How's the college admission in Non-TJ FCPS high schools?

[Anonymous]

The TJ educational experience is better than most top colleges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was an alumni interviewer for Stanford for a few years, and a few of the kids I interviewed from other schools were admitted, but the very impressive students from TJ were not.

To be competitive for admissions I think you really need to stand out from your classmates. It's harder to do that at TJ than at a school like Washington-Liberty (from which two were admitted that I know of). In choosing a high school for my kids, I'm looking for a place where they can take a full load of AP courses and where their classmates are well-disciplined and less likely to negatively influence my kids. The average test scores should be high enough that the universities are convinced that the classes are sufficiently rigorous. And there should be a cohort of students who are high-achieving so that the kids can encourage each other, but it doesn't bother me that there are also a large number of "average" students--in fact I want that so my child can stand out more easily. If the school has a few elite college admissions in a single year, then I know it's capable of producing those results.

"A few college admissions in a single year" could be a result of out-of-school supplement.

[Anonymous]

If your kid isn’t at TJ then you need to aim for a state school. A few go higher but not many.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If your kid isn’t at TJ then you need to aim for a state school. A few go higher but not many.

Re tard ed take. What you should aim for depends on your kid, not on what the other kids at the non-TJ school are doing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If your kid isn’t at TJ then you need to aim for a state school. A few go higher but not many.

Wrong, better to be a standout at your school that be top 20% at TJ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Usually kids from wealthier households, with engaged parents, do well in college admissions, no matter the high school.

Higher income/wealth correlates with the catchment areas for McLean, Langley, and Oakton (and N. Arlington).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Usually kids from wealthier households, with engaged parents, do well in college admissions, no matter the high school.

Higher income/wealth correlates with the catchment areas for McLean, Langley, and Oakton (and N. Arlington).

Agree, but there are also pockets of UMC households scattered around in other pyramids. Students from these families also tend to do well, despite attending a lower rated high school. On top of that, they usually have an easier time leading clubs, getting leads in plays and making athletic teams. These schools may not offer all the AP courses, but that usually doesn’t limit them in the admissions game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Usually kids from wealthier households, with engaged parents, do well in college admissions, no matter the high school.

Higher income/wealth correlates with the catchment areas for McLean, Langley, and Oakton (and N. Arlington).

Agree, but there are also pockets of UMC households scattered around in other pyramids. Students from these families also tend to do well, despite attending a lower rated high school. On top of that, they usually have an easier time leading clubs, getting leads in plays and making athletic teams. These schools may not offer all the AP courses, but that usually doesn’t limit them in the admissions game.

If this were truly an advantage, more UMC would look at buying in low performing school districts so their kids could stand out. Instead, they conclude that their kids benefit, both academically and in terms of college admissions, by being surrounded by more high achieving peers.

Why? Because the hypothetical “same kid” generally ends up aiming lower and achieving less at a lower performing school. The kids who do well at low performing schools, in turn, will do even better at a high performing school.

You can claim otherwise, but you’re tilting at windmills.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Usually kids from wealthier households, with engaged parents, do well in college admissions, no matter the high school.

Higher income/wealth correlates with the catchment areas for McLean, Langley, and Oakton (and N. Arlington).

Agree, but there are also pockets of UMC households scattered around in other pyramids. Students from these families also tend to do well, despite attending a lower rated high school. On top of that, they usually have an easier time leading clubs, getting leads in plays and making athletic teams. These schools may not offer all the AP courses, but that usually doesn’t limit them in the admissions game.

If this were truly an advantage, more UMC would look at buying in low performing school districts so their kids could stand out. Instead, they conclude that their kids benefit, both academically and in terms of college admissions, by being surrounded by more high achieving peers.

Why? Because the hypothetical “same kid” generally ends up aiming lower and achieving less at a lower performing school. The kids who do well at low performing schools, in turn, will do even better at a high performing school.

You can claim otherwise, but you’re tilting at windmills.

