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.

You might be right, but among applicants, those who did not go to Curie were more likely to be accepted to TJ than those who did.

[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.

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.

Best way to ensure a balanced class - a lottery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From previous discussion, parents complain that under current admission policy, your child gets a better chance from non feeder schools or less represented schools. Now parents from non feeder schools are complaining that they should get more seats.

The last thing that the admissions people want is overachieving high stats UMC kids at less represented schools getting in. Undoubtedly, there are plenty of kids like that in any pyramid because most of the time, those are the kids and associated parents that care about things like TJ in large numbers. So you'll see those kids get passed over for a FARMs kid with reasonably good stats to give more opportunity to URMs.

The top 1.5 has very little to do with grades or even classes taken as long as they meet that low standard of 3.5, Algebra in 8th, and 1 or 2 honors classes (young scholars only need honors science, no need for honors english for them). The math levels of last years class show this.

Previously, top students get in. Now, considering the seats taken by the underrepresented groups, I thought that you have to be the very top students to get in. But it turns out that none of the very top students from our school get in this year. So I guess this is how it works. They mean to reject the very top students by making the selection criteria mysterious. They don’t care TJ’s reputation.

Wrong they're accepting the top students and rejecting those who are judged unworthy.

No they are not accepting the top students. 'Rejecting those who are judged unworthy' is just the definition of rejection and judging.
I'm not going to go into details of individual students who were accepted and who were rejected or sent to waitlist, but it is not a close call. The selection process is a joke.
The students who were accepted were several tiers lower caliber than students who were rejected.

Oh, well thank goodness we have an anonymous TJ whisperer who knows every kid who got in and where everyone ranks and their worthiness. This is a joke. You don’t know me, my kid, or my school. I’d venture to guess you barely know your own school. But you do sound crazy. I’m relieved your kid won’t be attending.

Yes, I don't know your school and was only talking about my school and the selection process for my school was a joke and I have heard this from friends at other schools nearby. People have posted on here that it is happened at their school as well. Academies of Loudoun did a better job of picking top students within a school.

You sound nuts, fyi.

It wouldn't sound nuts if you knew who was accepted and who was not, or if I went into detail about the accomplishments of the different students.
Even the students accepted are surprised they got in. I suspected one of them was the poster above.

[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.

Colleges use a very comprehensive application to create that balanced class. They're not doing so with only GPA and a couple generic essays. A process in which some sort of standardized test, GPA, list of classes taken, list of achievements, essays, teacher recommendations, and even experience factors are all considered holistically would produce the best class. This is what every elite college does when reviewing applications.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From previous discussion, parents complain that under current admission policy, your child gets a better chance from non feeder schools or less represented schools. Now parents from non feeder schools are complaining that they should get more seats.

The last thing that the admissions people want is overachieving high stats UMC kids at less represented schools getting in. Undoubtedly, there are plenty of kids like that in any pyramid because most of the time, those are the kids and associated parents that care about things like TJ in large numbers. So you'll see those kids get passed over for a FARMs kid with reasonably good stats to give more opportunity to URMs.

The top 1.5 has very little to do with grades or even classes taken as long as they meet that low standard of 3.5, Algebra in 8th, and 1 or 2 honors classes (young scholars only need honors science, no need for honors english for them). The math levels of last years class show this.

Previously, top students get in. Now, considering the seats taken by the underrepresented groups, I thought that you have to be the very top students to get in. But it turns out that none of the very top students from our school get in this year. So I guess this is how it works. They mean to reject the very top students by making the selection criteria mysterious. They don’t care TJ’s reputation.

And yet, many pathetic parents are posting sour grapes about how their kids didn’t get in. If Tj is so horrible now, rest easy, you have nothing to worry about. Except plenty of smart kids did get in, and will attend. And so TJ will continue to be just fine. The problem is obviously many of you parents. Some of whom are having trouble posting anything intelligible. Maybe therein lies the problem with your kid?

That's just it, TJ still has excellent opportunities, classes not available at base school. It is the selection of lower caliber students that makes the school lower quality.

In some alternate reality, that may be true, but here they're selecting the highest-caliber students, which are different than the ones who used to get because of test buying. Sadly, some still believe that equates to merit.

So true but the sour grapes posters will claim otherwise.

No, there are those who do not believe the new process is "selecting the highest-caliber students."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From previous discussion, parents complain that under current admission policy, your child gets a better chance from non feeder schools or less represented schools. Now parents from non feeder schools are complaining that they should get more seats.

