TJ entrance test answers were never for sale

[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:TJ saw a significant increase in kids from lower-income families. Of course that shifts standardized test results.

Low income /= stupid

PSAT is generally not prepped.
Aside from the FARM kids, the SES of the TJ students hasn't changed that much.

The overall economic distribution has shifted down. Fewer private school admits, kids from all MSs, more kids who receive FRMs, etc.

Standardized test scores are correlated with income.

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/11/new-study-finds-wide-gap-in-sat-act-test-scores-between-wealthy-lower-income-kids/
children of the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans were 13 times likelier than the children of low-income families to score 1300 or higher on SAT/ACT tests.

You didn't read the article did you?

The article interviews one of the authors of the study and asks if the SAT is a wealth test and he says:

DEMING: I think that’s a little bit misleading. And the reason is that everything that matters in college admissions is related to wealth, including the SATs. I think when people call it a wealth test, they mean to delegitimize it as a measure of who can succeed in school. And the reality is that the SAT test does predict success in college. The SAT does capture something about whether you’re ready to do college level work.

I would urge us to create conditions under which there are more low- and middle-income students who can do well on the test, not to get rid of the test. Getting rid of the test doesn’t make the disparity go away. It just makes it invisible in the eyes of the public. For me, that’s the wrong direction.

Also, if you get rid of the SAT, as many colleges have done, what you have left is things that are also related to wealth, probably even more so. Whether you can write a persuasive college essay, whether you can have the kinds of experiences that give you high ratings for extracurricular activities and leadership; those things are incredibly related to wealth.

My worry is that if we get rid of the SAT, you’re getting rid of the only way that a low-income student who’s academically talented has to distinguish themselves. Getting rid of the SAT means those people don’t have the opportunity to be noticed. I don’t think the SAT is perfect, but I think the problem isn’t the test. The problem is everything that happens before the test.

The same people later published this peer reviewed study that says that a wealthy kid with a good SAT score does just as well as a poor kid with the same SAT score. if the SAT score was in part driven by wealth in a way that was divorced from academic ability, you would expect the poor kid with a 1500 to outperform the rich kid with a 1500 and yet they do almost exactly the same.

https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/SAT_ACT_on_Grades.pdf

You know what else correlates with high test scores? Being Asian.

Almost 10% of asians get above a 1500 ono the SAT

https://satsuite.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/sat-percentile-ranks-gender-race-ethnicity.pdf

I did read it; my point stands: standardized test scores are correlated with income.

And as you quoted:
"everything that matters in college admissions is related to wealth"
"those things are incredibly related to wealth"


So, as I originally said, TJ saw a significant increase in kids from lower-income families. Of course that shifts standardized test results.

Did you miss the part about how people like you try to use this correlation to try and delegitimize standardized tests? Standardized tests are the single best predictor of not only academic performance but a whole raft of lifetime outcomes because they frequently measure cognitive ability and cognitive ability affects almost everything.

Your point is true but it is meaninglessd. The fact that rich people tend to have smart kids is not news to anybody.

Rich people tend to have kids who benefit from their privilege.

I didn't say anything about the legitimacy or value of standardized tests. I am merely pointing out the fact that standardized test scores are correlated with family income. A shift in incomes naturally leads to a shift in scores.

Regardless of how they got there, the rich kids are smarter. Whether it's because they had smarter parents or because they had better instruction, the kids are smarter.

You can have a school full of smart poor kids (see stuyvesant), but you have to select for them using metrics that measure how smart they are.

Smarter? It’s debatable, depending on how you define “smart”.

Privileged? Definitely.

The TJ admissions process was clearly biased towards privileged, wealthy applicants when you compare against the Stuy admissions process.

Less than 1% of the class of 2024 came from an economically-disadvantaged family.

the key difference between Stuy's and TJ's admis process is that Stuy didn't try to hide past questions or make SHSAT prep a rich-people-only thing. TJ could choose to use Stuy's transparent process, but it won't. You should ask yourself why.

At least it’s moving in the right direction. Previously, it was nearly impossible for kids from low-income families to get a seat at TJ.

Less than 1% of kids in the class of 2024 came from economically-disadvantaged families.

DP

TJ is not an anti-poverty program. It is an attempt to gather the most advanced students in one place and give them the education they need to match their acceleration.

Just like elite colleges are not social programs designed to promote social mobility.

