Disappointed by TJ decision?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like the idea of the 1.5 percent at each school.

However, for the schools with so many applicants, the readers just don't have enough information to figure out who the top kids are. I think the application needs to be more comprehensive.

So . . . how about a really hard test that gives you an objective measure for the top 1.5%? I have accepted that FCPS has decided that every middle school gets seats set aside as we are all taxpayers and the school needs to serve every geographic community. What I don't accept is that an objective test is somehow a poor measure of giftedness and ability.

that would be great especially if we can buy access to the answers like the good old days

#veryfakenews

It was well documented here. There is NO point in denying it. This is an established fact.

So established that FBI has an investigation on it!!!!

LOL! What a joker!

Why would the FBI investigate it? No crime was committed. Curie merely exposed a huge, monumental weakness in the old admissions process, and so FCPS fixed it.

There's no call for an investigation of what Curie admitted to when they released the 133 first and last names of students who had been admitted to TJ through their boutique, 16-month, $5K TJ prep course. The old process had become pay-to-play, and therefore it had to be fixed.

Don't know anything about it but a third of the entering class that year had come from Curie. They published the names of their students in the paper. THis was giving those who paid for access a distinct advantage over those who did not spend $$ on prep. It was good the county put an end to this behavior by revamping the process and making TJ a healthier place.

If it needed revamping, then so be it, but introducing experience factors and quotas isnt the answer.

This years current class is literally collectively a year behind in math compared to previous years without even considering the admissions exam. 1/3 is not advanced math and more than likely not AAP IV.

TJ now has excellent course offerings with a nice well represented group of kids. Not an elite STEM school though. the new process fundamentally changed the school. Its not necessarily a bad thing, but its not the same even if the testing prior too was not rigged, these would not be the results.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like the idea of the 1.5 percent at each school.

However, for the schools with so many applicants, the readers just don't have enough information to figure out who the top kids are. I think the application needs to be more comprehensive.

So . . . how about a really hard test that gives you an objective measure for the top 1.5%? I have accepted that FCPS has decided that every middle school gets seats set aside as we are all taxpayers and the school needs to serve every geographic community. What I don't accept is that an objective test is somehow a poor measure of giftedness and ability.

that would be great especially if we can buy access to the answers like the good old days

#veryfakenews

It was well documented here. There is NO point in denying it. This is an established fact.

So established that FBI has an investigation on it!!!!

LOL! What a joker!

Why would the FBI investigate it? No crime was committed. Curie merely exposed a huge, monumental weakness in the old admissions process, and so FCPS fixed it.

There's no call for an investigation of what Curie admitted to when they released the 133 first and last names of students who had been admitted to TJ through their boutique, 16-month, $5K TJ prep course. The old process had become pay-to-play, and therefore it had to be fixed.

Don't know anything about it but a third of the entering class that year had come from Curie. They published the names of their students in the paper. THis was giving those who paid for access a distinct advantage over those who did not spend $$ on prep. It was good the county put an end to this behavior by revamping the process and making TJ a healthier place.

If it needed revamping, then so be it, but introducing experience factors and quotas isnt the answer.

This years current class is literally collectively a year behind in math compared to previous years without even considering the admissions exam. 1/3 is not advanced math and more than likely not AAP IV.

TJ now has excellent course offerings with a nice well represented group of kids. Not an elite STEM school though. the new process fundamentally changed the school. Its not necessarily a bad thing, but its not the same even if the testing prior too was not rigged, these would not be the results.

Less toxic. That's good for everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like the idea of the 1.5 percent at each school.

However, for the schools with so many applicants, the readers just don't have enough information to figure out who the top kids are. I think the application needs to be more comprehensive.

So . . . how about a really hard test that gives you an objective measure for the top 1.5%? I have accepted that FCPS has decided that every middle school gets seats set aside as we are all taxpayers and the school needs to serve every geographic community. What I don't accept is that an objective test is somehow a poor measure of giftedness and ability.

that would be great especially if we can buy access to the answers like the good old days

#veryfakenews

It was well documented here. There is NO point in denying it. This is an established fact.

So established that FBI has an investigation on it!!!!

LOL! What a joker!

Why would the FBI investigate it? No crime was committed. Curie merely exposed a huge, monumental weakness in the old admissions process, and so FCPS fixed it.

There's no call for an investigation of what Curie admitted to when they released the 133 first and last names of students who had been admitted to TJ through their boutique, 16-month, $5K TJ prep course. The old process had become pay-to-play, and therefore it had to be fixed.

