TJ - admissions: GPA and essays vulnerable to prep and affluence

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Strawman. No one thinks affluence doesn’t affect GPA, activities, etc.

So you haven't read any of the TJ admissions threads, apparently? People there are insisting that a test like PSAT absolutely couldn't and shouldn't be used for admissions, since it's too easily gamed by wealthy parents, but they're totally fine with using GPA and essays as the entire admissions process, since they're fair. The premise of the OP is that this is backward, and that places like Stuyvesant use a sole admissions test for placement because it's the most fair way to do it for lower income, high ability kids.

I don't think that's it. I think the issue is why throw up more barriers when we have perfectly fine measures to use like those already given by the school.

Because peer reviewed research from Harvard and Brown show that tests like the PSAT are a much better measure than GPA.

DP. SOLs would work too.

Link to the research about PSATs?

I don't think SOLs work as well as more transparent standardized tests because SOL prep will develop and it will only be available from local test prep organizations and those will be costly. PSAT prep is available from khan academy and has a much lower barrier to entry.

Here is the research that standardized tests matter.
https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/CollegeAdmissions_Paper.pdf

Here are some videos, the first one seems to be presenting the conclusions of the Harvard Brown study; the second one is older and probably a little more comprehensive
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnyiRjPxU_s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gv_Cr1a6rj4

That isn't research about PSATs or middle schoolers. It's a very narrow study.

Sorry wrong link.

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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Strawman. No one thinks affluence doesn’t affect GPA, activities, etc.

So you haven't read any of the TJ admissions threads, apparently? People there are insisting that a test like PSAT absolutely couldn't and shouldn't be used for admissions, since it's too easily gamed by wealthy parents, but they're totally fine with using GPA and essays as the entire admissions process, since they're fair. The premise of the OP is that this is backward, and that places like Stuyvesant use a sole admissions test for placement because it's the most fair way to do it for lower income, high ability kids.

I don't think that's it. I think the issue is why throw up more barriers when we have perfectly fine measures to use like those already given by the school.

Because peer reviewed research from Harvard and Brown show that tests like the PSAT are a much better measure than GPA.

DP. SOLs would work too.

Link to the research about PSATs?

I don't think SOLs work as well as more transparent standardized tests because SOL prep will develop and it will only be available from local test prep organizations and those will be costly. PSAT prep is available from khan academy and has a much lower barrier to entry.

Here is the research that standardized tests matter.
https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/CollegeAdmissions_Paper.pdf

Here are some videos, the first one seems to be presenting the conclusions of the Harvard Brown study; the second one is older and probably a little more comprehensive
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnyiRjPxU_s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gv_Cr1a6rj4

That isn't research about PSATs or middle schoolers. It's a very narrow study.

Sorry wrong link.

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

That isn't research about PSATs or middle schoolers. It's a very narrow study.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Simple and honest question: Why do so many of you think that GPA and essays are *less* vulnerable to prep and effects of affluence than test scores? Affluent kids with motivated parents likely have been in enrichment classes for quite awhile and are likely ahead. If the kid struggles at all, the affluent parents are likely to get a tutor and shore up any deficiencies the kid might have. If all else fails, the affluent parents are much more likely to badger the teacher and administration until their kid's grade turns into an A. It honestly doesn't seem hard for any parent with the money and motivation to make sure any average kid could get straight As in middle school.

Likewise, it's pretty easy to talk about love for STEM and such when the kid has been attending enrichment and camps for many years. Again, it would also be easy to get prep and tutoring to write a highly polished essay.

With tests like PSAT, while prep helps to some degree, there is a pretty strong limit. Kids who are naturally 99th percentile will likely earn very high scores with no or minimal prep. Kids who are pretty average but privileged will see score increases, but they're still unlikely to earn super high scores. It seems easier for affluent parents to ensure that their kids have straight As and can write strong essays than it would be to ensure that their kid would earn a very high PSAT score.

So what am I missing, here?

