Federal judge rules that admissions changes at nation’s top public school discriminate against Asian

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now, the theme changes to "we do not need the best students in TJ"

DP here, but I would say that (1) objective rankings of TJ applicants don't exist, and (2) even if we could objectively rank TJ applicants, we will never agree on whether society is better served if TJ admitted a higher ranked Larla, whose UMC parents can afford outside enrichments that can substitute for TJ, or a lower ranked but still qualified Larlo, whose URM parents do not have those same resources. (abstracting from the noisy relationship between race and SES).

Several posts ago, a PP mentioned that it's sad that TJ did not admit certain USAJMO qualifiers. A counterargument is that those USAJMO qualifiers already have plenty of resources to get to where they are now - would a TJ education get these kids to MOP/IMO? Or would moving these kids to TJ just increase the math prestige of TJ? Maybe giving that seat to another qualified applicant with fewer at-home resources is better for society?

Excellent points. Very well said.

Well, one of the goal for the 1.5% was to have the so called "Top kids" (aka kids who needed to be in TJ) in the system. The problem is there is no consensus on the qualification of "Top kids". Personally I would think that a kids with National level individual achievement in STEM area should be considered. Teachers recommendation would have helped here. If more and more of the Top kids are getting missed (I have no data for it except seeing it in comments) with the new selection process then there is no point in keeping the Top 1.5%, it should be lottery (at least Top kids can blame it to their luck and not ability).

It's not to say the top kids aren't being selected. It seems a bit subjective. There are likely 2X-3X qualified applicants that simply don't get picked. The actual problem seems like there need to be more places like TJ than rethinking selection.

I think many of the posters here think that the 550 admitted students have to be unequivacolly "better" than the 2000 that were not selected. And if an admitted kid didn't have the clear and quantifiable "badges" that an unadmitted kid had, then the system is broken. I would say that most of the 2500 applicants are probably "top kids" in some way or another, whether it be through innate skill or hours of practice. So any algorithm that selects a subset of the 2500 applicant will get "top kids." We can argue about whether that algorithm is biased, but I think the arguments that the algorithm doesn't select "top kids" is invalid. Unless you want to live in a world where only Mozarts are invited to the partiy, and Salieris are turn away with disdain.

A system like NYCPS where there are multiple magnet schools would work to give all 2500 kids an opprtunity to pursue STEM. But NYCPS can do that with a million students. With only 200,000 students, FCPS doesn't have the economies of scale for that.

That's oversimplifying quite a bit. Nobody is suggesting that there's a significant difference between a large chunk of the kids admitted to TJ and the next 1000 kids who didn't make it, and nobody is suggesting that there ought to be. Realistically, there are around 20-50 kids who are head and shoulders above the masses and who are outliers in their base schools. Then, there are another 2000 kids who are bright and qualified for TJ. If the 20-50 kids aren't being selected, then that aspect of the system is broken. For the rest, there's no need to split hairs on which kid is #450 and in vs which kid is #551 and not in. In your example, rejecting those 20-50 kids would be like if Mozart didn't get into the party at all, and it was instead filled with Salieris and even lesser talents.

I like the idea of spreading seats to every middle school. The issue isn't a Carson/Longfellow kid over a Poe/Whitman one. It's whether the correct kids within the higher SES schools are being identified by the process, or whether it's instead identifying privileged, above average kids who took essay prep classes. The other issue, quite frankly, is whether the majority of the struggling kids admitted to TJ, but who don't honestly belong there are a result of the huge expansion of PWC seats and not the result of spreading FCPS seats to the lower SES schools.

[Anonymous]

I find it interesting that all the thread titles about Asian discrimination in this forum always make a claim in the title that the threads tend to disprove. It's almost as if there's a poster trying to stir up tensions between racial groups.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now, the theme changes to "we do not need the best students in TJ"

DP here, but I would say that (1) objective rankings of TJ applicants don't exist, and (2) even if we could objectively rank TJ applicants, we will never agree on whether society is better served if TJ admitted a higher ranked Larla, whose UMC parents can afford outside enrichments that can substitute for TJ, or a lower ranked but still qualified Larlo, whose URM parents do not have those same resources. (abstracting from the noisy relationship between race and SES).

Several posts ago, a PP mentioned that it's sad that TJ did not admit certain USAJMO qualifiers. A counterargument is that those USAJMO qualifiers already have plenty of resources to get to where they are now - would a TJ education get these kids to MOP/IMO? Or would moving these kids to TJ just increase the math prestige of TJ? Maybe giving that seat to another qualified applicant with fewer at-home resources is better for society?

Excellent points. Very well said.

Well, one of the goal for the 1.5% was to have the so called "Top kids" (aka kids who needed to be in TJ) in the system. The problem is there is no consensus on the qualification of "Top kids". Personally I would think that a kids with National level individual achievement in STEM area should be considered. Teachers recommendation would have helped here. If more and more of the Top kids are getting missed (I have no data for it except seeing it in comments) with the new selection process then there is no point in keeping the Top 1.5%, it should be lottery (at least Top kids can blame it to their luck and not ability).

It's not to say the top kids aren't being selected. It seems a bit subjective. There are likely 2X-3X qualified applicants that simply don't get picked. The actual problem seems like there need to be more places like TJ than rethinking selection.

I think many of the posters here think that the 550 admitted students have to be unequivacolly "better" than the 2000 that were not selected. And if an admitted kid didn't have the clear and quantifiable "badges" that an unadmitted kid had, then the system is broken. I would say that most of the 2500 applicants are probably "top kids" in some way or another, whether it be through innate skill or hours of practice. So any algorithm that selects a subset of the 2500 applicant will get "top kids." We can argue about whether that algorithm is biased, but I think the arguments that the algorithm doesn't select "top kids" is invalid. Unless you want to live in a world where only Mozarts are invited to the partiy, and Salieris are turn away with disdain.

A system like NYCPS where there are multiple magnet schools would work to give all 2500 kids an opprtunity to pursue STEM. But NYCPS can do that with a million students. With only 200,000 students, FCPS doesn't have the economies of scale for that.

That's oversimplifying quite a bit. Nobody is suggesting that there's a significant difference between a large chunk of the kids admitted to TJ and the next 1000 kids who didn't make it, and nobody is suggesting that there ought to be. Realistically, there are around 20-50 kids who are head and shoulders above the masses and who are outliers in their base schools. Then, there are another 2000 kids who are bright and qualified for TJ. If the 20-50 kids aren't being selected, then that aspect of the system is broken. For the rest, there's no need to split hairs on which kid is #450 and in vs which kid is #551 and not in. In your example, rejecting those 20-50 kids would be like if Mozart didn't get into the party at all, and it was instead filled with Salieris and even lesser talents.

