and ZERO get offers because none of them had the compelling essays describing the fantastic life experiences their parents purchased for them. They just studied and played outside with their friends.

“The most” defined by whom and by what measure?

Certainly none of the previous admissions tests which were skewed by the TJ test prep industry.

A merit lottery is the best option for a community resource like TJ.

We could use the same method used by most countries in determining who gets to go to which college.
A test.
Most of asia uses a single test.
Much of europe uses a single test.
The best schools in most of these countries are almost all public schools and spots at those schools are determined by a single test.
That is because it is the fairest way to determine who would should attend the most rigorous schools.
What you call gaming and test prep, the rest of the world calls studying.

No, it is not the fairest way to determine who should (or would should, in your words) attend the most rigorous schools.

Yes, it is true that exams, on some level, are a snapshot of one's command of content. That is the best thing going for them, and even that is a flawed metric because it is just that - a snapshot. It shows no growth, it shows no trend, and it shows no grit or determination.

Whether you all want to admit it, test taking is a skill that can be taught and developed and has tremendous relevance on standardized exams. And it literally has only one value - getting people into elite schools. Test taking ability contributes nothing at all to society and has no other impact whatsoever in a student's life.

Overselecting for test taking ability is just silly, but it's exactly what happens when an admissions exam is used as a gatekeeper. There is no real-world problem that is solved, or even helped, by test-taking ability, and so for us to emphasize it in selection processes is the height of foolishness.

If that were all true then test scores wouldn't be the single best predictor of college performance.

If using test scores as a selection tool were the height of foolishness then why do so many countries use a single test to determine college admissions?

But I am open to the idea of using exactly the method you propose as long as there is a test involved so we can measure actual performance against tested ability.

Time and time again we have seen that tested ability is a far superior measuring tool than subjective judgements about "grit and determination"

Although I've heard this claim about test scores many times, colleges rely more on GPA so have to wonder about its accuracy.

Why wonder when we have peer reviewed studies?

https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/SAT_ACT_on_Grades.pdf

And yet colleges rely more heavily on GPA which factors rigor than on test scores.

GPAs are inconsistent between schools and are fairly bad predictors of college performance relative to test scores.
This is why so many countries use a single test score to determine college placement.
If we want to compete with the rest of the world, we should do the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’d be more helpful to include the two years prior and the two years following. And add a few more schools that are more representative of FCPS.

Just comparing two data points for affluent schools isn’t incredibly meaningful.

DP.

The link to all the data is above but here it is again.
https://www.doe.virginia.gov/data-policy-funding/data-reports/statistics-reports/sol-test-pass-rates-other-results
There is nothing for the 2019/2020 school year, SOLs were cancelled that year because of COVID

If you think I'm cherry-picking data, you can look at the data yourself, I picked to two largest feeder pyramids that were likely to see the effects of students that were left behind under the new system.

“Students left behind”

JFC. No one is entitled to a seat at TJ. It’s a community resource; it’s not just for wealthy kids from Langley/McLean.

It is a community resource meant for the most academically gifted kids that need that rigor to get an education that meets their needs.
Whether they are all from carson or all from twain.
If you have a problem with the academic results of students at twain, you should address that problem at twain or the elementary schools that feed into it.

Frankly if you get rid of holistic admissions and relied entirely on the test, you would get fewer kids from carson and more kids from and more kids from places like twain.
The percentage of kids that get into the pool that go on to get offers is higher at wealthier schools and lower at less wealthy schools.
In a recent year twain had 20 kids get into the pool based on test scores and other objective metrics and ZERO get offers because none of them had the compelling essays describing the fantastic life experiences their parents purchased for them. They just studied and played outside with their friends.

“The most” defined by whom and by what measure?

Certainly none of the previous admissions tests which were skewed by the TJ test prep industry.

A merit lottery is the best option for a community resource like TJ.

We could use the same method used by most countries in determining who gets to go to which college.
A test.
Most of asia uses a single test.
Much of europe uses a single test.
The best schools in most of these countries are almost all public schools and spots at those schools are determined by a single test.
That is because it is the fairest way to determine who would should attend the most rigorous schools.
What you call gaming and test prep, the rest of the world calls studying.

No, it is not the fairest way to determine who should (or would should, in your words) attend the most rigorous schools.

Yes, it is true that exams, on some level, are a snapshot of one's command of content. That is the best thing going for them, and even that is a flawed metric because it is just that - a snapshot. It shows no growth, it shows no trend, and it shows no grit or determination.

Whether you all want to admit it, test taking is a skill that can be taught and developed and has tremendous relevance on standardized exams. And it literally has only one value - getting people into elite schools. Test taking ability contributes nothing at all to society and has no other impact whatsoever in a student's life.

Overselecting for test taking ability is just silly, but it's exactly what happens when an admissions exam is used as a gatekeeper. There is no real-world problem that is solved, or even helped, by test-taking ability, and so for us to emphasize it in selection processes is the height of foolishness.

But people who spend $20k on test prep to buy the test answers expect results.

You know curie has financial aid, right?