TJ admissions results out?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I agree it won't be easy for this kid and could drop out of TJ within 1 or 2 months. Last year there were 18 kids who dropped out and actual TJ class of 2025 was 529 not 550 because 9 of them took offer but later went to base school so didn't even start at TJ. It is better to realize early than let a kid go to TJ because it sounds cool and let him struggle and then dropout. I would suggest this parent to go to the TJ info session tomorrow and have a serious discussion with teachers and current students and then decide

529 (class size) +9 (dropped out after accepting)=538. What happened to the remaining 12 spots? Did they reduce the class size?

Throughout the whole school year, 21 freshmen have dropped out.

Thanks.

I created the “number of TJ drop outs” thread earlier this year.

My thread was based on a claim from another parent: 50 kids had dropped out of TJ.

If 21 freshmen alone dropped out of TJ this school year, it appears more plausible a total of 50 students may have dropped out from all grades.

WRONG. 13 freshman dropped out during the school year. 9 never started. Out of the 550 admits, 22 are not attending.

Seems like C4TJ types want to spin it differently by using alternative facts.

Funny how they seem to struggle with numbers/math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I agree it won't be easy for this kid and could drop out of TJ within 1 or 2 months. Last year there were 18 kids who dropped out and actual TJ class of 2025 was 529 not 550 because 9 of them took offer but later went to base school so didn't even start at TJ. It is better to realize early than let a kid go to TJ because it sounds cool and let him struggle and then dropout. I would suggest this parent to go to the TJ info session tomorrow and have a serious discussion with teachers and current students and then decide

529 (class size) +9 (dropped out after accepting)=538. What happened to the remaining 12 spots? Did they reduce the class size?

Throughout the whole school year, 21 freshmen have dropped out.

Thanks.

I created the “number of TJ drop outs” thread earlier this year.

My thread was based on a claim from another parent: 50 kids had dropped out of TJ.

If 21 freshmen alone dropped out of TJ this school year, it appears more plausible a total of 50 students may have dropped out from all grades.

WRONG. 13 freshman dropped out during the school year. 9 never started. Out of the 550 admits, 22 are not attending.

Seems like C4TJ types want to spin it differently by using alternative facts.

Funny how they seem to struggle with numbers/math.

More and more it feels like the Coalition is attractive to folks whose kids can't get into TJ for reasons other than a revamped admissions process.

Sort of like how the Republican Party is attractive to people whose lives suck for reasons other than "they took our jobs".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

"Remedial math" means reviewing subjects that at 2 years ahead instead of 3 years.

If even a TJ faculty member uses the term "remedial" then it's awfully pedantic to quibble with it. You can insist on whatever terminology you like, but the point is clear enough: if TJ is supposed to serve those exceptional students who wouldn't be well-served at their base schools (as per the Governor's School charter), then students who do well in more advanced math classes should be admitted rather than students who need review of lower levels of math.

The FCPS school board is essentially doing an ed-around on the state Dept. of Education by reconceiving the purpose of TJ (i.e. to mirror the population of the county as a whole rather than to serve the top students), and that cannot stand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

"Remedial math" means reviewing subjects that at 2 years ahead instead of 3 years.

If even a TJ faculty member uses the term "remedial" then it's awfully pedantic to quibble with it. You can insist on whatever terminology you like, but the point is clear enough: if TJ is supposed to serve those exceptional students who wouldn't be well-served at their base schools (as per the Governor's School charter), then students who do well in more advanced math classes should be admitted rather than students who need review of lower levels of math.

The FCPS school board is essentially doing an ed-around on the state Dept. of Education by reconceiving the purpose of TJ (i.e. to mirror the population of the county as a whole rather than to serve the top students), and that cannot stand.

You want to talk "pedantic"... a good definition would be asserting that math advancement should determine TJ Admissions outcomes.

At least 75% of the Class of 2025 is entering at least in Alg II. That's a huge number. Granted, it used to be higher, but it's still enormous and way ahead of where the numbers were 10 years ago.

