2019 AAP Results

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are trying to find patterns. There are no patterns.

The only pattern would be that they flipped the results

Seriously, give it a rest. A SMALL subsection (about 40 out of hundreds posted their score) of the AAP population posts in this board. And to extrapolate that the scores were flipped is crazy. Of course, people who got in that did not except to would post. And, those that with high scores that did not get in would post. But I am sure there are many, many, more people out there that got the results they were expected and do not feel the need to post their scores.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Since different people review the files and there are no cut and dry rules, I don’t even think foia-ing the whole data set would be illuminating. There was a WTOO article a year or so ago that had the most hard data I have seen from FCPS-that said 60-70% of automatically in pool kids are admitted the first round, and 1700 kids had gotten in on appeal total for the last decade. So the unhappy 30% (myself included) are the ones posting here. I think most parents reading that stat would assume it’s kids with only one high score or very close to the cutoff scores who didn’t get in. But actually they are not admitting kids with high scores across the board. If the test scores don’t matter at all, why have the hassle of the tests?

These are the NOT INs that are the most surprising, agree. I don't think a poor teacher rec should keep a kid out who is scoring over the cutoff and has a high reading level, 4s on report card, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FCPS isn't transparent with anything. The last time they released median NNAT and CogAT scores for the accepted students was around 2001. They don't want any of us to know these things.

I've been tempted to do a FOIA, just because I think it would be an interesting data set to play with.

If you know how to do a FOIA request, please do. If the scores posted on this thread are really accurate, even if they are a small percentage of scores, more transparency is needed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are trying to find patterns. There are no patterns.

The only pattern would be that they flipped the results

Seriously, give it a rest. A SMALL subsection (about 40 out of hundreds posted their score) of the AAP population posts in this board. And to extrapolate that the scores were flipped is crazy. Of course, people who got in that did not except to would post. And, those that with high scores that did not get in would post. But I am sure there are many, many, more people out there that got the results they were expected and do not feel the need to post their scores.

+1

Let's assume the pp is correct and only a small subsection of the scores had results similar to those posted here. Even if that's the case, don't you think this albeit small sampling (assuming the posts are truthful) shows a need for more transparency in the process. Some of the scores were incredibly low. If your child legitimately had high scores with no prepping and was rejected, while the low scores listed here were found eligible, are you saying you would not want more transparency as to why this happened? Maybe the letters weren't flipped, but the process needs more transparency. Alternatively, maybe there needs to be two ways to get in: 1. scores and 2. scores plus teacher recommendations. If FCPS is going to say scores are indicative of eligibility, a teacher shouldn't be able to override that, nor should an assumption of prepping if the GBRS commentary doesn't match the test scores. Having an objective admissions standard for automatically admitting students, and also allowing other student to get in based on a combination of scores and GBRS seems like a better process. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the concerns expressed her merely because they only account for a minority of applicants. You also have no clue whether this extrapolates into the general pool.

[Anonymous]

According to FCAG, there have always been a few inexplicable rejections. I can think of a couple different explanations for why that might be so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are trying to find patterns. There are no patterns.

The only pattern would be that they flipped the results

Seriously, give it a rest. A SMALL subsection (about 40 out of hundreds posted their score) of the AAP population posts in this board. And to extrapolate that the scores were flipped is crazy. Of course, people who got in that did not except to would post. And, those that with high scores that did not get in would post. But I am sure there are many, many, more people out there that got the results they were expected and do not feel the need to post their scores.

+1

Let's assume the pp is correct and only a small subsection of the scores had results similar to those posted here. Even if that's the case, don't you think this albeit small sampling (assuming the posts are truthful) shows a need for more transparency in the process. Some of the scores were incredibly low. If your child legitimately had high scores with no prepping and was rejected, while the low scores listed here were found eligible, are you saying you would not want more transparency as to why this happened? Maybe the letters weren't flipped, but the process needs more transparency. Alternatively, maybe there needs to be two ways to get in: 1. scores and 2. scores plus teacher recommendations. If FCPS is going to say scores are indicative of eligibility, a teacher shouldn't be able to override that, nor should an assumption of prepping if the GBRS commentary doesn't match the test scores. Having an objective admissions standard for automatically admitting students, and also allowing other student to get in based on a combination of scores and GBRS seems like a better process. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the concerns expressed her merely because they only account for a minority of applicants. You also have no clue whether this extrapolates into the general pool.

I never said there shouldn't be transparency. I just said don't rush to the judgement that a mistake was made based on the small sampling represented here.