These are places for excellence and excellence doesn't ask how you became excellent. A small percentage will get there on raw ability but for the most part, it requires a ton of investment in human capital.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but TJ is just a county high school.

Even with the old admission process, you didn’t really have any TJ graduates reinventing the wheel.

TJ used to be frequently ranked as the best high school in the country by many different evaluators. There is not "just" a county school.

TJ used have the highest SAT scores in the country.

Why would you reinvent the wheel? The wheel works fine just like standardized tests.

How many TJ inventors do you know? They didn’t invent anything that’s relevant today, despite their super high scores.

If they’re going to go to TJ and end up being super glorified cogs, then what’s the problem?

If by super glorified cogs you mean that they are one of a large group of people working on research, then it might be because the nature of scientific research today involves a lot more people than it used to.

I know a lot that have published research and several that have patients. There are physicists and AI developers. There are a few Rhodes scholars, a MacArthur fellow. TJ is by no means the sole source of scientific talent coming out of northern Virginia but it is a valuable institution for selecting and training the best and brightest in many fields, not just science and tech. It turns out cognitive ability is useful in almost all field of human endeavor

Every single hs in the United States produces researchers and doctors. Maybe some do it only once in a lifetime, but it’s not a TJ phenomenon.

AND not all TJ graduates went on to become researchers and doctors. Many went on to become elementary school teachers.

So it this merit system you are dreaming about is producing elementary school teachers instead of the inventors of AI, then the selection process wasn’t effective.

So because not every TJ grad becomes a scientist or AI developer, is selection process wasn't effective?

Not every ivy+ grad does those things either, some of them are even elementary school teachers, is their selection process ineffective?

Your arguments get dumber and dumber every day.

[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:TJ saw a significant increase in kids from lower-income families. Of course that shifts standardized test results.

Low income /= stupid

PSAT is generally not prepped.
Aside from the FARM kids, the SES of the TJ students hasn't changed that much.

The overall economic distribution has shifted down. Fewer private school admits, kids from all MSs, more kids who receive FRMs, etc.

Standardized test scores are correlated with income.

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/11/new-study-finds-wide-gap-in-sat-act-test-scores-between-wealthy-lower-income-kids/
children of the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans were 13 times likelier than the children of low-income families to score 1300 or higher on SAT/ACT tests.

You didn't read the article did you?

The article interviews one of the authors of the study and asks if the SAT is a wealth test and he says:

DEMING: I think that’s a little bit misleading. And the reason is that everything that matters in college admissions is related to wealth, including the SATs. I think when people call it a wealth test, they mean to delegitimize it as a measure of who can succeed in school. And the reality is that the SAT test does predict success in college. The SAT does capture something about whether you’re ready to do college level work.

I would urge us to create conditions under which there are more low- and middle-income students who can do well on the test, not to get rid of the test. Getting rid of the test doesn’t make the disparity go away. It just makes it invisible in the eyes of the public. For me, that’s the wrong direction.

Also, if you get rid of the SAT, as many colleges have done, what you have left is things that are also related to wealth, probably even more so. Whether you can write a persuasive college essay, whether you can have the kinds of experiences that give you high ratings for extracurricular activities and leadership; those things are incredibly related to wealth.

My worry is that if we get rid of the SAT, you’re getting rid of the only way that a low-income student who’s academically talented has to distinguish themselves. Getting rid of the SAT means those people don’t have the opportunity to be noticed. I don’t think the SAT is perfect, but I think the problem isn’t the test. The problem is everything that happens before the test.

The same people later published this peer reviewed study that says that a wealthy kid with a good SAT score does just as well as a poor kid with the same SAT score. if the SAT score was in part driven by wealth in a way that was divorced from academic ability, you would expect the poor kid with a 1500 to outperform the rich kid with a 1500 and yet they do almost exactly the same.

https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/SAT_ACT_on_Grades.pdf

You know what else correlates with high test scores? Being Asian.

Almost 10% of asians get above a 1500 ono the SAT

https://satsuite.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/sat-percentile-ranks-gender-race-ethnicity.pdf

I did read it; my point stands: standardized test scores are correlated with income.

And as you quoted:
"everything that matters in college admissions is related to wealth"
"those things are incredibly related to wealth"


So, as I originally said, TJ saw a significant increase in kids from lower-income families. Of course that shifts standardized test results.

Did you miss the part about how people like you try to use this correlation to try and delegitimize standardized tests? Standardized tests are the single best predictor of not only academic performance but a whole raft of lifetime outcomes because they frequently measure cognitive ability and cognitive ability affects almost everything.

