TJ Admissions Roundup

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's amazing that people bought into the idea that a question and answer test for kids was uncrackable.

Ultimately the majority of the changes made to the admission process don't reflect a reaction to test prep for the QQ (1 of 3 tests in a multi-round process). This is just a distraction based on a handful of Facebook posts.

But, why crack the test? Is it to give an unfair advantage to kids whose parents can pay these businesses?

There is a market, and there will be solutions. Capitalism. Same way why people smuggle drugs or sell socks.

Some say Capitalism is immoral, that sounds like they are against capitalism. Instead, we should say Capitalism is devoid of morality. Supply and demand, like a machine.

So obtaining information by unethical means and selling it to families that can afford it so that their children will have an unfairly obtained advantage over other children from less well off and/or well educated families is okay because… capitalism.

All righty then. We now know what we need to know about the situation here.

it's unethical only because an ill-worded NDA that students have no choice but to sign. It's unethical because the company boasted the exam is un-preppable. HOLD MY BEER.

No, they didn’t “boast” that it was unpreppable. They produced an exam that was meant to be secure and took actions to make and keep it secure. It was an exam that gave the admissions office more information about the students because it showed how the students handled types of questions that they were unlikely to have seen before.

Apparently there are people in this world with no integrity who can’t stand the idea of their kids having to take a test on an even playing field with other kids so they figured out a way to “crack” the test so kids from well off families wouldn’t have to worry about competing with less well off kids who may be more intelligent than they are.

Adults should stay out of this process and let the school do its job.

This is exactly correct except for one thing - "let the school do its job". TJ doesn't have any say in either the development or the execution of the admissions process. FCPS does. And I'll repeat what I said earlier - the Quant-Q did its job for one year and we saw a significant increase in the number of Black, Hispanic, and low-income students in the first year of its implementation.

Its entire purpose what exactly what PP said - to evaluate how students would approach problems that they were unlikely to have seen before. I have seen several versions of the exam, and I can tell you that it is wonderful for achieving this purpose - but also that it would be a staggeringly easy exam for students who had been shown how to do the problems beforehand.

Most exams evaluate how well you can apply a method for solving a problem and the idea behind the QQ was to evaluate your ability to generate a method to solving a problem - that's the reason why it was intended to be secured. And Curie (and the books that are available on Amazon, and probably some other prep companies) destroyed what should have been an ideal exam for sussing out which students actually belong at TJ. I wish there were a way to go back to it - I was that impressed by it.

But we can't, because the golden goose has been slaughtered.

A bit of advice for TJ-aspirant families: the harder you work to crack the process for your kid, the more you incentivize FCPS to increase the apparent randomness and opacity of the process.

It didn't really have the desired effect. QuantQ made an impact but probably not a big enough impact to satisfy folks that wanted more equity. Before QuantQ 3% of the entering class was URM. The first year of QuantQ pushed that number up to 7%.

What you call "cracking the process" is usually referred to as studying in most places where effort is rewarded. I do think you have to be cautious about pushing your kid into the most competitive environment you can possibly squeak them into.

“Cracking the test” so that kids could know what the questions would be like in advance is in no way the same as “studying.”
Test takers are not supposed to have access to the types of questions in advance because part of the usefulness of the test is seeing how students handle new to them problems.

Having access to the types of problems in advance when the test is meant to be a secure instrument is unethical. In no way is it the same as “studying.”

Having access to the question format and question types is absolutely the same thing as studying.

Advertising a test as non-preppable is dishonest if it relies on noone ever discussing what the format of the test is. I mean every standardized test would be unpreppable if noone ever knew what the test looked like. How effective would an SAT class be if they didn't know reading comprehension, and analogies were going to be on the test?

Believing that a test's format remaining secret is naive. The test had a mild effect the first year it was administered but that was about it. Even if they came up witgh a new format every year, FCPS would have changed the admissions process because they were not concerned about the prepping, there is prepping going on right now. They were concerned about the race of the students.

The company that offers Quant-Q intentionally does NOT release materials to the public - it’s very different than SAT, ACT, etc.

1. They want to “measure your natural ability”.
"Remember that the goal of a critical thinking assessment is to measure your natural ability to think critically"

2. Test takers agreed to not share any parts of the test.
"Non-Disclosure and Non-Compete Agreement: The user agrees not to copy, disclose, describe, imitate, replicate, or mirror this interface or this instrument(s) in whole or in part for any purpose."

3. Quant-Q was selected because FCPS was looking for ways to level the playing field - so kids who can't afford expensive test prep programs would have a chance:
https://www.washingtonian.com/2017/04/26/is-the-no-1-high-school-in-america-thomas-jefferson-fairfax-discrimination/
“The firm that markets the math portion of the test, Quant-Q, doesn’t release materials to the public, a practice that should make them harder for test-prep schools to crack.”

That stance walks on cultural thin ice:

1. Some will believe that it is funethical to reward "natural ability" independent of one's dedication to self-improvement through studying. The idea that there is a notion of independent "natural ability" that should be rewarded will be viewed as inherently supremicist thinking by some.

2. Requiring school kids to sign an NDA to take a test would be considered unethical by some, given than academia is inherently dedicated to the principle of sharing of information. Some might prefer to refuse to sign such an NDA on principle, but to do so would be impossible if the student values admission to TJ.

3. To someone who has studied psychology, it might seem a bit gauche that FCPS's response to feeling inadequate due to due an increasingly competitive applicant pool would be to start empathizing with supposed merit-based limitations of Blacks and Hispanics.

