A data-backed approach to understand the TJ Admissions Process

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I knew someone would say this - move to base school now. 😅 We are debating this, but my kid signed up certain continued electives which he planned carefully and then all his friends are in AAP center school. My kid currently not showing interest since if he doesn’t get into TJ from base school, he would be giving up all for nothing. It would have been an easier choice for his class/friends last year. Again, you could say friends come and go and electives don’t matter etc. I know you wouldn’t understand where we are coming from as I am sure your kid is either not in middle school or in base school. I hope this leads to getting rid of AAP centers in middle schools, so kids aren’t required to make this choice. My personal opinion, TJ is just a hype, it doesn’t really matter much in the long run. If kids are motivated, they can do well in any school (I still think AAP matters due to accelerated math). It is just unfortunate that some parents and kids have play games to change schools to gain advantage, and it reflects bad on the admission process.

There were pros and cons for moving to an AAP Center before this new rule came into play, I am going to go out on a limb that most families are aware that their chances of getting into TJ from any of the Center schools, even before the rule change, was still small. Lots of kids were not accepted under the old rules. The new rules shift the effected schools around a bit.

Parents should be making decisions based on what they think is best for their child. TJ is a great option but it is not the end all and be all. Kids who have high grades and lots of STEM interest were not accepted into TJ and have done very well at their base school. The same will be true for kids this year and next year. If parents think their kids are better off at an AAP Center for MS because of the cohort or the extra curricular activities or the Teachers or whatever reason, they should go to the Center because they think that is important.

The reality is that trying to game the system by being one of the top 8 students at a MS in order to get into TJ is going to be harder then people think. Because there are smart kids who stay at the base schools. Because there will be families who choose to send their kid to the base instead of the Center. Because some people are likely to try the move their kid for 8th grade hoping to be one of the top 8. So I guess The odds might be better to be in the top 8 but it is no guarantee. But I suspect that there are going to be parents who do try and game the system next year and are going to be disappointed that it didn’t work and regret losing a year at a MS that they deem superior.

I also suspect that ELL are kids who have spent time in ESL classes during their career, not just kids who are from a bilingual family. That is easy enough to verify by looking at school records. I have no clue how the schools determine who is on FARMs but I don’t think that I can just check a box and say my kid is FARMs and he is added to the FARMs list. The IEP/504 route is not easy to fake or game so is going to be a non-starter.

It's easy if your comfortable committing a federal felony. Odds are you won't get caught, but if you do there will be consequences

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oddly enough, all of the conversation about gaming the system would seem to be a decent argument for reinstituting teacher recommendations into the process.

While they are subject to some level of bias, a well-trained admissions reader should be able to adjust for that possibility and would be able to provide valuable insight into the actual circumstances of each student, especially with regard to "experience factors".

Part of the bias was who the Teachers would write recommendations for. There seemed to be an issue with Teachers not being willing to write recommendations for URM. I have no clue if the kids that were asking for the recommendations were good students or were similar in their grades and in class performance to White and Asian kids, but there was an issue with getting the recommendations written in the first place.

I also find it interesting that there is an entire "Get rid of GBRS because the Teachers don't know what they are talking about" for AAP, complete with a "The Teachers don't like Asian students so their GBRSs are tanked" movement but that Teacher Recommendations are part of the solution for TJ.

Maybe the middle ground is that GBRS are done for every applicant at TJ, so that the same format and areas are taken into consideration and weighed for all the students applying. That at least removes the possibility of Teachers not writing recommendations for kids who are interested and the GBRS can be structured to focus only on in school performance and not include outside enrichment activities/awards.

GBRS is about gifted, TJ admission is supposed to be about accomplishment or the ability to succeed at TJ. The two overlap, but they are not the same. A kid having a good sense of humor (great for GBRS) shouldn't impact TJ admissions

[Anonymous]

TJ was started, in part, as a way of attracting tech business and related companies to nova. It's very sad what the competition is doing to people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oddly enough, all of the conversation about gaming the system would seem to be a decent argument for reinstituting teacher recommendations into the process.

While they are subject to some level of bias, a well-trained admissions reader should be able to adjust for that possibility and would be able to provide valuable insight into the actual circumstances of each student, especially with regard to "experience factors".

Part of the bias was who the Teachers would write recommendations for. There seemed to be an issue with Teachers not being willing to write recommendations for URM. I have no clue if the kids that were asking for the recommendations were good students or were similar in their grades and in class performance to White and Asian kids, but there was an issue with getting the recommendations written in the first place.