[Anonymous]

Sincerely，TJ should only get students in AAP Level IV. The purpose of TJ is to serve the top students who couldn't be well-served at their base schools. The new admission is trying to make TJ no longer TJ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sincerely，TJ should only get students in AAP Level IV. The purpose of TJ is to serve the top students who couldn't be well-served at their base schools. The new admission is trying to make TJ no longer TJ.

I see what you're saying but that makes it predetermined and doesn't allow people to grow and evolve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

"Remedial math" means reviewing subjects that at 2 years ahead instead of 3 years.

If even a TJ faculty member uses the term "remedial" then it's awfully pedantic to quibble with it. You can insist on whatever terminology you like, but the point is clear enough: if TJ is supposed to serve those exceptional students who wouldn't be well-served at their base schools (as per the Governor's School charter), then students who do well in more advanced math classes should be admitted rather than students who need review of lower levels of math.

The FCPS school board is essentially doing an ed-around on the state Dept. of Education by reconceiving the purpose of TJ (i.e. to mirror the population of the county as a whole rather than to serve the top students), and that cannot stand.

You want to talk "pedantic"... a good definition would be asserting that math advancement should determine TJ Admissions outcomes.

At least 75% of the Class of 2025 is entering at least in Alg II. That's a huge number. Granted, it used to be higher, but it's still enormous and way ahead of where the numbers were 10 years ago.

It really isn't a huge number. It might have been a huge number before FCPS greatly expanded access to Algebra I in 7th. Nowadays, the kids in 8th grade Algebra I aren't even in the top 10-15% of FCPS kids. There is no reason to select so many kids for TJ who are at pretty pedestrian levels of math achievement and will not surpass the offerings at every single FCPS high school. The expressly stated mission for governor's schools is serving the kids who are so academically advanced that they can't be served in their normal schools. TJ's purpose is not to grab a diverse group of somewhat above average kids.

Yes, the old system was flawed, but surely the school board could have come up with a happy medium between the old system and what they're currently using. They could keep the 1.5% allocations, but also keep lists of achievements, teacher recommendations, and more substantial essays.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sincerely，TJ should only get students in AAP Level IV. The purpose of TJ is to serve the top students who couldn't be well-served at their base schools. The new admission is trying to make TJ no longer TJ.

I see what you're saying but that makes it predetermined and doesn't allow people to grow and evolve.

Nobody could prevent others to grow. Non-AAP students should grow into AAP first, then think about TJ. TJ is the top of AAP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

"Remedial math" means reviewing subjects that at 2 years ahead instead of 3 years.

If even a TJ faculty member uses the term "remedial" then it's awfully pedantic to quibble with it. You can insist on whatever terminology you like, but the point is clear enough: if TJ is supposed to serve those exceptional students who wouldn't be well-served at their base schools (as per the Governor's School charter), then students who do well in more advanced math classes should be admitted rather than students who need review of lower levels of math.

The FCPS school board is essentially doing an ed-around on the state Dept. of Education by reconceiving the purpose of TJ (i.e. to mirror the population of the county as a whole rather than to serve the top students), and that cannot stand.

You want to talk "pedantic"... a good definition would be asserting that math advancement should determine TJ Admissions outcomes.

At least 75% of the Class of 2025 is entering at least in Alg II. That's a huge number. Granted, it used to be higher, but it's still enormous and way ahead of where the numbers were 10 years ago.

It really isn't a huge number. It might have been a huge number before FCPS greatly expanded access to Algebra I in 7th. Nowadays, the kids in 8th grade Algebra I aren't even in the top 10-15% of FCPS kids. There is no reason to select so many kids for TJ who are at pretty pedestrian levels of math achievement and will not surpass the offerings at every single FCPS high school. The expressly stated mission for governor's schools is serving the kids who are so academically advanced that they can't be served in their normal schools. TJ's purpose is not to grab a diverse group of somewhat above average kids.