Your point is true but it is meaninglessd. The fact that rich people tend to have smart kids is not news to anybody.

Rich people tend to have kids who benefit from their privilege.

I didn't say anything about the legitimacy or value of standardized tests. I am merely pointing out the fact that standardized test scores are correlated with family income. A shift in incomes naturally leads to a shift in scores.

Regardless of how they got there, the rich kids are smarter. Whether it's because they had smarter parents or because they had better instruction, the kids are smarter.

You can have a school full of smart poor kids (see stuyvesant), but you have to select for them using metrics that measure how smart they are.

Smarter? It’s debatable, depending on how you define “smart”.

Privileged? Definitely.

The TJ admissions process was clearly biased towards privileged, wealthy applicants when you compare against the Stuy admissions process.

Less than 1% of the class of 2024 came from an economically-disadvantaged family.

the key difference between Stuy's and TJ's admis process is that Stuy didn't try to hide past questions or make SHSAT prep a rich-people-only thing. TJ could choose to use Stuy's transparent process, but it won't. You should ask yourself why.

At least it’s moving in the right direction. Previously, it was nearly impossible for kids from low-income families to get a seat at TJ.

Less than 1% of kids in the class of 2024 came from economically-disadvantaged families.

DP

TJ is not an anti-poverty program. It is an attempt to gather the most advanced students in one place and give them the education they need to match their acceleration.

Just like elite colleges are not social programs designed to promote social mobility.

These are places for excellence and excellence doesn't ask how you became excellent. A small percentage will get there on raw ability but for the most part, it requires a ton of investment in human capital.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but TJ is just a county high school.

Even with the old admission process, you didn’t really have any TJ graduates reinventing the wheel.

TJ used to be frequently ranked as the best high school in the country by many different evaluators. There is not "just" a county school.

TJ used have the highest SAT scores in the country.

Why would you reinvent the wheel? The wheel works fine just like standardized tests.

How many TJ inventors do you know? They didn’t invent anything that’s relevant today, despite their super high scores.

If they’re going to go to TJ and end up being super glorified cogs, then what’s the problem?

If by super glorified cogs you mean that they are one of a large group of people working on research, then it might be because the nature of scientific research today involves a lot more people than it used to.

I know a lot that have published research and several that have patients. There are physicists and AI developers. There are a few Rhodes scholars, a MacArthur fellow. TJ is by no means the sole source of scientific talent coming out of northern Virginia but it is a valuable institution for selecting and training the best and brightest in many fields, not just science and tech. It turns out cognitive ability is useful in almost all field of human endeavor

Every single hs in the United States produces researchers and doctors. Maybe some do it only once in a lifetime, but it’s not a TJ phenomenon.

AND not all TJ graduates went on to become researchers and doctors. Many went on to become elementary school teachers.

So it this merit system you are dreaming about is producing elementary school teachers instead of the inventors of AI, then the selection process wasn’t effective.

So because not every TJ grad becomes a scientist or AI developer, is selection process wasn't effective?

Not every ivy+ grad does those things either, some of them are even elementary school teachers, is their selection process ineffective?

Your arguments get dumber and dumber every day.

You don’t even remember what you said a couple of hours ago. You are gauging the merit of the old selection process on the fact that TJ has these researcher, doctor, etc. graduates. Those come from everywhere, and most TJ graduates end up like regular educated people.

That means that the old selection process was not selecting the future wheel drivers, but just regular smart kids.

This process selects in the same way, just using a different differentiator. I’m sure the kids selected now will make more positive change for society.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:TJ saw a significant increase in kids from lower-income families. Of course that shifts standardized test results.

Low income /= stupid

PSAT is generally not prepped.
Aside from the FARM kids, the SES of the TJ students hasn't changed that much.

The overall economic distribution has shifted down. Fewer private school admits, kids from all MSs, more kids who receive FRMs, etc.

Standardized test scores are correlated with income.

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/11/new-study-finds-wide-gap-in-sat-act-test-scores-between-wealthy-lower-income-kids/
children of the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans were 13 times likelier than the children of low-income families to score 1300 or higher on SAT/ACT tests.

You didn't read the article did you?