I also find it interesting that there is an entire "Get rid of GBRS because the Teachers don't know what they are talking about" for AAP, complete with a "The Teachers don't like Asian students so their GBRSs are tanked" movement but that Teacher Recommendations are part of the solution for TJ.

Maybe the middle ground is that GBRS are done for every applicant at TJ, so that the same format and areas are taken into consideration and weighed for all the students applying. That at least removes the possibility of Teachers not writing recommendations for kids who are interested and the GBRS can be structured to focus only on in school performance and not include outside enrichment activities/awards.

I think there are definitely ways to do this that would make sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Give it time, dear. NYC's Stuyvesant is like 75-80% Asian and the fact that half of them live at the poverty level doesn't stop the attacks claiming Asian privilege.

Folks on this board love to compare TJ to Stuyvesant despite the fact that the Asian American community in NYC is wildly different, demographically and economically, than the Asian American community in NoVa. You can't claim marginalization just because a some folks whose parents came from the same landmass than yours happen to be poor in a totally different city.

Sure, let's pretend that it's a complete coincidence that Asians dominate two of some of the most selective public schools in America. Yes, the Asians at Stuy have nothing in common with Asians at TJ.

Let's also pretend that the Asian domination at Stuy causes no controversy whatsoever, or that their poverty level shields them from the attacks from equity advocates.

Stuyvesant is basically proof that Asian Americans are not allowed to succeed. Asians Americans in NYC are poor as dirt. Yet, they still get vilified, and they still have a BOE that's hostile to them.

Would TJ and Stuyvesant get nearly as much hate if they were say 70% Latinos? I suspect not. Rather, I think the BOEs would be celebrating the success of Latinos in their school districts.

If Asian Americans at Stuyvesant can't be celebrated then under what scenario can the success of Asian Americans be celebrated?

When the dominant WASP culture feels threatened by or jealous of the success of minority groups--first it was Jews, now it's Asians--they react.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oddly enough, all of the conversation about gaming the system would seem to be a decent argument for reinstituting teacher recommendations into the process.

While they are subject to some level of bias, a well-trained admissions reader should be able to adjust for that possibility and would be able to provide valuable insight into the actual circumstances of each student, especially with regard to "experience factors".

Part of the bias was who the Teachers would write recommendations for. There seemed to be an issue with Teachers not being willing to write recommendations for URM. I have no clue if the kids that were asking for the recommendations were good students or were similar in their grades and in class performance to White and Asian kids, but there was an issue with getting the recommendations written in the first place.

I also find it interesting that there is an entire "Get rid of GBRS because the Teachers don't know what they are talking about" for AAP, complete with a "The Teachers don't like Asian students so their GBRSs are tanked" movement but that Teacher Recommendations are part of the solution for TJ.

Maybe the middle ground is that GBRS are done for every applicant at TJ, so that the same format and areas are taken into consideration and weighed for all the students applying. That at least removes the possibility of Teachers not writing recommendations for kids who are interested and the GBRS can be structured to focus only on in school performance and not include outside enrichment activities/awards.

GBRS is about gifted, TJ admission is supposed to be about accomplishment or the ability to succeed at TJ. The two overlap, but they are not the same. A kid having a good sense of humor (great for GBRS) shouldn't impact TJ admissions

I don't think I agree with that. All other things being equal, the academic environment is enriched by students who can contribute to it in multiple ways. TJ is a tough place to navigate (I did) and anyone who went there will tell you that the attitudes of your fellow classmates, as in any intense academic environment, make a huge difference in your educational experience and overall quality of life while at the school. And that has impact across the board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oddly enough, all of the conversation about gaming the system would seem to be a decent argument for reinstituting teacher recommendations into the process.

While they are subject to some level of bias, a well-trained admissions reader should be able to adjust for that possibility and would be able to provide valuable insight into the actual circumstances of each student, especially with regard to "experience factors".

Part of the bias was who the Teachers would write recommendations for. There seemed to be an issue with Teachers not being willing to write recommendations for URM. I have no clue if the kids that were asking for the recommendations were good students or were similar in their grades and in class performance to White and Asian kids, but there was an issue with getting the recommendations written in the first place.

I also find it interesting that there is an entire "Get rid of GBRS because the Teachers don't know what they are talking about" for AAP, complete with a "The Teachers don't like Asian students so their GBRSs are tanked" movement but that Teacher Recommendations are part of the solution for TJ.

Maybe the middle ground is that GBRS are done for every applicant at TJ, so that the same format and areas are taken into consideration and weighed for all the students applying. That at least removes the possibility of Teachers not writing recommendations for kids who are interested and the GBRS can be structured to focus only on in school performance and not include outside enrichment activities/awards.