Don't know anything about it but a third of the entering class that year had come from Curie. They published the names of their students in the paper. THis was giving those who paid for access a distinct advantage over those who did not spend $$ on prep. It was good the county put an end to this behavior by revamping the process and making TJ a healthier place.

If it needed revamping, then so be it, but introducing experience factors and quotas isnt the answer.

This years current class is literally collectively a year behind in math compared to previous years without even considering the admissions exam. 1/3 is not advanced math and more than likely not AAP IV.

TJ now has excellent course offerings with a nice well represented group of kids. Not an elite STEM school though. the new process fundamentally changed the school. Its not necessarily a bad thing, but its not the same even if the testing prior too was not rigged, these would not be the results.

Understandable though since much of the acceleration that prior years had was only available at a few wealthier schools. not to mention the effects of covid on the current class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like the idea of the 1.5 percent at each school.

However, for the schools with so many applicants, the readers just don't have enough information to figure out who the top kids are. I think the application needs to be more comprehensive.

So . . . how about a really hard test that gives you an objective measure for the top 1.5%? I have accepted that FCPS has decided that every middle school gets seats set aside as we are all taxpayers and the school needs to serve every geographic community. What I don't accept is that an objective test is somehow a poor measure of giftedness and ability.

It did a pretty good job for a long time. But now you have a nine-figure TJ Prep industrial complex that has become extremely efficient at converting wealth into the appearance of merit.

Institutions like Curie killed their golden goose.

Seems like they could just take the math SAT, take the top 1.5% from each school and give some additional points for diversity etc. Of course the SAT has its own issues but they are well known and many universities already use it part of their process. Does JHU still use it for admission? They used to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like the idea of the 1.5 percent at each school.

However, for the schools with so many applicants, the readers just don't have enough information to figure out who the top kids are. I think the application needs to be more comprehensive.

So . . . how about a really hard test that gives you an objective measure for the top 1.5%? I have accepted that FCPS has decided that every middle school gets seats set aside as we are all taxpayers and the school needs to serve every geographic community. What I don't accept is that an objective test is somehow a poor measure of giftedness and ability.

It did a pretty good job for a long time. But now you have a nine-figure TJ Prep industrial complex that has become extremely efficient at converting wealth into the appearance of merit.

Institutions like Curie killed their golden goose.

Seems like they could just take the math SAT, take the top 1.5% from each school and give some additional points for diversity etc. Of course the SAT has its own issues but they are well known and many universities already use it part of their process. Does JHU still use it for admission? They used to.

The Hopkins reference was wrt CTY not college admissions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like the idea of the 1.5 percent at each school.

However, for the schools with so many applicants, the readers just don't have enough information to figure out who the top kids are. I think the application needs to be more comprehensive.

So . . . how about a really hard test that gives you an objective measure for the top 1.5%? I have accepted that FCPS has decided that every middle school gets seats set aside as we are all taxpayers and the school needs to serve every geographic community. What I don't accept is that an objective test is somehow a poor measure of giftedness and ability.

that would be great especially if we can buy access to the answers like the good old days

#veryfakenews

It was well documented here. There is NO point in denying it. This is an established fact.

So established that FBI has an investigation on it!!!!

LOL! What a joker!

Why would the FBI investigate it? No crime was committed. Curie merely exposed a huge, monumental weakness in the old admissions process, and so FCPS fixed it.

There's no call for an investigation of what Curie admitted to when they released the 133 first and last names of students who had been admitted to TJ through their boutique, 16-month, $5K TJ prep course. The old process had become pay-to-play, and therefore it had to be fixed.

Don't know anything about it but a third of the entering class that year had come from Curie. They published the names of their students in the paper. THis was giving those who paid for access a distinct advantage over those who did not spend $$ on prep. It was good the county put an end to this behavior by revamping the process and making TJ a healthier place.

If it needed revamping, then so be it, but introducing experience factors and quotas isnt the answer.

This years current class is literally collectively a year behind in math compared to previous years without even considering the admissions exam. 1/3 is not advanced math and more than likely not AAP IV.

TJ now has excellent course offerings with a nice well represented group of kids. Not an elite STEM school though. the new process fundamentally changed the school. Its not necessarily a bad thing, but its not the same even if the testing prior too was not rigged, these would not be the results.

Understandable though since much of the acceleration that prior years had was only available at a few wealthier schools. not to mention the effects of covid on the current class.