That's exactly why selecting the top 1.5% from each school helps level the playing field!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Simple and honest question: Why do so many of you think that GPA and essays are *less* vulnerable to prep and effects of affluence than test scores? Affluent kids with motivated parents likely have been in enrichment classes for quite awhile and are likely ahead. If the kid struggles at all, the affluent parents are likely to get a tutor and shore up any deficiencies the kid might have. If all else fails, the affluent parents are much more likely to badger the teacher and administration until their kid's grade turns into an A. It honestly doesn't seem hard for any parent with the money and motivation to make sure any average kid could get straight As in middle school.

Likewise, it's pretty easy to talk about love for STEM and such when the kid has been attending enrichment and camps for many years. Again, it would also be easy to get prep and tutoring to write a highly polished essay.

With tests like PSAT, while prep helps to some degree, there is a pretty strong limit. Kids who are naturally 99th percentile will likely earn very high scores with no or minimal prep. Kids who are pretty average but privileged will see score increases, but they're still unlikely to earn super high scores. It seems easier for affluent parents to ensure that their kids have straight As and can write strong essays than it would be to ensure that their kid would earn a very high PSAT score.

So what am I missing, here?

That's exactly why selecting the top 1.5% from each school helps level the playing field!

Does it? There are very few (are there any) FCPS middle schools without affluent kids with parents doing all they can to ensure straight As.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Strawman. No one thinks affluence doesn’t affect GPA, activities, etc.

So you haven't read any of the TJ admissions threads, apparently? People there are insisting that a test like PSAT absolutely couldn't and shouldn't be used for admissions, since it's too easily gamed by wealthy parents, but they're totally fine with using GPA and essays as the entire admissions process, since they're fair. The premise of the OP is that this is backward, and that places like Stuyvesant use a sole admissions test for placement because it's the most fair way to do it for lower income, high ability kids.

I don't think that's it. I think the issue is why throw up more barriers when we have perfectly fine measures to use like those already given by the school.

Because peer reviewed research from Harvard and Brown show that tests like the PSAT are a much better measure than GPA.

DP. SOLs would work too.

Link to the research about PSATs?

I don't think SOLs work as well as more transparent standardized tests because SOL prep will develop and it will only be available from local test prep organizations and those will be costly. PSAT prep is available from khan academy and has a much lower barrier to entry.

Here is the research that standardized tests matter.
https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/CollegeAdmissions_Paper.pdf

Here are some videos, the first one seems to be presenting the conclusions of the Harvard Brown study; the second one is older and probably a little more comprehensive
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnyiRjPxU_s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gv_Cr1a6rj4

That isn't research about PSATs or middle schoolers. It's a very narrow study.

Sorry wrong link.

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

That isn't research about PSATs or middle schoolers. It's a very narrow study.

It's about standardized testing and the value it has in predicting success at highly selective institutions regardless of the wealth or income of the test taker.

Are you saying you can't apply the conclusions of that study to our current scenario? Because it's not a very hard streatch.
The conclusions of that study seem to pretty handily address all the bullshit excuses about standardized tests and wealth/income.

Standardized testing matters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Simple and honest question: Why do so many of you think that GPA and essays are *less* vulnerable to prep and effects of affluence than test scores? Affluent kids with motivated parents likely have been in enrichment classes for quite awhile and are likely ahead. If the kid struggles at all, the affluent parents are likely to get a tutor and shore up any deficiencies the kid might have. If all else fails, the affluent parents are much more likely to badger the teacher and administration until their kid's grade turns into an A. It honestly doesn't seem hard for any parent with the money and motivation to make sure any average kid could get straight As in middle school.

Likewise, it's pretty easy to talk about love for STEM and such when the kid has been attending enrichment and camps for many years. Again, it would also be easy to get prep and tutoring to write a highly polished essay.

With tests like PSAT, while prep helps to some degree, there is a pretty strong limit. Kids who are naturally 99th percentile will likely earn very high scores with no or minimal prep. Kids who are pretty average but privileged will see score increases, but they're still unlikely to earn super high scores. It seems easier for affluent parents to ensure that their kids have straight As and can write strong essays than it would be to ensure that their kid would earn a very high PSAT score.

So what am I missing, here?

That's exactly why selecting the top 1.5% from each school helps level the playing field!

