TJ admissions now verifying free and reduced price meal status for successful 2026 applicants

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is about TJ admissions

We actually agree, actual genius kids from generally high SES schools should be getting in regardless of if they are in AAP or not

"Top" students at lower SES schools are nowhere close to these folks and have no business taking TJ spots

That's actually not true. The differences at best aren't negligible. I get that some people want to believe differently because it's self-serving.

last comment for a while

I'd take the top 100 at an AAP center over the top 1.5% at the lower performing middle schools. And if you are honest with yourself so would you.

I wouldn't! Typically the AAP kids are mostly just average kids with pushy parents but the top 1.5% at the less affluent schools are truly gifted.

Exactly! That"s been our experience too. AAP isn't a gifted program. It's the top 15% supposedly but not even that really. The top 1.5% of any school is just that. That's much better than any AAP.

Yes, AAP is mostly a sham and the top 1.5% at any school beats out easily beats out most of the AAP kids who are by definition just the top 15%.

Kids in the top 1.5% at a non AAP school are merely the top of the kids not deemed to be in the top 15%. AAP selection is imperfect, but if the top 15% leave for AAP, then the gen ed kid who is at the 84th percentile would become the top kid left behind. A kid who is at the top only because the overwhelming majority of the smart kids left the school is not in any way gifted or TJ worthy.

AAP selection is imperfect, but it's not so imperfect that nearly 1/3 of the TJ spots ought to be reserved exclusively for gen ed kids. For the most part, the issues with AAP selection are that they're over-including kids, such that the bottom half of AAP is indistinguishable from the top 10% in gen ed. They're not generally missing kids who are gifted.

Only the super high-maintenance Karnes fuss over AAP. Half the population doesn't even know what it is and doesn't bother to apply or push for their kids to get in. The top 1.5% is really the top 1.5%. AAP is just the top 15% or worse. Many wouldn't even make the top 15% if not for extreme prep or private diagnoses that has allowed them access.

Nailed it! Such a sham, but even worse some believe this entitles them to TJ.

Nailed it. Bingo. Entitled. any other lazy catch phrases? toxic maybe...

It's the same poster constantly agreeing with her own posts. No one else could be that big of an idiot.

PP seems to think that the best way to find gifted kids is to look for the ones who couldn't earn high enough scores on nationally normed exams, couldn't impress any teachers, couldn't manage to qualify for 7th grade Algebra, couldn't manage to take a full load of honors, couldn't manage to do well in or even participate in any STEM ECs, and couldn't manage to get decent teacher recommendations now. Those kids are the true gems. The kids who sailed through AAP, took Algebra in 6th grade, would have glowing teacher recs, and have national level STEM achievements are just average.

DP. Believe it or not, there are a lot of vehemently pro-reform posters on this site who carry with them multiple different perspectives on how to solve the problem.

I, for one, am extremely vocal on this board (proudly holding the title of "woke idiot" from one less-informed regular) and I firmly believe that Likert-scale-heavy teacher recommendations that evaluate students against each other while limiting the impact of a teacher's writing style are a huge part of the answer to how to identify the strongest applicants from each school.

Yes, they are prone to racial bias in rare cases, but more frequently they are biased in favor of students who are strong contributors to the academic environment - and that's a bias that frankly should be welcomed in an admissions process to an elite school like TJ.

Quoted PP here. I agree with you on a lot of this. I'm one of the PPs who has been critical of the decision to penalize AAP kids*, give no boost for taking all Honors, and give no boost for taking Algebra in 7th rather than 8th. I think a revitalized teacher recommendation could address a lot of this. The reformed system says that we should just assume that every non AAP kid who didn't qualify for 7th grade Algebra, has done no STEM ECs, and isn't even taking all honors is a diamond in the rough. I say that if the kid is a diamond in the rough, the teachers surely will notice, and the recommendation will reflect that. It's reasonable to assume that a kid who is taking Algebra in 8th, not taking all honors, and/or not participating in a single STEM EC is some combination of not especially academically strong, nor overly motivated, and/or not especially interested in STEM. If the middle school teachers say otherwise, I'm more than happy to listen to the teachers.

Likewise, if the kid is overly tutored/prepped and will be eaten alive at TJ, the teacher recommendation will reflect that. I know of one kid who got admitted to the TJ class of 2026 who has no business going there. He needed extensive tutoring to get through middle school AAP classes. If the teachers had any input at all, there's no way the kid would have been admitted.

*The two obvious solutions to the AAP penalty based on attending a center school would be to either reserve the 1.5% spots on a pyramid/zoned high school level, or to eliminate middle school AAP centers and instead offer AAP at every middle school. If either of these were implemented, there would be no reason to quibble about so many gen ed kids being accepted to TJ.

[Anonymous]

Most of us on here largely agree, just ignore the sock puppeter complaining about people paying to get into TJ constantly

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most of us on here largely agree, just ignore the sock puppeter complaining about people paying to get into TJ constantly

I know! I just signed my kids up for Curie, too because they have such a great record of getting their students into these programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is about TJ admissions

We actually agree, actual genius kids from generally high SES schools should be getting in regardless of if they are in AAP or not

"Top" students at lower SES schools are nowhere close to these folks and have no business taking TJ spots

That's actually not true. The differences at best aren't negligible. I get that some people want to believe differently because it's self-serving.

last comment for a while

I'd take the top 100 at an AAP center over the top 1.5% at the lower performing middle schools. And if you are honest with yourself so would you.

I wouldn't! Typically the AAP kids are mostly just average kids with pushy parents but the top 1.5% at the less affluent schools are truly gifted.

Exactly! That"s been our experience too. AAP isn't a gifted program. It's the top 15% supposedly but not even that really. The top 1.5% of any school is just that. That's much better than any AAP.

Yes, AAP is mostly a sham and the top 1.5% at any school beats out easily beats out most of the AAP kids who are by definition just the top 15%.

Kids in the top 1.5% at a non AAP school are merely the top of the kids not deemed to be in the top 15%. AAP selection is imperfect, but if the top 15% leave for AAP, then the gen ed kid who is at the 84th percentile would become the top kid left behind. A kid who is at the top only because the overwhelming majority of the smart kids left the school is not in any way gifted or TJ worthy.

AAP selection is imperfect, but it's not so imperfect that nearly 1/3 of the TJ spots ought to be reserved exclusively for gen ed kids. For the most part, the issues with AAP selection are that they're over-including kids, such that the bottom half of AAP is indistinguishable from the top 10% in gen ed. They're not generally missing kids who are gifted.

Only the super high-maintenance Karnes fuss over AAP. Half the population doesn't even know what it is and doesn't bother to apply or push for their kids to get in. The top 1.5% is really the top 1.5%. AAP is just the top 15% or worse. Many wouldn't even make the top 15% if not for extreme prep or private diagnoses that has allowed them access.