Yes, the old system was flawed, but surely the school board could have come up with a happy medium between the old system and what they're currently using. They could keep the 1.5% allocations, but also keep lists of achievements, teacher recommendations, and more substantial essays.

But the flaws were a huge deal. The fact that SO many kids were coming from a single prep center for instance is a huge indication it was not finding the tippy top kids that could not be served at home schools but rather those that invested in working the system.

I agree though that they should have kept teacher recommendations

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

"Remedial math" means reviewing subjects that at 2 years ahead instead of 3 years.

If even a TJ faculty member uses the term "remedial" then it's awfully pedantic to quibble with it. You can insist on whatever terminology you like, but the point is clear enough: if TJ is supposed to serve those exceptional students who wouldn't be well-served at their base schools (as per the Governor's School charter), then students who do well in more advanced math classes should be admitted rather than students who need review of lower levels of math.

The FCPS school board is essentially doing an ed-around on the state Dept. of Education by reconceiving the purpose of TJ (i.e. to mirror the population of the county as a whole rather than to serve the top students), and that cannot stand.

You want to talk "pedantic"... a good definition would be asserting that math advancement should determine TJ Admissions outcomes.

At least 75% of the Class of 2025 is entering at least in Alg II. That's a huge number. Granted, it used to be higher, but it's still enormous and way ahead of where the numbers were 10 years ago.

It really isn't a huge number. It might have been a huge number before FCPS greatly expanded access to Algebra I in 7th. Nowadays, the kids in 8th grade Algebra I aren't even in the top 10-15% of FCPS kids. There is no reason to select so many kids for TJ who are at pretty pedestrian levels of math achievement and will not surpass the offerings at every single FCPS high school. The expressly stated mission for governor's schools is serving the kids who are so academically advanced that they can't be served in their normal schools. TJ's purpose is not to grab a diverse group of somewhat above average kids.

Yes, the old system was flawed, but surely the school board could have come up with a happy medium between the old system and what they're currently using. They could keep the 1.5% allocations, but also keep lists of achievements, teacher recommendations, and more substantial essays.

But the flaws were a huge deal. The fact that SO many kids were coming from a single prep center for instance is a huge indication it was not finding the tippy top kids that could not be served at home schools but rather those that invested in working the system.

I agree though that they should have kept teacher recommendations

Meh. In the past, the 50 or so kids who were outliers and who needed TJ got in. The top 3/4 of the class was solid, and the bottom 1/4 may have had too many prep kids. Now, the outliers often aren't getting in, a large portion of the prep kids are still getting in, and at the higher SES schools, the mediocre kids are getting picked over the outliers, since there's insufficient info to distinguish between a 4.0 heavily tutored, barely above average kid and a 4.0 highly gifted kid with numerous accolades.

I guess if your main concern is adding diversity to the bottom of TJ rather than serving the kids at the top who truly can't have their needs met at the base school, then the reforms are working.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

"Remedial math" means reviewing subjects that at 2 years ahead instead of 3 years.

If even a TJ faculty member uses the term "remedial" then it's awfully pedantic to quibble with it. You can insist on whatever terminology you like, but the point is clear enough: if TJ is supposed to serve those exceptional students who wouldn't be well-served at their base schools (as per the Governor's School charter), then students who do well in more advanced math classes should be admitted rather than students who need review of lower levels of math.

The FCPS school board is essentially doing an ed-around on the state Dept. of Education by reconceiving the purpose of TJ (i.e. to mirror the population of the county as a whole rather than to serve the top students), and that cannot stand.

You want to talk "pedantic"... a good definition would be asserting that math advancement should determine TJ Admissions outcomes.

At least 75% of the Class of 2025 is entering at least in Alg II. That's a huge number. Granted, it used to be higher, but it's still enormous and way ahead of where the numbers were 10 years ago.