Unfortunately their conclusion is wrong. I'm assuming you have no teaching or classroom experience. I taught AP at a high-SES school and always felt sympathy for the kids who were clearly forced by their parents to enroll in AP courses. The majority of kids who are not ready for AP will remain in the shadows of high achievers. The common notion that intelligence and motivation rubs off on weaker students is not real. It's quite the opposite as it is demoralizing for the academically weaker kids to see how glaring the discrepancy is between them and their stronger peers.

I'm not advocating that deliberately placing those kids in weaker cohorts is better either. Rather, let kids land where they may. But the hyperfocus to surround average kids (and UMC parents can definitely have perfectly average kids) with advanced peers generally will not make any difference in outcomes. Paid tutoring services will make far more of a difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The TJ educational experience is better than most top colleges.

Is this the TJ cheating experience? Or did you mean something else?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Usually kids from wealthier households, with engaged parents, do well in college admissions, no matter the high school.

Higher income/wealth correlates with the catchment areas for McLean, Langley, and Oakton (and N. Arlington).

Agree, but there are also pockets of UMC households scattered around in other pyramids. Students from these families also tend to do well, despite attending a lower rated high school. On top of that, they usually have an easier time leading clubs, getting leads in plays and making athletic teams. These schools may not offer all the AP courses, but that usually doesn’t limit them in the admissions game.

If this were truly an advantage, more UMC would look at buying in low performing school districts so their kids could stand out. Instead, they conclude that their kids benefit, both academically and in terms of college admissions, by being surrounded by more high achieving peers.

Why? Because the hypothetical “same kid” generally ends up aiming lower and achieving less at a lower performing school. The kids who do well at low performing schools, in turn, will do even better at a high performing school.

You can claim otherwise, but you’re tilting at windmills.

Unfortunately their conclusion is wrong. I'm assuming you have no teaching or classroom experience. I taught AP at a high-SES school and always felt sympathy for the kids who were clearly forced by their parents to enroll in AP courses. The majority of kids who are not ready for AP will remain in the shadows of high achievers. The common notion that intelligence and motivation rubs off on weaker students is not real. It's quite the opposite as it is demoralizing for the academically weaker kids to see how glaring the discrepancy is between them and their stronger peers.

I'm not advocating that deliberately placing those kids in weaker cohorts is better either. Rather, let kids land where they may. But the hyperfocus to surround average kids (and UMC parents can definitely have perfectly average kids) with advanced peers generally will not make any difference in outcomes. Paid tutoring services will make far more of a difference.

Sorry, but this is one of those areas where the behavior of many thousands of parents over the years is more persuasive than the anecdote of someone trying to push the "big fish/small pond" agenda.

I have both classroom experience and experience as a parent in both AP and IB schools with different demographics. At a low-achieving school, students tend to aim lower. The top kids get a false sense of comfort that they are high achievers because they stand out in the small pond, but then fare comparatively worse if and when they are finally in an environment with more high-achieving peers. At a high-achieving school, kids are not demoralized, but they are also less likely to come away with an inflated sense of their own abilities. Rather, they are challenged to perform to the best of those abilities. If attending a high-achieving school leads their parents to get them tutoring, that's OK, so long as it contributes to their overall academic development.

Ironically, IB suffers from all the flaws you ascribe to kids taking AP courses at high-SES schools - and more. You have some parents pushing their kids to do the full IB diploma, in some cases because they've been misled into believing that it's a golden ticket to college admissions. In some cases, the kids aren't up to that challenge. In other cases, the kids are up to the challenge, but still resent having to jump through all the prescriptive IB hoops. Further, the IB program is also marketed to families as a "school within a school," which is demoralizing to the vast majority of kids who aren't on the IB diploma track and often end up treated as second-class citizens at their own schools. In comparison, at the top AP schools, there's no artificial distinction between kids on an "AP diploma" track and everyone else, and kids can adjust their schedules to take AP courses in the areas that interest them the most or where they have the greatest aptitude.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Usually kids from wealthier households, with engaged parents, do well in college admissions, no matter the high school.