What do you mean by the word “cultural”? I can’t think of any culture on earth that tell kids it’s okay to promise you will not do something and then do it anyway. My parents taught me that that’s dishonest and my experience has been that that is what children are taught all over the world.

Let me give you a couple of relatively extreme examples to show you why your reasoning doesn't make sense:

First, imagine that an authority figure touches a child in an inappropriate way, then tells them that they must not tell their parents. Anyone with a shred of morality should be able to see that it's ok if the child broke this "rule," and they would not consider the rule to have any inherent legitimacy because it would stand to violate deeper rights.

Second, the speed limit is a rule that everyone agrees to follow. Someone sees a 35mph speed limit sign. Is it fundamentally unacceptable for them to drive 4-5mph over the posted limit? You could say yes, but the vast majority of the Northern Virginia population does not, at least as far as empirical evidence would suggest. While it may technically be a rule, most people do not consider it serious enough of a violation to give a second thought.

How do these examples come into play in this situation? Depending on your culture, you may not see it as the testing company's business to require you to keep quiet about what you've seen. Since it's the only pathway to TJ, you don't have the option to avoid the test, thus the testing company doesn't have the right to make you keep quiet. Likewise, since talking about what you've seen on a test after everyone's done with the test is normal in some cultures, the idea that it might be violating some NDA may be viewed as a negligible offense - if they wanted a real NDA, wait until the students grow up and apply for real jobs.

You can moralize about dishonesty all you want, but in this case it is absolutely more of a reflection of your cultural perspective rather than of your integrity.

I’m still waiting for an answer as to the culture is being referred to in the above post and what cultural perspective doesn’t see dishonesty as a measure of integrity.

Still waiting for an answer from the poster a few posts above who says that dishonesty is more a reflection of your cultural perspective rather than a measure of integrity. What culture is that poster talking about?

It is pretty clear that the poster was talking about indians. He specifically singled out a kumon type school that is almost entirely indian. I am pretty sure they would have said the same about any over-achieving group because no single group can be better than any other group at anything, any differences are entirely the result of differences in oppression.

East asians encountered this "they must be cheating" narrative until the indians started outperforming east asains. It was so common that it became a racist trope.
It took a while to identify it as racism because the racism was coming form the left. The racists sometimes didn't realize they were being racist, they thought they were being "allies" to other minority groups.

The poster I’m looking for an answer from is not the one who has been posting about a test prep school. It’s the poster above who was making excuses for kids who sign a statement saying they won’t discuss test questions with outsiders but go ahead and disclose them. The poster was trying to indicate that it’s not dishonest to do that, it’s a reflection of a “cultural perspective.”
The poster refuses to identify the culture they are referring to.

Here’s the quote from above:

“…How do these examples come into play in this situation? Depending on your culture, you may not see it as the testing company's business to require you to keep quiet about what you've seen. Since it's the only pathway to TJ, you don't have the option to avoid the test, thus the testing company doesn't have the right to make you keep quiet. Likewise, since talking about what you've seen on a test after everyone's done with the test is normal in some cultures, the idea that it might be violating some NDA may be viewed as a negligible offense - if they wanted a real NDA, wait until the students grow up and apply for real jobs.

You can moralize about dishonesty all you want, but in this case it is absolutely more of a reflection of your cultural perspective rather than of your integrity.”

This poster is saying it’s okay for kids to discuss test questions even if they signed an NDA because they might have a different cultural perspective. I’m asking what culture teaches children that it’s okay to promise that you’ll do something and then do the opposite and apparently, according to the poster, doesn’t view dishonesty as related to a person’s integrity or lack thereof.

Still no answer as to what kind of « culture » the poster above is referring to here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kids from economically-disadvantaged, Asian families were practically nonexistent at TJ before the admissions change. It helped them more than other groups, per the appellate judicial opinion.

Poor asian kids were about as well represented as poor kids from ANY background.

The group that was helped the most were white students.
The year before the the change, 86 white students were admitted. This year, 140 white students were admitted. An increase of 54 students.
The year before the change 16 hispanic students were admitted. This year it was 41. An increase of 25.
The year before the change 7 black students were admitted. This year, it was 19. An increase of 12.
Asian admissions went down by 40 despite a 64 seat increase in class size.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids from economically-disadvantaged, Asian families were practically nonexistent at TJ before the admissions change. It helped them more than other groups, per the appellate judicial opinion.

Poor asian kids were about as well represented as poor kids from ANY background.

The group that was helped the most were white students.
The year before the the change, 86 white students were admitted. This year, 140 white students were admitted. An increase of 54 students.
The year before the change 16 hispanic students were admitted. This year it was 41. An increase of 25.
The year before the change 7 black students were admitted. This year, it was 19. An increase of 12.
Asian admissions went down by 40 despite a 64 seat increase in class size.

Right. There was almost zero representation of kids from low-income families.

Majority opinion:
"Nevertheless, in the 2021 application cycle, Asian American students attending middle schools historically underrepresented at TJ saw a sixfold increase in offers, and the number of low-income Asian American admittees to TJ increased to 51 — from a mere one in 2020."

[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:It's amazing that people bought into the idea that a question and answer test for kids was uncrackable.

Ultimately the majority of the changes made to the admission process don't reflect a reaction to test prep for the QQ (1 of 3 tests in a multi-round process). This is just a distraction based on a handful of Facebook posts.