The article interviews one of the authors of the study and asks if the SAT is a wealth test and he says:

DEMING: I think that’s a little bit misleading. And the reason is that everything that matters in college admissions is related to wealth, including the SATs. I think when people call it a wealth test, they mean to delegitimize it as a measure of who can succeed in school. And the reality is that the SAT test does predict success in college. The SAT does capture something about whether you’re ready to do college level work.

I would urge us to create conditions under which there are more low- and middle-income students who can do well on the test, not to get rid of the test. Getting rid of the test doesn’t make the disparity go away. It just makes it invisible in the eyes of the public. For me, that’s the wrong direction.

Also, if you get rid of the SAT, as many colleges have done, what you have left is things that are also related to wealth, probably even more so. Whether you can write a persuasive college essay, whether you can have the kinds of experiences that give you high ratings for extracurricular activities and leadership; those things are incredibly related to wealth.

My worry is that if we get rid of the SAT, you’re getting rid of the only way that a low-income student who’s academically talented has to distinguish themselves. Getting rid of the SAT means those people don’t have the opportunity to be noticed. I don’t think the SAT is perfect, but I think the problem isn’t the test. The problem is everything that happens before the test.

The same people later published this peer reviewed study that says that a wealthy kid with a good SAT score does just as well as a poor kid with the same SAT score. if the SAT score was in part driven by wealth in a way that was divorced from academic ability, you would expect the poor kid with a 1500 to outperform the rich kid with a 1500 and yet they do almost exactly the same.

https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/SAT_ACT_on_Grades.pdf

You know what else correlates with high test scores? Being Asian.

Almost 10% of asians get above a 1500 ono the SAT

https://satsuite.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/sat-percentile-ranks-gender-race-ethnicity.pdf

I did read it; my point stands: standardized test scores are correlated with income.

And as you quoted:
"everything that matters in college admissions is related to wealth"
"those things are incredibly related to wealth"


So, as I originally said, TJ saw a significant increase in kids from lower-income families. Of course that shifts standardized test results.

Did you miss the part about how people like you try to use this correlation to try and delegitimize standardized tests? Standardized tests are the single best predictor of not only academic performance but a whole raft of lifetime outcomes because they frequently measure cognitive ability and cognitive ability affects almost everything.

Your point is true but it is meaninglessd. The fact that rich people tend to have smart kids is not news to anybody.

Rich people tend to have kids who benefit from their privilege.

I didn't say anything about the legitimacy or value of standardized tests. I am merely pointing out the fact that standardized test scores are correlated with family income. A shift in incomes naturally leads to a shift in scores.

Regardless of how they got there, the rich kids are smarter. Whether it's because they had smarter parents or because they had better instruction, the kids are smarter.

You can have a school full of smart poor kids (see stuyvesant), but you have to select for them using metrics that measure how smart they are.

Smarter? It’s debatable, depending on how you define “smart”.

Privileged? Definitely.

The TJ admissions process was clearly biased towards privileged, wealthy applicants when you compare against the Stuy admissions process.

Less than 1% of the class of 2024 came from an economically-disadvantaged family.

the key difference between Stuy's and TJ's admis process is that Stuy didn't try to hide past questions or make SHSAT prep a rich-people-only thing. TJ could choose to use Stuy's transparent process, but it won't. You should ask yourself why.

At least it’s moving in the right direction. Previously, it was nearly impossible for kids from low-income families to get a seat at TJ.

Less than 1% of kids in the class of 2024 came from economically-disadvantaged families.

DP

TJ is not an anti-poverty program. It is an attempt to gather the most advanced students in one place and give them the education they need to match their acceleration.

Just like elite colleges are not social programs designed to promote social mobility.

These are places for excellence and excellence doesn't ask how you became excellent. A small percentage will get there on raw ability but for the most part, it requires a ton of investment in human capital.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but TJ is just a county high school.

Even with the old admission process, you didn’t really have any TJ graduates reinventing the wheel.

TJ used to be frequently ranked as the best high school in the country by many different evaluators. There is not "just" a county school.

TJ used have the highest SAT scores in the country.

Why would you reinvent the wheel? The wheel works fine just like standardized tests.

How many TJ inventors do you know? They didn’t invent anything that’s relevant today, despite their super high scores.

If they’re going to go to TJ and end up being super glorified cogs, then what’s the problem?

If by super glorified cogs you mean that they are one of a large group of people working on research, then it might be because the nature of scientific research today involves a lot more people than it used to.