Higher income/wealth correlates with the catchment areas for McLean, Langley, and Oakton (and N. Arlington).

Agree, but there are also pockets of UMC households scattered around in other pyramids. Students from these families also tend to do well, despite attending a lower rated high school. On top of that, they usually have an easier time leading clubs, getting leads in plays and making athletic teams. These schools may not offer all the AP courses, but that usually doesn’t limit them in the admissions game.

If this were truly an advantage, more UMC would look at buying in low performing school districts so their kids could stand out. Instead, they conclude that their kids benefit, both academically and in terms of college admissions, by being surrounded by more high achieving peers.

Why? Because the hypothetical “same kid” generally ends up aiming lower and achieving less at a lower performing school. The kids who do well at low performing schools, in turn, will do even better at a high performing school.

You can claim otherwise, but you’re tilting at windmills.

Unfortunately their conclusion is wrong. I'm assuming you have no teaching or classroom experience. I taught AP at a high-SES school and always felt sympathy for the kids who were clearly forced by their parents to enroll in AP courses. The majority of kids who are not ready for AP will remain in the shadows of high achievers. The common notion that intelligence and motivation rubs off on weaker students is not real. It's quite the opposite as it is demoralizing for the academically weaker kids to see how glaring the discrepancy is between them and their stronger peers.

I'm not advocating that deliberately placing those kids in weaker cohorts is better either. Rather, let kids land where they may. But the hyperfocus to surround average kids (and UMC parents can definitely have perfectly average kids) with advanced peers generally will not make any difference in outcomes. Paid tutoring services will make far more of a difference.

Sorry, but this is one of those areas where the behavior of many thousands of parents over the years is more persuasive than the anecdote of someone trying to push the "big fish/small pond" agenda.

I have both classroom experience and experience as a parent in both AP and IB schools with different demographics. At a low-achieving school, students tend to aim lower. The top kids get a false sense of comfort that they are high achievers because they stand out in the small pond, but then fare comparatively worse if and when they are finally in an environment with more high-achieving peers. At a high-achieving school, kids are not demoralized, but they are also less likely to come away with an inflated sense of their own abilities. Rather, they are challenged to perform to the best of those abilities. If attending a high-achieving school leads their parents to get them tutoring, that's OK, so long as it contributes to their overall academic development.

Ironically, IB suffers from all the flaws you ascribe to kids taking AP courses at high-SES schools - and more. You have some parents pushing their kids to do the full IB diploma, in some cases because they've been misled into believing that it's a golden ticket to college admissions. In some cases, the kids aren't up to that challenge. In other cases, the kids are up to the challenge, but still resent having to jump through all the prescriptive IB hoops. Further, the IB program is also marketed to families as a "school within a school," which is demoralizing to the vast majority of kids who aren't on the IB diploma track and often end up treated as second-class citizens at their own schools. In comparison, at the top AP schools, there's no artificial distinction between kids on an "AP diploma" track and everyone else, and kids can adjust their schedules to take AP courses in the areas that interest them the most or where they have the greatest aptitude.

I see the inevitable IB hater troll has returned.

My DS graduated from a "low achieving" IB school. I did not see the IB kids "aiming lower" or relaxing because they were big fish in a small pond. Being intelligent, they were well aware that they were competing not with the non-IB low-achievers at their school, but with the many kids in this area who attend "better" public schools as well as private schools. Did not know a single IB kid whose parents pushed them into it or who thought IB was a golden ticket.

The IB program at my son's school was not marketed as a school within a school. The IB kids did not think they were elite, and the non-IB kids did not resent them. There were plenty of non-IB kids who took IB courses in areas that interested them, or where they had aptitude, and therefore the supposed greater flexibility of AP is a myth.

My son and plenty of other IB kids got into top colleges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Usually kids from wealthier households, with engaged parents, do well in college admissions, no matter the high school.

