TJ - 100+ NMSFs

[Anonymous]

not sure about the data... Here's what ChatGPT shared:

Here are the reported numbers of National Merit Scholarship Semifinalists from Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology (TJHSST) from 2018 through 2025:

Year Number of Semifinalists
2018 145
2019 159
2020 157
2021 Data not available
2022 Data not available
2023 Data not available
2024 165
2025 81

Please note that the data for 2021, 2022, and 2023 is not available. The significant decrease in the number of semifinalists from 165 in 2024 to 81 in 2025, despite an increase in class size from approximately 450 to 550 students, has been a topic of discussion. This decline coincided with the shift from a merit-based to an equity-based admissions process at TJHSST in 2021

[Anonymous]

They're starting to turn things and beginning to really recover from the post pandemic slump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:lol..no the test was not ‘made easier’

yes.. my kid had a 1500/1520 - so basically 1 question wrong and just hit the 224.

crazy!

This year's test takers are not much smarter than last year's test takers. The test scores jumped because the test was easier.

Yes it was much harder back in the 1970s but pretty much the same test for the past 20 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They're starting to turn things and beginning to really recover from the post pandemic slump.

You're too stupid to breathe.
The NMSF is a constant percentage of virginia students.
So unless TJ is the only school that had to deal with the pandemic, your comment makes no sense.

Stop making excuses for FCPS racism.

[Anonymous]

What % of student body is it?

[Anonymous]

isn't this like 20%??

[Anonymous]

For vast majority of the years prior to 2025, 1/3 of the class got NMSF.

For 2025 it was 16% or 1/6th of the class. So it was half the rate as prior years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For vast majority of the years prior to 2025, 1/3 of the class got NMSF.

For 2025 it was 16% or 1/6th of the class. So it was half the rate as prior years.

That’s much lower than Blair and RMIB rates. About 1/3 got it from each program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For vast majority of the years prior to 2025, 1/3 of the class got NMSF.

For 2025 it was 16% or 1/6th of the class. So it was half the rate as prior years.

That’s much lower than Blair and RMIB rates. About 1/3 got it from each program.

Well more like 50% but whose counting. Regardless, the comparison is meaningless since those programs are much smaller and more selective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For vast majority of the years prior to 2025, 1/3 of the class got NMSF.

For 2025 it was 16% or 1/6th of the class. So it was half the rate as prior years.

That’s much lower than Blair and RMIB rates. About 1/3 got it from each program.

LOL

It is small and a key component of admissions is the MAP test which is similar to SAT. So the students are already being filtered by choosing those who are going to do well on SAT. I am surprised it is not 80%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For vast majority of the years prior to 2025, 1/3 of the class got NMSF.

For 2025 it was 16% or 1/6th of the class. So it was half the rate as prior years.

That’s much lower than Blair and RMIB rates. About 1/3 got it from each program.

LOL

It is small and a key component of admissions is the MAP test which is similar to SAT. So the students are already being filtered by choosing those who are going to do well on SAT. I am surprised it is not 80%.

MAP not used for HS magnets. Get it right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For vast majority of the years prior to 2025, 1/3 of the class got NMSF.

For 2025 it was 16% or 1/6th of the class. So it was half the rate as prior years.

That’s much lower than Blair and RMIB rates. About 1/3 got it from each program.

LOL

It is small and a key component of admissions is the MAP test which is similar to SAT. So the students are already being filtered by choosing those who are going to do well on SAT. I am surprised it is not 80%.

MAP not used for HS magnets. Get it right.

Snowflake!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They're starting to turn things and beginning to really recover from the post pandemic slump.

+ new principal is really good!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They're starting to turn things and beginning to really recover from the post pandemic slump.

+ new principal is really good!!

I like him - and liked the last one too. But come on. These kids took that test last fall when the old principal was still there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:lol..no the test was not ‘made easier’

yes.. my kid had a 1500/1520 - so basically 1 question wrong and just hit the 224.

crazy!

This year's test takers are not much smarter than last year's test takers. The test scores jumped because the test was easier.

Yes it was much harder back in the 1970s but pretty much the same test for the past 20 years.

Nah, it's continued to slip - lots of evidence about how student abilities seem to be sliding, in conjunction with SAT scores rising or remaining the same. I thought this recent paper was amusing:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4915452

"GPT takes the SAT: Tracing changes in Test Difficulty and Students' Math Performance

Abstract

We address two related issues: the comparability of SAT scores across different years and the declining math performance of college students. To overcome challenges stemming from the evolving nature of SAT, we develop a novel transformed control method using OpenAI’s GPT-4 as a counterfactual benchmark across the years 2012–2023. Results indicate SAT math difficulty decreased by an average of 0.21σ over this period relative to the base year. After controlling for changes in test difficulty, student SAT scores declined by an average of 4 points per year."

Unfortunately, I no longer have access to the private dataset for an entry exam that gatekept an intro-level course at a moderately selective T100 university. This showed that there existed a substantial group of kids who scored high on the math SAT, also scored high on multiple choice simple problems in algebra/geometry, but scored poorly on the free response questions. Would love to know how the pandemic has affected this group.