Advanced math in ES and Algebra I in 7th grade is a path available at every single FCPS middle school. It is quite easy for any bright child to access this path without any outside prep or parental involvement. No one in FCPS is lacking access.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like the idea of the 1.5 percent at each school.

However, for the schools with so many applicants, the readers just don't have enough information to figure out who the top kids are. I think the application needs to be more comprehensive.

So . . . how about a really hard test that gives you an objective measure for the top 1.5%? I have accepted that FCPS has decided that every middle school gets seats set aside as we are all taxpayers and the school needs to serve every geographic community. What I don't accept is that an objective test is somehow a poor measure of giftedness and ability.

It did a pretty good job for a long time. But now you have a nine-figure TJ Prep industrial complex that has become extremely efficient at converting wealth into the appearance of merit.

Institutions like Curie killed their golden goose.

Seems like they could just take the math SAT, take the top 1.5% from each school and give some additional points for diversity etc. Of course the SAT has its own issues but they are well known and many universities already use it part of their process. Does JHU still use it for admission? They used to.

Then Kaplan and Princeton Review will be full of 13-year-olds prepping for TJ and the same low-income families will miss out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like the idea of the 1.5 percent at each school.

However, for the schools with so many applicants, the readers just don't have enough information to figure out who the top kids are. I think the application needs to be more comprehensive.

So . . . how about a really hard test that gives you an objective measure for the top 1.5%? I have accepted that FCPS has decided that every middle school gets seats set aside as we are all taxpayers and the school needs to serve every geographic community. What I don't accept is that an objective test is somehow a poor measure of giftedness and ability.

that would be great especially if we can buy access to the answers like the good old days

#veryfakenews

It was well documented here. There is NO point in denying it. This is an established fact.

So established that FBI has an investigation on it!!!!

LOL! What a joker!

Why would the FBI investigate it? No crime was committed. Curie merely exposed a huge, monumental weakness in the old admissions process, and so FCPS fixed it.

There's no call for an investigation of what Curie admitted to when they released the 133 first and last names of students who had been admitted to TJ through their boutique, 16-month, $5K TJ prep course. The old process had become pay-to-play, and therefore it had to be fixed.

Don't know anything about it but a third of the entering class that year had come from Curie. They published the names of their students in the paper. THis was giving those who paid for access a distinct advantage over those who did not spend $$ on prep. It was good the county put an end to this behavior by revamping the process and making TJ a healthier place.

If it needed revamping, then so be it, but introducing experience factors and quotas isnt the answer.

This years current class is literally collectively a year behind in math compared to previous years without even considering the admissions exam. 1/3 is not advanced math and more than likely not AAP IV.

TJ now has excellent course offerings with a nice well represented group of kids. Not an elite STEM school though. the new process fundamentally changed the school. Its not necessarily a bad thing, but its not the same even if the testing prior too was not rigged, these would not be the results.

Less toxic. That's good for everyone.

Different toxic. The new process has introduced admissions welfare and affirmative action for schools. You think kids can’t figure this stuff out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like the idea of the 1.5 percent at each school.

However, for the schools with so many applicants, the readers just don't have enough information to figure out who the top kids are. I think the application needs to be more comprehensive.

So . . . how about a really hard test that gives you an objective measure for the top 1.5%? I have accepted that FCPS has decided that every middle school gets seats set aside as we are all taxpayers and the school needs to serve every geographic community. What I don't accept is that an objective test is somehow a poor measure of giftedness and ability.

It did a pretty good job for a long time. But now you have a nine-figure TJ Prep industrial complex that has become extremely efficient at converting wealth into the appearance of merit.

Institutions like Curie killed their golden goose.

Seems like they could just take the math SAT, take the top 1.5% from each school and give some additional points for diversity etc. Of course the SAT has its own issues but they are well known and many universities already use it part of their process. Does JHU still use it for admission? They used to.

Then Kaplan and Princeton Review will be full of 13-year-olds prepping for TJ and the same low-income families will miss out.

That’s could be the case for literally every measurable assessment. There isn’t an assessment or grade out there that you wouldn’t claim this same argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like the idea of the 1.5 percent at each school.

However, for the schools with so many applicants, the readers just don't have enough information to figure out who the top kids are. I think the application needs to be more comprehensive.

So . . . how about a really hard test that gives you an objective measure for the top 1.5%? I have accepted that FCPS has decided that every middle school gets seats set aside as we are all taxpayers and the school needs to serve every geographic community. What I don't accept is that an objective test is somehow a poor measure of giftedness and ability.