Nailed it! Such a sham, but even worse some believe this entitles them to TJ.

Nailed it. Bingo. Entitled. any other lazy catch phrases? toxic maybe...

It's the same poster constantly agreeing with her own posts. No one else could be that big of an idiot.

PP seems to think that the best way to find gifted kids is to look for the ones who couldn't earn high enough scores on nationally normed exams, couldn't impress any teachers, couldn't manage to qualify for 7th grade Algebra, couldn't manage to take a full load of honors, couldn't manage to do well in or even participate in any STEM ECs, and couldn't manage to get decent teacher recommendations now. Those kids are the true gems. The kids who sailed through AAP, took Algebra in 6th grade, would have glowing teacher recs, and have national level STEM achievements are just average.

DP. Believe it or not, there are a lot of vehemently pro-reform posters on this site who carry with them multiple different perspectives on how to solve the problem.

I, for one, am extremely vocal on this board (proudly holding the title of "woke idiot" from one less-informed regular) and I firmly believe that Likert-scale-heavy teacher recommendations that evaluate students against each other while limiting the impact of a teacher's writing style are a huge part of the answer to how to identify the strongest applicants from each school.

Yes, they are prone to racial bias in rare cases, but more frequently they are biased in favor of students who are strong contributors to the academic environment - and that's a bias that frankly should be welcomed in an admissions process to an elite school like TJ.

Quoted PP here. I agree with you on a lot of this. I'm one of the PPs who has been critical of the decision to penalize AAP kids*, give no boost for taking all Honors, and give no boost for taking Algebra in 7th rather than 8th. I think a revitalized teacher recommendation could address a lot of this. The reformed system says that we should just assume that every non AAP kid who didn't qualify for 7th grade Algebra, has done no STEM ECs, and isn't even taking all honors is a diamond in the rough. I say that if the kid is a diamond in the rough, the teachers surely will notice, and the recommendation will reflect that. It's reasonable to assume that a kid who is taking Algebra in 8th, not taking all honors, and/or not participating in a single STEM EC is some combination of not especially academically strong, nor overly motivated, and/or not especially interested in STEM. If the middle school teachers say otherwise, I'm more than happy to listen to the teachers.

Likewise, if the kid is overly tutored/prepped and will be eaten alive at TJ, the teacher recommendation will reflect that. I know of one kid who got admitted to the TJ class of 2026 who has no business going there. He needed extensive tutoring to get through middle school AAP classes. If the teachers had any input at all, there's no way the kid would have been admitted.

*The two obvious solutions to the AAP penalty based on attending a center school would be to either reserve the 1.5% spots on a pyramid/zoned high school level, or to eliminate middle school AAP centers and instead offer AAP at every middle school. If either of these were implemented, there would be no reason to quibble about so many gen ed kids being accepted to TJ.

Why not use the students home school regardless of whether they're in an AAP center?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is about TJ admissions

We actually agree, actual genius kids from generally high SES schools should be getting in regardless of if they are in AAP or not

"Top" students at lower SES schools are nowhere close to these folks and have no business taking TJ spots

That's actually not true. The differences at best aren't negligible. I get that some people want to believe differently because it's self-serving.

last comment for a while

I'd take the top 100 at an AAP center over the top 1.5% at the lower performing middle schools. And if you are honest with yourself so would you.

I wouldn't! Typically the AAP kids are mostly just average kids with pushy parents but the top 1.5% at the less affluent schools are truly gifted.

Exactly! That"s been our experience too. AAP isn't a gifted program. It's the top 15% supposedly but not even that really. The top 1.5% of any school is just that. That's much better than any AAP.

Yes, AAP is mostly a sham and the top 1.5% at any school beats out easily beats out most of the AAP kids who are by definition just the top 15%.

Kids in the top 1.5% at a non AAP school are merely the top of the kids not deemed to be in the top 15%. AAP selection is imperfect, but if the top 15% leave for AAP, then the gen ed kid who is at the 84th percentile would become the top kid left behind. A kid who is at the top only because the overwhelming majority of the smart kids left the school is not in any way gifted or TJ worthy.

AAP selection is imperfect, but it's not so imperfect that nearly 1/3 of the TJ spots ought to be reserved exclusively for gen ed kids. For the most part, the issues with AAP selection are that they're over-including kids, such that the bottom half of AAP is indistinguishable from the top 10% in gen ed. They're not generally missing kids who are gifted.

Only the super high-maintenance Karnes fuss over AAP. Half the population doesn't even know what it is and doesn't bother to apply or push for their kids to get in. The top 1.5% is really the top 1.5%. AAP is just the top 15% or worse. Many wouldn't even make the top 15% if not for extreme prep or private diagnoses that has allowed them access.

Nailed it! Such a sham, but even worse some believe this entitles them to TJ.

Nailed it. Bingo. Entitled. any other lazy catch phrases? toxic maybe...

It's the same poster constantly agreeing with her own posts. No one else could be that big of an idiot.

PP seems to think that the best way to find gifted kids is to look for the ones who couldn't earn high enough scores on nationally normed exams, couldn't impress any teachers, couldn't manage to qualify for 7th grade Algebra, couldn't manage to take a full load of honors, couldn't manage to do well in or even participate in any STEM ECs, and couldn't manage to get decent teacher recommendations now. Those kids are the true gems. The kids who sailed through AAP, took Algebra in 6th grade, would have glowing teacher recs, and have national level STEM achievements are just average.

DP. Believe it or not, there are a lot of vehemently pro-reform posters on this site who carry with them multiple different perspectives on how to solve the problem.

I, for one, am extremely vocal on this board (proudly holding the title of "woke idiot" from one less-informed regular) and I firmly believe that Likert-scale-heavy teacher recommendations that evaluate students against each other while limiting the impact of a teacher's writing style are a huge part of the answer to how to identify the strongest applicants from each school.

Yes, they are prone to racial bias in rare cases, but more frequently they are biased in favor of students who are strong contributors to the academic environment - and that's a bias that frankly should be welcomed in an admissions process to an elite school like TJ.

Quoted PP here. I agree with you on a lot of this. I'm one of the PPs who has been critical of the decision to penalize AAP kids*, give no boost for taking all Honors, and give no boost for taking Algebra in 7th rather than 8th. I think a revitalized teacher recommendation could address a lot of this. The reformed system says that we should just assume that every non AAP kid who didn't qualify for 7th grade Algebra, has done no STEM ECs, and isn't even taking all honors is a diamond in the rough. I say that if the kid is a diamond in the rough, the teachers surely will notice, and the recommendation will reflect that. It's reasonable to assume that a kid who is taking Algebra in 8th, not taking all honors, and/or not participating in a single STEM EC is some combination of not especially academically strong, nor overly motivated, and/or not especially interested in STEM. If the middle school teachers say otherwise, I'm more than happy to listen to the teachers.