The last thing that the admissions people want is overachieving high stats UMC kids at less represented schools getting in. Undoubtedly, there are plenty of kids like that in any pyramid because most of the time, those are the kids and associated parents that care about things like TJ in large numbers. So you'll see those kids get passed over for a FARMs kid with reasonably good stats to give more opportunity to URMs.

The top 1.5 has very little to do with grades or even classes taken as long as they meet that low standard of 3.5, Algebra in 8th, and 1 or 2 honors classes (young scholars only need honors science, no need for honors english for them). The math levels of last years class show this.

Previously, top students get in. Now, considering the seats taken by the underrepresented groups, I thought that you have to be the very top students to get in. But it turns out that none of the very top students from our school get in this year. So I guess this is how it works. They mean to reject the very top students by making the selection criteria mysterious. They don’t care TJ’s reputation.

Wrong they're accepting the top students and rejecting those who are judged unworthy.

No they are not accepting the top students. 'Rejecting those who are judged unworthy' is just the definition of rejection and judging.
I'm not going to go into details of individual students who were accepted and who were rejected or sent to waitlist, but it is not a close call. The selection process is a joke.
The students who were accepted were several tiers lower caliber than students who were rejected.

Oh, well thank goodness we have an anonymous TJ whisperer who knows every kid who got in and where everyone ranks and their worthiness. This is a joke. You don’t know me, my kid, or my school. I’d venture to guess you barely know your own school. But you do sound crazy. I’m relieved your kid won’t be attending.

Yes, I don't know your school and was only talking about my school and the selection process for my school was a joke and I have heard this from friends at other schools nearby. People have posted on here that it is happened at their school as well. Academies of Loudoun did a better job of picking top students within a school.

You sound nuts, fyi.

It wouldn't sound nuts if you knew who was accepted and who was not, or if I went into detail about the accomplishments of the different students.
Even the students accepted are surprised they got in. I suspected one of them was the poster above.

Most likely because they weren’t sure about the process, not because they didn’t ‘deserve’ it.

[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.

You might be right, but among applicants, those who did not go to Curie were more likely to be accepted to TJ than those who did.

The other 60% went to places like Curie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From previous discussion, parents complain that under current admission policy, your child gets a better chance from non feeder schools or less represented schools. Now parents from non feeder schools are complaining that they should get more seats.

The last thing that the admissions people want is overachieving high stats UMC kids at less represented schools getting in. Undoubtedly, there are plenty of kids like that in any pyramid because most of the time, those are the kids and associated parents that care about things like TJ in large numbers. So you'll see those kids get passed over for a FARMs kid with reasonably good stats to give more opportunity to URMs.

The top 1.5 has very little to do with grades or even classes taken as long as they meet that low standard of 3.5, Algebra in 8th, and 1 or 2 honors classes (young scholars only need honors science, no need for honors english for them). The math levels of last years class show this.

Previously, top students get in. Now, considering the seats taken by the underrepresented groups, I thought that you have to be the very top students to get in. But it turns out that none of the very top students from our school get in this year. So I guess this is how it works. They mean to reject the very top students by making the selection criteria mysterious. They don’t care TJ’s reputation.

And yet, many pathetic parents are posting sour grapes about how their kids didn’t get in. If Tj is so horrible now, rest easy, you have nothing to worry about. Except plenty of smart kids did get in, and will attend. And so TJ will continue to be just fine. The problem is obviously many of you parents. Some of whom are having trouble posting anything intelligible. Maybe therein lies the problem with your kid?

That's just it, TJ still has excellent opportunities, classes not available at base school. It is the selection of lower caliber students that makes the school lower quality.

In some alternate reality, that may be true, but here they're selecting the highest-caliber students, which are different than the ones who used to get because of test buying. Sadly, some still believe that equates to merit.

So true but the sour grapes posters will claim otherwise.

No, there are those who do not believe the new process is "selecting the highest-caliber students."

Only because they lack actual data and enjoy feeling aggrieved.

[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.

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.

Colleges use a very comprehensive application to create that balanced class. They're not doing so with only GPA and a couple generic essays. A process in which some sort of standardized test, GPA, list of classes taken, list of achievements, essays, teacher recommendations, and even experience factors are all considered holistically would produce the best class. This is what every elite college does when reviewing applications.

Actually, standardized tests are kind of out of fashion these days and the college application process is remarkably similar to TJ's.

[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.

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.