GBRS is about gifted, TJ admission is supposed to be about accomplishment or the ability to succeed at TJ. The two overlap, but they are not the same. A kid having a good sense of humor (great for GBRS) shouldn't impact TJ admissions

I don't think I agree with that. All other things being equal, the academic environment is enriched by students who can contribute to it in multiple ways. TJ is a tough place to navigate (I did) and anyone who went there will tell you that the attitudes of your fellow classmates, as in any intense academic environment, make a huge difference in your educational experience and overall quality of life while at the school. And that has impact across the board.

The questionnaire can be shaped to match TJ but I don't think that anyone wants kids who are only STEM and all STEM. Diversity of interests is also important. Lots of folks point to the band, drama, Model UN, debate team and other non-STEM activities as being an important and positive part of TJ. I wouldn't say that you use the same format as they do for AAP but something that is completed by a team of Teachers who know the students and addresses the same components across all the kids would be better then Teacher recommendations that a Teacher can choose to do or not do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oddly enough, all of the conversation about gaming the system would seem to be a decent argument for reinstituting teacher recommendations into the process.

While they are subject to some level of bias, a well-trained admissions reader should be able to adjust for that possibility and would be able to provide valuable insight into the actual circumstances of each student, especially with regard to "experience factors".

Part of the bias was who the Teachers would write recommendations for. There seemed to be an issue with Teachers not being willing to write recommendations for URM. I have no clue if the kids that were asking for the recommendations were good students or were similar in their grades and in class performance to White and Asian kids, but there was an issue with getting the recommendations written in the first place.

I also find it interesting that there is an entire "Get rid of GBRS because the Teachers don't know what they are talking about" for AAP, complete with a "The Teachers don't like Asian students so their GBRSs are tanked" movement but that Teacher Recommendations are part of the solution for TJ.

Maybe the middle ground is that GBRS are done for every applicant at TJ, so that the same format and areas are taken into consideration and weighed for all the students applying. That at least removes the possibility of Teachers not writing recommendations for kids who are interested and the GBRS can be structured to focus only on in school performance and not include outside enrichment activities/awards.

GBRS is about gifted, TJ admission is supposed to be about accomplishment or the ability to succeed at TJ. The two overlap, but they are not the same. A kid having a good sense of humor (great for GBRS) shouldn't impact TJ admissions

I don't think I agree with that. All other things being equal, the academic environment is enriched by students who can contribute to it in multiple ways. TJ is a tough place to navigate (I did) and anyone who went there will tell you that the attitudes of your fellow classmates, as in any intense academic environment, make a huge difference in your educational experience and overall quality of life while at the school. And that has impact across the board.

The questionnaire can be shaped to match TJ but I don't think that anyone wants kids who are only STEM and all STEM. Diversity of interests is also important. Lots of folks point to the band, drama, Model UN, debate team and other non-STEM activities as being an important and positive part of TJ. I wouldn't say that you use the same format as they do for AAP but something that is completed by a team of Teachers who know the students and addresses the same components across all the kids would be better then Teacher recommendations that a Teacher can choose to do or not do.

PP. This is EXTREMELY important to the future of the school. TJ was in danger for many years of losing its status as a full-service high school under the Glazer administration. Glazer would literally get up in front of the incoming class every year at Freshmen Preview Night and tell a group of 480 enthusiastic 13-14 year olds, "If you don't LOVE STEM and have a deep passion for it, this may not be the school for you".

Thankfully, the new principal has breathed life into some dying programs at TJ with some savvy hires and a commitment to the value of the total high school experience. The hope is that FCPS has realized it as well with a new admissions process that no longer overselects for test-taking ability and parent-driven "pre-existing commitment to STEM".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I also find it interesting that there is an entire "Get rid of GBRS because the Teachers don't know what they are talking about" for AAP, complete with a "The Teachers don't like Asian students so their GBRSs are tanked" movement but that Teacher Recommendations are part of the solution for TJ.

I'm a supporter of recommendations for TJ and an opponent of GBRS, so I'll try to explain the rationale. 8th grade math and science teachers likely have a degree in their subject, are often the mathcounts or science club coaches, and are likely teaching 150 kids per year, so they have more basis for seeing which kids truly shine. If they've been teaching for even 5 years, they've seen 750 students and would be able to distinguish between the exceptionally talented kids and the above average kids who are still getting As. Also, by 8th grade, the teachers are making much more of a judgment about aptitude and less one about "potential," which is already difficult to pin down. If they are coaching mathcounts or a science team, they would have had many opportunities to see a child's passion for STEM, creativity, and ability, as these activities typically rise above the normal level taught in the classroom.