I think FCPS is doing the best it can. No, I don't work for FCPS. I think FCPS recognizes that test scores, alone, are not enough. Its no different than applying for college. Colleges look at much more than a high SAT/ACT score. They look at the whole package - recommendations, extracurricular activities, grades, etc. Scoring a perfect on the SAT is not going to get you into Harvard. So, why should a high CoGat score automatically qualify you for AAP?

At the end of the day, its AAP. It is not going to make or break your child and their college path.

[Anonymous]

I don't think anything is inexplicable. Just like job interviews and college applications, lesser qualified people are often picked over more qualified applicants. Kids with lower scores who got in had something compelling in their packet that made the committee like them or want to give them a chance. Kids with high scores who were rejected had something off-putting in their files. None of us will ever know the reason, but there was something in that file that caused a bunch of panel members to vote NO.

The AART warned people at the info session not to suggest that their kids were bored and not to come across as arrogant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: Scoring a perfect on the SAT is not going to get you into Harvard. So, why should a high CoGat score automatically qualify you for AAP?

It's not quite an apples-to-apples comparison. Harvard has a limited number of spots with a vast number of perfect candidates. AAP theoretically has unlimited slots. There isn't a good reason to exclude kids with high CogAT scores from a program serving over 20% of FCPS students with no strict upper limit on the numbers admitted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, I don't know how we made it with NNAT < 115 and CoGat 130. Put together strong samples from home to supplement, but...

I know exactly how my DS (NNAT 111, CoGat 124) got in - it was obviously through gushing teacher comments and all-consistently GBRS. I see no other explanation that someone like him got picked over a kid with high scores (who really ought to be in and I hope does get in on appeal.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think anything is inexplicable. Just like job interviews and college applications, lesser qualified people are often picked over more qualified applicants. Kids with lower scores who got in had something compelling in their packet that made the committee like them or want to give them a chance. Kids with high scores who were rejected had something off-putting in their files. None of us will ever know the reason, but there was something in that file that caused a bunch of panel members to vote NO.

The AART warned people at the info session not to suggest that their kids were bored and not to come across as arrogant.

It's an advanced academics program, not a popularity contest. If a child has high test scores + report card 4s + high reading level....what are all these people seeing that makes them think "this child should be in advanced academics?" Seriously, some vague suspicion of "test prep"?

People include pictures of their children doing various things. Are better-looking children more likely to get the benefit of the doubt? Studies have shown that teachers prefer "cuter" kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Scoring a perfect on the SAT is not going to get you into Harvard. So, why should a high CoGat score automatically qualify you for AAP?

It's not quite an apples-to-apples comparison. Harvard has a limited number of spots with a vast number of perfect candidates. AAP theoretically has unlimited slots. There isn't a good reason to exclude kids with high CogAT scores from a program serving over 20% of FCPS students with no strict upper limit on the numbers admitted.

I think that at some center schools, there may really be a maximum limit. At our center school, something like 30% of the 2nd grade goes on to AAP, plus they have to accommodate the kids from the local non-center schools. And I would guess that at least 50% of our 2nd grade was either in-pool or parent-referred (based on the large crowd at AAP information night).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Scoring a perfect on the SAT is not going to get you into Harvard. So, why should a high CoGat score automatically qualify you for AAP?

It's not quite an apples-to-apples comparison. Harvard has a limited number of spots with a vast number of perfect candidates. AAP theoretically has unlimited slots. There isn't a good reason to exclude kids with high CogAT scores from a program serving over 20% of FCPS students with no strict upper limit on the numbers admitted.

I think that at some center schools, there may really be a maximum limit. At our center school, something like 30% of the 2nd grade goes on to AAP, plus they have to accommodate the kids from the local non-center schools. And I would guess that at least 50% of our 2nd grade was either in-pool or parent-referred (based on the large crowd at AAP information night).

But when they review the files, they aren't told "be tougher on files for this zip code' or whatever. Aren't the files all jumbled up? Or is one committee reviewing all the files for one particular area/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It's an advanced academics program, not a popularity contest. If a child has high test scores + report card 4s + high reading level....what are all these people seeing that makes them think "this child should be in advanced academics?" Seriously, some vague suspicion of "test prep"?

People include pictures of their children doing various things. Are better-looking children more likely to get the benefit of the doubt? Studies have shown that teachers prefer "cuter" kids.

Don't be naive. Everything with a subjective admissions process is a popularity contest. Savvy parents know how to play the game and use that to their advantage.

[Anonymous]

High enough test scores or reading level should be a guaranteed admit, then.

[Anonymous]

I have never really understood why there needs to be identifying information on the forms. Assign everyone numbers. Send it off to the committee. They choose who they choose purely on the basis of what’s in front of them, without regard to last names or space at centers, or any other information that is not relevant.

This isn’t rocket science.