I like the idea of spreading seats to every middle school. The issue isn't a Carson/Longfellow kid over a Poe/Whitman one. It's whether the correct kids within the higher SES schools are being identified by the process, or whether it's instead identifying privileged, above average kids who took essay prep classes. The other issue, quite frankly, is whether the majority of the struggling kids admitted to TJ, but who don't honestly belong there are a result of the huge expansion of PWC seats and not the result of spreading FCPS seats to the lower SES schools.

If a selection algorithm could easily identify those 20-50 kids, then I agree that it would improve the system. but it would be hard to be "prep"-proof. Maybe FCPS can invite 7th grade AIME qualifiers to an in-pool TJ application process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now, the theme changes to "we do not need the best students in TJ"

DP here, but I would say that (1) objective rankings of TJ applicants don't exist, and (2) even if we could objectively rank TJ applicants, we will never agree on whether society is better served if TJ admitted a higher ranked Larla, whose UMC parents can afford outside enrichments that can substitute for TJ, or a lower ranked but still qualified Larlo, whose URM parents do not have those same resources. (abstracting from the noisy relationship between race and SES).

Several posts ago, a PP mentioned that it's sad that TJ did not admit certain USAJMO qualifiers. A counterargument is that those USAJMO qualifiers already have plenty of resources to get to where they are now - would a TJ education get these kids to MOP/IMO? Or would moving these kids to TJ just increase the math prestige of TJ? Maybe giving that seat to another qualified applicant with fewer at-home resources is better for society?

Excellent points. Very well said.

Well, one of the goal for the 1.5% was to have the so called "Top kids" (aka kids who needed to be in TJ) in the system. The problem is there is no consensus on the qualification of "Top kids". Personally I would think that a kids with National level individual achievement in STEM area should be considered. Teachers recommendation would have helped here. If more and more of the Top kids are getting missed (I have no data for it except seeing it in comments) with the new selection process then there is no point in keeping the Top 1.5%, it should be lottery (at least Top kids can blame it to their luck and not ability).

It's not to say the top kids aren't being selected. It seems a bit subjective. There are likely 2X-3X qualified applicants that simply don't get picked. The actual problem seems like there need to be more places like TJ than rethinking selection.

I think many of the posters here think that the 550 admitted students have to be unequivacolly "better" than the 2000 that were not selected. And if an admitted kid didn't have the clear and quantifiable "badges" that an unadmitted kid had, then the system is broken. I would say that most of the 2500 applicants are probably "top kids" in some way or another, whether it be through innate skill or hours of practice. So any algorithm that selects a subset of the 2500 applicant will get "top kids." We can argue about whether that algorithm is biased, but I think the arguments that the algorithm doesn't select "top kids" is invalid. Unless you want to live in a world where only Mozarts are invited to the partiy, and Salieris are turn away with disdain.

A system like NYCPS where there are multiple magnet schools would work to give all 2500 kids an opprtunity to pursue STEM. But NYCPS can do that with a million students. With only 200,000 students, FCPS doesn't have the economies of scale for that.

That's oversimplifying quite a bit. Nobody is suggesting that there's a significant difference between a large chunk of the kids admitted to TJ and the next 1000 kids who didn't make it, and nobody is suggesting that there ought to be. Realistically, there are around 20-50 kids who are head and shoulders above the masses and who are outliers in their base schools. Then, there are another 2000 kids who are bright and qualified for TJ. If the 20-50 kids aren't being selected, then that aspect of the system is broken. For the rest, there's no need to split hairs on which kid is #450 and in vs which kid is #551 and not in. In your example, rejecting those 20-50 kids would be like if Mozart didn't get into the party at all, and it was instead filled with Salieris and even lesser talents.

I like the idea of spreading seats to every middle school. The issue isn't a Carson/Longfellow kid over a Poe/Whitman one. It's whether the correct kids within the higher SES schools are being identified by the process, or whether it's instead identifying privileged, above average kids who took essay prep classes. The other issue, quite frankly, is whether the majority of the struggling kids admitted to TJ, but who don't honestly belong there are a result of the huge expansion of PWC seats and not the result of spreading FCPS seats to the lower SES schools.

If a selection algorithm could easily identify those 20-50 kids, then I agree that it would improve the system. but it would be hard to be "prep"-proof. Maybe FCPS can invite 7th grade AIME qualifiers to an in-pool TJ application process.

And wealthy parents would then spend tens of thousands on AIME prep starting at an early age in order to game selection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I find it interesting that all the thread titles about Asian discrimination in this forum always make a claim in the title that the threads tend to disprove. It's almost as if there's a poster trying to stir up tensions between racial groups.

And these posts seem to escalate right before elections.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I find it interesting that all the thread titles about Asian discrimination in this forum always make a claim in the title that the threads tend to disprove. It's almost as if there's a poster trying to stir up tensions between racial groups.

Your post bumps this thread up

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“It is clear that Asian-American students are disproportionately harmed by the Fairfax County School Board’s decision to overhaul TJ admissions,” Hon. Claude M Hilton, Senior Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia wrote. “Currently and in the future, Asian-American applicants are disproportionately deprived of a level playing field in competing for both allocated and unallocated seats.”

Hilton also called the school board’s process for implementing the changes “remarkably rushed and shoddy” with “a noticeable lack of public engagement and transparency.”

Looks like the FCPS board is the problem. Has the FCPS board changed since this finding in 2022?

Mr. Claude Hilton is flat out wrong, if not lying through his teeth. It's surprising a judge would state such lengths of misinformation. Either he did not look at the data and is only spitting out his opinion, or he did look at the data and does not understand how to apply basic math and proportions. In that case, perhaps he is not fit to serve as a judge.

Here are proportions proving mathematically that Asians are not "disproportionately harmed."

"Class of 2024:
The total hit rate per application was 19.14%.
355 seats were offered to Asian students, coming from 1,423 applications for a hit rate of 24.94%.
86 seats were offered to white students, coming from 595 applications for a hit rate of 14.45%.
A maximum of 9 seats were offered to Black students, coming from 160 applications for a maximum hit rate of 5.63%. The actual hit rate was likely much lower.
16 seats were offered to Hispanic students from 208 applications for a hit rate of 7.69%.

When cultural factors and compounding evidence like the Curie matter are taken into account, it is noncontroversial to assert that the previous process disproportionately favored Asian students and had a clear disparate impact on all other demographics.