In 2nd grade, the teachers are trying to guess at a child's potential, which is a bit problematic. They only see maybe 22 kids per year, so they have never had a good sample size to determine which kids truly stand out. Even if they've been teaching 5 years, they only would have seen maybe 110 kids, which means only 2 or 3 kids who would even be considered "gifted." In 2nd grade, the level of the material is so low that kids who are way beyond wouldn't have a chance to demonstrate their abilities. If a kid goes rogue and does things to exhibit extreme intelligence, the teacher is more likely to lack the training to even appreciate what the kid is showing. Also, the kids who are far ahead are often moreso the product of a privileged background than they are gifted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I also find it interesting that there is an entire "Get rid of GBRS because the Teachers don't know what they are talking about" for AAP, complete with a "The Teachers don't like Asian students so their GBRSs are tanked" movement but that Teacher Recommendations are part of the solution for TJ.

I'm a supporter of recommendations for TJ and an opponent of GBRS, so I'll try to explain the rationale. 8th grade math and science teachers likely have a degree in their subject, are often the mathcounts or science club coaches, and are likely teaching 150 kids per year, so they have more basis for seeing which kids truly shine. If they've been teaching for even 5 years, they've seen 750 students and would be able to distinguish between the exceptionally talented kids and the above average kids who are still getting As. Also, by 8th grade, the teachers are making much more of a judgment about aptitude and less one about "potential," which is already difficult to pin down. If they are coaching mathcounts or a science team, they would have had many opportunities to see a child's passion for STEM, creativity, and ability, as these activities typically rise above the normal level taught in the classroom.

In 2nd grade, the teachers are trying to guess at a child's potential, which is a bit problematic. They only see maybe 22 kids per year, so they have never had a good sample size to determine which kids truly stand out. Even if they've been teaching 5 years, they only would have seen maybe 110 kids, which means only 2 or 3 kids who would even be considered "gifted." In 2nd grade, the level of the material is so low that kids who are way beyond wouldn't have a chance to demonstrate their abilities. If a kid goes rogue and does things to exhibit extreme intelligence, the teacher is more likely to lack the training to even appreciate what the kid is showing. Also, the kids who are far ahead are often moreso the product of a privileged background than they are gifted.

I would argue that there will be a ton of bias in favor of kids coached by the teacher that you described.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I also find it interesting that there is an entire "Get rid of GBRS because the Teachers don't know what they are talking about" for AAP, complete with a "The Teachers don't like Asian students so their GBRSs are tanked" movement but that Teacher Recommendations are part of the solution for TJ.

I'm a supporter of recommendations for TJ and an opponent of GBRS, so I'll try to explain the rationale. 8th grade math and science teachers likely have a degree in their subject, are often the mathcounts or science club coaches, and are likely teaching 150 kids per year, so they have more basis for seeing which kids truly shine. If they've been teaching for even 5 years, they've seen 750 students and would be able to distinguish between the exceptionally talented kids and the above average kids who are still getting As. Also, by 8th grade, the teachers are making much more of a judgment about aptitude and less one about "potential," which is already difficult to pin down. If they are coaching mathcounts or a science team, they would have had many opportunities to see a child's passion for STEM, creativity, and ability, as these activities typically rise above the normal level taught in the classroom.

In 2nd grade, the teachers are trying to guess at a child's potential, which is a bit problematic. They only see maybe 22 kids per year, so they have never had a good sample size to determine which kids truly stand out. Even if they've been teaching 5 years, they only would have seen maybe 110 kids, which means only 2 or 3 kids who would even be considered "gifted." In 2nd grade, the level of the material is so low that kids who are way beyond wouldn't have a chance to demonstrate their abilities. If a kid goes rogue and does things to exhibit extreme intelligence, the teacher is more likely to lack the training to even appreciate what the kid is showing. Also, the kids who are far ahead are often moreso the product of a privileged background than they are gifted.

I would argue that there will be a ton of bias in favor of kids coached by the teacher that you described.

And this is part of the difficulty. An admissions reader reading recommendations from that school and that teacher would have to be armed with information (that is easily retrievable from the MS's TJ liaison in Student Services) about what activities that teacher coaches or sponsors in order to provide context.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The questionnaire can be shaped to match TJ but I don't think that anyone wants kids who are only STEM and all STEM. Diversity of interests is also important. Lots of folks point to the band, drama, Model UN, debate team and other non-STEM activities as being an important and positive part of TJ. I wouldn't say that you use the same format as they do for AAP but something that is completed by a team of Teachers who know the students and addresses the same components across all the kids would be better then Teacher recommendations that a Teacher can choose to do or not do.

