Disappointed by TJ decision?

[Anonymous]

Basis in McLean is better anyway. Send your kids there

[Anonymous]

Basis Mclean is more advanced than TJ with smaller class sizes and more nurturing environment

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Basis Mclean is more advanced than TJ with smaller class sizes and more nurturing environment

Basis is a private school. Not many people can afford it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Basis Mclean is more advanced than TJ with smaller class sizes and more nurturing environment

Debatable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe that the TJ tests measure aptitude or smartness in any manner. The tests just gauge your passion for STEM. My son did get accepted today to TJ. Do I believe he is THE smartest student at his school? Of course not. I am sure there are some really smart and passionate students who got rejected and sadly this is just the nature of the TJ admission process. We'll just have to take these kind of things in our stride with the belief that bigger and better things await these kids in the future!

The old tests did but they got rid of them.

Did they measure that, or did they simply measure level of test prep?

[Anonymous]

Diversity and equity over iq

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe that the TJ tests measure aptitude or smartness in any manner. The tests just gauge your passion for STEM. My son did get accepted today to TJ. Do I believe he is THE smartest student at his school? Of course not. I am sure there are some really smart and passionate students who got rejected and sadly this is just the nature of the TJ admission process. We'll just have to take these kind of things in our stride with the belief that bigger and better things await these kids in the future!

The old tests did but they got rid of them.

But why is that wrong? A kid already has the aptitude based on other screening factors (GPA and course rigor). Sure, the old tests layered another screen on top of that, but there was also the prep problem. What’s wrong with having a process for admission to a high school where, once you meet the screen, you identify candidates who have a passion for STEM that can express that passion effectively and convincingly in the essays?

It is hard to differentiate just based on essays that are very constrained to cookie cutter answers. At a minimum you need teacher recommendations. Those who have observed the students in a class room setting would be able to provide valuable input. That would fix a major part of the current admissions weakness.

+1
Adding teacher recc’s back in would fix the main flaw right now which is that it’s hard to pick the top kids within each MS. I firmly support the seats per MS model but they need to fine how the kids get picked within those pools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe that the TJ tests measure aptitude or smartness in any manner. The tests just gauge your passion for STEM. My son did get accepted today to TJ. Do I believe he is THE smartest student at his school? Of course not. I am sure there are some really smart and passionate students who got rejected and sadly this is just the nature of the TJ admission process. We'll just have to take these kind of things in our stride with the belief that bigger and better things await these kids in the future!

The old tests did but they got rid of them.

But why is that wrong? A kid already has the aptitude based on other screening factors (GPA and course rigor). Sure, the old tests layered another screen on top of that, but there was also the prep problem. What’s wrong with having a process for admission to a high school where, once you meet the screen, you identify candidates who have a passion for STEM that can express that passion effectively and convincingly in the essays?

It is hard to differentiate just based on essays that are very constrained to cookie cutter answers. At a minimum you need teacher recommendations. Those who have observed the students in a class room setting would be able to provide valuable input. That would fix a major part of the current admissions weakness.

+1
Adding teacher recc’s back in would fix the main flaw right now which is that it’s hard to pick the top kids within each MS. I firmly support the seats per MS model but they need to fine how the kids get picked within those pools.

I’m the poster you’re both responding to (with the post asking “why is that wrong?”). I agree that teacher recommendations would be a useful data point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe that the TJ tests measure aptitude or smartness in any manner. The tests just gauge your passion for STEM. My son did get accepted today to TJ. Do I believe he is THE smartest student at his school? Of course not. I am sure there are some really smart and passionate students who got rejected and sadly this is just the nature of the TJ admission process. We'll just have to take these kind of things in our stride with the belief that bigger and better things await these kids in the future!

The old tests did but they got rid of them.

Did they measure that, or did they simply measure level of test prep?

They measured whether a student's family could afford to plunk down $20k on prep which also helped keep out the riffraff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe that the TJ tests measure aptitude or smartness in any manner. The tests just gauge your passion for STEM. My son did get accepted today to TJ. Do I believe he is THE smartest student at his school? Of course not. I am sure there are some really smart and passionate students who got rejected and sadly this is just the nature of the TJ admission process. We'll just have to take these kind of things in our stride with the belief that bigger and better things await these kids in the future!

The old tests did but they got rid of them.

But why is that wrong? A kid already has the aptitude based on other screening factors (GPA and course rigor). Sure, the old tests layered another screen on top of that, but there was also the prep problem. What’s wrong with having a process for admission to a high school where, once you meet the screen, you identify candidates who have a passion for STEM that can express that passion effectively and convincingly in the essays?

It is hard to differentiate just based on essays that are very constrained to cookie cutter answers. At a minimum you need teacher recommendations. Those who have observed the students in a class room setting would be able to provide valuable input. That would fix a major part of the current admissions weakness.

+1
Adding teacher recc’s back in would fix the main flaw right now which is that it’s hard to pick the top kids within each MS. I firmly support the seats per MS model but they need to fine how the kids get picked within those pools.

I’m the poster you’re both responding to (with the post asking “why is that wrong?”). I agree that teacher recommendations would be a useful data point.

Except for the fact they are often inconsistent biased and unreliable but sure

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe that the TJ tests measure aptitude or smartness in any manner. The tests just gauge your passion for STEM. My son did get accepted today to TJ. Do I believe he is THE smartest student at his school? Of course not. I am sure there are some really smart and passionate students who got rejected and sadly this is just the nature of the TJ admission process. We'll just have to take these kind of things in our stride with the belief that bigger and better things await these kids in the future!

The old tests did but they got rid of them.

But why is that wrong? A kid already has the aptitude based on other screening factors (GPA and course rigor). Sure, the old tests layered another screen on top of that, but there was also the prep problem. What’s wrong with having a process for admission to a high school where, once you meet the screen, you identify candidates who have a passion for STEM that can express that passion effectively and convincingly in the essays?