Colleges use a very comprehensive application to create that balanced class. They're not doing so with only GPA and a couple generic essays. A process in which some sort of standardized test, GPA, list of classes taken, list of achievements, essays, teacher recommendations, and even experience factors are all considered holistically would produce the best class. This is what every elite college does when reviewing applications.

TJ also uses a very comprehensive application to create that balanced class. They're not doing so with only GPA and a couple of generic essays. A process in which some sort of standardized tests like SOL, GPA, list of classes taken, and list of achievements are included in the essays. Teacher recommendations were removed after it was shown they were inconsistent and unfairly biased against URMs, but even experience factors are all considered holistically would produce the best class. This is what every elite high-schools like TJ do when reviewing applications.

[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.

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.

Colleges use a very comprehensive application to create that balanced class. They're not doing so with only GPA and a couple generic essays. A process in which some sort of standardized test, GPA, list of classes taken, list of achievements, essays, teacher recommendations, and even experience factors are all considered holistically would produce the best class. This is what every elite college does when reviewing applications.

TJ also uses a very comprehensive application to create that balanced class. They're not doing so with only GPA and a couple of generic essays. A process in which some sort of standardized tests like SOL, GPA, list of classes taken, and list of achievements are included in the essays. Teacher recommendations were removed after it was shown they were inconsistent and unfairly biased against URMs, but even experience factors are all considered holistically would produce the best class. This is what every elite high-schools like TJ do when reviewing applications.

Removing biases are great, but they’ve introduced unearned points to the process with experience factors. Built in bias for URMs.

This is equity at work and many support it, but it isn’t fair by any stretch. And equity isn’t meant to be fair. It’s meant to artificially support.

The real issue with the class and artificial selection of URMs is that the academic problems that plague URMs will end up following them to TJ and by extension TJ standards. Rather than flowing more demand and rigor to the underrepresented MS and by extension ES, they will flow the scaffolding and standards reduction up to TJ. Rigorous requirements down would end up being detrimental to the gened students at these lower SES schools from which many of the new TJ admits attend.

[Anonymous]

TJ is becoming a bit like the Ivies. Everyone knows the strongest kids aren’t necessarily going there any longer, but we still want a standard of excellence so we continue to pay attention even when it no longer warrants it. I do understand, though, if your alternative is a school like Lewis or Mount Vernon that it might look good. But otherwise it’s starting to get kind of tacky, like an overpriced handbag or car that’s no better than plenty of other lower cost alternatives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:TJ is becoming a bit like the Ivies. Everyone knows the strongest kids aren’t necessarily going there any longer, but we still want a standard of excellence so we continue to pay attention even when it no longer warrants it. I do understand, though, if your alternative is a school like Lewis or Mount Vernon that it might look good. But otherwise it’s starting to get kind of tacky, like an overpriced handbag or car that’s no better than plenty of other lower cost alternatives.

Ikr?

But seriously, who are you trying to convince with this post?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:TJ is becoming a bit like the Ivies. Everyone knows the strongest kids aren’t necessarily going there any longer, but we still want a standard of excellence so we continue to pay attention even when it no longer warrants it. I do understand, though, if your alternative is a school like Lewis or Mount Vernon that it might look good. But otherwise it’s starting to get kind of tacky, like an overpriced handbag or car that’s no better than plenty of other lower cost alternatives.

And yet we are 17 pages into commentary about it.

[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.

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.

Colleges use a very comprehensive application to create that balanced class. They're not doing so with only GPA and a couple generic essays. A process in which some sort of standardized test, GPA, list of classes taken, list of achievements, essays, teacher recommendations, and even experience factors are all considered holistically would produce the best class. This is what every elite college does when reviewing applications.

TJ also uses a very comprehensive application to create that balanced class. They're not doing so with only GPA and a couple of generic essays. A process in which some sort of standardized tests like SOL, GPA, list of classes taken, and list of achievements are included in the essays. Teacher recommendations were removed after it was shown they were inconsistent and unfairly biased against URMs, but even experience factors are all considered holistically would produce the best class. This is what every elite high-schools like TJ do when reviewing applications.

No they aren't. The essays are things like talking about how you resolved a conflict or how you overcame a setback or which famous person you most admire. While a kid might be able to weave a significant achievement into the essay, doing so is awkward, there's no indication that it would gain you any points on their scoring rubric, and there's no indication that they're even verifying the achievement. The current process is so lacking in content that any slightly above average kid from Carson with some training in how to write essays and willingness to lie about achievements will quite possibly outscore the Carson kids who are STEM superstars.