But, why crack the test? Is it to give an unfair advantage to kids whose parents can pay these businesses?

There is a market, and there will be solutions. Capitalism. Same way why people smuggle drugs or sell socks.

Some say Capitalism is immoral, that sounds like they are against capitalism. Instead, we should say Capitalism is devoid of morality. Supply and demand, like a machine.

So obtaining information by unethical means and selling it to families that can afford it so that their children will have an unfairly obtained advantage over other children from less well off and/or well educated families is okay because… capitalism.

All righty then. We now know what we need to know about the situation here.

it's unethical only because an ill-worded NDA that students have no choice but to sign. It's unethical because the company boasted the exam is un-preppable. HOLD MY BEER.

No, they didn’t “boast” that it was unpreppable. They produced an exam that was meant to be secure and took actions to make and keep it secure. It was an exam that gave the admissions office more information about the students because it showed how the students handled types of questions that they were unlikely to have seen before.

Apparently there are people in this world with no integrity who can’t stand the idea of their kids having to take a test on an even playing field with other kids so they figured out a way to “crack” the test so kids from well off families wouldn’t have to worry about competing with less well off kids who may be more intelligent than they are.

Adults should stay out of this process and let the school do its job.

This is exactly correct except for one thing - "let the school do its job". TJ doesn't have any say in either the development or the execution of the admissions process. FCPS does. And I'll repeat what I said earlier - the Quant-Q did its job for one year and we saw a significant increase in the number of Black, Hispanic, and low-income students in the first year of its implementation.

Its entire purpose what exactly what PP said - to evaluate how students would approach problems that they were unlikely to have seen before. I have seen several versions of the exam, and I can tell you that it is wonderful for achieving this purpose - but also that it would be a staggeringly easy exam for students who had been shown how to do the problems beforehand.

Most exams evaluate how well you can apply a method for solving a problem and the idea behind the QQ was to evaluate your ability to generate a method to solving a problem - that's the reason why it was intended to be secured. And Curie (and the books that are available on Amazon, and probably some other prep companies) destroyed what should have been an ideal exam for sussing out which students actually belong at TJ. I wish there were a way to go back to it - I was that impressed by it.

But we can't, because the golden goose has been slaughtered.

A bit of advice for TJ-aspirant families: the harder you work to crack the process for your kid, the more you incentivize FCPS to increase the apparent randomness and opacity of the process.

It didn't really have the desired effect. QuantQ made an impact but probably not a big enough impact to satisfy folks that wanted more equity. Before QuantQ 3% of the entering class was URM. The first year of QuantQ pushed that number up to 7%.

What you call "cracking the process" is usually referred to as studying in most places where effort is rewarded. I do think you have to be cautious about pushing your kid into the most competitive environment you can possibly squeak them into.

“Cracking the test” so that kids could know what the questions would be like in advance is in no way the same as “studying.”
Test takers are not supposed to have access to the types of questions in advance because part of the usefulness of the test is seeing how students handle new to them problems.

Having access to the types of problems in advance when the test is meant to be a secure instrument is unethical. In no way is it the same as “studying.”

Having access to the question format and question types is absolutely the same thing as studying.

Advertising a test as non-preppable is dishonest if it relies on noone ever discussing what the format of the test is. I mean every standardized test would be unpreppable if noone ever knew what the test looked like. How effective would an SAT class be if they didn't know reading comprehension, and analogies were going to be on the test?

Believing that a test's format remaining secret is naive. The test had a mild effect the first year it was administered but that was about it. Even if they came up witgh a new format every year, FCPS would have changed the admissions process because they were not concerned about the prepping, there is prepping going on right now. They were concerned about the race of the students.

The company that offers Quant-Q intentionally does NOT release materials to the public - it’s very different than SAT, ACT, etc.

1. They want to “measure your natural ability”.
"Remember that the goal of a critical thinking assessment is to measure your natural ability to think critically"

2. Test takers agreed to not share any parts of the test.
"Non-Disclosure and Non-Compete Agreement: The user agrees not to copy, disclose, describe, imitate, replicate, or mirror this interface or this instrument(s) in whole or in part for any purpose."

3. Quant-Q was selected because FCPS was looking for ways to level the playing field - so kids who can't afford expensive test prep programs would have a chance:
https://www.washingtonian.com/2017/04/26/is-the-no-1-high-school-in-america-thomas-jefferson-fairfax-discrimination/
“The firm that markets the math portion of the test, Quant-Q, doesn’t release materials to the public, a practice that should make them harder for test-prep schools to crack.”

That stance walks on cultural thin ice:

1. Some will believe that it is funethical to reward "natural ability" independent of one's dedication to self-improvement through studying. The idea that there is a notion of independent "natural ability" that should be rewarded will be viewed as inherently supremicist thinking by some.

2. Requiring school kids to sign an NDA to take a test would be considered unethical by some, given than academia is inherently dedicated to the principle of sharing of information. Some might prefer to refuse to sign such an NDA on principle, but to do so would be impossible if the student values admission to TJ.

3. To someone who has studied psychology, it might seem a bit gauche that FCPS's response to feeling inadequate due to due an increasingly competitive applicant pool would be to start empathizing with supposed merit-based limitations of Blacks and Hispanics.

What do you mean by the word “cultural”? I can’t think of any culture on earth that tell kids it’s okay to promise you will not do something and then do it anyway. My parents taught me that that’s dishonest and my experience has been that that is what children are taught all over the world.