It is hard to differentiate just based on essays that are very constrained to cookie cutter answers. At a minimum you need teacher recommendations. Those who have observed the students in a class room setting would be able to provide valuable input. That would fix a major part of the current admissions weakness.

+1
Adding teacher recc’s back in would fix the main flaw right now which is that it’s hard to pick the top kids within each MS. I firmly support the seats per MS model but they need to fine how the kids get picked within those pools.

I’m the poster you’re both responding to (with the post asking “why is that wrong?”). I agree that teacher recommendations would be a useful data point.

Except for the fact they are often inconsistent biased and unreliable but sure

I tend to agree. I think the idea of the new admissions approach is to find kids who are academically highly capable, but also espouse good values, such as camaraderie and helping each other as opposed to putting a personal success ahead of integrity and empathy. I would imagine that if you select your students this way, you would be on path to creating a pretty amazing community, one that is even greater for the kids that what TJ used to be . But yes, high academic achievement should still be a priority, that is what TJ was created for in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe that the TJ tests measure aptitude or smartness in any manner. The tests just gauge your passion for STEM. My son did get accepted today to TJ. Do I believe he is THE smartest student at his school? Of course not. I am sure there are some really smart and passionate students who got rejected and sadly this is just the nature of the TJ admission process. We'll just have to take these kind of things in our stride with the belief that bigger and better things await these kids in the future!

The old tests did but they got rid of them.

But why is that wrong? A kid already has the aptitude based on other screening factors (GPA and course rigor). Sure, the old tests layered another screen on top of that, but there was also the prep problem. What’s wrong with having a process for admission to a high school where, once you meet the screen, you identify candidates who have a passion for STEM that can express that passion effectively and convincingly in the essays?

It is hard to differentiate just based on essays that are very constrained to cookie cutter answers. At a minimum you need teacher recommendations. Those who have observed the students in a class room setting would be able to provide valuable input. That would fix a major part of the current admissions weakness.

+1
Adding teacher recc’s back in would fix the main flaw right now which is that it’s hard to pick the top kids within each MS. I firmly support the seats per MS model but they need to fine how the kids get picked within those pools.

I’m the poster you’re both responding to (with the post asking “why is that wrong?”). I agree that teacher recommendations would be a useful data point.

Except for the fact they are often inconsistent biased and unreliable but sure

Sure they could be but right now admissions is flying pretty blind in picking the kids at a given MS. In most cases the teacher recc’s would help a lot with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe that the TJ tests measure aptitude or smartness in any manner. The tests just gauge your passion for STEM. My son did get accepted today to TJ. Do I believe he is THE smartest student at his school? Of course not. I am sure there are some really smart and passionate students who got rejected and sadly this is just the nature of the TJ admission process. We'll just have to take these kind of things in our stride with the belief that bigger and better things await these kids in the future!

The old tests did but they got rid of them.

But why is that wrong? A kid already has the aptitude based on other screening factors (GPA and course rigor). Sure, the old tests layered another screen on top of that, but there was also the prep problem. What’s wrong with having a process for admission to a high school where, once you meet the screen, you identify candidates who have a passion for STEM that can express that passion effectively and convincingly in the essays?

New poster: in FCPS, this means nothing. Most everyone applying has the aptitude if enrolled in honors classes in middle school. The reason it’s wrong it because before it weeded out kids who don’t belong. Now it does not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe that the TJ tests measure aptitude or smartness in any manner. The tests just gauge your passion for STEM. My son did get accepted today to TJ. Do I believe he is THE smartest student at his school? Of course not. I am sure there are some really smart and passionate students who got rejected and sadly this is just the nature of the TJ admission process. We'll just have to take these kind of things in our stride with the belief that bigger and better things await these kids in the future!

The old tests did but they got rid of them.

But why is that wrong? A kid already has the aptitude based on other screening factors (GPA and course rigor). Sure, the old tests layered another screen on top of that, but there was also the prep problem. What’s wrong with having a process for admission to a high school where, once you meet the screen, you identify candidates who have a passion for STEM that can express that passion effectively and convincingly in the essays?

It is hard to differentiate just based on essays that are very constrained to cookie cutter answers. At a minimum you need teacher recommendations. Those who have observed the students in a class room setting would be able to provide valuable input. That would fix a major part of the current admissions weakness.

+1
Adding teacher recc’s back in would fix the main flaw right now which is that it’s hard to pick the top kids within each MS. I firmly support the seats per MS model but they need to fine how the kids get picked within those pools.

I’m the poster you’re both responding to (with the post asking “why is that wrong?”). I agree that teacher recommendations would be a useful data point.

Except for the fact they are often inconsistent biased and unreliable but sure

They tend to be biased in favor of students who actively contribute to the educational environment.

If that ends up creating racial disparities, then it would seem that certain cultures have work to do on emphasizing collaboration and contribution as a part of the academic experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe that the TJ tests measure aptitude or smartness in any manner. The tests just gauge your passion for STEM. My son did get accepted today to TJ. Do I believe he is THE smartest student at his school? Of course not. I am sure there are some really smart and passionate students who got rejected and sadly this is just the nature of the TJ admission process. We'll just have to take these kind of things in our stride with the belief that bigger and better things await these kids in the future!

The old tests did but they got rid of them.

But why is that wrong? A kid already has the aptitude based on other screening factors (GPA and course rigor). Sure, the old tests layered another screen on top of that, but there was also the prep problem. What’s wrong with having a process for admission to a high school where, once you meet the screen, you identify candidates who have a passion for STEM that can express that passion effectively and convincingly in the essays?

You think this essay based process doesn't have the prep problem?