Class of 2025:
The total hit rate per application was 18.13%.
299 seats were offered to Asian students from 1,535 applications for a hit rate of 19.48%. Still slightly favored, but no longer in a statistically significant manner.
123 seats were offered to white students from 726 applications for a hit rate of 16.94%. Still slightly disfavored, but again, not significantly.
39 seats were offered to Black students from 272 applications for a hit rate of 14.33%. Seems like there's still some work to be done here, but at least we're in reasonable territory.
62 seats were offered to Hispanic students from 295 applications for a hit rate of 21.02%. Favored, but only about half as much as Asians were pre-changes."

Whoever quoted my work here, thanks

is this accurate information? source?

https://www.fcps.edu/news/tjhsst-offers-admission-550-students-broadens-access-students-who-have-aptitude-stem

" Asian students continue to constitute a majority of the class at 54.36%, a decrease from 73.05% (2020-21)."

Imaging the outrage if there were to be a news release like:

"After NBA draft changes this year, African American players continue to constitute a majority of the league at 54.36%, a decrease from 71.8% ."

Can someone please explain to me why there is this pervasive subset of people who insist on bringing up the NBA as some sort of comparison with admissions processes?

Why do you think these things are even remotely comparable?

because it is unfair for a young Michael Prepped Jordan to be denied opportunity for his hardwork over another young Micheal Underprepared Jordan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now, the theme changes to "we do not need the best students in TJ"

DP here, but I would say that (1) objective rankings of TJ applicants don't exist, and (2) even if we could objectively rank TJ applicants, we will never agree on whether society is better served if TJ admitted a higher ranked Larla, whose UMC parents can afford outside enrichments that can substitute for TJ, or a lower ranked but still qualified Larlo, whose URM parents do not have those same resources. (abstracting from the noisy relationship between race and SES).

Several posts ago, a PP mentioned that it's sad that TJ did not admit certain USAJMO qualifiers. A counterargument is that those USAJMO qualifiers already have plenty of resources to get to where they are now - would a TJ education get these kids to MOP/IMO? Or would moving these kids to TJ just increase the math prestige of TJ? Maybe giving that seat to another qualified applicant with fewer at-home resources is better for society?

Excellent points. Very well said.

Well, one of the goal for the 1.5% was to have the so called "Top kids" (aka kids who needed to be in TJ) in the system. The problem is there is no consensus on the qualification of "Top kids". Personally I would think that a kids with National level individual achievement in STEM area should be considered. Teachers recommendation would have helped here. If more and more of the Top kids are getting missed (I have no data for it except seeing it in comments) with the new selection process then there is no point in keeping the Top 1.5%, it should be lottery (at least Top kids can blame it to their luck and not ability).

It's not to say the top kids aren't being selected. It seems a bit subjective. There are likely 2X-3X qualified applicants that simply don't get picked. The actual problem seems like there need to be more places like TJ than rethinking selection.

I think many of the posters here think that the 550 admitted students have to be unequivacolly "better" than the 2000 that were not selected. And if an admitted kid didn't have the clear and quantifiable "badges" that an unadmitted kid had, then the system is broken. I would say that most of the 2500 applicants are probably "top kids" in some way or another, whether it be through innate skill or hours of practice. So any algorithm that selects a subset of the 2500 applicant will get "top kids." We can argue about whether that algorithm is biased, but I think the arguments that the algorithm doesn't select "top kids" is invalid. Unless you want to live in a world where only Mozarts are invited to the partiy, and Salieris are turn away with disdain.

A system like NYCPS where there are multiple magnet schools would work to give all 2500 kids an opprtunity to pursue STEM. But NYCPS can do that with a million students. With only 200,000 students, FCPS doesn't have the economies of scale for that.

That's oversimplifying quite a bit. Nobody is suggesting that there's a significant difference between a large chunk of the kids admitted to TJ and the next 1000 kids who didn't make it, and nobody is suggesting that there ought to be. Realistically, there are around 20-50 kids who are head and shoulders above the masses and who are outliers in their base schools. Then, there are another 2000 kids who are bright and qualified for TJ. If the 20-50 kids aren't being selected, then that aspect of the system is broken. For the rest, there's no need to split hairs on which kid is #450 and in vs which kid is #551 and not in. In your example, rejecting those 20-50 kids would be like if Mozart didn't get into the party at all, and it was instead filled with Salieris and even lesser talents.

I like the idea of spreading seats to every middle school. The issue isn't a Carson/Longfellow kid over a Poe/Whitman one. It's whether the correct kids within the higher SES schools are being identified by the process, or whether it's instead identifying privileged, above average kids who took essay prep classes. The other issue, quite frankly, is whether the majority of the struggling kids admitted to TJ, but who don't honestly belong there are a result of the huge expansion of PWC seats and not the result of spreading FCPS seats to the lower SES schools.

If a selection algorithm could easily identify those 20-50 kids, then I agree that it would improve the system. but it would be hard to be "prep"-proof. Maybe FCPS can invite 7th grade AIME qualifiers to an in-pool TJ application process.

And wealthy parents would then spend tens of thousands on AIME prep starting at an early age in order to game selection.

Wealthy parents already do since AMC and AIME scores are reported on (some top) college applications. AMC/AIME/USAMO tutors in the Boston area charge $100s/hr for their services, and for good reason - it's a pretty strong signal that someone is good at math. And AIME is tough enough that it's actually practice and ability that gets you there, rather than having money thrown at prep. That said, having more high school graduates knowing AIME-level math is only do this country good.

I think some folks in this thread think that enough money can substitute for skill/ability/practice. Like a billionaire's son can easily be in the NBA/NFL/Wimbledon/Olympics/Nobel with enough money thrown at tutors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now, the theme changes to "we do not need the best students in TJ"

DP here, but I would say that (1) objective rankings of TJ applicants don't exist, and (2) even if we could objectively rank TJ applicants, we will never agree on whether society is better served if TJ admitted a higher ranked Larla, whose UMC parents can afford outside enrichments that can substitute for TJ, or a lower ranked but still qualified Larlo, whose URM parents do not have those same resources. (abstracting from the noisy relationship between race and SES).

Several posts ago, a PP mentioned that it's sad that TJ did not admit certain USAJMO qualifiers. A counterargument is that those USAJMO qualifiers already have plenty of resources to get to where they are now - would a TJ education get these kids to MOP/IMO? Or would moving these kids to TJ just increase the math prestige of TJ? Maybe giving that seat to another qualified applicant with fewer at-home resources is better for society?

Excellent points. Very well said.

Well, one of the goal for the 1.5% was to have the so called "Top kids" (aka kids who needed to be in TJ) in the system. The problem is there is no consensus on the qualification of "Top kids". Personally I would think that a kids with National level individual achievement in STEM area should be considered. Teachers recommendation would have helped here. If more and more of the Top kids are getting missed (I have no data for it except seeing it in comments) with the new selection process then there is no point in keeping the Top 1.5%, it should be lottery (at least Top kids can blame it to their luck and not ability).

