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:

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.

But it does exist to provide education beyond what is available at other schools, particularly in STEM.

[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: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.

But it does exist to provide education beyond what is available at other schools, particularly in STEM.

In this age of dual enrollment, supplementing, and online courses, what does it even mean for a course to not be “available”?

[Anonymous]

There are many courses at TJ not available online or through dual enrollment at other FCPS schools. At all other FCPS schools, kids can take 1 year of DE post AP math. After that, there’s nothing. TJ has several extra DE options and post AP courses.

Supplementing costs money. Every kid in FCPS should have access to an education that is free and appropriate for their level of advancement

[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: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.

But it does exist to provide education beyond what is available at other schools, particularly in STEM.

In this age of dual enrollment, supplementing, and online courses, what does it even mean for a course to not be “available”?

There is a difference between an online course or a community college course, and a class that is in school with high schoolers.

[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: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.

But it does exist to provide education beyond what is available at other schools, particularly in STEM.

Yes, and they do so beautifully, and in the process inspire many students to pursue STEM who might not otherwise. There's a relatively easy argument that it's more impactful for TJ to inspire bright students in the direction of STEM than it would be for them to take students whose path has already been determined and just give them cool toys to play with for four years while they wait for their future to play out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are many courses at TJ not available online or through dual enrollment at other FCPS schools. At all other FCPS schools, kids can take 1 year of DE post AP math. After that, there’s nothing. TJ has several extra DE options and post AP courses.

Supplementing costs money. Every kid in FCPS should have access to an education that is free and appropriate for their level of advancement

Here's the reality - for whatever reason, there have always been kids at schools like Langley, McLean, Oakton, and Chantilly who have run out of math because they either didn't get into or didn't apply for TJ. That becomes far less likely under the current admissions process as advanced math students are dispersed back into their base school environments. Before too long, you will see Complex Analysis, Discrete Math, and other advanced topics become commonplace at base schools, which is a good thing for everyone as the population becomes more and more accelerated. It might only be one section at first, but it will exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are many courses at TJ not available online or through dual enrollment at other FCPS schools. At all other FCPS schools, kids can take 1 year of DE post AP math. After that, there’s nothing. TJ has several extra DE options and post AP courses.

Supplementing costs money. Every kid in FCPS should have access to an education that is free and appropriate for their level of advancement

Here's the reality - for whatever reason, there have always been kids at schools like Langley, McLean, Oakton, and Chantilly who have run out of math because they either didn't get into or didn't apply for TJ. That becomes far less likely under the current admissions process as advanced math students are dispersed back into their base school environments. Before too long, you will see Complex Analysis, Discrete Math, and other advanced topics become commonplace at base schools, which is a good thing for everyone as the population becomes more and more accelerated. It might only be one section at first, but it will exist.

McLean already has a large number of kids who have run out of math and need more advanced classes. McLean also has some of the highest achieving STEM kids in the state - Mclean's It's academic team and Math team are arguably on par with TJ's and a McLean Sr. has been the best or one of the best math students in the state the last 6 years. Yet, McLean hasn't adopted the complex analysis, etc... it's not due to lack of demand... I don't think FCPS has the supply of teachers to teach those courses. That's why TJ exists. And the former and present admissions process has/will denied many deserving McLean kids of these opportunities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are many courses at TJ not available online or through dual enrollment at other FCPS schools. At all other FCPS schools, kids can take 1 year of DE post AP math. After that, there’s nothing. TJ has several extra DE options and post AP courses.

Supplementing costs money. Every kid in FCPS should have access to an education that is free and appropriate for their level of advancement

Here's the reality - for whatever reason, there have always been kids at schools like Langley, McLean, Oakton, and Chantilly who have run out of math because they either didn't get into or didn't apply for TJ. That becomes far less likely under the current admissions process as advanced math students are dispersed back into their base school environments. Before too long, you will see Complex Analysis, Discrete Math, and other advanced topics become commonplace at base schools, which is a good thing for everyone as the population becomes more and more accelerated. It might only be one section at first, but it will exist.

McLean already has a large number of kids who have run out of math and need more advanced classes. McLean also has some of the highest achieving STEM kids in the state - Mclean's It's academic team and Math team are arguably on par with TJ's and a McLean Sr. has been the best or one of the best math students in the state the last 6 years. Yet, McLean hasn't adopted the complex analysis, etc... it's not due to lack of demand... I don't think FCPS has the supply of teachers to teach those courses. That's why TJ exists. And the former and present admissions process has/will denied many deserving McLean kids of these opportunities.