But it's not the top 1.5%, it's an almost random selection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Simple and honest question: Why do so many of you think that GPA and essays are *less* vulnerable to prep and effects of affluence than test scores? Affluent kids with motivated parents likely have been in enrichment classes for quite awhile and are likely ahead. If the kid struggles at all, the affluent parents are likely to get a tutor and shore up any deficiencies the kid might have. If all else fails, the affluent parents are much more likely to badger the teacher and administration until their kid's grade turns into an A. It honestly doesn't seem hard for any parent with the money and motivation to make sure any average kid could get straight As in middle school.

Likewise, it's pretty easy to talk about love for STEM and such when the kid has been attending enrichment and camps for many years. Again, it would also be easy to get prep and tutoring to write a highly polished essay.

With tests like PSAT, while prep helps to some degree, there is a pretty strong limit. Kids who are naturally 99th percentile will likely earn very high scores with no or minimal prep. Kids who are pretty average but privileged will see score increases, but they're still unlikely to earn super high scores. It seems easier for affluent parents to ensure that their kids have straight As and can write strong essays than it would be to ensure that their kid would earn a very high PSAT score.

So what am I missing, here?

That's exactly why selecting the top 1.5% from each school helps level the playing field!

Does it? There are very few (are there any) FCPS middle schools without affluent kids with parents doing all they can to ensure straight As.

If you buy a nice house in some school districts, you are probably sending your kids to private schools sometime between 3rd and 6th grade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Strawman. No one thinks affluence doesn’t affect GPA, activities, etc.

So you haven't read any of the TJ admissions threads, apparently? People there are insisting that a test like PSAT absolutely couldn't and shouldn't be used for admissions, since it's too easily gamed by wealthy parents, but they're totally fine with using GPA and essays as the entire admissions process, since they're fair. The premise of the OP is that this is backward, and that places like Stuyvesant use a sole admissions test for placement because it's the most fair way to do it for lower income, high ability kids.

I don't think that's it. I think the issue is why throw up more barriers when we have perfectly fine measures to use like those already given by the school.

Because peer reviewed research from Harvard and Brown show that tests like the PSAT are a much better measure than GPA.

DP. SOLs would work too.

Link to the research about PSATs?

I don't think SOLs work as well as more transparent standardized tests because SOL prep will develop and it will only be available from local test prep organizations and those will be costly. PSAT prep is available from khan academy and has a much lower barrier to entry.

Here is the research that standardized tests matter.
https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/CollegeAdmissions_Paper.pdf

Here are some videos, the first one seems to be presenting the conclusions of the Harvard Brown study; the second one is older and probably a little more comprehensive
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnyiRjPxU_s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gv_Cr1a6rj4

That isn't research about PSATs or middle schoolers. It's a very narrow study.

Sorry wrong link.

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

That isn't research about PSATs or middle schoolers. It's a very narrow study.

It's about standardized testing and the value it has in predicting success at highly selective institutions regardless of the wealth or income of the test taker.

Are you saying you can't apply the conclusions of that study to our current scenario? Because it's not a very hard streatch.
The conclusions of that study seem to pretty handily address all the bullshit excuses about standardized tests and wealth/income.

Standardized testing matters.

It's very narrow study -- just college freshmen enrolled in a handful of highly-selective, private universities. Those kids mostly all had near-perfect HS GPAs making it difficult to differentiate and predict college performance. This isn't true when you look at a broader population.
https://news.uchicago.edu/story/test-scores-dont-stack-gpas-predicting-college-success

It's a big leap to apply to middle schoolers applying to a public high school program. Different objectives and populations.

Family income has substantial impacts on SAT scores:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/03/rich-students-get-better-sat-scores-heres-why.html
https://www.ctpublic.org/education/2019-05-15/georgetown-study-wealth-not-ability-the-biggest-predictor-of-future-success
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/10/23/upshot/sat-inequality.html

Standardized tests can screen out kids who didn't have funds/resources to do as much prep. Public high school programs should not have a pay-to-play admissions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Simple and honest question: Why do so many of you think that GPA and essays are *less* vulnerable to prep and effects of affluence than test scores? Affluent kids with motivated parents likely have been in enrichment classes for quite awhile and are likely ahead. If the kid struggles at all, the affluent parents are likely to get a tutor and shore up any deficiencies the kid might have. If all else fails, the affluent parents are much more likely to badger the teacher and administration until their kid's grade turns into an A. It honestly doesn't seem hard for any parent with the money and motivation to make sure any average kid could get straight As in middle school.