Higher income/wealth correlates with the catchment areas for McLean, Langley, and Oakton (and N. Arlington).

Agree, but there are also pockets of UMC households scattered around in other pyramids. Students from these families also tend to do well, despite attending a lower rated high school. On top of that, they usually have an easier time leading clubs, getting leads in plays and making athletic teams. These schools may not offer all the AP courses, but that usually doesn’t limit them in the admissions game.

If this were truly an advantage, more UMC would look at buying in low performing school districts so their kids could stand out. Instead, they conclude that their kids benefit, both academically and in terms of college admissions, by being surrounded by more high achieving peers.

Why? Because the hypothetical “same kid” generally ends up aiming lower and achieving less at a lower performing school. The kids who do well at low performing schools, in turn, will do even better at a high performing school.

You can claim otherwise, but you’re tilting at windmills.

Unfortunately their conclusion is wrong. I'm assuming you have no teaching or classroom experience. I taught AP at a high-SES school and always felt sympathy for the kids who were clearly forced by their parents to enroll in AP courses. The majority of kids who are not ready for AP will remain in the shadows of high achievers. The common notion that intelligence and motivation rubs off on weaker students is not real. It's quite the opposite as it is demoralizing for the academically weaker kids to see how glaring the discrepancy is between them and their stronger peers.

I'm not advocating that deliberately placing those kids in weaker cohorts is better either. Rather, let kids land where they may. But the hyperfocus to surround average kids (and UMC parents can definitely have perfectly average kids) with advanced peers generally will not make any difference in outcomes. Paid tutoring services will make far more of a difference.

Sorry, but this is one of those areas where the behavior of many thousands of parents over the years is more persuasive than the anecdote of someone trying to push the "big fish/small pond" agenda.

I have both classroom experience and experience as a parent in both AP and IB schools with different demographics. At a low-achieving school, students tend to aim lower. The top kids get a false sense of comfort that they are high achievers because they stand out in the small pond, but then fare comparatively worse if and when they are finally in an environment with more high-achieving peers. At a high-achieving school, kids are not demoralized, but they are also less likely to come away with an inflated sense of their own abilities. Rather, they are challenged to perform to the best of those abilities. If attending a high-achieving school leads their parents to get them tutoring, that's OK, so long as it contributes to their overall academic development.

Ironically, IB suffers from all the flaws you ascribe to kids taking AP courses at high-SES schools - and more. You have some parents pushing their kids to do the full IB diploma, in some cases because they've been misled into believing that it's a golden ticket to college admissions. In some cases, the kids aren't up to that challenge. In other cases, the kids are up to the challenge, but still resent having to jump through all the prescriptive IB hoops. Further, the IB program is also marketed to families as a "school within a school," which is demoralizing to the vast majority of kids who aren't on the IB diploma track and often end up treated as second-class citizens at their own schools. In comparison, at the top AP schools, there's no artificial distinction between kids on an "AP diploma" track and everyone else, and kids can adjust their schedules to take AP courses in the areas that interest them the most or where they have the greatest aptitude.

I see the inevitable IB hater troll has returned.

My DS graduated from a "low achieving" IB school. I did not see the IB kids "aiming lower" or relaxing because they were big fish in a small pond. Being intelligent, they were well aware that they were competing not with the non-IB low-achievers at their school, but with the many kids in this area who attend "better" public schools as well as private schools. Did not know a single IB kid whose parents pushed them into it or who thought IB was a golden ticket.

The IB program at my son's school was not marketed as a school within a school. The IB kids did not think they were elite, and the non-IB kids did not resent them. There were plenty of non-IB kids who took IB courses in areas that interested them, or where they had aptitude, and therefore the supposed greater flexibility of AP is a myth.

My son and plenty of other IB kids got into top colleges.

+1 to above. Our kids were in the same boat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Usually kids from wealthier households, with engaged parents, do well in college admissions, no matter the high school.