This. I don't necessarily feel that FCPS is obligated to place the most hyperaccelerated kids into TJ. They do, however, have an obligation to provide those kids with appropriate math courses. Admitting them to TJ would be the cheapest and logistically cheapest way to provide multiple years of post-AP math to the kids who need it. But, if instead FCPS wants to provide all of the post AP courses at McLean and Langley, as well as pay for any student to take courses at GMU if their school doesn't have appropriate offerings, that would be fine. Instead, FCPS seems to be rejecting kids like this from TJ, and then failing to provide appropriate math courses at the base school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are many courses at TJ not available online or through dual enrollment at other FCPS schools. At all other FCPS schools, kids can take 1 year of DE post AP math. After that, there’s nothing. TJ has several extra DE options and post AP courses.

Supplementing costs money. Every kid in FCPS should have access to an education that is free and appropriate for their level of advancement

Here's the reality - for whatever reason, there have always been kids at schools like Langley, McLean, Oakton, and Chantilly who have run out of math because they either didn't get into or didn't apply for TJ. That becomes far less likely under the current admissions process as advanced math students are dispersed back into their base school environments. Before too long, you will see Complex Analysis, Discrete Math, and other advanced topics become commonplace at base schools, which is a good thing for everyone as the population becomes more and more accelerated. It might only be one section at first, but it will exist.

McLean already has a large number of kids who have run out of math and need more advanced classes. McLean also has some of the highest achieving STEM kids in the state - Mclean's It's academic team and Math team are arguably on par with TJ's and a McLean Sr. has been the best or one of the best math students in the state the last 6 years. Yet, McLean hasn't adopted the complex analysis, etc... it's not due to lack of demand... I don't think FCPS has the supply of teachers to teach those courses. That's why TJ exists. And the former and present admissions process has/will denied many deserving McLean kids of these opportunities.

This. I don't necessarily feel that FCPS is obligated to place the most hyperaccelerated kids into TJ. They do, however, have an obligation to provide those kids with appropriate math courses. Admitting them to TJ would be the cheapest and logistically cheapest way to provide multiple years of post-AP math to the kids who need it. But, if instead FCPS wants to provide all of the post AP courses at McLean and Langley, as well as pay for any student to take courses at GMU if their school doesn't have appropriate offerings, that would be fine. Instead, FCPS seems to be rejecting kids like this from TJ, and then failing to provide appropriate math courses at the base school.

Given that not all of the extremely advanced students and their families will have interest in TJ - realistically, it is a huge investment for any family - it is incumbent upon FCPS to ensure those resources are available at each high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are many courses at TJ not available online or through dual enrollment at other FCPS schools. At all other FCPS schools, kids can take 1 year of DE post AP math. After that, there’s nothing. TJ has several extra DE options and post AP courses.

Supplementing costs money. Every kid in FCPS should have access to an education that is free and appropriate for their level of advancement

Here's the reality - for whatever reason, there have always been kids at schools like Langley, McLean, Oakton, and Chantilly who have run out of math because they either didn't get into or didn't apply for TJ. That becomes far less likely under the current admissions process as advanced math students are dispersed back into their base school environments. Before too long, you will see Complex Analysis, Discrete Math, and other advanced topics become commonplace at base schools, which is a good thing for everyone as the population becomes more and more accelerated. It might only be one section at first, but it will exist.

McLean already has a large number of kids who have run out of math and need more advanced classes. McLean also has some of the highest achieving STEM kids in the state - Mclean's It's academic team and Math team are arguably on par with TJ's and a McLean Sr. has been the best or one of the best math students in the state the last 6 years. Yet, McLean hasn't adopted the complex analysis, etc... it's not due to lack of demand... I don't think FCPS has the supply of teachers to teach those courses. That's why TJ exists. And the former and present admissions process has/will denied many deserving McLean kids of these opportunities.

This. I don't necessarily feel that FCPS is obligated to place the most hyperaccelerated kids into TJ. They do, however, have an obligation to provide those kids with appropriate math courses. Admitting them to TJ would be the cheapest and logistically cheapest way to provide multiple years of post-AP math to the kids who need it. But, if instead FCPS wants to provide all of the post AP courses at McLean and Langley, as well as pay for any student to take courses at GMU if their school doesn't have appropriate offerings, that would be fine. Instead, FCPS seems to be rejecting kids like this from TJ, and then failing to provide appropriate math courses at the base school.

They have an obligation to provide an appropriate public education. They do not have an obligation to indulge parents who pushed their kids to take calc as sophomores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are many courses at TJ not available online or through dual enrollment at other FCPS schools. At all other FCPS schools, kids can take 1 year of DE post AP math. After that, there’s nothing. TJ has several extra DE options and post AP courses.