It's not to say the top kids aren't being selected. It seems a bit subjective. There are likely 2X-3X qualified applicants that simply don't get picked. The actual problem seems like there need to be more places like TJ than rethinking selection.

I think many of the posters here think that the 550 admitted students have to be unequivacolly "better" than the 2000 that were not selected. And if an admitted kid didn't have the clear and quantifiable "badges" that an unadmitted kid had, then the system is broken. I would say that most of the 2500 applicants are probably "top kids" in some way or another, whether it be through innate skill or hours of practice. So any algorithm that selects a subset of the 2500 applicant will get "top kids." We can argue about whether that algorithm is biased, but I think the arguments that the algorithm doesn't select "top kids" is invalid. Unless you want to live in a world where only Mozarts are invited to the partiy, and Salieris are turn away with disdain.

A system like NYCPS where there are multiple magnet schools would work to give all 2500 kids an opprtunity to pursue STEM. But NYCPS can do that with a million students. With only 200,000 students, FCPS doesn't have the economies of scale for that.

That's oversimplifying quite a bit. Nobody is suggesting that there's a significant difference between a large chunk of the kids admitted to TJ and the next 1000 kids who didn't make it, and nobody is suggesting that there ought to be. Realistically, there are around 20-50 kids who are head and shoulders above the masses and who are outliers in their base schools. Then, there are another 2000 kids who are bright and qualified for TJ. If the 20-50 kids aren't being selected, then that aspect of the system is broken. For the rest, there's no need to split hairs on which kid is #450 and in vs which kid is #551 and not in. In your example, rejecting those 20-50 kids would be like if Mozart didn't get into the party at all, and it was instead filled with Salieris and even lesser talents.

I like the idea of spreading seats to every middle school. The issue isn't a Carson/Longfellow kid over a Poe/Whitman one. It's whether the correct kids within the higher SES schools are being identified by the process, or whether it's instead identifying privileged, above average kids who took essay prep classes. The other issue, quite frankly, is whether the majority of the struggling kids admitted to TJ, but who don't honestly belong there are a result of the huge expansion of PWC seats and not the result of spreading FCPS seats to the lower SES schools.

If a selection algorithm could easily identify those 20-50 kids, then I agree that it would improve the system. but it would be hard to be "prep"-proof. Maybe FCPS can invite 7th grade AIME qualifiers to an in-pool TJ application process.

And wealthy parents would then spend tens of thousands on AIME prep starting at an early age in order to game selection.

Wealthy parents already do since AMC and AIME scores are reported on (some top) college applications. AMC/AIME/USAMO tutors in the Boston area charge $100s/hr for their services, and for good reason - it's a pretty strong signal that someone is good at math. And AIME is tough enough that it's actually practice and ability that gets you there, rather than having money thrown at prep. That said, having more high school graduates knowing AIME-level math is only do this country good.

I think some folks in this thread think that enough money can substitute for skill/ability/practice. Like a billionaire's son can easily be in the NBA/NFL/Wimbledon/Olympics/Nobel with enough money thrown at tutors.

This. A large number of kids in both FCPS and LCPS spend a lot of time and money on AMC prep. The number of kids who qualify for AIME in middle school is still very small. The number of AIME qualifiers from the AMC 10 across the entire country is capped at around 3000 kids. This number includes 9th and 10th graders.

The best way, however, to identify those 20-50 kids would be to allow kids to submit optional lists of top achievements with proof, teacher recommendations, and lists of classes taken. It shouldn't be too hard to identify the outliers who absolutely need TJ from that extra info. They can disregard any optional submissions for all of the kids not identified by this process who are instead being considered using the regular process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now, the theme changes to "we do not need the best students in TJ"

DP here, but I would say that (1) objective rankings of TJ applicants don't exist, and (2) even if we could objectively rank TJ applicants, we will never agree on whether society is better served if TJ admitted a higher ranked Larla, whose UMC parents can afford outside enrichments that can substitute for TJ, or a lower ranked but still qualified Larlo, whose URM parents do not have those same resources. (abstracting from the noisy relationship between race and SES).

Several posts ago, a PP mentioned that it's sad that TJ did not admit certain USAJMO qualifiers. A counterargument is that those USAJMO qualifiers already have plenty of resources to get to where they are now - would a TJ education get these kids to MOP/IMO? Or would moving these kids to TJ just increase the math prestige of TJ? Maybe giving that seat to another qualified applicant with fewer at-home resources is better for society?

Excellent points. Very well said.

Well, one of the goal for the 1.5% was to have the so called "Top kids" (aka kids who needed to be in TJ) in the system. The problem is there is no consensus on the qualification of "Top kids". Personally I would think that a kids with National level individual achievement in STEM area should be considered. Teachers recommendation would have helped here. If more and more of the Top kids are getting missed (I have no data for it except seeing it in comments) with the new selection process then there is no point in keeping the Top 1.5%, it should be lottery (at least Top kids can blame it to their luck and not ability).

It's not to say the top kids aren't being selected. It seems a bit subjective. There are likely 2X-3X qualified applicants that simply don't get picked. The actual problem seems like there need to be more places like TJ than rethinking selection.

I think many of the posters here think that the 550 admitted students have to be unequivacolly "better" than the 2000 that were not selected. And if an admitted kid didn't have the clear and quantifiable "badges" that an unadmitted kid had, then the system is broken. I would say that most of the 2500 applicants are probably "top kids" in some way or another, whether it be through innate skill or hours of practice. So any algorithm that selects a subset of the 2500 applicant will get "top kids." We can argue about whether that algorithm is biased, but I think the arguments that the algorithm doesn't select "top kids" is invalid. Unless you want to live in a world where only Mozarts are invited to the partiy, and Salieris are turn away with disdain.

A system like NYCPS where there are multiple magnet schools would work to give all 2500 kids an opprtunity to pursue STEM. But NYCPS can do that with a million students. With only 200,000 students, FCPS doesn't have the economies of scale for that.

That's oversimplifying quite a bit. Nobody is suggesting that there's a significant difference between a large chunk of the kids admitted to TJ and the next 1000 kids who didn't make it, and nobody is suggesting that there ought to be. Realistically, there are around 20-50 kids who are head and shoulders above the masses and who are outliers in their base schools. Then, there are another 2000 kids who are bright and qualified for TJ. If the 20-50 kids aren't being selected, then that aspect of the system is broken. For the rest, there's no need to split hairs on which kid is #450 and in vs which kid is #551 and not in. In your example, rejecting those 20-50 kids would be like if Mozart didn't get into the party at all, and it was instead filled with Salieris and even lesser talents.