I know a lot that have published research and several that have patients. There are physicists and AI developers. There are a few Rhodes scholars, a MacArthur fellow. TJ is by no means the sole source of scientific talent coming out of northern Virginia but it is a valuable institution for selecting and training the best and brightest in many fields, not just science and tech. It turns out cognitive ability is useful in almost all field of human endeavor

Every single hs in the United States produces researchers and doctors. Maybe some do it only once in a lifetime, but it’s not a TJ phenomenon.

AND not all TJ graduates went on to become researchers and doctors. Many went on to become elementary school teachers.

So it this merit system you are dreaming about is producing elementary school teachers instead of the inventors of AI, then the selection process wasn’t effective.

So because not every TJ grad becomes a scientist or AI developer, is selection process wasn't effective?

Not every ivy+ grad does those things either, some of them are even elementary school teachers, is their selection process ineffective?

Your arguments get dumber and dumber every day.

You don’t even remember what you said a couple of hours ago. You are gauging the merit of the old selection process on the fact that TJ has these researcher, doctor, etc. graduates. Those come from everywhere, and most TJ graduates end up like regular educated people.

That means that the old selection process was not selecting the future wheel drivers, but just regular smart kids.

This process selects in the same way, just using a different differentiator. I’m sure the kids selected now will make more positive change for society.

You're not sure of anything. How could you possibly be.

And who said that TJ had a monopoly on all future doctors and scientists.

And there is a difference between the average TJ grad and the average FCPS grad lifetime outcome.

The average TJ grad had a 1500+ SAT score. I doubt its 1400 these days.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TJ saw a significant increase in kids from lower-income families. Of course that shifts standardized test results.

Low income /= stupid

PSAT is generally not prepped.
Aside from the FARM kids, the SES of the TJ students hasn't changed that much.

The overall economic distribution has shifted down. Fewer private school admits, kids from all MSs, more kids who receive FRMs, etc.

Standardized test scores are correlated with income.

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/11/new-study-finds-wide-gap-in-sat-act-test-scores-between-wealthy-lower-income-kids/
children of the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans were 13 times likelier than the children of low-income families to score 1300 or higher on SAT/ACT tests.

You didn't read the article did you?

The article interviews one of the authors of the study and asks if the SAT is a wealth test and he says:

DEMING: I think that’s a little bit misleading. And the reason is that everything that matters in college admissions is related to wealth, including the SATs. I think when people call it a wealth test, they mean to delegitimize it as a measure of who can succeed in school. And the reality is that the SAT test does predict success in college. The SAT does capture something about whether you’re ready to do college level work.

I would urge us to create conditions under which there are more low- and middle-income students who can do well on the test, not to get rid of the test. Getting rid of the test doesn’t make the disparity go away. It just makes it invisible in the eyes of the public. For me, that’s the wrong direction.

Also, if you get rid of the SAT, as many colleges have done, what you have left is things that are also related to wealth, probably even more so. Whether you can write a persuasive college essay, whether you can have the kinds of experiences that give you high ratings for extracurricular activities and leadership; those things are incredibly related to wealth.

My worry is that if we get rid of the SAT, you’re getting rid of the only way that a low-income student who’s academically talented has to distinguish themselves. Getting rid of the SAT means those people don’t have the opportunity to be noticed. I don’t think the SAT is perfect, but I think the problem isn’t the test. The problem is everything that happens before the test.

The same people later published this peer reviewed study that says that a wealthy kid with a good SAT score does just as well as a poor kid with the same SAT score. if the SAT score was in part driven by wealth in a way that was divorced from academic ability, you would expect the poor kid with a 1500 to outperform the rich kid with a 1500 and yet they do almost exactly the same.

https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/SAT_ACT_on_Grades.pdf

You know what else correlates with high test scores? Being Asian.

Almost 10% of asians get above a 1500 ono the SAT

https://satsuite.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/sat-percentile-ranks-gender-race-ethnicity.pdf

I did read it; my point stands: standardized test scores are correlated with income.

And as you quoted:
"everything that matters in college admissions is related to wealth"
"those things are incredibly related to wealth"


So, as I originally said, TJ saw a significant increase in kids from lower-income families. Of course that shifts standardized test results.

Did you miss the part about how people like you try to use this correlation to try and delegitimize standardized tests? Standardized tests are the single best predictor of not only academic performance but a whole raft of lifetime outcomes because they frequently measure cognitive ability and cognitive ability affects almost everything.

Your point is true but it is meaninglessd. The fact that rich people tend to have smart kids is not news to anybody.