Let me give you a couple of relatively extreme examples to show you why your reasoning doesn't make sense:

First, imagine that an authority figure touches a child in an inappropriate way, then tells them that they must not tell their parents. Anyone with a shred of morality should be able to see that it's ok if the child broke this "rule," and they would not consider the rule to have any inherent legitimacy because it would stand to violate deeper rights.

Second, the speed limit is a rule that everyone agrees to follow. Someone sees a 35mph speed limit sign. Is it fundamentally unacceptable for them to drive 4-5mph over the posted limit? You could say yes, but the vast majority of the Northern Virginia population does not, at least as far as empirical evidence would suggest. While it may technically be a rule, most people do not consider it serious enough of a violation to give a second thought.

How do these examples come into play in this situation? Depending on your culture, you may not see it as the testing company's business to require you to keep quiet about what you've seen. Since it's the only pathway to TJ, you don't have the option to avoid the test, thus the testing company doesn't have the right to make you keep quiet. Likewise, since talking about what you've seen on a test after everyone's done with the test is normal in some cultures, the idea that it might be violating some NDA may be viewed as a negligible offense - if they wanted a real NDA, wait until the students grow up and apply for real jobs.

You can moralize about dishonesty all you want, but in this case it is absolutely more of a reflection of your cultural perspective rather than of your integrity.

I’m still waiting for an answer as to the culture is being referred to in the above post and what cultural perspective doesn’t see dishonesty as a measure of integrity.

The culture of affluent, entitled families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids from economically-disadvantaged, Asian families were practically nonexistent at TJ before the admissions change. It helped them more than other groups, per the appellate judicial opinion.

Poor asian kids were about as well represented as poor kids from ANY background.

The group that was helped the most were white students.
The year before the the change, 86 white students were admitted. This year, 140 white students were admitted. An increase of 54 students.
The year before the change 16 hispanic students were admitted. This year it was 41. An increase of 25.
The year before the change 7 black students were admitted. This year, it was 19. An increase of 12.
Asian admissions went down by 40 despite a 64 seat increase in class size.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids from economically-disadvantaged, Asian families were practically nonexistent at TJ before the admissions change. It helped them more than other groups, per the appellate judicial opinion.

Poor asian kids were about as well represented as poor kids from ANY background.

The group that was helped the most were white students.
The year before the the change, 86 white students were admitted. This year, 140 white students were admitted. An increase of 54 students.
The year before the change 16 hispanic students were admitted. This year it was 41. An increase of 25.
The year before the change 7 black students were admitted. This year, it was 19. An increase of 12.
Asian admissions went down by 40 despite a 64 seat increase in class size.

Right. There was almost zero representation of kids from low-income families.

Majority opinion:
"Nevertheless, in the 2021 application cycle, Asian American students attending middle schools historically underrepresented at TJ saw a sixfold increase in offers, and the number of low-income Asian American admittees to TJ increased to 51 — from a mere one in 2020."

Asian admissions went down.
White admissions went up more than all other groups combined.

50 of the 138 FARM kids were asian. So? That is a by product of their attempts to racially balance the entering class. if they could have figured out how to create a race neutral process that would have had all 138 of the FARM kids be URM with no whites or asians, they would have done it. The intent behind the change was racially driven.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's amazing that people bought into the idea that a question and answer test for kids was uncrackable.

Ultimately the majority of the changes made to the admission process don't reflect a reaction to test prep for the QQ (1 of 3 tests in a multi-round process). This is just a distraction based on a handful of Facebook posts.

But, why crack the test? Is it to give an unfair advantage to kids whose parents can pay these businesses?

There is a market, and there will be solutions. Capitalism. Same way why people smuggle drugs or sell socks.

Some say Capitalism is immoral, that sounds like they are against capitalism. Instead, we should say Capitalism is devoid of morality. Supply and demand, like a machine.

So obtaining information by unethical means and selling it to families that can afford it so that their children will have an unfairly obtained advantage over other children from less well off and/or well educated families is okay because… capitalism.

All righty then. We now know what we need to know about the situation here.

it's unethical only because an ill-worded NDA that students have no choice but to sign. It's unethical because the company boasted the exam is un-preppable. HOLD MY BEER.

No, they didn’t “boast” that it was unpreppable. They produced an exam that was meant to be secure and took actions to make and keep it secure. It was an exam that gave the admissions office more information about the students because it showed how the students handled types of questions that they were unlikely to have seen before.

Apparently there are people in this world with no integrity who can’t stand the idea of their kids having to take a test on an even playing field with other kids so they figured out a way to “crack” the test so kids from well off families wouldn’t have to worry about competing with less well off kids who may be more intelligent than they are.

Adults should stay out of this process and let the school do its job.

This is exactly correct except for one thing - "let the school do its job". TJ doesn't have any say in either the development or the execution of the admissions process. FCPS does. And I'll repeat what I said earlier - the Quant-Q did its job for one year and we saw a significant increase in the number of Black, Hispanic, and low-income students in the first year of its implementation.

Its entire purpose what exactly what PP said - to evaluate how students would approach problems that they were unlikely to have seen before. I have seen several versions of the exam, and I can tell you that it is wonderful for achieving this purpose - but also that it would be a staggeringly easy exam for students who had been shown how to do the problems beforehand.