I like the idea of spreading seats to every middle school. The issue isn't a Carson/Longfellow kid over a Poe/Whitman one. It's whether the correct kids within the higher SES schools are being identified by the process, or whether it's instead identifying privileged, above average kids who took essay prep classes. The other issue, quite frankly, is whether the majority of the struggling kids admitted to TJ, but who don't honestly belong there are a result of the huge expansion of PWC seats and not the result of spreading FCPS seats to the lower SES schools.

If a selection algorithm could easily identify those 20-50 kids, then I agree that it would improve the system. but it would be hard to be "prep"-proof. Maybe FCPS can invite 7th grade AIME qualifiers to an in-pool TJ application process.

And wealthy parents would then spend tens of thousands on AIME prep starting at an early age in order to game selection.

Wealthy parents already do since AMC and AIME scores are reported on (some top) college applications. AMC/AIME/USAMO tutors in the Boston area charge $100s/hr for their services, and for good reason - it's a pretty strong signal that someone is good at math. And AIME is tough enough that it's actually practice and ability that gets you there, rather than having money thrown at prep. That said, having more high school graduates knowing AIME-level math is only do this country good.

I think some folks in this thread think that enough money can substitute for skill/ability/practice. Like a billionaire's son can easily be in the NBA/NFL/Wimbledon/Olympics/Nobel with enough money thrown at tutors.

This. A large number of kids in both FCPS and LCPS spend a lot of time and money on AMC prep. The number of kids who qualify for AIME in middle school is still very small. The number of AIME qualifiers from the AMC 10 across the entire country is capped at around 3000 kids. This number includes 9th and 10th graders.

The best way, however, to identify those 20-50 kids would be to allow kids to submit optional lists of top achievements with proof, teacher recommendations, and lists of classes taken. It shouldn't be too hard to identify the outliers who absolutely need TJ from that extra info. They can disregard any optional submissions for all of the kids not identified by this process who are instead being considered using the regular process.

Especially with the change of schedule, they can identify 8th graders who qualify for AIME as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now, the theme changes to "we do not need the best students in TJ"

DP here, but I would say that (1) objective rankings of TJ applicants don't exist, and (2) even if we could objectively rank TJ applicants, we will never agree on whether society is better served if TJ admitted a higher ranked Larla, whose UMC parents can afford outside enrichments that can substitute for TJ, or a lower ranked but still qualified Larlo, whose URM parents do not have those same resources. (abstracting from the noisy relationship between race and SES).

Several posts ago, a PP mentioned that it's sad that TJ did not admit certain USAJMO qualifiers. A counterargument is that those USAJMO qualifiers already have plenty of resources to get to where they are now - would a TJ education get these kids to MOP/IMO? Or would moving these kids to TJ just increase the math prestige of TJ? Maybe giving that seat to another qualified applicant with fewer at-home resources is better for society?

Excellent points. Very well said.

Well, one of the goal for the 1.5% was to have the so called "Top kids" (aka kids who needed to be in TJ) in the system. The problem is there is no consensus on the qualification of "Top kids". Personally I would think that a kids with National level individual achievement in STEM area should be considered. Teachers recommendation would have helped here. If more and more of the Top kids are getting missed (I have no data for it except seeing it in comments) with the new selection process then there is no point in keeping the Top 1.5%, it should be lottery (at least Top kids can blame it to their luck and not ability).

It's not to say the top kids aren't being selected. It seems a bit subjective. There are likely 2X-3X qualified applicants that simply don't get picked. The actual problem seems like there need to be more places like TJ than rethinking selection.

I think many of the posters here think that the 550 admitted students have to be unequivacolly "better" than the 2000 that were not selected. And if an admitted kid didn't have the clear and quantifiable "badges" that an unadmitted kid had, then the system is broken. I would say that most of the 2500 applicants are probably "top kids" in some way or another, whether it be through innate skill or hours of practice. So any algorithm that selects a subset of the 2500 applicant will get "top kids." We can argue about whether that algorithm is biased, but I think the arguments that the algorithm doesn't select "top kids" is invalid. Unless you want to live in a world where only Mozarts are invited to the partiy, and Salieris are turn away with disdain.

A system like NYCPS where there are multiple magnet schools would work to give all 2500 kids an opprtunity to pursue STEM. But NYCPS can do that with a million students. With only 200,000 students, FCPS doesn't have the economies of scale for that.

That's oversimplifying quite a bit. Nobody is suggesting that there's a significant difference between a large chunk of the kids admitted to TJ and the next 1000 kids who didn't make it, and nobody is suggesting that there ought to be. Realistically, there are around 20-50 kids who are head and shoulders above the masses and who are outliers in their base schools. Then, there are another 2000 kids who are bright and qualified for TJ. If the 20-50 kids aren't being selected, then that aspect of the system is broken. For the rest, there's no need to split hairs on which kid is #450 and in vs which kid is #551 and not in. In your example, rejecting those 20-50 kids would be like if Mozart didn't get into the party at all, and it was instead filled with Salieris and even lesser talents.

I like the idea of spreading seats to every middle school. The issue isn't a Carson/Longfellow kid over a Poe/Whitman one. It's whether the correct kids within the higher SES schools are being identified by the process, or whether it's instead identifying privileged, above average kids who took essay prep classes. The other issue, quite frankly, is whether the majority of the struggling kids admitted to TJ, but who don't honestly belong there are a result of the huge expansion of PWC seats and not the result of spreading FCPS seats to the lower SES schools.

If a selection algorithm could easily identify those 20-50 kids, then I agree that it would improve the system. but it would be hard to be "prep"-proof. Maybe FCPS can invite 7th grade AIME qualifiers to an in-pool TJ application process.

And wealthy parents would then spend tens of thousands on AIME prep starting at an early age in order to game selection.

Wealthy parents already do since AMC and AIME scores are reported on (some top) college applications. AMC/AIME/USAMO tutors in the Boston area charge $100s/hr for their services, and for good reason - it's a pretty strong signal that someone is good at math. And AIME is tough enough that it's actually practice and ability that gets you there, rather than having money thrown at prep. That said, having more high school graduates knowing AIME-level math is only do this country good.

I think some folks in this thread think that enough money can substitute for skill/ability/practice. Like a billionaire's son can easily be in the NBA/NFL/Wimbledon/Olympics/Nobel with enough money thrown at tutors.

This. A large number of kids in both FCPS and LCPS spend a lot of time and money on AMC prep. The number of kids who qualify for AIME in middle school is still very small. The number of AIME qualifiers from the AMC 10 across the entire country is capped at around 3000 kids. This number includes 9th and 10th graders.

The best way, however, to identify those 20-50 kids would be to allow kids to submit optional lists of top achievements with proof, teacher recommendations, and lists of classes taken. It shouldn't be too hard to identify the outliers who absolutely need TJ from that extra info. They can disregard any optional submissions for all of the kids not identified by this process who are instead being considered using the regular process.