Likewise, if the kid is overly tutored/prepped and will be eaten alive at TJ, the teacher recommendation will reflect that. I know of one kid who got admitted to the TJ class of 2026 who has no business going there. He needed extensive tutoring to get through middle school AAP classes. If the teachers had any input at all, there's no way the kid would have been admitted.

*The two obvious solutions to the AAP penalty based on attending a center school would be to either reserve the 1.5% spots on a pyramid/zoned high school level, or to eliminate middle school AAP centers and instead offer AAP at every middle school. If either of these were implemented, there would be no reason to quibble about so many gen ed kids being accepted to TJ.

Why not use the students home school regardless of whether they're in an AAP center?

Because the students are attending a different MS. That is who they are being judged against. It is the same reason they moved away from one standard in-pool test score for AAP to in-pool scores based on the individual schools. If you want to compete against the kids at your base school, stay at your base school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is about TJ admissions

We actually agree, actual genius kids from generally high SES schools should be getting in regardless of if they are in AAP or not

"Top" students at lower SES schools are nowhere close to these folks and have no business taking TJ spots

That's actually not true. The differences at best aren't negligible. I get that some people want to believe differently because it's self-serving.

last comment for a while

I'd take the top 100 at an AAP center over the top 1.5% at the lower performing middle schools. And if you are honest with yourself so would you.

I wouldn't! Typically the AAP kids are mostly just average kids with pushy parents but the top 1.5% at the less affluent schools are truly gifted.

Exactly! That"s been our experience too. AAP isn't a gifted program. It's the top 15% supposedly but not even that really. The top 1.5% of any school is just that. That's much better than any AAP.

Yes, AAP is mostly a sham and the top 1.5% at any school beats out easily beats out most of the AAP kids who are by definition just the top 15%.

Kids in the top 1.5% at a non AAP school are merely the top of the kids not deemed to be in the top 15%. AAP selection is imperfect, but if the top 15% leave for AAP, then the gen ed kid who is at the 84th percentile would become the top kid left behind. A kid who is at the top only because the overwhelming majority of the smart kids left the school is not in any way gifted or TJ worthy.

AAP selection is imperfect, but it's not so imperfect that nearly 1/3 of the TJ spots ought to be reserved exclusively for gen ed kids. For the most part, the issues with AAP selection are that they're over-including kids, such that the bottom half of AAP is indistinguishable from the top 10% in gen ed. They're not generally missing kids who are gifted.

Only the super high-maintenance Karnes fuss over AAP. Half the population doesn't even know what it is and doesn't bother to apply or push for their kids to get in. The top 1.5% is really the top 1.5%. AAP is just the top 15% or worse. Many wouldn't even make the top 15% if not for extreme prep or private diagnoses that has allowed them access.

Nailed it! Such a sham, but even worse some believe this entitles them to TJ.

Nailed it. Bingo. Entitled. any other lazy catch phrases? toxic maybe...

It's the same poster constantly agreeing with her own posts. No one else could be that big of an idiot.

PP seems to think that the best way to find gifted kids is to look for the ones who couldn't earn high enough scores on nationally normed exams, couldn't impress any teachers, couldn't manage to qualify for 7th grade Algebra, couldn't manage to take a full load of honors, couldn't manage to do well in or even participate in any STEM ECs, and couldn't manage to get decent teacher recommendations now. Those kids are the true gems. The kids who sailed through AAP, took Algebra in 6th grade, would have glowing teacher recs, and have national level STEM achievements are just average.

DP. Believe it or not, there are a lot of vehemently pro-reform posters on this site who carry with them multiple different perspectives on how to solve the problem.

I, for one, am extremely vocal on this board (proudly holding the title of "woke idiot" from one less-informed regular) and I firmly believe that Likert-scale-heavy teacher recommendations that evaluate students against each other while limiting the impact of a teacher's writing style are a huge part of the answer to how to identify the strongest applicants from each school.

Yes, they are prone to racial bias in rare cases, but more frequently they are biased in favor of students who are strong contributors to the academic environment - and that's a bias that frankly should be welcomed in an admissions process to an elite school like TJ.

Quoted PP here. I agree with you on a lot of this. I'm one of the PPs who has been critical of the decision to penalize AAP kids*, give no boost for taking all Honors, and give no boost for taking Algebra in 7th rather than 8th. I think a revitalized teacher recommendation could address a lot of this. The reformed system says that we should just assume that every non AAP kid who didn't qualify for 7th grade Algebra, has done no STEM ECs, and isn't even taking all honors is a diamond in the rough. I say that if the kid is a diamond in the rough, the teachers surely will notice, and the recommendation will reflect that. It's reasonable to assume that a kid who is taking Algebra in 8th, not taking all honors, and/or not participating in a single STEM EC is some combination of not especially academically strong, nor overly motivated, and/or not especially interested in STEM. If the middle school teachers say otherwise, I'm more than happy to listen to the teachers.

Likewise, if the kid is overly tutored/prepped and will be eaten alive at TJ, the teacher recommendation will reflect that. I know of one kid who got admitted to the TJ class of 2026 who has no business going there. He needed extensive tutoring to get through middle school AAP classes. If the teachers had any input at all, there's no way the kid would have been admitted.

*The two obvious solutions to the AAP penalty based on attending a center school would be to either reserve the 1.5% spots on a pyramid/zoned high school level, or to eliminate middle school AAP centers and instead offer AAP at every middle school. If either of these were implemented, there would be no reason to quibble about so many gen ed kids being accepted to TJ.

Why not use the students home school regardless of whether they're in an AAP center?

Because the students are attending a different MS. That is who they are being judged against. It is the same reason they moved away from one standard in-pool test score for AAP to in-pool scores based on the individual schools. If you want to compete against the kids at your base school, stay at your base school.

That attitude really stinks for the kids zoned to the AAP center. A gen ed kid zoned to the base school has to compete with their regular school population minus 200 or so very strong AAP kids. A gen ed kid zoned to the center has to compete with their regular zoned population plus an extra 200-300 academically strong kids from elsewhere. It's not a remotely fair system.

That's why the seats should be allocated on a zoned high school level and not a middle school level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is about TJ admissions

We actually agree, actual genius kids from generally high SES schools should be getting in regardless of if they are in AAP or not

"Top" students at lower SES schools are nowhere close to these folks and have no business taking TJ spots

That's actually not true. The differences at best aren't negligible. I get that some people want to believe differently because it's self-serving.

last comment for a while

I'd take the top 100 at an AAP center over the top 1.5% at the lower performing middle schools. And if you are honest with yourself so would you.

I wouldn't! Typically the AAP kids are mostly just average kids with pushy parents but the top 1.5% at the less affluent schools are truly gifted.

Exactly! That"s been our experience too. AAP isn't a gifted program. It's the top 15% supposedly but not even that really. The top 1.5% of any school is just that. That's much better than any AAP.