Likewise, it's pretty easy to talk about love for STEM and such when the kid has been attending enrichment and camps for many years. Again, it would also be easy to get prep and tutoring to write a highly polished essay.

With tests like PSAT, while prep helps to some degree, there is a pretty strong limit. Kids who are naturally 99th percentile will likely earn very high scores with no or minimal prep. Kids who are pretty average but privileged will see score increases, but they're still unlikely to earn super high scores. It seems easier for affluent parents to ensure that their kids have straight As and can write strong essays than it would be to ensure that their kid would earn a very high PSAT score.

So what am I missing, here?

That's exactly why selecting the top 1.5% from each school helps level the playing field!

But it's not the top 1.5%, it's an almost random selection.

That's incorrect! It's literally the top 1.5% from each school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Strawman. No one thinks affluence doesn’t affect GPA, activities, etc.

So you haven't read any of the TJ admissions threads, apparently? People there are insisting that a test like PSAT absolutely couldn't and shouldn't be used for admissions, since it's too easily gamed by wealthy parents, but they're totally fine with using GPA and essays as the entire admissions process, since they're fair. The premise of the OP is that this is backward, and that places like Stuyvesant use a sole admissions test for placement because it's the most fair way to do it for lower income, high ability kids.

I don't think that's it. I think the issue is why throw up more barriers when we have perfectly fine measures to use like those already given by the school.

Because peer reviewed research from Harvard and Brown show that tests like the PSAT are a much better measure than GPA.

DP. SOLs would work too.

Link to the research about PSATs?

I don't think SOLs work as well as more transparent standardized tests because SOL prep will develop and it will only be available from local test prep organizations and those will be costly. PSAT prep is available from khan academy and has a much lower barrier to entry.

Here is the research that standardized tests matter.
https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/CollegeAdmissions_Paper.pdf

Here are some videos, the first one seems to be presenting the conclusions of the Harvard Brown study; the second one is older and probably a little more comprehensive
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnyiRjPxU_s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gv_Cr1a6rj4

That isn't research about PSATs or middle schoolers. It's a very narrow study.

Sorry wrong link.

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

That isn't research about PSATs or middle schoolers. It's a very narrow study.

It's about standardized testing and the value it has in predicting success at highly selective institutions regardless of the wealth or income of the test taker.

Are you saying you can't apply the conclusions of that study to our current scenario? Because it's not a very hard streatch.
The conclusions of that study seem to pretty handily address all the bullshit excuses about standardized tests and wealth/income.

Standardized testing matters.

It's very narrow study -- just college freshmen enrolled in a handful of highly-selective, private universities. Those kids mostly all had near-perfect HS GPAs making it difficult to differentiate and predict college performance. This isn't true when you look at a broader population.
https://news.uchicago.edu/story/test-scores-dont-stack-gpas-predicting-college-success

It's a big leap to apply to middle schoolers applying to a public high school program. Different objectives and populations.

And the conclusions of this study are applicable here.
TJ is also a highly selective school (or at last it's supposed to be).
The U Chicago study is useless in this discussion. It's actually pretty useless if you are talking about anything selective.

Family income has substantial impacts on SAT scores:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/03/rich-students-get-better-sat-scores-heres-why.html
https://www.ctpublic.org/education/2019-05-15/georgetown-study-wealth-not-ability-the-biggest-predictor-of-future-success
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/10/23/upshot/sat-inequality.html

Standardized tests can screen out kids who didn't have funds/resources to do as much prep. Public high school programs should not have a pay-to-play admissions.

Standardized tests do the exact opposite. They helps IDENTIFY smart kids who don't have resources. This is why Harvard and Brown are returning to test required. This is why MIT returned to test required.

We have a peer reviewed study that shows that standardized tests reliably predicts the performance of students regardless of income.
Is it really so hard to believe that the children of wealthier parents might just be smarter and better prepared than the children of less affluent parents?