Most exams evaluate how well you can apply a method for solving a problem and the idea behind the QQ was to evaluate your ability to generate a method to solving a problem - that's the reason why it was intended to be secured. And Curie (and the books that are available on Amazon, and probably some other prep companies) destroyed what should have been an ideal exam for sussing out which students actually belong at TJ. I wish there were a way to go back to it - I was that impressed by it.

But we can't, because the golden goose has been slaughtered.

A bit of advice for TJ-aspirant families: the harder you work to crack the process for your kid, the more you incentivize FCPS to increase the apparent randomness and opacity of the process.

It didn't really have the desired effect. QuantQ made an impact but probably not a big enough impact to satisfy folks that wanted more equity. Before QuantQ 3% of the entering class was URM. The first year of QuantQ pushed that number up to 7%.

What you call "cracking the process" is usually referred to as studying in most places where effort is rewarded. I do think you have to be cautious about pushing your kid into the most competitive environment you can possibly squeak them into.

“Cracking the test” so that kids could know what the questions would be like in advance is in no way the same as “studying.”
Test takers are not supposed to have access to the types of questions in advance because part of the usefulness of the test is seeing how students handle new to them problems.

Having access to the types of problems in advance when the test is meant to be a secure instrument is unethical. In no way is it the same as “studying.”

Having access to the question format and question types is absolutely the same thing as studying.

Advertising a test as non-preppable is dishonest if it relies on noone ever discussing what the format of the test is. I mean every standardized test would be unpreppable if noone ever knew what the test looked like. How effective would an SAT class be if they didn't know reading comprehension, and analogies were going to be on the test?

Believing that a test's format remaining secret is naive. The test had a mild effect the first year it was administered but that was about it. Even if they came up witgh a new format every year, FCPS would have changed the admissions process because they were not concerned about the prepping, there is prepping going on right now. They were concerned about the race of the students.

The company that offers Quant-Q intentionally does NOT release materials to the public - it’s very different than SAT, ACT, etc.

1. They want to “measure your natural ability”.
"Remember that the goal of a critical thinking assessment is to measure your natural ability to think critically"

2. Test takers agreed to not share any parts of the test.
"Non-Disclosure and Non-Compete Agreement: The user agrees not to copy, disclose, describe, imitate, replicate, or mirror this interface or this instrument(s) in whole or in part for any purpose."

3. Quant-Q was selected because FCPS was looking for ways to level the playing field - so kids who can't afford expensive test prep programs would have a chance:
https://www.washingtonian.com/2017/04/26/is-the-no-1-high-school-in-america-thomas-jefferson-fairfax-discrimination/
“The firm that markets the math portion of the test, Quant-Q, doesn’t release materials to the public, a practice that should make them harder for test-prep schools to crack.”

That stance walks on cultural thin ice:

1. Some will believe that it is funethical to reward "natural ability" independent of one's dedication to self-improvement through studying. The idea that there is a notion of independent "natural ability" that should be rewarded will be viewed as inherently supremicist thinking by some.

2. Requiring school kids to sign an NDA to take a test would be considered unethical by some, given than academia is inherently dedicated to the principle of sharing of information. Some might prefer to refuse to sign such an NDA on principle, but to do so would be impossible if the student values admission to TJ.

3. To someone who has studied psychology, it might seem a bit gauche that FCPS's response to feeling inadequate due to due an increasingly competitive applicant pool would be to start empathizing with supposed merit-based limitations of Blacks and Hispanics.

What do you mean by the word “cultural”? I can’t think of any culture on earth that tell kids it’s okay to promise you will not do something and then do it anyway. My parents taught me that that’s dishonest and my experience has been that that is what children are taught all over the world.

Let me give you a couple of relatively extreme examples to show you why your reasoning doesn't make sense:

First, imagine that an authority figure touches a child in an inappropriate way, then tells them that they must not tell their parents. Anyone with a shred of morality should be able to see that it's ok if the child broke this "rule," and they would not consider the rule to have any inherent legitimacy because it would stand to violate deeper rights.

Second, the speed limit is a rule that everyone agrees to follow. Someone sees a 35mph speed limit sign. Is it fundamentally unacceptable for them to drive 4-5mph over the posted limit? You could say yes, but the vast majority of the Northern Virginia population does not, at least as far as empirical evidence would suggest. While it may technically be a rule, most people do not consider it serious enough of a violation to give a second thought.

How do these examples come into play in this situation? Depending on your culture, you may not see it as the testing company's business to require you to keep quiet about what you've seen. Since it's the only pathway to TJ, you don't have the option to avoid the test, thus the testing company doesn't have the right to make you keep quiet. Likewise, since talking about what you've seen on a test after everyone's done with the test is normal in some cultures, the idea that it might be violating some NDA may be viewed as a negligible offense - if they wanted a real NDA, wait until the students grow up and apply for real jobs.

You can moralize about dishonesty all you want, but in this case it is absolutely more of a reflection of your cultural perspective rather than of your integrity.

I’m still waiting for an answer as to the culture is being referred to in the above post and what cultural perspective doesn’t see dishonesty as a measure of integrity.

The culture of affluent, entitled families.

So, this is the “culture” described as being okay with promising to do something and then not doing it? I’m glad I don’t know anyone like that. And I’m glad that they changed the admissions process so that it’s more difficult for families like that to use their advantaged family situation to get their kids accepted over other kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids from economically-disadvantaged, Asian families were practically nonexistent at TJ before the admissions change. It helped them more than other groups, per the appellate judicial opinion.

Poor asian kids were about as well represented as poor kids from ANY background.

. . .