Yes, AAP is mostly a sham and the top 1.5% at any school beats out easily beats out most of the AAP kids who are by definition just the top 15%.

Kids in the top 1.5% at a non AAP school are merely the top of the kids not deemed to be in the top 15%. AAP selection is imperfect, but if the top 15% leave for AAP, then the gen ed kid who is at the 84th percentile would become the top kid left behind. A kid who is at the top only because the overwhelming majority of the smart kids left the school is not in any way gifted or TJ worthy.

AAP selection is imperfect, but it's not so imperfect that nearly 1/3 of the TJ spots ought to be reserved exclusively for gen ed kids. For the most part, the issues with AAP selection are that they're over-including kids, such that the bottom half of AAP is indistinguishable from the top 10% in gen ed. They're not generally missing kids who are gifted.

Only the super high-maintenance Karnes fuss over AAP. Half the population doesn't even know what it is and doesn't bother to apply or push for their kids to get in. The top 1.5% is really the top 1.5%. AAP is just the top 15% or worse. Many wouldn't even make the top 15% if not for extreme prep or private diagnoses that has allowed them access.

Nailed it! Such a sham, but even worse some believe this entitles them to TJ.

Nailed it. Bingo. Entitled. any other lazy catch phrases? toxic maybe...

It's the same poster constantly agreeing with her own posts. No one else could be that big of an idiot.

PP seems to think that the best way to find gifted kids is to look for the ones who couldn't earn high enough scores on nationally normed exams, couldn't impress any teachers, couldn't manage to qualify for 7th grade Algebra, couldn't manage to take a full load of honors, couldn't manage to do well in or even participate in any STEM ECs, and couldn't manage to get decent teacher recommendations now. Those kids are the true gems. The kids who sailed through AAP, took Algebra in 6th grade, would have glowing teacher recs, and have national level STEM achievements are just average.

DP. Believe it or not, there are a lot of vehemently pro-reform posters on this site who carry with them multiple different perspectives on how to solve the problem.

I, for one, am extremely vocal on this board (proudly holding the title of "woke idiot" from one less-informed regular) and I firmly believe that Likert-scale-heavy teacher recommendations that evaluate students against each other while limiting the impact of a teacher's writing style are a huge part of the answer to how to identify the strongest applicants from each school.

Yes, they are prone to racial bias in rare cases, but more frequently they are biased in favor of students who are strong contributors to the academic environment - and that's a bias that frankly should be welcomed in an admissions process to an elite school like TJ.

Quoted PP here. I agree with you on a lot of this. I'm one of the PPs who has been critical of the decision to penalize AAP kids*, give no boost for taking all Honors, and give no boost for taking Algebra in 7th rather than 8th. I think a revitalized teacher recommendation could address a lot of this. The reformed system says that we should just assume that every non AAP kid who didn't qualify for 7th grade Algebra, has done no STEM ECs, and isn't even taking all honors is a diamond in the rough. I say that if the kid is a diamond in the rough, the teachers surely will notice, and the recommendation will reflect that. It's reasonable to assume that a kid who is taking Algebra in 8th, not taking all honors, and/or not participating in a single STEM EC is some combination of not especially academically strong, nor overly motivated, and/or not especially interested in STEM. If the middle school teachers say otherwise, I'm more than happy to listen to the teachers.

Likewise, if the kid is overly tutored/prepped and will be eaten alive at TJ, the teacher recommendation will reflect that. I know of one kid who got admitted to the TJ class of 2026 who has no business going there. He needed extensive tutoring to get through middle school AAP classes. If the teachers had any input at all, there's no way the kid would have been admitted.

*The two obvious solutions to the AAP penalty based on attending a center school would be to either reserve the 1.5% spots on a pyramid/zoned high school level, or to eliminate middle school AAP centers and instead offer AAP at every middle school. If either of these were implemented, there would be no reason to quibble about so many gen ed kids being accepted to TJ.

Why not use the students home school regardless of whether they're in an AAP center?

Because the students are attending a different MS. That is who they are being judged against. It is the same reason they moved away from one standard in-pool test score for AAP to in-pool scores based on the individual schools. If you want to compete against the kids at your base school, stay at your base school.

That attitude really stinks for the kids zoned to the AAP center. A gen ed kid zoned to the base school has to compete with their regular school population minus 200 or so very strong AAP kids. A gen ed kid zoned to the center has to compete with their regular zoned population plus an extra 200-300 academically strong kids from elsewhere. It's not a remotely fair system.

That's why the seats should be allocated on a zoned high school level and not a middle school level.

or they could just take the students most qualified aka highest GPA, most STEM aptitude etc. Apparently that's too racist for folks though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is about TJ admissions

We actually agree, actual genius kids from generally high SES schools should be getting in regardless of if they are in AAP or not

"Top" students at lower SES schools are nowhere close to these folks and have no business taking TJ spots

That's actually not true. The differences at best aren't negligible. I get that some people want to believe differently because it's self-serving.

last comment for a while

I'd take the top 100 at an AAP center over the top 1.5% at the lower performing middle schools. And if you are honest with yourself so would you.

Why not judge them based on their assigned home school. Anyway, I'd take the top 1.5% from any school over AAP kids which are just the top 15%.

I wouldn't! Typically the AAP kids are mostly just average kids with pushy parents but the top 1.5% at the less affluent schools are truly gifted.

Exactly! That"s been our experience too. AAP isn't a gifted program. It's the top 15% supposedly but not even that really. The top 1.5% of any school is just that. That's much better than any AAP.

Yes, AAP is mostly a sham and the top 1.5% at any school beats out easily beats out most of the AAP kids who are by definition just the top 15%.

Kids in the top 1.5% at a non AAP school are merely the top of the kids not deemed to be in the top 15%. AAP selection is imperfect, but if the top 15% leave for AAP, then the gen ed kid who is at the 84th percentile would become the top kid left behind. A kid who is at the top only because the overwhelming majority of the smart kids left the school is not in any way gifted or TJ worthy.

AAP selection is imperfect, but it's not so imperfect that nearly 1/3 of the TJ spots ought to be reserved exclusively for gen ed kids. For the most part, the issues with AAP selection are that they're over-including kids, such that the bottom half of AAP is indistinguishable from the top 10% in gen ed. They're not generally missing kids who are gifted.

Only the super high-maintenance Karnes fuss over AAP. Half the population doesn't even know what it is and doesn't bother to apply or push for their kids to get in. The top 1.5% is really the top 1.5%. AAP is just the top 15% or worse. Many wouldn't even make the top 15% if not for extreme prep or private diagnoses that has allowed them access.

Nailed it! Such a sham, but even worse some believe this entitles them to TJ.

Nailed it. Bingo. Entitled. any other lazy catch phrases? toxic maybe...

It's the same poster constantly agreeing with her own posts. No one else could be that big of an idiot.