I am the loudest and most well informed pro-reform poster on this site and I agree 100% with the above. There is plenty of room at TJ for both the absolute cream of the crop - like the top 50-100 students out there - and to fill the remainder of the class with a geographically and experientially representative class of students who can make TJ the place that it deserves to be.

And I agree that the current process, though an improvement over the previous one, needs to reintroduce a few more data points to do the job it was designed to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now, the theme changes to "we do not need the best students in TJ"

DP here, but I would say that (1) objective rankings of TJ applicants don't exist, and (2) even if we could objectively rank TJ applicants, we will never agree on whether society is better served if TJ admitted a higher ranked Larla, whose UMC parents can afford outside enrichments that can substitute for TJ, or a lower ranked but still qualified Larlo, whose URM parents do not have those same resources. (abstracting from the noisy relationship between race and SES).

Several posts ago, a PP mentioned that it's sad that TJ did not admit certain USAJMO qualifiers. A counterargument is that those USAJMO qualifiers already have plenty of resources to get to where they are now - would a TJ education get these kids to MOP/IMO? Or would moving these kids to TJ just increase the math prestige of TJ? Maybe giving that seat to another qualified applicant with fewer at-home resources is better for society?

Excellent points. Very well said.

Well, one of the goal for the 1.5% was to have the so called "Top kids" (aka kids who needed to be in TJ) in the system. The problem is there is no consensus on the qualification of "Top kids". Personally I would think that a kids with National level individual achievement in STEM area should be considered. Teachers recommendation would have helped here. If more and more of the Top kids are getting missed (I have no data for it except seeing it in comments) with the new selection process then there is no point in keeping the Top 1.5%, it should be lottery (at least Top kids can blame it to their luck and not ability).

It's not to say the top kids aren't being selected. It seems a bit subjective. There are likely 2X-3X qualified applicants that simply don't get picked. The actual problem seems like there need to be more places like TJ than rethinking selection.

I think many of the posters here think that the 550 admitted students have to be unequivacolly "better" than the 2000 that were not selected. And if an admitted kid didn't have the clear and quantifiable "badges" that an unadmitted kid had, then the system is broken. I would say that most of the 2500 applicants are probably "top kids" in some way or another, whether it be through innate skill or hours of practice. So any algorithm that selects a subset of the 2500 applicant will get "top kids." We can argue about whether that algorithm is biased, but I think the arguments that the algorithm doesn't select "top kids" is invalid. Unless you want to live in a world where only Mozarts are invited to the partiy, and Salieris are turn away with disdain.

A system like NYCPS where there are multiple magnet schools would work to give all 2500 kids an opprtunity to pursue STEM. But NYCPS can do that with a million students. With only 200,000 students, FCPS doesn't have the economies of scale for that.

That's oversimplifying quite a bit. Nobody is suggesting that there's a significant difference between a large chunk of the kids admitted to TJ and the next 1000 kids who didn't make it, and nobody is suggesting that there ought to be. Realistically, there are around 20-50 kids who are head and shoulders above the masses and who are outliers in their base schools. Then, there are another 2000 kids who are bright and qualified for TJ. If the 20-50 kids aren't being selected, then that aspect of the system is broken. For the rest, there's no need to split hairs on which kid is #450 and in vs which kid is #551 and not in. In your example, rejecting those 20-50 kids would be like if Mozart didn't get into the party at all, and it was instead filled with Salieris and even lesser talents.

I like the idea of spreading seats to every middle school. The issue isn't a Carson/Longfellow kid over a Poe/Whitman one. It's whether the correct kids within the higher SES schools are being identified by the process, or whether it's instead identifying privileged, above average kids who took essay prep classes. The other issue, quite frankly, is whether the majority of the struggling kids admitted to TJ, but who don't honestly belong there are a result of the huge expansion of PWC seats and not the result of spreading FCPS seats to the lower SES schools.

If a selection algorithm could easily identify those 20-50 kids, then I agree that it would improve the system. but it would be hard to be "prep"-proof. Maybe FCPS can invite 7th grade AIME qualifiers to an in-pool TJ application process.

And wealthy parents would then spend tens of thousands on AIME prep starting at an early age in order to game selection.

Wealthy parents already do since AMC and AIME scores are reported on (some top) college applications. AMC/AIME/USAMO tutors in the Boston area charge $100s/hr for their services, and for good reason - it's a pretty strong signal that someone is good at math. And AIME is tough enough that it's actually practice and ability that gets you there, rather than having money thrown at prep. That said, having more high school graduates knowing AIME-level math is only do this country good.

I think some folks in this thread think that enough money can substitute for skill/ability/practice. Like a billionaire's son can easily be in the NBA/NFL/Wimbledon/Olympics/Nobel with enough money thrown at tutors.

Perhaps, but TJ isn't comparable to NBA or NFL in terms of skill. It's just some well coached slightly above average kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now, the theme changes to "we do not need the best students in TJ"

DP here, but I would say that (1) objective rankings of TJ applicants don't exist, and (2) even if we could objectively rank TJ applicants, we will never agree on whether society is better served if TJ admitted a higher ranked Larla, whose UMC parents can afford outside enrichments that can substitute for TJ, or a lower ranked but still qualified Larlo, whose URM parents do not have those same resources. (abstracting from the noisy relationship between race and SES).

Several posts ago, a PP mentioned that it's sad that TJ did not admit certain USAJMO qualifiers. A counterargument is that those USAJMO qualifiers already have plenty of resources to get to where they are now - would a TJ education get these kids to MOP/IMO? Or would moving these kids to TJ just increase the math prestige of TJ? Maybe giving that seat to another qualified applicant with fewer at-home resources is better for society?

Excellent points. Very well said.

Well, one of the goal for the 1.5% was to have the so called "Top kids" (aka kids who needed to be in TJ) in the system. The problem is there is no consensus on the qualification of "Top kids". Personally I would think that a kids with National level individual achievement in STEM area should be considered. Teachers recommendation would have helped here. If more and more of the Top kids are getting missed (I have no data for it except seeing it in comments) with the new selection process then there is no point in keeping the Top 1.5%, it should be lottery (at least Top kids can blame it to their luck and not ability).

It's not to say the top kids aren't being selected. It seems a bit subjective. There are likely 2X-3X qualified applicants that simply don't get picked. The actual problem seems like there need to be more places like TJ than rethinking selection.