It really isn't a huge number. It might have been a huge number before FCPS greatly expanded access to Algebra I in 7th. Nowadays, the kids in 8th grade Algebra I aren't even in the top 10-15% of FCPS kids. There is no reason to select so many kids for TJ who are at pretty pedestrian levels of math achievement and will not surpass the offerings at every single FCPS high school. The expressly stated mission for governor's schools is serving the kids who are so academically advanced that they can't be served in their normal schools. TJ's purpose is not to grab a diverse group of somewhat above average kids.

Yes, the old system was flawed, but surely the school board could have come up with a happy medium between the old system and what they're currently using. They could keep the 1.5% allocations, but also keep lists of achievements, teacher recommendations, and more substantial essays.

But the flaws were a huge deal. The fact that SO many kids were coming from a single prep center for instance is a huge indication it was not finding the tippy top kids that could not be served at home schools but rather those that invested in working the system.

I agree though that they should have kept teacher recommendations

Meh. In the past, the 50 or so kids who were outliers and who needed TJ got in. The top 3/4 of the class was solid, and the bottom 1/4 may have had too many prep kids. Now, the outliers often aren't getting in, a large portion of the prep kids are still getting in, and at the higher SES schools, the mediocre kids are getting picked over the outliers, since there's insufficient info to distinguish between a 4.0 heavily tutored, barely above average kid and a 4.0 highly gifted kid with numerous accolades.

I guess if your main concern is adding diversity to the bottom of TJ rather than serving the kids at the top who truly can't have their needs met at the base school, then the reforms are working.

The reform enlarged the bottom tier and blocked the real top students. Is there any effective measure in the admission process that could help to find the real top student?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sincerely，TJ should only get students in AAP Level IV. The purpose of TJ is to serve the top students who couldn't be well-served at their base schools. The new admission is trying to make TJ no longer TJ.

College admissions also must be restricted to AAP students. /s

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

"Remedial math" means reviewing subjects that at 2 years ahead instead of 3 years.

If even a TJ faculty member uses the term "remedial" then it's awfully pedantic to quibble with it. You can insist on whatever terminology you like, but the point is clear enough: if TJ is supposed to serve those exceptional students who wouldn't be well-served at their base schools (as per the Governor's School charter), then students who do well in more advanced math classes should be admitted rather than students who need review of lower levels of math.

The FCPS school board is essentially doing an ed-around on the state Dept. of Education by reconceiving the purpose of TJ (i.e. to mirror the population of the county as a whole rather than to serve the top students), and that cannot stand.

You want to talk "pedantic"... a good definition would be asserting that math advancement should determine TJ Admissions outcomes.

At least 75% of the Class of 2025 is entering at least in Alg II. That's a huge number. Granted, it used to be higher, but it's still enormous and way ahead of where the numbers were 10 years ago.

It really isn't a huge number. It might have been a huge number before FCPS greatly expanded access to Algebra I in 7th. Nowadays, the kids in 8th grade Algebra I aren't even in the top 10-15% of FCPS kids. There is no reason to select so many kids for TJ who are at pretty pedestrian levels of math achievement and will not surpass the offerings at every single FCPS high school. The expressly stated mission for governor's schools is serving the kids who are so academically advanced that they can't be served in their normal schools. TJ's purpose is not to grab a diverse group of somewhat above average kids.

Yes, the old system was flawed, but surely the school board could have come up with a happy medium between the old system and what they're currently using. They could keep the 1.5% allocations, but also keep lists of achievements, teacher recommendations, and more substantial essays.

But the flaws were a huge deal. The fact that SO many kids were coming from a single prep center for instance is a huge indication it was not finding the tippy top kids that could not be served at home schools but rather those that invested in working the system.

I agree though that they should have kept teacher recommendations

Meh. In the past, the 50 or so kids who were outliers and who needed TJ got in. The top 3/4 of the class was solid, and the bottom 1/4 may have had too many prep kids. Now, the outliers often aren't getting in, a large portion of the prep kids are still getting in, and at the higher SES schools, the mediocre kids are getting picked over the outliers, since there's insufficient info to distinguish between a 4.0 heavily tutored, barely above average kid and a 4.0 highly gifted kid with numerous accolades.

