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.

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.

So?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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.

The existence of the scoring rubric in the first place is a huge part of the problem.

In the absence of one, experience factors would be considered appropriately as part of developing a narrative around the student rather than being used as an artificial power-up like in a Mario game.

Eliminating the exam and the application fee, plus the allocated seat distribution (although I would have gone with 1%) should have been enough. The rest of the work is getting the quality students from underrepresented groups to apply to the school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That was PP’s point. People post constantly about TJ because they are used to doing so, even though it’s not that special now. Carry on for another 17 pages.

[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.

I'm probably the most vocal and well-informed pro-reform poster on these boards, and honestly, we agree on a lot here.

It would be of some value for FCPS to reintroduce a standardized test as part of the TJ admissions process, but only if it were used as a single data point amongst a broad spectrum of them in the overall package. In the past it was used as a gate that students were required to excel on relative to their peers in order to be considered, and that was honestly highly problematic because the nature of standardized exams isn't as equitable as people like to believe.

The problem with using standardized exams is that once you do, you introduce a data point that critics can use as evidence of anti-Asian bias in the admissions process. I truly believe that there should be a limited number of spaces set aside at TJ for students that show promise on the exam but little else, but if you use it as one measure of many, you will invariably have differences between the exam scores of the Asian students who are admitted and the exam scores of the non-Asians who are admitted because standardized exams are a high priority for Asian parents. Once it becomes public that Asian TJ admits averaged - let's say - a 95 on the exam, but non-Asians averaged an 88, you will hear people screaming from the rooftops that "the bar is higher for Asian students", when the fundamental reality is that the exam was the strongest part of their applications while it wasn't for others.

But teacher recs absolutely have to come back. Folks can miss me with the "they're biased" nonsense. They're biased in favor of kids who contribute positively to the learning environment and they're biased against kids who sit around, grade-grub to get their A, and leave having added no value to their fellow students.

[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.

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

So?

It’s absolutely ridiculous to think TJ, one school in a huge school system with over 200 schools, can replicate the type of sophisticated admissions department found at a top college or university. The more subjectivity introduced into the process, the greater the margin of error.

[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.

I'm probably the most vocal and well-informed pro-reform poster on these boards, and honestly, we agree on a lot here.

It would be of some value for FCPS to reintroduce a standardized test as part of the TJ admissions process, but only if it were used as a single data point amongst a broad spectrum of them in the overall package. In the past it was used as a gate that students were required to excel on relative to their peers in order to be considered, and that was honestly highly problematic because the nature of standardized exams isn't as equitable as people like to believe.

The problem with using standardized exams is that once you do, you introduce a data point that critics can use as evidence of anti-Asian bias in the admissions process. I truly believe that there should be a limited number of spaces set aside at TJ for students that show promise on the exam but little else, but if you use it as one measure of many, you will invariably have differences between the exam scores of the Asian students who are admitted and the exam scores of the non-Asians who are admitted because standardized exams are a high priority for Asian parents. Once it becomes public that Asian TJ admits averaged - let's say - a 95 on the exam, but non-Asians averaged an 88, you will hear people screaming from the rooftops that "the bar is higher for Asian students", when the fundamental reality is that the exam was the strongest part of their applications while it wasn't for others.

But teacher recs absolutely have to come back. Folks can miss me with the "they're biased" nonsense. They're biased in favor of kids who contribute positively to the learning environment and they're biased against kids who sit around, grade-grub to get their A, and leave having added no value to their fellow students.

DP. While teacher recommendations in general can be biased against and towards specific groups, my understanding of the problem of TJ teacher recs is that a handful of teachers at the big feeder schools wrote a lot of them, were familiar with the format, while most other teachers in every other middle school in the region were not familiar with the process and didn't write decent recommendations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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.

I'm probably the most vocal and well-informed pro-reform poster on these boards, and honestly, we agree on a lot here.

It would be of some value for FCPS to reintroduce a standardized test as part of the TJ admissions process, but only if it were used as a single data point amongst a broad spectrum of them in the overall package. In the past it was used as a gate that students were required to excel on relative to their peers in order to be considered, and that was honestly highly problematic because the nature of standardized exams isn't as equitable as people like to believe.