I think many of the posters here think that the 550 admitted students have to be unequivacolly "better" than the 2000 that were not selected. And if an admitted kid didn't have the clear and quantifiable "badges" that an unadmitted kid had, then the system is broken. I would say that most of the 2500 applicants are probably "top kids" in some way or another, whether it be through innate skill or hours of practice. So any algorithm that selects a subset of the 2500 applicant will get "top kids." We can argue about whether that algorithm is biased, but I think the arguments that the algorithm doesn't select "top kids" is invalid. Unless you want to live in a world where only Mozarts are invited to the partiy, and Salieris are turn away with disdain.

A system like NYCPS where there are multiple magnet schools would work to give all 2500 kids an opprtunity to pursue STEM. But NYCPS can do that with a million students. With only 200,000 students, FCPS doesn't have the economies of scale for that.

That's oversimplifying quite a bit. Nobody is suggesting that there's a significant difference between a large chunk of the kids admitted to TJ and the next 1000 kids who didn't make it, and nobody is suggesting that there ought to be. Realistically, there are around 20-50 kids who are head and shoulders above the masses and who are outliers in their base schools. Then, there are another 2000 kids who are bright and qualified for TJ. If the 20-50 kids aren't being selected, then that aspect of the system is broken. For the rest, there's no need to split hairs on which kid is #450 and in vs which kid is #551 and not in. In your example, rejecting those 20-50 kids would be like if Mozart didn't get into the party at all, and it was instead filled with Salieris and even lesser talents.

I like the idea of spreading seats to every middle school. The issue isn't a Carson/Longfellow kid over a Poe/Whitman one. It's whether the correct kids within the higher SES schools are being identified by the process, or whether it's instead identifying privileged, above average kids who took essay prep classes. The other issue, quite frankly, is whether the majority of the struggling kids admitted to TJ, but who don't honestly belong there are a result of the huge expansion of PWC seats and not the result of spreading FCPS seats to the lower SES schools.

If a selection algorithm could easily identify those 20-50 kids, then I agree that it would improve the system. but it would be hard to be "prep"-proof. Maybe FCPS can invite 7th grade AIME qualifiers to an in-pool TJ application process.

And wealthy parents would then spend tens of thousands on AIME prep starting at an early age in order to game selection.

Wealthy parents already do since AMC and AIME scores are reported on (some top) college applications. AMC/AIME/USAMO tutors in the Boston area charge $100s/hr for their services, and for good reason - it's a pretty strong signal that someone is good at math. And AIME is tough enough that it's actually practice and ability that gets you there, rather than having money thrown at prep. That said, having more high school graduates knowing AIME-level math is only do this country good.

I think some folks in this thread think that enough money can substitute for skill/ability/practice. Like a billionaire's son can easily be in the NBA/NFL/Wimbledon/Olympics/Nobel with enough money thrown at tutors.

Perhaps, but TJ isn't comparable to NBA or NFL in terms of skill. It's just some well coached slightly above average kids.

Making TJ might not require talent comparable to making the NFL, but making the AIME in middle school (the subdiscussion that you are posting in reply to) certainly does; there are far fewer 7/8th graders that make the AIME then there are NFL draftees.

Perhaps a more age-apt comparison might be 14yo basketball players that are offered D1 scholarships. Would a basketball-serious high school program deny admissions to a 14yo who is better at basketball than 99% of high school seniors?

[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:Now, the theme changes to "we do not need the best students in TJ"

DP here, but I would say that (1) objective rankings of TJ applicants don't exist, and (2) even if we could objectively rank TJ applicants, we will never agree on whether society is better served if TJ admitted a higher ranked Larla, whose UMC parents can afford outside enrichments that can substitute for TJ, or a lower ranked but still qualified Larlo, whose URM parents do not have those same resources. (abstracting from the noisy relationship between race and SES).

Several posts ago, a PP mentioned that it's sad that TJ did not admit certain USAJMO qualifiers. A counterargument is that those USAJMO qualifiers already have plenty of resources to get to where they are now - would a TJ education get these kids to MOP/IMO? Or would moving these kids to TJ just increase the math prestige of TJ? Maybe giving that seat to another qualified applicant with fewer at-home resources is better for society?

Excellent points. Very well said.

Well, one of the goal for the 1.5% was to have the so called "Top kids" (aka kids who needed to be in TJ) in the system. The problem is there is no consensus on the qualification of "Top kids". Personally I would think that a kids with National level individual achievement in STEM area should be considered. Teachers recommendation would have helped here. If more and more of the Top kids are getting missed (I have no data for it except seeing it in comments) with the new selection process then there is no point in keeping the Top 1.5%, it should be lottery (at least Top kids can blame it to their luck and not ability).

It's not to say the top kids aren't being selected. It seems a bit subjective. There are likely 2X-3X qualified applicants that simply don't get picked. The actual problem seems like there need to be more places like TJ than rethinking selection.

I think many of the posters here think that the 550 admitted students have to be unequivacolly "better" than the 2000 that were not selected. And if an admitted kid didn't have the clear and quantifiable "badges" that an unadmitted kid had, then the system is broken. I would say that most of the 2500 applicants are probably "top kids" in some way or another, whether it be through innate skill or hours of practice. So any algorithm that selects a subset of the 2500 applicant will get "top kids." We can argue about whether that algorithm is biased, but I think the arguments that the algorithm doesn't select "top kids" is invalid. Unless you want to live in a world where only Mozarts are invited to the partiy, and Salieris are turn away with disdain.

A system like NYCPS where there are multiple magnet schools would work to give all 2500 kids an opprtunity to pursue STEM. But NYCPS can do that with a million students. With only 200,000 students, FCPS doesn't have the economies of scale for that.

That's oversimplifying quite a bit. Nobody is suggesting that there's a significant difference between a large chunk of the kids admitted to TJ and the next 1000 kids who didn't make it, and nobody is suggesting that there ought to be. Realistically, there are around 20-50 kids who are head and shoulders above the masses and who are outliers in their base schools. Then, there are another 2000 kids who are bright and qualified for TJ. If the 20-50 kids aren't being selected, then that aspect of the system is broken. For the rest, there's no need to split hairs on which kid is #450 and in vs which kid is #551 and not in. In your example, rejecting those 20-50 kids would be like if Mozart didn't get into the party at all, and it was instead filled with Salieris and even lesser talents.

I like the idea of spreading seats to every middle school. The issue isn't a Carson/Longfellow kid over a Poe/Whitman one. It's whether the correct kids within the higher SES schools are being identified by the process, or whether it's instead identifying privileged, above average kids who took essay prep classes. The other issue, quite frankly, is whether the majority of the struggling kids admitted to TJ, but who don't honestly belong there are a result of the huge expansion of PWC seats and not the result of spreading FCPS seats to the lower SES schools.