In the previous admission system, wasn't some of this covered in the essays and lists of extracurriculars? If not, it would be pretty easy to have kids write an essay covering their most significant extracurriculars or what they think they can contribute to the TJ culture as a whole.

Also, while I think recommendations are important, they shouldn't need to be teacher recommendations, specifically. The door should be open for the Model UN coach or the band teacher to write a recommendation. It could be 1 recommendation from a STEM teacher and one from whomever is best able to highlight what special talents you would bring to TJ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I would argue that there will be a ton of bias in favor of kids coached by the teacher that you described.

That's akin to saying that teachers will be biased in favor of the kids that they think are really smart. I don't see why it would be a problem for the teacher who knows the kid best and has spent tons of time working with the kid to write a recommendation. That teacher would have the best perspective. Of course, TJ admissions should compare any and all recommendations from the same teacher. If they're all pretty much the same, they should be discounted. Usually, though, the very top kids get the stellar recommendations, and the rest get ones that if you read between the lines, they pretty clearly show that the kid is decent but nothing special.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oddly enough, all of the conversation about gaming the system would seem to be a decent argument for reinstituting teacher recommendations into the process.

While they are subject to some level of bias, a well-trained admissions reader should be able to adjust for that possibility and would be able to provide valuable insight into the actual circumstances of each student, especially with regard to "experience factors".

Part of the bias was who the Teachers would write recommendations for. There seemed to be an issue with Teachers not being willing to write recommendations for URM. I have no clue if the kids that were asking for the recommendations were good students or were similar in their grades and in class performance to White and Asian kids, but there was an issue with getting the recommendations written in the first place.

I also find it interesting that there is an entire "Get rid of GBRS because the Teachers don't know what they are talking about" for AAP, complete with a "The Teachers don't like Asian students so their GBRSs are tanked" movement but that Teacher Recommendations are part of the solution for TJ.

Maybe the middle ground is that GBRS are done for every applicant at TJ, so that the same format and areas are taken into consideration and weighed for all the students applying. That at least removes the possibility of Teachers not writing recommendations for kids who are interested and the GBRS can be structured to focus only on in school performance and not include outside enrichment activities/awards.

GBRS is about gifted, TJ admission is supposed to be about accomplishment or the ability to succeed at TJ. The two overlap, but they are not the same. A kid having a good sense of humor (great for GBRS) shouldn't impact TJ admissions

I don't think I agree with that. All other things being equal, the academic environment is enriched by students who can contribute to it in multiple ways. TJ is a tough place to navigate (I did) and anyone who went there will tell you that the attitudes of your fellow classmates, as in any intense academic environment, make a huge difference in your educational experience and overall quality of life while at the school. And that has impact across the board.

The questionnaire can be shaped to match TJ but I don't think that anyone wants kids who are only STEM and all STEM. Diversity of interests is also important. Lots of folks point to the band, drama, Model UN, debate team and other non-STEM activities as being an important and positive part of TJ. I wouldn't say that you use the same format as they do for AAP but something that is completed by a team of Teachers who know the students and addresses the same components across all the kids would be better then Teacher recommendations that a Teacher can choose to do or not do.

PP. This is EXTREMELY important to the future of the school. TJ was in danger for many years of losing its status as a full-service high school under the Glazer administration. Glazer would literally get up in front of the incoming class every year at Freshmen Preview Night and tell a group of 480 enthusiastic 13-14 year olds, "If you don't LOVE STEM and have a deep passion for it, this may not be the school for you".

Thankfully, the new principal has breathed life into some dying programs at TJ with some savvy hires and a commitment to the value of the total high school experience. The hope is that FCPS has realized it as well with a new admissions process that no longer overselects for test-taking ability and parent-driven "pre-existing commitment to STEM".

It is a high school for science and technology. If we're going to have it, expecting students to have a passion for those topics doesn't seem unreasonable.

Instead, what we have is a group of people who want to turn TJ into a public school equivalent of an Ivy, just so they can say that admissions are holistic and that URMs - regardless of whether they really want to pursue STEM courses - are well represented there. That type of school is cooler to them that some icky STEM school full of Asians. If TJ were to remain the latter, they wouldn't be quite so sure to mention to everyone they meet well into their 40s that they attended TJ.

The strategy works fairly well, because the School Board is full of white women who are happy to throw Asians under the bus and the URMs who complained about the environment at TJ have an additional leg up in their own college admissions (i.e., the 2021 graduate who received the most attention is heading to Harvard in the fall).

[Anonymous]

Not every talented STEM kid wants to participate in middle school academic competition. And to be fair not every kid who participates in middle school academic competitions is that talented in STEM.