The year before the the change, 86 white students were admitted.
This year, 140 white students were admitted. An increase of 54 students.

The year before the change 16 hispanic students were admitted. This year it was 41. An increase of 25.

The year before the change 7 black students were admitted. This year, it was 19. An increase of 12.

Asian admissions went down by 40 despite a 64 seat increase in class size.

Thx.

Here are the facts from an FCPS website re: TJ OFFERS (they cannot control acceptances)

“ TJHSST Admissions Data, Class of 2028

High Caliber Students

The average GPA for students offered admission to the Class of 2028 is 3.96, in line with previous years.

All students offered admission met the accelerated (honors) coursework and minimum GPA requirement for applicants.

Class of 2028 offers extended to the following:

Asian – 57.27%

Black – 3.45%

Hispanic – 7.45%

Two or More Races – 6.18%

White – 25.45%

Multilingual Learners – 6.18%

Economically Disadvantaged – 16.36%

Special Education – 3.45%
“


The FCPS website:


https://www.fcps.edu/news/offers-extended-thomas-jefferson-high-school-science-and-technology-class-2028

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids from economically-disadvantaged, Asian families were practically nonexistent at TJ before the admissions change. It helped them more than other groups, per the appellate judicial opinion.

Poor asian kids were about as well represented as poor kids from ANY background.

The group that was helped the most were white students.
The year before the the change, 86 white students were admitted. This year, 140 white students were admitted. An increase of 54 students.
The year before the change 16 hispanic students were admitted. This year it was 41. An increase of 25.
The year before the change 7 black students were admitted. This year, it was 19. An increase of 12.
Asian admissions went down by 40 despite a 64 seat increase in class size.

Right. There was almost zero representation of kids from low-income families.

Majority opinion:
"Nevertheless, in the 2021 application cycle, Asian American students attending middle schools historically underrepresented at TJ saw a sixfold increase in offers, and the number of low-income Asian American admittees to TJ increased to 51 — from a mere one in 2020."

Asian admissions went down.
White admissions went up more than all other groups combined.

50 of the 138 FARM kids were asian. So? That is a by product of their attempts to racially balance the entering class. if they could have figured out how to create a race neutral process that would have had all 138 of the FARM kids be URM with no whites or asians, they would have done it. The intent behind the change was racially driven.

That's not how "race-neutral" works. By definition, a process that seeks to attain a specific racial outcome is not "race-neutral" unless that outcome is "representative of the demographics of the applicant pool".

You're just mad because the old process that favored parents who leveraged their resources to tip the scales in favor of their kids doesn't exist anymore. Because interest was higher from Asian families, that meant that the old process significantly favored Asian applicants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids from economically-disadvantaged, Asian families were practically nonexistent at TJ before the admissions change. It helped them more than other groups, per the appellate judicial opinion.

Poor asian kids were about as well represented as poor kids from ANY background.

The group that was helped the most were white students.
The year before the the change, 86 white students were admitted. This year, 140 white students were admitted. An increase of 54 students.
The year before the change 16 hispanic students were admitted. This year it was 41. An increase of 25.
The year before the change 7 black students were admitted. This year, it was 19. An increase of 12.
Asian admissions went down by 40 despite a 64 seat increase in class size.

Right. There was almost zero representation of kids from low-income families.

Majority opinion:
"Nevertheless, in the 2021 application cycle, Asian American students attending middle schools historically underrepresented at TJ saw a sixfold increase in offers, and the number of low-income Asian American admittees to TJ increased to 51 — from a mere one in 2020."

Asian admissions went down.
White admissions went up more than all other groups combined.

50 of the 138 FARM kids were asian. So? That is a by product of their attempts to racially balance the entering class. if they could have figured out how to create a race neutral process that would have had all 138 of the FARM kids be URM with no whites or asians, they would have done it. The intent behind the change was racially driven.

False.

from class of 2024 to class of 2025

underrep school +142 526%
well/over rep -42 -10%
private -36 -71%

not low income -71 -15%
low income +135 4500%

male +14 5%
female +50 25%

asian -56 -16%
black +29 290%
hispanic +46 288%
white +37 43%
other +8 42%

all URM: +83 184%

Asian low income +50 5000%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids from economically-disadvantaged, Asian families were practically nonexistent at TJ before the admissions change. It helped them more than other groups, per the appellate judicial opinion.

Poor asian kids were about as well represented as poor kids from ANY background.

The group that was helped the most were white students.
The year before the the change, 86 white students were admitted. This year, 140 white students were admitted. An increase of 54 students.
The year before the change 16 hispanic students were admitted. This year it was 41. An increase of 25.
The year before the change 7 black students were admitted. This year, it was 19. An increase of 12.
Asian admissions went down by 40 despite a 64 seat increase in class size.

Right. There was almost zero representation of kids from low-income families.

Majority opinion:
"Nevertheless, in the 2021 application cycle, Asian American students attending middle schools historically underrepresented at TJ saw a sixfold increase in offers, and the number of low-income Asian American admittees to TJ increased to 51 — from a mere one in 2020."

Asian admissions went down.
White admissions went up more than all other groups combined.

50 of the 138 FARM kids were asian. So? That is a by product of their attempts to racially balance the entering class. if they could have figured out how to create a race neutral process that would have had all 138 of the FARM kids be URM with no whites or asians, they would have done it. The intent behind the change was racially driven.