Supplementing costs money. Every kid in FCPS should have access to an education that is free and appropriate for their level of advancement

Here's the reality - for whatever reason, there have always been kids at schools like Langley, McLean, Oakton, and Chantilly who have run out of math because they either didn't get into or didn't apply for TJ. That becomes far less likely under the current admissions process as advanced math students are dispersed back into their base school environments. Before too long, you will see Complex Analysis, Discrete Math, and other advanced topics become commonplace at base schools, which is a good thing for everyone as the population becomes more and more accelerated. It might only be one section at first, but it will exist.

McLean already has a large number of kids who have run out of math and need more advanced classes. McLean also has some of the highest achieving STEM kids in the state - Mclean's It's academic team and Math team are arguably on par with TJ's and a McLean Sr. has been the best or one of the best math students in the state the last 6 years. Yet, McLean hasn't adopted the complex analysis, etc... it's not due to lack of demand... I don't think FCPS has the supply of teachers to teach those courses. That's why TJ exists. And the former and present admissions process has/will denied many deserving McLean kids of these opportunities.

This. I don't necessarily feel that FCPS is obligated to place the most hyperaccelerated kids into TJ. They do, however, have an obligation to provide those kids with appropriate math courses. Admitting them to TJ would be the cheapest and logistically cheapest way to provide multiple years of post-AP math to the kids who need it. But, if instead FCPS wants to provide all of the post AP courses at McLean and Langley, as well as pay for any student to take courses at GMU if their school doesn't have appropriate offerings, that would be fine. Instead, FCPS seems to be rejecting kids like this from TJ, and then failing to provide appropriate math courses at the base school.

They have an obligation to provide an appropriate public education. They do not have an obligation to indulge parents who pushed their kids to take calc as sophomores.

Why are you so threatened by kids who are smarter and more motivated than your kid? That’s the only reason any rational person would oppose providing appropriate coursework for all students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are many courses at TJ not available online or through dual enrollment at other FCPS schools. At all other FCPS schools, kids can take 1 year of DE post AP math. After that, there’s nothing. TJ has several extra DE options and post AP courses.

Supplementing costs money. Every kid in FCPS should have access to an education that is free and appropriate for their level of advancement

Here's the reality - for whatever reason, there have always been kids at schools like Langley, McLean, Oakton, and Chantilly who have run out of math because they either didn't get into or didn't apply for TJ. That becomes far less likely under the current admissions process as advanced math students are dispersed back into their base school environments. Before too long, you will see Complex Analysis, Discrete Math, and other advanced topics become commonplace at base schools, which is a good thing for everyone as the population becomes more and more accelerated. It might only be one section at first, but it will exist.

McLean already has a large number of kids who have run out of math and need more advanced classes. McLean also has some of the highest achieving STEM kids in the state - Mclean's It's academic team and Math team are arguably on par with TJ's and a McLean Sr. has been the best or one of the best math students in the state the last 6 years. Yet, McLean hasn't adopted the complex analysis, etc... it's not due to lack of demand... I don't think FCPS has the supply of teachers to teach those courses. That's why TJ exists. And the former and present admissions process has/will denied many deserving McLean kids of these opportunities.

This. I don't necessarily feel that FCPS is obligated to place the most hyperaccelerated kids into TJ. They do, however, have an obligation to provide those kids with appropriate math courses. Admitting them to TJ would be the cheapest and logistically cheapest way to provide multiple years of post-AP math to the kids who need it. But, if instead FCPS wants to provide all of the post AP courses at McLean and Langley, as well as pay for any student to take courses at GMU if their school doesn't have appropriate offerings, that would be fine. Instead, FCPS seems to be rejecting kids like this from TJ, and then failing to provide appropriate math courses at the base school.

They have an obligation to provide an appropriate public education. They do not have an obligation to indulge parents who pushed their kids to take calc as sophomores.

Why are you so threatened by kids who are smarter and more motivated than your kid? That’s the only reason any rational person would oppose providing appropriate coursework for all students.

Rational people would realize that resources are finite and wouldn't support special classes for a couple of kids

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are many courses at TJ not available online or through dual enrollment at other FCPS schools. At all other FCPS schools, kids can take 1 year of DE post AP math. After that, there’s nothing. TJ has several extra DE options and post AP courses.

Supplementing costs money. Every kid in FCPS should have access to an education that is free and appropriate for their level of advancement

Here's the reality - for whatever reason, there have always been kids at schools like Langley, McLean, Oakton, and Chantilly who have run out of math because they either didn't get into or didn't apply for TJ. That becomes far less likely under the current admissions process as advanced math students are dispersed back into their base school environments. Before too long, you will see Complex Analysis, Discrete Math, and other advanced topics become commonplace at base schools, which is a good thing for everyone as the population becomes more and more accelerated. It might only be one section at first, but it will exist.