The problem with using standardized exams is that once you do, you introduce a data point that critics can use as evidence of anti-Asian bias in the admissions process. I truly believe that there should be a limited number of spaces set aside at TJ for students that show promise on the exam but little else, but if you use it as one measure of many, you will invariably have differences between the exam scores of the Asian students who are admitted and the exam scores of the non-Asians who are admitted because standardized exams are a high priority for Asian parents. Once it becomes public that Asian TJ admits averaged - let's say - a 95 on the exam, but non-Asians averaged an 88, you will hear people screaming from the rooftops that "the bar is higher for Asian students", when the fundamental reality is that the exam was the strongest part of their applications while it wasn't for others.

But teacher recs absolutely have to come back. Folks can miss me with the "they're biased" nonsense. They're biased in favor of kids who contribute positively to the learning environment and they're biased against kids who sit around, grade-grub to get their A, and leave having added no value to their fellow students.

DP. While teacher recommendations in general can be biased against and towards specific groups, my understanding of the problem of TJ teacher recs is that a handful of teachers at the big feeder schools wrote a lot of them, were familiar with the format, while most other teachers in every other middle school in the region were not familiar with the process and didn't write decent recommendations.

PP. Absolutely, and that's where a re-engineered recommendation form that is geared around evaluating students against each other within the same school would be of greater value. My proposal has always been to have teachers rate their students on a Likert-scale style assessment where teachers have the opportunity to highlight which students are superior in comparison to their peers, and for those recommendations to be batched together to ensure that teachers aren't simply indicating that every student who applies is "one of the best I've ever taught".

I'd also keep the free-response to a minimum, while affording each teacher the opportunity to write more expansively - positive or negative - about some maximum number of students (let's say 5) to limit their time obligation. The value of this approach would be incalculable, and would afford teachers the opportunity to highlight an exceptional student or two who were genuinely deserving, as well as to warn the admissions committee off of a student whose resume might be outstanding but who is a confirmed cheater or a negative influence in the classroom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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.

Fortunately, people who are experts on this and have spent their professional careers studying these issues disagree.

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.

The existence of the scoring rubric in the first place is a huge part of the problem.

In the absence of one, experience factors would be considered appropriately as part of developing a narrative around the student rather than being used as an artificial power-up like in a Mario game.

Eliminating the exam and the application fee, plus the allocated seat distribution (although I would have gone with 1%) should have been enough. The rest of the work is getting the quality students from underrepresented groups to apply to the school.

[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.

Great information! Thanks!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That was PP’s point. People post constantly about TJ because they are used to doing so, even though it’s not that special now. Carry on for another 17 pages.

I would argue that it's more special now that they've eliminated the people who wouldn't have been able to get in without all the test buying.

From what others have said, something like 33% of the students in the past had early access to the admission test.

At least now there's a level playing field.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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.

So?

It’s absolutely ridiculous to think TJ, one school in a huge school system with over 200 schools, can replicate the type of sophisticated admissions department found at a top college or university. The more subjectivity introduced into the process, the greater the margin of error.

1) TJ doesn't evaluate the applications. The TJ Admissions Office, which is a part of FCPS and is unaffiliated with TJ, evaluates the applications and selects the class. This is their entire job and they don't really have to do much to generate those applications, unlike the universities that you're referring to.

2) I can't believe I have to keep repeating this, but it is objectively bad for an elite academic environment to have too many students who have the same background, aspirations, and competencies. This is what you had during the vast majority of the 2010s and it resulted in a hypercompetitive academic environment that was, yes, toxic. Not because it was Asian, but because it was homogeneous.

3) Objectivity and transparency in an admissions process incentivizes destructive parent behavior as hyper-motivated parents try to wedge their child into the platonic ideal of the successful TJ applicant. That's why literally no respectable college in America uses an objective or transparent admissions system. Can you imagine what a nightmare it would be if Harvard published an objective admissions criteria?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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.

It's possible they are grading you sown if you put achievements in the essay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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.

My slightly above average kid who goes to Carson got waitlisted. His friends who are STEM superstars also got waitlisted.

[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.

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.

I have actual data at my school. Not on all students, but I can definitely say they got it wrong at our school, top students being rejected in favor of at best 3rd tier students, and really 4th tier. It is not close.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I have actual data at my school. Not on all students, but I can definitely say they got it wrong at our school, top students being rejected in favor of at best 3rd tier students, and really 4th tier. It is not close.

One of the students at least would prefer to go to AOS but didn't get in, while a student who should have gotten in to TJ got into both AOS and AET. Too bad they don't do something like the medical residency matching system.