It did a pretty good job for a long time. But now you have a nine-figure TJ Prep industrial complex that has become extremely efficient at converting wealth into the appearance of merit.

Institutions like Curie killed their golden goose.

Seems like they could just take the math SAT, take the top 1.5% from each school and give some additional points for diversity etc. Of course the SAT has its own issues but they are well known and many universities already use it part of their process. Does JHU still use it for admission? They used to.

Then Kaplan and Princeton Review will be full of 13-year-olds prepping for TJ and the same low-income families will miss out.

That’s could be the case for literally every measurable assessment. There isn’t an assessment or grade out there that you wouldn’t claim this same argument.

So stick with grades. Thats what middle school students are supposed to be gaming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like the idea of the 1.5 percent at each school.

However, for the schools with so many applicants, the readers just don't have enough information to figure out who the top kids are. I think the application needs to be more comprehensive.

So . . . how about a really hard test that gives you an objective measure for the top 1.5%? I have accepted that FCPS has decided that every middle school gets seats set aside as we are all taxpayers and the school needs to serve every geographic community. What I don't accept is that an objective test is somehow a poor measure of giftedness and ability.

that would be great especially if we can buy access to the answers like the good old days

#veryfakenews

It was well documented here. There is NO point in denying it. This is an established fact.

So established that FBI has an investigation on it!!!!

LOL! What a joker!

Why would the FBI investigate it? No crime was committed. Curie merely exposed a huge, monumental weakness in the old admissions process, and so FCPS fixed it.

There's no call for an investigation of what Curie admitted to when they released the 133 first and last names of students who had been admitted to TJ through their boutique, 16-month, $5K TJ prep course. The old process had become pay-to-play, and therefore it had to be fixed.

Don't know anything about it but a third of the entering class that year had come from Curie. They published the names of their students in the paper. THis was giving those who paid for access a distinct advantage over those who did not spend $$ on prep. It was good the county put an end to this behavior by revamping the process and making TJ a healthier place.

If it needed revamping, then so be it, but introducing experience factors and quotas isnt the answer.

This years current class is literally collectively a year behind in math compared to previous years without even considering the admissions exam. 1/3 is not advanced math and more than likely not AAP IV.

TJ now has excellent course offerings with a nice well represented group of kids. Not an elite STEM school though. the new process fundamentally changed the school. Its not necessarily a bad thing, but its not the same even if the testing prior too was not rigged, these would not be the results.

Less toxic. That's good for everyone.

Different toxic. The new process has introduced admissions welfare and affirmative action for schools. You think kids can’t figure this stuff out.

That’s a word salad right there if I’ve ever seen one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like the idea of the 1.5 percent at each school.

However, for the schools with so many applicants, the readers just don't have enough information to figure out who the top kids are. I think the application needs to be more comprehensive.

So . . . how about a really hard test that gives you an objective measure for the top 1.5%? I have accepted that FCPS has decided that every middle school gets seats set aside as we are all taxpayers and the school needs to serve every geographic community. What I don't accept is that an objective test is somehow a poor measure of giftedness and ability.

It did a pretty good job for a long time. But now you have a nine-figure TJ Prep industrial complex that has become extremely efficient at converting wealth into the appearance of merit.

Institutions like Curie killed their golden goose.

Seems like they could just take the math SAT, take the top 1.5% from each school and give some additional points for diversity etc. Of course the SAT has its own issues but they are well known and many universities already use it part of their process. Does JHU still use it for admission? They used to.

Then Kaplan and Princeton Review will be full of 13-year-olds prepping for TJ and the same low-income families will miss out.

That’s could be the case for literally every measurable assessment. There isn’t an assessment or grade out there that you wouldn’t claim this same argument.

And this is why college admissions processes are largely subjective in nature.

That’s what allows them to create a balanced class that serves the university and its students well.

An objective, rubric-based admissions process will tend to admit too many of the same types of kids, and incentivizes parents to pigeonhole their kids to fit the mold that is suggested by the rubric.

Subjectivity is best for the school and best for the applicant pool, and it’s fairly obvious to see why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even for the feeder schools, same thing happens. The very top students get waitlisted or even rejected while average students get in.
The main reason your child is on WL is not that he is not from a feeder school, but that he is a top student.
For top students, the admission is even worse than pure lottery. Everyone gets the same chance in lottery. But now, top students are in a worse position than average students.

Anonymous wrote:TJ admission process is crooked!