If a selection algorithm could easily identify those 20-50 kids, then I agree that it would improve the system. but it would be hard to be "prep"-proof. Maybe FCPS can invite 7th grade AIME qualifiers to an in-pool TJ application process.

And wealthy parents would then spend tens of thousands on AIME prep starting at an early age in order to game selection.

Wealthy parents already do since AMC and AIME scores are reported on (some top) college applications. AMC/AIME/USAMO tutors in the Boston area charge $100s/hr for their services, and for good reason - it's a pretty strong signal that someone is good at math. And AIME is tough enough that it's actually practice and ability that gets you there, rather than having money thrown at prep. That said, having more high school graduates knowing AIME-level math is only do this country good.

I think some folks in this thread think that enough money can substitute for skill/ability/practice. Like a billionaire's son can easily be in the NBA/NFL/Wimbledon/Olympics/Nobel with enough money thrown at tutors.

Perhaps, but TJ isn't comparable to NBA or NFL in terms of skill. It's just some well coached slightly above average kids.

Making TJ might not require talent comparable to making the NFL, but making the AIME in middle school (the subdiscussion that you are posting in reply to) certainly does; there are far fewer 7/8th graders that make the AIME then there are NFL draftees.

Perhaps a more age-apt comparison might be 14yo basketball players that are offered D1 scholarships. Would a basketball-serious high school program deny admissions to a 14yo who is better at basketball than 99% of high school seniors?

This question again sort of exposes the cognitive dissonance that takes place when you make this comparison.

TJ doesn't exist to rank highly or to win competitions of any kind. To compare it to an entity whose express purpose is to win games or championships is to fundamentally misunderstand TJ.

[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:Now, the theme changes to "we do not need the best students in TJ"

DP here, but I would say that (1) objective rankings of TJ applicants don't exist, and (2) even if we could objectively rank TJ applicants, we will never agree on whether society is better served if TJ admitted a higher ranked Larla, whose UMC parents can afford outside enrichments that can substitute for TJ, or a lower ranked but still qualified Larlo, whose URM parents do not have those same resources. (abstracting from the noisy relationship between race and SES).

Several posts ago, a PP mentioned that it's sad that TJ did not admit certain USAJMO qualifiers. A counterargument is that those USAJMO qualifiers already have plenty of resources to get to where they are now - would a TJ education get these kids to MOP/IMO? Or would moving these kids to TJ just increase the math prestige of TJ? Maybe giving that seat to another qualified applicant with fewer at-home resources is better for society?

Excellent points. Very well said.

Well, one of the goal for the 1.5% was to have the so called "Top kids" (aka kids who needed to be in TJ) in the system. The problem is there is no consensus on the qualification of "Top kids". Personally I would think that a kids with National level individual achievement in STEM area should be considered. Teachers recommendation would have helped here. If more and more of the Top kids are getting missed (I have no data for it except seeing it in comments) with the new selection process then there is no point in keeping the Top 1.5%, it should be lottery (at least Top kids can blame it to their luck and not ability).

It's not to say the top kids aren't being selected. It seems a bit subjective. There are likely 2X-3X qualified applicants that simply don't get picked. The actual problem seems like there need to be more places like TJ than rethinking selection.

I think many of the posters here think that the 550 admitted students have to be unequivacolly "better" than the 2000 that were not selected. And if an admitted kid didn't have the clear and quantifiable "badges" that an unadmitted kid had, then the system is broken. I would say that most of the 2500 applicants are probably "top kids" in some way or another, whether it be through innate skill or hours of practice. So any algorithm that selects a subset of the 2500 applicant will get "top kids." We can argue about whether that algorithm is biased, but I think the arguments that the algorithm doesn't select "top kids" is invalid. Unless you want to live in a world where only Mozarts are invited to the partiy, and Salieris are turn away with disdain.

A system like NYCPS where there are multiple magnet schools would work to give all 2500 kids an opprtunity to pursue STEM. But NYCPS can do that with a million students. With only 200,000 students, FCPS doesn't have the economies of scale for that.

That's oversimplifying quite a bit. Nobody is suggesting that there's a significant difference between a large chunk of the kids admitted to TJ and the next 1000 kids who didn't make it, and nobody is suggesting that there ought to be. Realistically, there are around 20-50 kids who are head and shoulders above the masses and who are outliers in their base schools. Then, there are another 2000 kids who are bright and qualified for TJ. If the 20-50 kids aren't being selected, then that aspect of the system is broken. For the rest, there's no need to split hairs on which kid is #450 and in vs which kid is #551 and not in. In your example, rejecting those 20-50 kids would be like if Mozart didn't get into the party at all, and it was instead filled with Salieris and even lesser talents.

I like the idea of spreading seats to every middle school. The issue isn't a Carson/Longfellow kid over a Poe/Whitman one. It's whether the correct kids within the higher SES schools are being identified by the process, or whether it's instead identifying privileged, above average kids who took essay prep classes. The other issue, quite frankly, is whether the majority of the struggling kids admitted to TJ, but who don't honestly belong there are a result of the huge expansion of PWC seats and not the result of spreading FCPS seats to the lower SES schools.

If a selection algorithm could easily identify those 20-50 kids, then I agree that it would improve the system. but it would be hard to be "prep"-proof. Maybe FCPS can invite 7th grade AIME qualifiers to an in-pool TJ application process.

And wealthy parents would then spend tens of thousands on AIME prep starting at an early age in order to game selection.

Wealthy parents already do since AMC and AIME scores are reported on (some top) college applications. AMC/AIME/USAMO tutors in the Boston area charge $100s/hr for their services, and for good reason - it's a pretty strong signal that someone is good at math. And AIME is tough enough that it's actually practice and ability that gets you there, rather than having money thrown at prep. That said, having more high school graduates knowing AIME-level math is only do this country good.

I think some folks in this thread think that enough money can substitute for skill/ability/practice. Like a billionaire's son can easily be in the NBA/NFL/Wimbledon/Olympics/Nobel with enough money thrown at tutors.

Perhaps, but TJ isn't comparable to NBA or NFL in terms of skill. It's just some well coached slightly above average kids.

Making TJ might not require talent comparable to making the NFL, but making the AIME in middle school (the subdiscussion that you are posting in reply to) certainly does; there are far fewer 7/8th graders that make the AIME then there are NFL draftees.

Perhaps a more age-apt comparison might be 14yo basketball players that are offered D1 scholarships. Would a basketball-serious high school program deny admissions to a 14yo who is better at basketball than 99% of high school seniors?

This question again sort of exposes the cognitive dissonance that takes place when you make this comparison.

TJ doesn't exist to rank highly or to win competitions of any kind. To compare it to an entity whose express purpose is to win games or championships is to fundamentally misunderstand TJ.

Yep! They just want a system that is easy to game.