Rich people tend to have kids who benefit from their privilege.

I didn't say anything about the legitimacy or value of standardized tests. I am merely pointing out the fact that standardized test scores are correlated with family income. A shift in incomes naturally leads to a shift in scores.

Regardless of how they got there, the rich kids are smarter. Whether it's because they had smarter parents or because they had better instruction, the kids are smarter.

You can have a school full of smart poor kids (see stuyvesant), but you have to select for them using metrics that measure how smart they are.

Smarter? It’s debatable, depending on how you define “smart”.

Privileged? Definitely.

The TJ admissions process was clearly biased towards privileged, wealthy applicants when you compare against the Stuy admissions process.

Less than 1% of the class of 2024 came from an economically-disadvantaged family.

the key difference between Stuy's and TJ's admis process is that Stuy didn't try to hide past questions or make SHSAT prep a rich-people-only thing. TJ could choose to use Stuy's transparent process, but it won't. You should ask yourself why.

At least it’s moving in the right direction. Previously, it was nearly impossible for kids from low-income families to get a seat at TJ.

Less than 1% of kids in the class of 2024 came from economically-disadvantaged families.

DP

TJ is not an anti-poverty program. It is an attempt to gather the most advanced students in one place and give them the education they need to match their acceleration.

Just like elite colleges are not social programs designed to promote social mobility.

These are places for excellence and excellence doesn't ask how you became excellent. A small percentage will get there on raw ability but for the most part, it requires a ton of investment in human capital.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but TJ is just a county high school.

Even with the old admission process, you didn’t really have any TJ graduates reinventing the wheel.

TJ used to be frequently ranked as the best high school in the country by many different evaluators. There is not "just" a county school.

TJ used have the highest SAT scores in the country.

Why would you reinvent the wheel? The wheel works fine just like standardized tests.

How many TJ inventors do you know? They didn’t invent anything that’s relevant today, despite their super high scores.

If they’re going to go to TJ and end up being super glorified cogs, then what’s the problem?

If by super glorified cogs you mean that they are one of a large group of people working on research, then it might be because the nature of scientific research today involves a lot more people than it used to.

I know a lot that have published research and several that have patients. There are physicists and AI developers. There are a few Rhodes scholars, a MacArthur fellow. TJ is by no means the sole source of scientific talent coming out of northern Virginia but it is a valuable institution for selecting and training the best and brightest in many fields, not just science and tech. It turns out cognitive ability is useful in almost all field of human endeavor

Every single hs in the United States produces researchers and doctors. Maybe some do it only once in a lifetime, but it’s not a TJ phenomenon.

AND not all TJ graduates went on to become researchers and doctors. Many went on to become elementary school teachers.

So it this merit system you are dreaming about is producing elementary school teachers instead of the inventors of AI, then the selection process wasn’t effective.

So because not every TJ grad becomes a scientist or AI developer, is selection process wasn't effective?

Not every ivy+ grad does those things either, some of them are even elementary school teachers, is their selection process ineffective?

Your arguments get dumber and dumber every day.

You don’t even remember what you said a couple of hours ago. You are gauging the merit of the old selection process on the fact that TJ has these researcher, doctor, etc. graduates. Those come from everywhere, and most TJ graduates end up like regular educated people.

That means that the old selection process was not selecting the future wheel drivers, but just regular smart kids.

This process selects in the same way, just using a different differentiator. I’m sure the kids selected now will make more positive change for society.

You're not sure of anything. How could you possibly be.

And who said that TJ had a monopoly on all future doctors and scientists.

And there is a difference between the average TJ grad and the average FCPS grad lifetime outcome.

The average TJ grad had a 1500+ SAT score. I doubt its 1400 these days.

The poster you are responding to is questioning the purpose of a place like TJ.
What is the point of gathering all the smartest kids in one place, it's not like they're cracking nuclear fusion?

Critics might say that you make the kids that are not selected feel bad and when there is a clear racial disparity in who gets picked you are reinforcing racist stereotypes about how intelligence is distributed.
Are we fetishizing intelligence in children in a way that is not productive for those children or for society in general?
Are we robbing children of their childhoods by pushing them to study when they could be playing?

Proponents might say that putting all the accelerated kids in one place creates a peer group that encourages these kids to focus on academics in a way that a more general population would not encourage as much.
There is a racial disparity in cognitive ability by the time you get to 8th grade. TJ is not causing that racial disparity. It is merely exposing that racial disparity, a disparity that developed under a public education system that was entirely under the control of the folks who don't want the disparity to be exposed.