My DC is on WL. DC is in AAP center but not a TJ feeding school. DC is all As in 7th, 8th grade, Took Algebra I honor, Geometry honor and Algebra II honor all As, DC is definitely 1.5% and did well on the test too. DC also study pre-calculus and calculus, but DC's base high school doesn't offer class, so no way DC can take advanced class. DC is very much into geoscience, did quite a lot of research by himself. The kids DC knows who get admitted to TJ, there is no way to compare to him. We are typical mid class and have very limit resource, we are Asian, but not like some post says, we didn't spent money from pre classes. One of DC's friend mocking at DC that DC should fill in Mix as the race and select low income, which makes DC feel really sad.

Questions: the admission said they will select top 1.5% students from each school, but how come the other schools like Long fellow, Carson got some many offers? The population of each school is about the same, slightly different. But the head count is different, why it is so different and the admission claims for equity.

The result is disappointed, but what can we do? I told my DC no matter what, you will be a shining star any where.

I won't agree. What I heard is Carson got 80 seats so far and Longfellow got 40 seats, compare to population, my DD's school is around 1000, slight less than Carson and LongFellow, but DD's school only has 6 seats so far. If offered the same seats every school, I am sure my DD will be admitted already.

What this person is saying is that the actual top 6 at Carson are not in this group of 80 who were selected.

"Actual top 6"? What on earth does that even mean?

I can't speak for Rachel Carson, but students know which students are good students and which are exceptional students. At my kid's school, the top students were not the ones selected for TJ.

Sounds like sour grapes to me.

I did not have a kid applying. I just know the caliber of who was accepted and some who were not accepted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like the idea of the 1.5 percent at each school.

However, for the schools with so many applicants, the readers just don't have enough information to figure out who the top kids are. I think the application needs to be more comprehensive.

So . . . how about a really hard test that gives you an objective measure for the top 1.5%? I have accepted that FCPS has decided that every middle school gets seats set aside as we are all taxpayers and the school needs to serve every geographic community. What I don't accept is that an objective test is somehow a poor measure of giftedness and ability.

that would be great especially if we can buy access to the answers like the good old days

#veryfakenews

It was well documented here. There is NO point in denying it. This is an established fact.

So established that FBI has an investigation on it!!!!

LOL! What a joker!

Why would the FBI investigate it? No crime was committed. Curie merely exposed a huge, monumental weakness in the old admissions process, and so FCPS fixed it.

There's no call for an investigation of what Curie admitted to when they released the 133 first and last names of students who had been admitted to TJ through their boutique, 16-month, $5K TJ prep course. The old process had become pay-to-play, and therefore it had to be fixed.

Don't know anything about it but a third of the entering class that year had come from Curie. They published the names of their students in the paper. THis was giving those who paid for access a distinct advantage over those who did not spend $$ on prep. It was good the county put an end to this behavior by revamping the process and making TJ a healthier place.

They are still running the prep, and it's possible Curie is doing a better job now than before. Haven't enquired about Curie status of those accepted, but it is possible that could explain the results- Curie prepped them for essays.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like the idea of the 1.5 percent at each school.

However, for the schools with so many applicants, the readers just don't have enough information to figure out who the top kids are. I think the application needs to be more comprehensive.

So . . . how about a really hard test that gives you an objective measure for the top 1.5%? I have accepted that FCPS has decided that every middle school gets seats set aside as we are all taxpayers and the school needs to serve every geographic community. What I don't accept is that an objective test is somehow a poor measure of giftedness and ability.

It did a pretty good job for a long time. But now you have a nine-figure TJ Prep industrial complex that has become extremely efficient at converting wealth into the appearance of merit.

Institutions like Curie killed their golden goose.

Seems like they could just take the math SAT, take the top 1.5% from each school and give some additional points for diversity etc. Of course the SAT has its own issues but they are well known and many universities already use it part of their process. Does JHU still use it for admission? They used to.

Then Kaplan and Princeton Review will be full of 13-year-olds prepping for TJ and the same low-income families will miss out.

That’s could be the case for literally every measurable assessment. There isn’t an assessment or grade out there that you wouldn’t claim this same argument.

And this is why college admissions processes are largely subjective in nature.

That’s what allows them to create a balanced class that serves the university and its students well.

An objective, rubric-based admissions process will tend to admit too many of the same types of kids, and incentivizes parents to pigeonhole their kids to fit the mold that is suggested by the rubric.

Subjectivity is best for the school and best for the applicant pool, and it’s fairly obvious to see why.

TJ is a high school, not a four-year residential college.