This conclusion applies just as much at UVA and other public colleges as it does at Harvard and private colleges.

I find it odd that when places like harvard were going test optional, we heard people say that Harvard must know what it's doing so we should do the same;
But now that they are going back to requiring test scores, Harvard doesn't know what it's doing anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Simple and honest question: Why do so many of you think that GPA and essays are *less* vulnerable to prep and effects of affluence than test scores? Affluent kids with motivated parents likely have been in enrichment classes for quite awhile and are likely ahead. If the kid struggles at all, the affluent parents are likely to get a tutor and shore up any deficiencies the kid might have. If all else fails, the affluent parents are much more likely to badger the teacher and administration until their kid's grade turns into an A. It honestly doesn't seem hard for any parent with the money and motivation to make sure any average kid could get straight As in middle school.

Likewise, it's pretty easy to talk about love for STEM and such when the kid has been attending enrichment and camps for many years. Again, it would also be easy to get prep and tutoring to write a highly polished essay.

With tests like PSAT, while prep helps to some degree, there is a pretty strong limit. Kids who are naturally 99th percentile will likely earn very high scores with no or minimal prep. Kids who are pretty average but privileged will see score increases, but they're still unlikely to earn super high scores. It seems easier for affluent parents to ensure that their kids have straight As and can write strong essays than it would be to ensure that their kid would earn a very high PSAT score.

So what am I missing, here?

That's exactly why selecting the top 1.5% from each school helps level the playing field!

It's literally not.

But it's not the top 1.5%, it's an almost random selection.

That's incorrect! It's literally the top 1.5% from each school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Simple and honest question: Why do so many of you think that GPA and essays are *less* vulnerable to prep and effects of affluence than test scores? Affluent kids with motivated parents likely have been in enrichment classes for quite awhile and are likely ahead. If the kid struggles at all, the affluent parents are likely to get a tutor and shore up any deficiencies the kid might have. If all else fails, the affluent parents are much more likely to badger the teacher and administration until their kid's grade turns into an A. It honestly doesn't seem hard for any parent with the money and motivation to make sure any average kid could get straight As in middle school.

Likewise, it's pretty easy to talk about love for STEM and such when the kid has been attending enrichment and camps for many years. Again, it would also be easy to get prep and tutoring to write a highly polished essay.

With tests like PSAT, while prep helps to some degree, there is a pretty strong limit. Kids who are naturally 99th percentile will likely earn very high scores with no or minimal prep. Kids who are pretty average but privileged will see score increases, but they're still unlikely to earn super high scores. It seems easier for affluent parents to ensure that their kids have straight As and can write strong essays than it would be to ensure that their kid would earn a very high PSAT score.

So what am I missing, here?

That's exactly why selecting the top 1.5% from each school helps level the playing field!

But it's not the top 1.5%, it's an almost random selection.

Nope it's the top 1.5% based on clear and objective metrics. The problem is some people don't like this because it's hard to manipulate unlike the old system, they don't have a clear advantage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Simple and honest question: Why do so many of you think that GPA and essays are *less* vulnerable to prep and effects of affluence than test scores? Affluent kids with motivated parents likely have been in enrichment classes for quite awhile and are likely ahead. If the kid struggles at all, the affluent parents are likely to get a tutor and shore up any deficiencies the kid might have. If all else fails, the affluent parents are much more likely to badger the teacher and administration until their kid's grade turns into an A. It honestly doesn't seem hard for any parent with the money and motivation to make sure any average kid could get straight As in middle school.

Likewise, it's pretty easy to talk about love for STEM and such when the kid has been attending enrichment and camps for many years. Again, it would also be easy to get prep and tutoring to write a highly polished essay.

With tests like PSAT, while prep helps to some degree, there is a pretty strong limit. Kids who are naturally 99th percentile will likely earn very high scores with no or minimal prep. Kids who are pretty average but privileged will see score increases, but they're still unlikely to earn super high scores. It seems easier for affluent parents to ensure that their kids have straight As and can write strong essays than it would be to ensure that their kid would earn a very high PSAT score.