[Anonymous]

The scam was exposed by former students of that tutoring center on Facebook. So it was quite real. Mind, I blame FCPS for not having a large enough set of admissions test questions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The scam was exposed by former students of that tutoring center on Facebook. So it was quite real. Mind, I blame FCPS for not having a large enough set of admissions test questions.

Scam? Facebook? ROFLMAO.

Are you talking about that girl at TJ that was virtue signaling on social media about how much privilege she had as a middle class girl because her parents could afford $3000/year for curie learning center?

If there are any sort of actual scandal, you would think there might be a need article or something, or is the media in on it too?

[Anonymous]

Of course they weren't for sale but if you repeat the lie often enough, some portion of the population that are looking for a reason to believe the low will believe that lie. It's how MAGA and Trump operate and the anti merit racists are really no different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Of course they weren't for sale but if you repeat the lie often enough, some portion of the population that are looking for a reason to believe the low will believe that lie. It's how MAGA and Trump operate and the anti merit racists are really no different.

The two sides are not equally bad but they both use the same tactics and are equally dishonest. The consequences are different.

The left wants to ignore the parts of the constitution that prevents them from enforcing equal results and the right wants to ignore all the other parts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course they weren't for sale but if you repeat the lie often enough, some portion of the population that are looking for a reason to believe the low will believe that lie. It's how MAGA and Trump operate and the anti merit racists are really no different.

The two sides are not equally bad but they both use the same tactics and are equally dishonest. The consequences are different.

The left wants to ignore the parts of the constitution that prevents them from enforcing equal results and the right wants to ignore all the other parts.

“Equal results”. GMAFB.

The community thought that having TJ only be accessible to wealthy kids from handful of feeders was unacceptable.

Less than 1% of the class of 2024 came from economically disadvantaged families. In a community with 1/3rd ED families.

The process had to change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is a troll here on DCUM who loves to perpetuate this lie. She repeats it to support the false narrative that TJ only admitted students from exceptionally high SES families, who could afford to (as she put it) “buy the test answers.”

Her claim is not true. It was never true.

When challenged on this falsehood, she often asserts test-preparation courses equal “buying test answers.” But, by her twisted logic, anyone’s child who does an SAT prep session or even buys a test-prep book from Amazon, has somehow “purchased the answers to the upcoming SAT.”

Call this troll out when you encounter her lies here. I’ve tried reporting her, but she’s apparently still around. I’m uncertain why she harbors such hatred towards TJ or why she insists on repeatedly lying about TJ admissions.

We all know her. She has been called #backdoorKaren for years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course they weren't for sale but if you repeat the lie often enough, some portion of the population that are looking for a reason to believe the low will believe that lie. It's how MAGA and Trump operate and the anti merit racists are really no different.

The two sides are not equally bad but they both use the same tactics and are equally dishonest. The consequences are different.

The left wants to ignore the parts of the constitution that prevents them from enforcing equal results and the right wants to ignore all the other parts.

“Equal results”. GMAFB.

The community thought that having TJ only be accessible to wealthy kids from handful of feeders was unacceptable.

Less than 1% of the class of 2024 came from economically disadvantaged families. In a community with 1/3rd ED families.

The process had to change.

You can have explicit preferences for poverty, you cannot have explicit preferences for race. That is why they got rid of the merit filter, to achieve racial diversity not to achieve economic diversity.

The school board thought that there was a problem because TJ didn't racially reflect the community, not because it didn't economically reflect the community. They could have selected students based on income, but they couldn't select students based on race so they tried to change it to a lottery but that was illegal so they went with eliminating objective measures of merit. During the hearings, the board members focused almost exclusively on race and diversity. The testimony was focused almost exclusively on race and diversity.

Liberals used to strive for equality of opportunity with the notion that this would lead to equality of results. But, when the increasing equality of opportunity didn't lead to a corresponding equality of results for some groups, they kept blaming racism anyway and concluded that any disparity in results was proof of racism. The goal shifted from equality of opportunity to equality of results. I'm not saying we have achieved equality of opportunity but when you see immigrants (mostly but not only asians) from a bunch of different countries can now outperform whites as a group, then the argument that white supremacy is an impenetrable barrier to success by any non-white racial group looks pretty stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course they weren't for sale but if you repeat the lie often enough, some portion of the population that are looking for a reason to believe the low will believe that lie. It's how MAGA and Trump operate and the anti merit racists are really no different.