PP seems to think that the best way to find gifted kids is to look for the ones who couldn't earn high enough scores on nationally normed exams, couldn't impress any teachers, couldn't manage to qualify for 7th grade Algebra, couldn't manage to take a full load of honors, couldn't manage to do well in or even participate in any STEM ECs, and couldn't manage to get decent teacher recommendations now. Those kids are the true gems. The kids who sailed through AAP, took Algebra in 6th grade, would have glowing teacher recs, and have national level STEM achievements are just average.

DP. Believe it or not, there are a lot of vehemently pro-reform posters on this site who carry with them multiple different perspectives on how to solve the problem.

I, for one, am extremely vocal on this board (proudly holding the title of "woke idiot" from one less-informed regular) and I firmly believe that Likert-scale-heavy teacher recommendations that evaluate students against each other while limiting the impact of a teacher's writing style are a huge part of the answer to how to identify the strongest applicants from each school.

Yes, they are prone to racial bias in rare cases, but more frequently they are biased in favor of students who are strong contributors to the academic environment - and that's a bias that frankly should be welcomed in an admissions process to an elite school like TJ.

Quoted PP here. I agree with you on a lot of this. I'm one of the PPs who has been critical of the decision to penalize AAP kids*, give no boost for taking all Honors, and give no boost for taking Algebra in 7th rather than 8th. I think a revitalized teacher recommendation could address a lot of this. The reformed system says that we should just assume that every non AAP kid who didn't qualify for 7th grade Algebra, has done no STEM ECs, and isn't even taking all honors is a diamond in the rough. I say that if the kid is a diamond in the rough, the teachers surely will notice, and the recommendation will reflect that. It's reasonable to assume that a kid who is taking Algebra in 8th, not taking all honors, and/or not participating in a single STEM EC is some combination of not especially academically strong, nor overly motivated, and/or not especially interested in STEM. If the middle school teachers say otherwise, I'm more than happy to listen to the teachers.

Likewise, if the kid is overly tutored/prepped and will be eaten alive at TJ, the teacher recommendation will reflect that. I know of one kid who got admitted to the TJ class of 2026 who has no business going there. He needed extensive tutoring to get through middle school AAP classes. If the teachers had any input at all, there's no way the kid would have been admitted.

*The two obvious solutions to the AAP penalty based on attending a center school would be to either reserve the 1.5% spots on a pyramid/zoned high school level, or to eliminate middle school AAP centers and instead offer AAP at every middle school. If either of these were implemented, there would be no reason to quibble about so many gen ed kids being accepted to TJ.

Why not use the students home school regardless of whether they're in an AAP center?

Because the students are attending a different MS. That is who they are being judged against. It is the same reason they moved away from one standard in-pool test score for AAP to in-pool scores based on the individual schools. If you want to compete against the kids at your base school, stay at your base school.

[Anonymous]

Why not judge them based on their assigned home school? Anyway, I'd take the top 1.5% from any school over AAP kids who are supposedly just the top 15% but often get in by buying a private diagnosis (so lower than top 15%). In the end top 1.5% > than ~15%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is about TJ admissions

We actually agree, actual genius kids from generally high SES schools should be getting in regardless of if they are in AAP or not

"Top" students at lower SES schools are nowhere close to these folks and have no business taking TJ spots

That's actually not true. The differences at best aren't negligible. I get that some people want to believe differently because it's self-serving.

last comment for a while

I'd take the top 100 at an AAP center over the top 1.5% at the lower performing middle schools. And if you are honest with yourself so would you.

I wouldn't! Typically the AAP kids are mostly just average kids with pushy parents but the top 1.5% at the less affluent schools are truly gifted.

Exactly! That"s been our experience too. AAP isn't a gifted program. It's the top 15% supposedly but not even that really. The top 1.5% of any school is just that. That's much better than any AAP.

Yes, AAP is mostly a sham and the top 1.5% at any school beats out easily beats out most of the AAP kids who are by definition just the top 15%.

Kids in the top 1.5% at a non AAP school are merely the top of the kids not deemed to be in the top 15%. AAP selection is imperfect, but if the top 15% leave for AAP, then the gen ed kid who is at the 84th percentile would become the top kid left behind. A kid who is at the top only because the overwhelming majority of the smart kids left the school is not in any way gifted or TJ worthy.

AAP selection is imperfect, but it's not so imperfect that nearly 1/3 of the TJ spots ought to be reserved exclusively for gen ed kids. For the most part, the issues with AAP selection are that they're over-including kids, such that the bottom half of AAP is indistinguishable from the top 10% in gen ed. They're not generally missing kids who are gifted.

Only the super high-maintenance Karnes fuss over AAP. Half the population doesn't even know what it is and doesn't bother to apply or push for their kids to get in. The top 1.5% is really the top 1.5%. AAP is just the top 15% or worse. Many wouldn't even make the top 15% if not for extreme prep or private diagnoses that has allowed them access.

Nailed it! Such a sham, but even worse some believe this entitles them to TJ.

Nailed it. Bingo. Entitled. any other lazy catch phrases? toxic maybe...

It's the same poster constantly agreeing with her own posts. No one else could be that big of an idiot.

PP seems to think that the best way to find gifted kids is to look for the ones who couldn't earn high enough scores on nationally normed exams, couldn't impress any teachers, couldn't manage to qualify for 7th grade Algebra, couldn't manage to take a full load of honors, couldn't manage to do well in or even participate in any STEM ECs, and couldn't manage to get decent teacher recommendations now. Those kids are the true gems. The kids who sailed through AAP, took Algebra in 6th grade, would have glowing teacher recs, and have national level STEM achievements are just average.

DP. Believe it or not, there are a lot of vehemently pro-reform posters on this site who carry with them multiple different perspectives on how to solve the problem.

I, for one, am extremely vocal on this board (proudly holding the title of "woke idiot" from one less-informed regular) and I firmly believe that Likert-scale-heavy teacher recommendations that evaluate students against each other while limiting the impact of a teacher's writing style are a huge part of the answer to how to identify the strongest applicants from each school.

Yes, they are prone to racial bias in rare cases, but more frequently they are biased in favor of students who are strong contributors to the academic environment - and that's a bias that frankly should be welcomed in an admissions process to an elite school like TJ.

Quoted PP here. I agree with you on a lot of this. I'm one of the PPs who has been critical of the decision to penalize AAP kids*, give no boost for taking all Honors, and give no boost for taking Algebra in 7th rather than 8th. I think a revitalized teacher recommendation could address a lot of this. The reformed system says that we should just assume that every non AAP kid who didn't qualify for 7th grade Algebra, has done no STEM ECs, and isn't even taking all honors is a diamond in the rough. I say that if the kid is a diamond in the rough, the teachers surely will notice, and the recommendation will reflect that. It's reasonable to assume that a kid who is taking Algebra in 8th, not taking all honors, and/or not participating in a single STEM EC is some combination of not especially academically strong, nor overly motivated, and/or not especially interested in STEM. If the middle school teachers say otherwise, I'm more than happy to listen to the teachers.