Higher income/wealth correlates with the catchment areas for McLean, Langley, and Oakton (and N. Arlington).

Agree, but there are also pockets of UMC households scattered around in other pyramids. Students from these families also tend to do well, despite attending a lower rated high school. On top of that, they usually have an easier time leading clubs, getting leads in plays and making athletic teams. These schools may not offer all the AP courses, but that usually doesn’t limit them in the admissions game.

If this were truly an advantage, more UMC would look at buying in low performing school districts so their kids could stand out. Instead, they conclude that their kids benefit, both academically and in terms of college admissions, by being surrounded by more high achieving peers.

Why? Because the hypothetical “same kid” generally ends up aiming lower and achieving less at a lower performing school. The kids who do well at low performing schools, in turn, will do even better at a high performing school.

You can claim otherwise, but you’re tilting at windmills.

Unfortunately their conclusion is wrong. I'm assuming you have no teaching or classroom experience. I taught AP at a high-SES school and always felt sympathy for the kids who were clearly forced by their parents to enroll in AP courses. The majority of kids who are not ready for AP will remain in the shadows of high achievers. The common notion that intelligence and motivation rubs off on weaker students is not real. It's quite the opposite as it is demoralizing for the academically weaker kids to see how glaring the discrepancy is between them and their stronger peers.

I'm not advocating that deliberately placing those kids in weaker cohorts is better either. Rather, let kids land where they may. But the hyperfocus to surround average kids (and UMC parents can definitely have perfectly average kids) with advanced peers generally will not make any difference in outcomes. Paid tutoring services will make far more of a difference.

Sorry, but this is one of those areas where the behavior of many thousands of parents over the years is more persuasive than the anecdote of someone trying to push the "big fish/small pond" agenda.

I have both classroom experience and experience as a parent in both AP and IB schools with different demographics. At a low-achieving school, students tend to aim lower. The top kids get a false sense of comfort that they are high achievers because they stand out in the small pond, but then fare comparatively worse if and when they are finally in an environment with more high-achieving peers. At a high-achieving school, kids are not demoralized, but they are also less likely to come away with an inflated sense of their own abilities. Rather, they are challenged to perform to the best of those abilities. If attending a high-achieving school leads their parents to get them tutoring, that's OK, so long as it contributes to their overall academic development.

Ironically, IB suffers from all the flaws you ascribe to kids taking AP courses at high-SES schools - and more. You have some parents pushing their kids to do the full IB diploma, in some cases because they've been misled into believing that it's a golden ticket to college admissions. In some cases, the kids aren't up to that challenge. In other cases, the kids are up to the challenge, but still resent having to jump through all the prescriptive IB hoops. Further, the IB program is also marketed to families as a "school within a school," which is demoralizing to the vast majority of kids who aren't on the IB diploma track and often end up treated as second-class citizens at their own schools. In comparison, at the top AP schools, there's no artificial distinction between kids on an "AP diploma" track and everyone else, and kids can adjust their schedules to take AP courses in the areas that interest them the most or where they have the greatest aptitude.

NP here. The behavior of thousands of parents? Thousands— millions— of people do stupid or less than ideal things (or things for the wrong reasons) all the time. That’s not proof of anything.

My kid attends a school that many on DCUM think is less than. It offers 30 AP classes & definitely has a cohort of smart, motivated kids. It also has a lot of low income kids, kids who just want to graduate, etc. The kids in the AP classes aren’t complacent/shooting low like you want to think. People often insist on scenarios being true if that will validate/justify the choices they’ve made and make the choices of others seem inferior.

[Anonymous]

My kid attends a school that many on DCUM think is less than. It offers 30 AP classes & definitely has a cohort of smart, motivated kids. It also has a lot of low income kids, kids who just want to graduate, etc. The kids in the AP classes aren’t complacent/shooting low like you want to think. People often insist on scenarios being true if that will validate/justify the choices they’ve made and make the choices of others seem inferior.

Seems to me that a lot of IB moms are elitist.