McLean already has a large number of kids who have run out of math and need more advanced classes. McLean also has some of the highest achieving STEM kids in the state - Mclean's It's academic team and Math team are arguably on par with TJ's and a McLean Sr. has been the best or one of the best math students in the state the last 6 years. Yet, McLean hasn't adopted the complex analysis, etc... it's not due to lack of demand... I don't think FCPS has the supply of teachers to teach those courses. That's why TJ exists. And the former and present admissions process has/will denied many deserving McLean kids of these opportunities.

This. I don't necessarily feel that FCPS is obligated to place the most hyperaccelerated kids into TJ. They do, however, have an obligation to provide those kids with appropriate math courses. Admitting them to TJ would be the cheapest and logistically cheapest way to provide multiple years of post-AP math to the kids who need it. But, if instead FCPS wants to provide all of the post AP courses at McLean and Langley, as well as pay for any student to take courses at GMU if their school doesn't have appropriate offerings, that would be fine. Instead, FCPS seems to be rejecting kids like this from TJ, and then failing to provide appropriate math courses at the base school.

They have an obligation to provide an appropriate public education. They do not have an obligation to indulge parents who pushed their kids to take calc as sophomores.

Why are you so threatened by kids who are smarter and more motivated than your kid? That’s the only reason any rational person would oppose providing appropriate coursework for all students.

Rational people would realize that resources are finite and wouldn't support special classes for a couple of kids

Wouldn't this hypothetical rational person support allowing those "couple of kids" to attend TJ, where the special classes are already available?

[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: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.

But it does exist to provide education beyond what is available at other schools, particularly in STEM.

Yes, and they do so beautifully, and in the process inspire many students to pursue STEM who might not otherwise. There's a relatively easy argument that it's more impactful for TJ to inspire bright students in the direction of STEM than it would be for them to take students whose path has already been determined and just give them cool toys to play with for four years while they wait for their future to play out.

Discrimination that may be found to violate the Constitution won’t be any more palatable just because it gives a boost to your preferred cohort. And you make a big assumption about how the denial of equal access may impact the trajectory of others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are many courses at TJ not available online or through dual enrollment at other FCPS schools. At all other FCPS schools, kids can take 1 year of DE post AP math. After that, there’s nothing. TJ has several extra DE options and post AP courses.

Supplementing costs money. Every kid in FCPS should have access to an education that is free and appropriate for their level of advancement

Here's the reality - for whatever reason, there have always been kids at schools like Langley, McLean, Oakton, and Chantilly who have run out of math because they either didn't get into or didn't apply for TJ. That becomes far less likely under the current admissions process as advanced math students are dispersed back into their base school environments. Before too long, you will see Complex Analysis, Discrete Math, and other advanced topics become commonplace at base schools, which is a good thing for everyone as the population becomes more and more accelerated. It might only be one section at first, but it will exist.

McLean already has a large number of kids who have run out of math and need more advanced classes. McLean also has some of the highest achieving STEM kids in the state - Mclean's It's academic team and Math team are arguably on par with TJ's and a McLean Sr. has been the best or one of the best math students in the state the last 6 years. Yet, McLean hasn't adopted the complex analysis, etc... it's not due to lack of demand... I don't think FCPS has the supply of teachers to teach those courses. That's why TJ exists. And the former and present admissions process has/will denied many deserving McLean kids of these opportunities.

This. I don't necessarily feel that FCPS is obligated to place the most hyperaccelerated kids into TJ. They do, however, have an obligation to provide those kids with appropriate math courses. Admitting them to TJ would be the cheapest and logistically cheapest way to provide multiple years of post-AP math to the kids who need it. But, if instead FCPS wants to provide all of the post AP courses at McLean and Langley, as well as pay for any student to take courses at GMU if their school doesn't have appropriate offerings, that would be fine. Instead, FCPS seems to be rejecting kids like this from TJ, and then failing to provide appropriate math courses at the base school.

They have an obligation to provide an appropriate public education. They do not have an obligation to indulge parents who pushed their kids to take calc as sophomores.

Why are you so threatened by kids who are smarter and more motivated than your kid? That’s the only reason any rational person would oppose providing appropriate coursework for all students.

Rational people would realize that resources are finite and wouldn't support special classes for a couple of kids

The entire context here is that McLean and Langley now have a sufficient cohort to offer the classes. It's not for a couple kids. Rationally speaking, FCPS needs to provide 4 years of appropriate level high school math to all high school students. If the cohort at the base school is insufficient, then the kids should be admitted to TJ. If the cohort at the base school is sufficient, then the kids can receive services there.