Likewise, if the kid is overly tutored/prepped and will be eaten alive at TJ, the teacher recommendation will reflect that. I know of one kid who got admitted to the TJ class of 2026 who has no business going there. He needed extensive tutoring to get through middle school AAP classes. If the teachers had any input at all, there's no way the kid would have been admitted.

*The two obvious solutions to the AAP penalty based on attending a center school would be to either reserve the 1.5% spots on a pyramid/zoned high school level, or to eliminate middle school AAP centers and instead offer AAP at every middle school. If either of these were implemented, there would be no reason to quibble about so many gen ed kids being accepted to TJ.

Why not use the students home school regardless of whether they're in an AAP center?

Because the students are attending a different MS. That is who they are being judged against. It is the same reason they moved away from one standard in-pool test score for AAP to in-pool scores based on the individual schools. If you want to compete against the kids at your base school, stay at your base school.

That attitude really stinks for the kids zoned to the AAP center. A gen ed kid zoned to the base school has to compete with their regular school population minus 200 or so very strong AAP kids. A gen ed kid zoned to the center has to compete with their regular zoned population plus an extra 200-300 academically strong kids from elsewhere. It's not a remotely fair system.

That's why the seats should be allocated on a zoned high school level and not a middle school level.

You know what the formula is for right now. You have had several years to make your choice. It is not like the first year when the change was made and families had no idea that this was happening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is about TJ admissions

We actually agree, actual genius kids from generally high SES schools should be getting in regardless of if they are in AAP or not

"Top" students at lower SES schools are nowhere close to these folks and have no business taking TJ spots

That's actually not true. The differences at best aren't negligible. I get that some people want to believe differently because it's self-serving.

last comment for a while

I'd take the top 100 at an AAP center over the top 1.5% at the lower performing middle schools. And if you are honest with yourself so would you.

I wouldn't! Typically the AAP kids are mostly just average kids with pushy parents but the top 1.5% at the less affluent schools are truly gifted.

Exactly! That"s been our experience too. AAP isn't a gifted program. It's the top 15% supposedly but not even that really. The top 1.5% of any school is just that. That's much better than any AAP.

Yes, AAP is mostly a sham and the top 1.5% at any school beats out easily beats out most of the AAP kids who are by definition just the top 15%.

Kids in the top 1.5% at a non AAP school are merely the top of the kids not deemed to be in the top 15%. AAP selection is imperfect, but if the top 15% leave for AAP, then the gen ed kid who is at the 84th percentile would become the top kid left behind. A kid who is at the top only because the overwhelming majority of the smart kids left the school is not in any way gifted or TJ worthy.

AAP selection is imperfect, but it's not so imperfect that nearly 1/3 of the TJ spots ought to be reserved exclusively for gen ed kids. For the most part, the issues with AAP selection are that they're over-including kids, such that the bottom half of AAP is indistinguishable from the top 10% in gen ed. They're not generally missing kids who are gifted.

Only the super high-maintenance Karnes fuss over AAP. Half the population doesn't even know what it is and doesn't bother to apply or push for their kids to get in. The top 1.5% is really the top 1.5%. AAP is just the top 15% or worse. Many wouldn't even make the top 15% if not for extreme prep or private diagnoses that has allowed them access.

Nailed it! Such a sham, but even worse some believe this entitles them to TJ.

Nailed it. Bingo. Entitled. any other lazy catch phrases? toxic maybe...

It's the same poster constantly agreeing with her own posts. No one else could be that big of an idiot.

PP seems to think that the best way to find gifted kids is to look for the ones who couldn't earn high enough scores on nationally normed exams, couldn't impress any teachers, couldn't manage to qualify for 7th grade Algebra, couldn't manage to take a full load of honors, couldn't manage to do well in or even participate in any STEM ECs, and couldn't manage to get decent teacher recommendations now. Those kids are the true gems. The kids who sailed through AAP, took Algebra in 6th grade, would have glowing teacher recs, and have national level STEM achievements are just average.

DP. Believe it or not, there are a lot of vehemently pro-reform posters on this site who carry with them multiple different perspectives on how to solve the problem.

I, for one, am extremely vocal on this board (proudly holding the title of "woke idiot" from one less-informed regular) and I firmly believe that Likert-scale-heavy teacher recommendations that evaluate students against each other while limiting the impact of a teacher's writing style are a huge part of the answer to how to identify the strongest applicants from each school.

Yes, they are prone to racial bias in rare cases, but more frequently they are biased in favor of students who are strong contributors to the academic environment - and that's a bias that frankly should be welcomed in an admissions process to an elite school like TJ.

Quoted PP here. I agree with you on a lot of this. I'm one of the PPs who has been critical of the decision to penalize AAP kids*, give no boost for taking all Honors, and give no boost for taking Algebra in 7th rather than 8th. I think a revitalized teacher recommendation could address a lot of this. The reformed system says that we should just assume that every non AAP kid who didn't qualify for 7th grade Algebra, has done no STEM ECs, and isn't even taking all honors is a diamond in the rough. I say that if the kid is a diamond in the rough, the teachers surely will notice, and the recommendation will reflect that. It's reasonable to assume that a kid who is taking Algebra in 8th, not taking all honors, and/or not participating in a single STEM EC is some combination of not especially academically strong, nor overly motivated, and/or not especially interested in STEM. If the middle school teachers say otherwise, I'm more than happy to listen to the teachers.

Likewise, if the kid is overly tutored/prepped and will be eaten alive at TJ, the teacher recommendation will reflect that. I know of one kid who got admitted to the TJ class of 2026 who has no business going there. He needed extensive tutoring to get through middle school AAP classes. If the teachers had any input at all, there's no way the kid would have been admitted.

*The two obvious solutions to the AAP penalty based on attending a center school would be to either reserve the 1.5% spots on a pyramid/zoned high school level, or to eliminate middle school AAP centers and instead offer AAP at every middle school. If either of these were implemented, there would be no reason to quibble about so many gen ed kids being accepted to TJ.

Why not use the students home school regardless of whether they're in an AAP center?

Because the students are attending a different MS. That is who they are being judged against. It is the same reason they moved away from one standard in-pool test score for AAP to in-pool scores based on the individual schools. If you want to compete against the kids at your base school, stay at your base school.

That attitude really stinks for the kids zoned to the AAP center. A gen ed kid zoned to the base school has to compete with their regular school population minus 200 or so very strong AAP kids. A gen ed kid zoned to the center has to compete with their regular zoned population plus an extra 200-300 academically strong kids from elsewhere. It's not a remotely fair system.

That's why the seats should be allocated on a zoned high school level and not a middle school level.

or they could just take the students most qualified aka highest GPA, most STEM aptitude etc. Apparently that's too racist for folks though.