False.

from class of 2024 to class of 2025

underrep school +142 526%
well/over rep -42 -10%
private -36 -71%

not low income -71 -15%
low income +135 4500%

male +14 5%
female +50 25%

asian -56 -16%
black +29 290%
hispanic +46 288%
white +37 43%
other +8 42%

all URM: +83 184%

Asian low income +50 5000%

There are bound to be some changes YoY, but glad to see TJ is also a dynamic place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids from economically-disadvantaged, Asian families were practically nonexistent at TJ before the admissions change. It helped them more than other groups, per the appellate judicial opinion.

Poor asian kids were about as well represented as poor kids from ANY background.

The group that was helped the most were white students.
The year before the the change, 86 white students were admitted. This year, 140 white students were admitted. An increase of 54 students.
The year before the change 16 hispanic students were admitted. This year it was 41. An increase of 25.
The year before the change 7 black students were admitted. This year, it was 19. An increase of 12.
Asian admissions went down by 40 despite a 64 seat increase in class size.

Right. There was almost zero representation of kids from low-income families.

Majority opinion:
"Nevertheless, in the 2021 application cycle, Asian American students attending middle schools historically underrepresented at TJ saw a sixfold increase in offers, and the number of low-income Asian American admittees to TJ increased to 51 — from a mere one in 2020."

Asian admissions went down.
White admissions went up more than all other groups combined.

50 of the 138 FARM kids were asian. So? That is a by product of their attempts to racially balance the entering class. if they could have figured out how to create a race neutral process that would have had all 138 of the FARM kids be URM with no whites or asians, they would have done it. The intent behind the change was racially driven.

That's not how "race-neutral" works. By definition, a process that seeks to attain a specific racial outcome is not "race-neutral" unless that outcome is "representative of the demographics of the applicant pool".

You're just mad because the old process that favored parents who leveraged their resources to tip the scales in favor of their kids doesn't exist anymore. Because interest was higher from Asian families, that meant that the old process significantly favored Asian applicants.

The interest is higher from asians because asians are more interested in education generally. Especially in STEM.
22% of asians get a 750 or higher in math section of SAT, no other major group gets higher than 4%
9% of asians get a 1500 or higher than a on the SAT, no other group gets higher than 2% https://satsuite.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/sat-percentile-ranks-gender-race-ethnicity.pdf
Asians simply value education more and work harder. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1406402111

As for the new process...
The process is race neutral, the intent behind the change was racist, the fact that the way they achieved their racist goal was to try to mirror the general population makes it no less racist.
When major league baseball capped the number of black players on the team because blacks wer3e over-represented, that was still racist even though blacks were over-represented relative to the population.

Take a look at page 7 of this report https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/BWE23Y004896/$file/TJ%20White%20Paper%2011.17.2020.pdf
ISTM that the URMs have been URMs for a very long time at TJ
When asians came along asians weren't crowding out URMs, there were never a lot of them to crowd out
They were crowding out white kids.
This change is moving the needle back in the other direction.
This might be what Derrick Bell might call convergence of interests.
This would never have happened back when white kids were still over-represented. They would never have sacrificed merit for proportional representation when whites were over-represented.
White kids are coattailing on a policy that is supposed to help black kids, but it is helping 12 black kids white it helps 86 white kids.
This is what it looks like when white people use black people as an excuse to discriminate against asian people for the benefit of white kids.

They could have tailored this to target the benefit at URMs. Use the 1.5 rule but make the other seats merit based. The problem is that you would have gotten more poor kids with a large URM bump but the kids that get pushed out to make room for the 1.5% would have been proportionally divided between affluent white and asian kids.
Of the ~480 kids getting in, 140 would have been from schools that have historically sent 0-2 kids per year and most of them would not have otherwise qualified.
The other 340 would have gotten in under merit and the ratio between asian and white studnents would have probably moved even more in favor of asian kids.
So instead of 140 white kids we see in this year's entering class, we would have seen about 80.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids from economically-disadvantaged, Asian families were practically nonexistent at TJ before the admissions change. It helped them more than other groups, per the appellate judicial opinion.

Poor asian kids were about as well represented as poor kids from ANY background.

The group that was helped the most were white students.
The year before the the change, 86 white students were admitted. This year, 140 white students were admitted. An increase of 54 students.
The year before the change 16 hispanic students were admitted. This year it was 41. An increase of 25.
The year before the change 7 black students were admitted. This year, it was 19. An increase of 12.
Asian admissions went down by 40 despite a 64 seat increase in class size.

Right. There was almost zero representation of kids from low-income families.

Majority opinion:
"Nevertheless, in the 2021 application cycle, Asian American students attending middle schools historically underrepresented at TJ saw a sixfold increase in offers, and the number of low-income Asian American admittees to TJ increased to 51 — from a mere one in 2020."

Asian admissions went down.
White admissions went up more than all other groups combined.

50 of the 138 FARM kids were asian. So? That is a by product of their attempts to racially balance the entering class. if they could have figured out how to create a race neutral process that would have had all 138 of the FARM kids be URM with no whites or asians, they would have done it. The intent behind the change was racially driven.

False.

from class of 2024 to class of 2025

underrep school +142 526%
well/over rep -42 -10%
private -36 -71%

not low income -71 -15%
low income +135 4500%

male +14 5%
female +50 25%

asian -56 -16%
black +29 290%
hispanic +46 288%
white +37 43%
other +8 42%

all URM: +83 184%

Asian low income +50 5000%

You're using class of 2025 number instead of class of 2028 numbers.
Since the change white admissions have increase by 54, black admissions has increased by 12 and hispanic admissions has increased by 25, while asian admissions has decreased by 40.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids from economically-disadvantaged, Asian families were practically nonexistent at TJ before the admissions change. It helped them more than other groups, per the appellate judicial opinion.