The two sides are not equally bad but they both use the same tactics and are equally dishonest. The consequences are different.

The left wants to ignore the parts of the constitution that prevents them from enforcing equal results and the right wants to ignore all the other parts.

“Equal results”. GMAFB.

The community thought that having TJ only be accessible to wealthy kids from handful of feeders was unacceptable.

Less than 1% of the class of 2024 came from economically disadvantaged families. In a community with 1/3rd ED families.

The process had to change.

You can have explicit preferences for poverty, you cannot have explicit preferences for race. That is why they got rid of the merit filter, to achieve racial diversity not to achieve economic diversity.

The school board thought that there was a problem because TJ didn't racially reflect the community, not because it didn't economically reflect the community. They could have selected students based on income, but they couldn't select students based on race so they tried to change it to a lottery but that was illegal so they went with eliminating objective measures of merit. During the hearings, the board members focused almost exclusively on race and diversity. The testimony was focused almost exclusively on race and diversity.

Liberals used to strive for equality of opportunity with the notion that this would lead to equality of results. But, when the increasing equality of opportunity didn't lead to a corresponding equality of results for some groups, they kept blaming racism anyway and concluded that any disparity in results was proof of racism. The goal shifted from equality of opportunity to equality of results. I'm not saying we have achieved equality of opportunity but when you see immigrants (mostly but not only asians) from a bunch of different countries can now outperform whites as a group, then the argument that white supremacy is an impenetrable barrier to success by any non-white racial group looks pretty stupid.

False, the school board thought too many kids got in because of rampant test buying and needed to level the playing field.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course they weren't for sale but if you repeat the lie often enough, some portion of the population that are looking for a reason to believe the low will believe that lie. It's how MAGA and Trump operate and the anti merit racists are really no different.

The two sides are not equally bad but they both use the same tactics and are equally dishonest. The consequences are different.

The left wants to ignore the parts of the constitution that prevents them from enforcing equal results and the right wants to ignore all the other parts.

“Equal results”. GMAFB.

The community thought that having TJ only be accessible to wealthy kids from handful of feeders was unacceptable.

Less than 1% of the class of 2024 came from economically disadvantaged families. In a community with 1/3rd ED families.

The process had to change.

You can have explicit preferences for poverty, you cannot have explicit preferences for race. That is why they got rid of the merit filter, to achieve racial diversity not to achieve economic diversity.

The school board thought that there was a problem because TJ didn't racially reflect the community, not because it didn't economically reflect the community. They could have selected students based on income, but they couldn't select students based on race so they tried to change it to a lottery but that was illegal so they went with eliminating objective measures of merit. During the hearings, the board members focused almost exclusively on race and diversity. The testimony was focused almost exclusively on race and diversity.

Liberals used to strive for equality of opportunity with the notion that this would lead to equality of results. But, when the increasing equality of opportunity didn't lead to a corresponding equality of results for some groups, they kept blaming racism anyway and concluded that any disparity in results was proof of racism. The goal shifted from equality of opportunity to equality of results. I'm not saying we have achieved equality of opportunity but when you see immigrants (mostly but not only asians) from a bunch of different countries can now outperform whites as a group, then the argument that white supremacy is an impenetrable barrier to success by any non-white racial group looks pretty stupid.

False, the school board thought too many kids got in because of rampant test buying and needed to level the playing field.

No, you are lying... with full, knowledge and intent, you are lying. Anyone that was around in 2020 when they pushed through the new admissions process on the heels of the BLM protests knows this was about race and you are a scumbag for pretending otherwise. You and people like you are the reason why so many minorities, black, white and asians shifted right this last election.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There was an incident where an fcps employee gave the exact test to Marie Curie prep school. The kids memorized the answers. The employee was not fired!

#veryfakenews
You need to remember there were TWO lawsuits over admissions and FCPS NEVER defended its admissions change based on alleged test buying, access to questions, etc., because it was not true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was an incident where an fcps employee gave the exact test to Marie Curie prep school. The kids memorized the answers. The employee was not fired!

#veryfakenews
You need to remember there were TWO lawsuits over admissions and FCPS NEVER defended its admissions change based on alleged test buying, access to questions, etc., because it was not true.

They also didn't need to since the case was basically laughed out of court.