How does one measure STEM aptitude outside of STEM classes, like math and science? The STEM electives are not offered in large enough numbers at any of the schools that every kid has access to them, so you cannot count those because not every kid is able to take them. Not all kids has access to after school activities and enrichment, so you can't count that. They are requiring Honors Math and Science both years. Raise the Algebra requirement to Geometry and you have the best, commonly available measure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why not judge them based on their assigned home school? Anyway, I'd take the top 1.5% from any school over AAP kids who are supposedly just the top 15% but often get in by buying a private diagnosis (so lower than top 15%). In the end top 1.5% > than ~15%

If you want to be judged based on your home school, stay at your base school. This isn't hard. Take the Honors classes at your base school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is about TJ admissions

We actually agree, actual genius kids from generally high SES schools should be getting in regardless of if they are in AAP or not

"Top" students at lower SES schools are nowhere close to these folks and have no business taking TJ spots

That's actually not true. The differences at best aren't negligible. I get that some people want to believe differently because it's self-serving.

last comment for a while

I'd take the top 100 at an AAP center over the top 1.5% at the lower performing middle schools. And if you are honest with yourself so would you.

I wouldn't! Typically the AAP kids are mostly just average kids with pushy parents but the top 1.5% at the less affluent schools are truly gifted.

Exactly! That"s been our experience too. AAP isn't a gifted program. It's the top 15% supposedly but not even that really. The top 1.5% of any school is just that. That's much better than any AAP.

Yes, AAP is mostly a sham and the top 1.5% at any school beats out easily beats out most of the AAP kids who are by definition just the top 15%.

Kids in the top 1.5% at a non AAP school are merely the top of the kids not deemed to be in the top 15%. AAP selection is imperfect, but if the top 15% leave for AAP, then the gen ed kid who is at the 84th percentile would become the top kid left behind. A kid who is at the top only because the overwhelming majority of the smart kids left the school is not in any way gifted or TJ worthy.

AAP selection is imperfect, but it's not so imperfect that nearly 1/3 of the TJ spots ought to be reserved exclusively for gen ed kids. For the most part, the issues with AAP selection are that they're over-including kids, such that the bottom half of AAP is indistinguishable from the top 10% in gen ed. They're not generally missing kids who are gifted.

Only the super high-maintenance Karnes fuss over AAP. Half the population doesn't even know what it is and doesn't bother to apply or push for their kids to get in. The top 1.5% is really the top 1.5%. AAP is just the top 15% or worse. Many wouldn't even make the top 15% if not for extreme prep or private diagnoses that has allowed them access.

Nailed it! Such a sham, but even worse some believe this entitles them to TJ.

Nailed it. Bingo. Entitled. any other lazy catch phrases? toxic maybe...

It's the same poster constantly agreeing with her own posts. No one else could be that big of an idiot.

PP seems to think that the best way to find gifted kids is to look for the ones who couldn't earn high enough scores on nationally normed exams, couldn't impress any teachers, couldn't manage to qualify for 7th grade Algebra, couldn't manage to take a full load of honors, couldn't manage to do well in or even participate in any STEM ECs, and couldn't manage to get decent teacher recommendations now. Those kids are the true gems. The kids who sailed through AAP, took Algebra in 6th grade, would have glowing teacher recs, and have national level STEM achievements are just average.

DP. Believe it or not, there are a lot of vehemently pro-reform posters on this site who carry with them multiple different perspectives on how to solve the problem.

I, for one, am extremely vocal on this board (proudly holding the title of "woke idiot" from one less-informed regular) and I firmly believe that Likert-scale-heavy teacher recommendations that evaluate students against each other while limiting the impact of a teacher's writing style are a huge part of the answer to how to identify the strongest applicants from each school.

Yes, they are prone to racial bias in rare cases, but more frequently they are biased in favor of students who are strong contributors to the academic environment - and that's a bias that frankly should be welcomed in an admissions process to an elite school like TJ.

Quoted PP here. I agree with you on a lot of this. I'm one of the PPs who has been critical of the decision to penalize AAP kids*, give no boost for taking all Honors, and give no boost for taking Algebra in 7th rather than 8th. I think a revitalized teacher recommendation could address a lot of this. The reformed system says that we should just assume that every non AAP kid who didn't qualify for 7th grade Algebra, has done no STEM ECs, and isn't even taking all honors is a diamond in the rough. I say that if the kid is a diamond in the rough, the teachers surely will notice, and the recommendation will reflect that. It's reasonable to assume that a kid who is taking Algebra in 8th, not taking all honors, and/or not participating in a single STEM EC is some combination of not especially academically strong, nor overly motivated, and/or not especially interested in STEM. If the middle school teachers say otherwise, I'm more than happy to listen to the teachers.

Likewise, if the kid is overly tutored/prepped and will be eaten alive at TJ, the teacher recommendation will reflect that. I know of one kid who got admitted to the TJ class of 2026 who has no business going there. He needed extensive tutoring to get through middle school AAP classes. If the teachers had any input at all, there's no way the kid would have been admitted.

*The two obvious solutions to the AAP penalty based on attending a center school would be to either reserve the 1.5% spots on a pyramid/zoned high school level, or to eliminate middle school AAP centers and instead offer AAP at every middle school. If either of these were implemented, there would be no reason to quibble about so many gen ed kids being accepted to TJ.

Why not use the students home school regardless of whether they're in an AAP center?

Because the students are attending a different MS. That is who they are being judged against. It is the same reason they moved away from one standard in-pool test score for AAP to in-pool scores based on the individual schools. If you want to compete against the kids at your base school, stay at your base school.

That attitude really stinks for the kids zoned to the AAP center. A gen ed kid zoned to the base school has to compete with their regular school population minus 200 or so very strong AAP kids. A gen ed kid zoned to the center has to compete with their regular zoned population plus an extra 200-300 academically strong kids from elsewhere. It's not a remotely fair system.

That's why the seats should be allocated on a zoned high school level and not a middle school level.

or they could just take the students most qualified aka highest GPA, most STEM aptitude etc. Apparently that's too racist for folks though.

How does one measure STEM aptitude outside of STEM classes, like math and science? The STEM electives are not offered in large enough numbers at any of the schools that every kid has access to them, so you cannot count those because not every kid is able to take them. Not all kids has access to after school activities and enrichment, so you can't count that. They are requiring Honors Math and Science both years. Raise the Algebra requirement to Geometry and you have the best, commonly available measure.

Name one FCPS middle school that doesn't have at least two STEM after school activities. Name one FCPS middle school that doesn't have a late bus to enable kids to attend the activity and then take the bus home. I bet you can't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not judge them based on their assigned home school? Anyway, I'd take the top 1.5% from any school over AAP kids who are supposedly just the top 15% but often get in by buying a private diagnosis (so lower than top 15%). In the end top 1.5% > than ~15%

If you want to be judged based on your home school, stay at your base school. This isn't hard. Take the Honors classes at your base school.