So what am I missing, here?

That's exactly why selecting the top 1.5% from each school helps level the playing field!

But it's not the top 1.5%, it's an almost random selection.

Nope it's the top 1.5% based on clear and objective metrics. The problem is some people don't like this because it's hard to manipulate unlike the old system, they don't have a clear advantage.

Again, you seem to not comprehend the word "objective." Go back to your 4th grade homework and let the grown ups handle this discussion.

It's the top 1.5% based mostly on essays. Essay grading is by definition not objective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Simple and honest question: Why do so many of you think that GPA and essays are *less* vulnerable to prep and effects of affluence than test scores? Affluent kids with motivated parents likely have been in enrichment classes for quite awhile and are likely ahead. If the kid struggles at all, the affluent parents are likely to get a tutor and shore up any deficiencies the kid might have. If all else fails, the affluent parents are much more likely to badger the teacher and administration until their kid's grade turns into an A. It honestly doesn't seem hard for any parent with the money and motivation to make sure any average kid could get straight As in middle school.

Likewise, it's pretty easy to talk about love for STEM and such when the kid has been attending enrichment and camps for many years. Again, it would also be easy to get prep and tutoring to write a highly polished essay.

With tests like PSAT, while prep helps to some degree, there is a pretty strong limit. Kids who are naturally 99th percentile will likely earn very high scores with no or minimal prep. Kids who are pretty average but privileged will see score increases, but they're still unlikely to earn super high scores. It seems easier for affluent parents to ensure that their kids have straight As and can write strong essays than it would be to ensure that their kid would earn a very high PSAT score.

So what am I missing, here?

That's exactly why selecting the top 1.5% from each school helps level the playing field!

But it's not the top 1.5%, it's an almost random selection.

Nope it's the top 1.5% based on clear and objective metrics. The problem is some people don't like this because it's hard to manipulate unlike the old system, they don't have a clear advantage.

Again, you seem to not comprehend the word "objective." Go back to your 4th grade homework and let the grown ups handle this discussion.

It's the top 1.5% based mostly on essays. Essay grading is by definition not objective.

No it's the top 1.5% based on objective metrics like grades and test scores. These aren't as easy to manipulate so people like yourselves try to pretend it's something else in order to push for a return to the older system which was easy to game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Simple and honest question: Why do so many of you think that GPA and essays are *less* vulnerable to prep and effects of affluence than test scores? Affluent kids with motivated parents likely have been in enrichment classes for quite awhile and are likely ahead. If the kid struggles at all, the affluent parents are likely to get a tutor and shore up any deficiencies the kid might have. If all else fails, the affluent parents are much more likely to badger the teacher and administration until their kid's grade turns into an A. It honestly doesn't seem hard for any parent with the money and motivation to make sure any average kid could get straight As in middle school.

Likewise, it's pretty easy to talk about love for STEM and such when the kid has been attending enrichment and camps for many years. Again, it would also be easy to get prep and tutoring to write a highly polished essay.

With tests like PSAT, while prep helps to some degree, there is a pretty strong limit. Kids who are naturally 99th percentile will likely earn very high scores with no or minimal prep. Kids who are pretty average but privileged will see score increases, but they're still unlikely to earn super high scores. It seems easier for affluent parents to ensure that their kids have straight As and can write strong essays than it would be to ensure that their kid would earn a very high PSAT score.

So what am I missing, here?

That's exactly why selecting the top 1.5% from each school helps level the playing field!

But it's not the top 1.5%, it's an almost random selection.

Nope it's the top 1.5% based on clear and objective metrics. The problem is some people don't like this because it's hard to manipulate unlike the old system, they don't have a clear advantage.

Again, you seem to not comprehend the word "objective." Go back to your 4th grade homework and let the grown ups handle this discussion.

It's the top 1.5% based mostly on essays. Essay grading is by definition not objective.

No it's the top 1.5% based on objective metrics like grades and test scores. These aren't as easy to manipulate so people like yourselves try to pretend it's something else in order to push for a return to the older system which was easy to game.

This isn’t accurate. A quick visit to the official fcps website will immediately communicate otherwise.