Poor asian kids were about as well represented as poor kids from ANY background.

The group that was helped the most were white students.
The year before the the change, 86 white students were admitted. This year, 140 white students were admitted. An increase of 54 students.
The year before the change 16 hispanic students were admitted. This year it was 41. An increase of 25.
The year before the change 7 black students were admitted. This year, it was 19. An increase of 12.
Asian admissions went down by 40 despite a 64 seat increase in class size.

Right. There was almost zero representation of kids from low-income families.

Majority opinion:
"Nevertheless, in the 2021 application cycle, Asian American students attending middle schools historically underrepresented at TJ saw a sixfold increase in offers, and the number of low-income Asian American admittees to TJ increased to 51 — from a mere one in 2020."

Asian admissions went down.
White admissions went up more than all other groups combined.

50 of the 138 FARM kids were asian. So? That is a by product of their attempts to racially balance the entering class. if they could have figured out how to create a race neutral process that would have had all 138 of the FARM kids be URM with no whites or asians, they would have done it. The intent behind the change was racially driven.

False.

from class of 2024 to class of 2025

underrep school +142 526%
well/over rep -42 -10%
private -36 -71%

not low income -71 -15%
low income +135 4500%

male +14 5%
female +50 25%

asian -56 -16%
black +29 290%
hispanic +46 288%
white +37 43%
other +8 42%

all URM: +83 184%

Asian low income +50 5000%

There are bound to be some changes YoY, but glad to see TJ is also a dynamic place.

Injecting randomness makes things more dynamic.

It's not the result that is the problem, it is the intent behind the change that is racist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids from economically-disadvantaged, Asian families were practically nonexistent at TJ before the admissions change. It helped them more than other groups, per the appellate judicial opinion.

Poor asian kids were about as well represented as poor kids from ANY background.

The group that was helped the most were white students.
The year before the the change, 86 white students were admitted. This year, 140 white students were admitted. An increase of 54 students.
The year before the change 16 hispanic students were admitted. This year it was 41. An increase of 25.
The year before the change 7 black students were admitted. This year, it was 19. An increase of 12.
Asian admissions went down by 40 despite a 64 seat increase in class size.

Right. There was almost zero representation of kids from low-income families.

Majority opinion:
"Nevertheless, in the 2021 application cycle, Asian American students attending middle schools historically underrepresented at TJ saw a sixfold increase in offers, and the number of low-income Asian American admittees to TJ increased to 51 — from a mere one in 2020."

Asian admissions went down.
White admissions went up more than all other groups combined.

50 of the 138 FARM kids were asian. So? That is a by product of their attempts to racially balance the entering class. if they could have figured out how to create a race neutral process that would have had all 138 of the FARM kids be URM with no whites or asians, they would have done it. The intent behind the change was racially driven.

That's not how "race-neutral" works. By definition, a process that seeks to attain a specific racial outcome is not "race-neutral" unless that outcome is "representative of the demographics of the applicant pool".

You're just mad because the old process that favored parents who leveraged their resources to tip the scales in favor of their kids doesn't exist anymore. Because interest was higher from Asian families, that meant that the old process significantly favored Asian applicants.

The interest is higher from asians because asians are more interested in education generally. Especially in STEM.
22% of asians get a 750 or higher in math section of SAT, no other major group gets higher than 4%
9% of asians get a 1500 or higher than a on the SAT, no other group gets higher than 2% https://satsuite.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/sat-percentile-ranks-gender-race-ethnicity.pdf
Asians simply value education more and work harder. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1406402111

As for the new process...
The process is race neutral, the intent behind the change was racist, the fact that the way they achieved their racist goal was to try to mirror the general population makes it no less racist.
When major league baseball capped the number of black players on the team because blacks wer3e over-represented, that was still racist even though blacks were over-represented relative to the population.

Take a look at page 7 of this report https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/BWE23Y004896/$file/TJ%20White%20Paper%2011.17.2020.pdf
ISTM that the URMs have been URMs for a very long time at TJ
When asians came along asians weren't crowding out URMs, there were never a lot of them to crowd out
They were crowding out white kids.
This change is moving the needle back in the other direction.
This might be what Derrick Bell might call convergence of interests.
This would never have happened back when white kids were still over-represented. They would never have sacrificed merit for proportional representation when whites were over-represented.
White kids are coattailing on a policy that is supposed to help black kids, but it is helping 12 black kids white it helps 86 white kids.
This is what it looks like when white people use black people as an excuse to discriminate against asian people for the benefit of white kids.

They could have tailored this to target the benefit at URMs. Use the 1.5 rule but make the other seats merit based. The problem is that you would have gotten more poor kids with a large URM bump but the kids that get pushed out to make room for the 1.5% would have been proportionally divided between affluent white and asian kids.
Of the ~480 kids getting in, 140 would have been from schools that have historically sent 0-2 kids per year and most of them would not have otherwise qualified.
The other 340 would have gotten in under merit and the ratio between asian and white studnents would have probably moved even more in favor of asian kids.
So instead of 140 white kids we see in this year's entering class, we would have seen about 80.

Do you not see that it is racist to suggest that one race is “…more interested in education…” than another? How can people not see how this is racist?