For the millionth time, what about the kids who are zoned to the AAP center? They can't avoid competing with an overabundance of AAP kids, since there are no other schools that they can choose to attend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is about TJ admissions

We actually agree, actual genius kids from generally high SES schools should be getting in regardless of if they are in AAP or not

"Top" students at lower SES schools are nowhere close to these folks and have no business taking TJ spots

That's actually not true. The differences at best aren't negligible. I get that some people want to believe differently because it's self-serving.

last comment for a while

I'd take the top 100 at an AAP center over the top 1.5% at the lower performing middle schools. And if you are honest with yourself so would you.

I wouldn't! Typically the AAP kids are mostly just average kids with pushy parents but the top 1.5% at the less affluent schools are truly gifted.

Exactly! That"s been our experience too. AAP isn't a gifted program. It's the top 15% supposedly but not even that really. The top 1.5% of any school is just that. That's much better than any AAP.

Yes, AAP is mostly a sham and the top 1.5% at any school beats out easily beats out most of the AAP kids who are by definition just the top 15%.

Kids in the top 1.5% at a non AAP school are merely the top of the kids not deemed to be in the top 15%. AAP selection is imperfect, but if the top 15% leave for AAP, then the gen ed kid who is at the 84th percentile would become the top kid left behind. A kid who is at the top only because the overwhelming majority of the smart kids left the school is not in any way gifted or TJ worthy.

AAP selection is imperfect, but it's not so imperfect that nearly 1/3 of the TJ spots ought to be reserved exclusively for gen ed kids. For the most part, the issues with AAP selection are that they're over-including kids, such that the bottom half of AAP is indistinguishable from the top 10% in gen ed. They're not generally missing kids who are gifted.

Only the super high-maintenance Karnes fuss over AAP. Half the population doesn't even know what it is and doesn't bother to apply or push for their kids to get in. The top 1.5% is really the top 1.5%. AAP is just the top 15% or worse. Many wouldn't even make the top 15% if not for extreme prep or private diagnoses that has allowed them access.

Nailed it! Such a sham, but even worse some believe this entitles them to TJ.

Nailed it. Bingo. Entitled. any other lazy catch phrases? toxic maybe...

It's the same poster constantly agreeing with her own posts. No one else could be that big of an idiot.

PP seems to think that the best way to find gifted kids is to look for the ones who couldn't earn high enough scores on nationally normed exams, couldn't impress any teachers, couldn't manage to qualify for 7th grade Algebra, couldn't manage to take a full load of honors, couldn't manage to do well in or even participate in any STEM ECs, and couldn't manage to get decent teacher recommendations now. Those kids are the true gems. The kids who sailed through AAP, took Algebra in 6th grade, would have glowing teacher recs, and have national level STEM achievements are just average.

DP. Believe it or not, there are a lot of vehemently pro-reform posters on this site who carry with them multiple different perspectives on how to solve the problem.

I, for one, am extremely vocal on this board (proudly holding the title of "woke idiot" from one less-informed regular) and I firmly believe that Likert-scale-heavy teacher recommendations that evaluate students against each other while limiting the impact of a teacher's writing style are a huge part of the answer to how to identify the strongest applicants from each school.

Yes, they are prone to racial bias in rare cases, but more frequently they are biased in favor of students who are strong contributors to the academic environment - and that's a bias that frankly should be welcomed in an admissions process to an elite school like TJ.

Quoted PP here. I agree with you on a lot of this. I'm one of the PPs who has been critical of the decision to penalize AAP kids*, give no boost for taking all Honors, and give no boost for taking Algebra in 7th rather than 8th. I think a revitalized teacher recommendation could address a lot of this. The reformed system says that we should just assume that every non AAP kid who didn't qualify for 7th grade Algebra, has done no STEM ECs, and isn't even taking all honors is a diamond in the rough. I say that if the kid is a diamond in the rough, the teachers surely will notice, and the recommendation will reflect that. It's reasonable to assume that a kid who is taking Algebra in 8th, not taking all honors, and/or not participating in a single STEM EC is some combination of not especially academically strong, nor overly motivated, and/or not especially interested in STEM. If the middle school teachers say otherwise, I'm more than happy to listen to the teachers.

Likewise, if the kid is overly tutored/prepped and will be eaten alive at TJ, the teacher recommendation will reflect that. I know of one kid who got admitted to the TJ class of 2026 who has no business going there. He needed extensive tutoring to get through middle school AAP classes. If the teachers had any input at all, there's no way the kid would have been admitted.

*The two obvious solutions to the AAP penalty based on attending a center school would be to either reserve the 1.5% spots on a pyramid/zoned high school level, or to eliminate middle school AAP centers and instead offer AAP at every middle school. If either of these were implemented, there would be no reason to quibble about so many gen ed kids being accepted to TJ.

Why not use the students home school regardless of whether they're in an AAP center?

Because the students are attending a different MS. That is who they are being judged against. It is the same reason they moved away from one standard in-pool test score for AAP to in-pool scores based on the individual schools. If you want to compete against the kids at your base school, stay at your base school.

That attitude really stinks for the kids zoned to the AAP center. A gen ed kid zoned to the base school has to compete with their regular school population minus 200 or so very strong AAP kids. A gen ed kid zoned to the center has to compete with their regular zoned population plus an extra 200-300 academically strong kids from elsewhere. It's not a remotely fair system.

That's why the seats should be allocated on a zoned high school level and not a middle school level.

or they could just take the students most qualified aka highest GPA, most STEM aptitude etc. Apparently that's too racist for folks though.

How does one measure STEM aptitude outside of STEM classes, like math and science? The STEM electives are not offered in large enough numbers at any of the schools that every kid has access to them, so you cannot count those because not every kid is able to take them. Not all kids has access to after school activities and enrichment, so you can't count that. They are requiring Honors Math and Science both years. Raise the Algebra requirement to Geometry and you have the best, commonly available measure.

Name one FCPS middle school that doesn't have at least two STEM after school activities. Name one FCPS middle school that doesn't have a late bus to enable kids to attend the activity and then take the bus home. I bet you can't.

And do you think that every kid has the ability to attend those? You don't think a lower SES kid might not be needed at home to watch siblings or do things around the families home to help their parents? You approach this as if this is a black and white scenario.

Let's pretend every kid who wanted to could participate in those activities. Your next argument would be that some STEM clubs are better then others and should be given more weight, probably the ones that are more time intensive or cost money to participate and require transportation, like robotics.

You have a fixed idea of who should be accepted into TJ based on your preconceived notions and you cannot step away from those ideas to see why they don't work for a good number of kids. You use those notions to defend that your ideal TJ kid is just better because they are smarter and more dedicated. The notion that there should be room for kids like your kid and kids who have had less opportunity but are still capable and want the change to push themselves seems to elude you.