I guess if your main concern is adding diversity to the bottom of TJ rather than serving the kids at the top who truly can't have their needs met at the base school, then the reforms are working.

The reform enlarged the bottom tier and blocked the real top students. Is there any effective measure in the admission process that could help to find the real top student?

An objective admissions test is a good start.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

"Remedial math" means reviewing subjects that at 2 years ahead instead of 3 years.

If even a TJ faculty member uses the term "remedial" then it's awfully pedantic to quibble with it. You can insist on whatever terminology you like, but the point is clear enough: if TJ is supposed to serve those exceptional students who wouldn't be well-served at their base schools (as per the Governor's School charter), then students who do well in more advanced math classes should be admitted rather than students who need review of lower levels of math.

The FCPS school board is essentially doing an ed-around on the state Dept. of Education by reconceiving the purpose of TJ (i.e. to mirror the population of the county as a whole rather than to serve the top students), and that cannot stand.

You want to talk "pedantic"... a good definition would be asserting that math advancement should determine TJ Admissions outcomes.

At least 75% of the Class of 2025 is entering at least in Alg II. That's a huge number. Granted, it used to be higher, but it's still enormous and way ahead of where the numbers were 10 years ago.

It really isn't a huge number. It might have been a huge number before FCPS greatly expanded access to Algebra I in 7th. Nowadays, the kids in 8th grade Algebra I aren't even in the top 10-15% of FCPS kids. There is no reason to select so many kids for TJ who are at pretty pedestrian levels of math achievement and will not surpass the offerings at every single FCPS high school. The expressly stated mission for governor's schools is serving the kids who are so academically advanced that they can't be served in their normal schools. TJ's purpose is not to grab a diverse group of somewhat above average kids.

Yes, the old system was flawed, but surely the school board could have come up with a happy medium between the old system and what they're currently using. They could keep the 1.5% allocations, but also keep lists of achievements, teacher recommendations, and more substantial essays.

But the flaws were a huge deal. The fact that SO many kids were coming from a single prep center for instance is a huge indication it was not finding the tippy top kids that could not be served at home schools but rather those that invested in working the system.

I agree though that they should have kept teacher recommendations

Meh. In the past, the 50 or so kids who were outliers and who needed TJ got in. The top 3/4 of the class was solid, and the bottom 1/4 may have had too many prep kids. Now, the outliers often aren't getting in, a large portion of the prep kids are still getting in, and at the higher SES schools, the mediocre kids are getting picked over the outliers, since there's insufficient info to distinguish between a 4.0 heavily tutored, barely above average kid and a 4.0 highly gifted kid with numerous accolades.

I guess if your main concern is adding diversity to the bottom of TJ rather than serving the kids at the top who truly can't have their needs met at the base school, then the reforms are working.

The reform enlarged the bottom tier and blocked the real top students. Is there any effective measure in the admission process that could help to find the real top student?

An objective admissions test is a good start.

the loony racist progressives ranting againts merit and admissions tests are exactly the same as the crazies who argue for guns saying it is the price for freedom. nihilistic fools. out to destroy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

"Remedial math" means reviewing subjects that at 2 years ahead instead of 3 years.

If even a TJ faculty member uses the term "remedial" then it's awfully pedantic to quibble with it. You can insist on whatever terminology you like, but the point is clear enough: if TJ is supposed to serve those exceptional students who wouldn't be well-served at their base schools (as per the Governor's School charter), then students who do well in more advanced math classes should be admitted rather than students who need review of lower levels of math.

The FCPS school board is essentially doing an ed-around on the state Dept. of Education by reconceiving the purpose of TJ (i.e. to mirror the population of the county as a whole rather than to serve the top students), and that cannot stand.

You want to talk "pedantic"... a good definition would be asserting that math advancement should determine TJ Admissions outcomes.

At least 75% of the Class of 2025 is entering at least in Alg II. That's a huge number. Granted, it used to be higher, but it's still enormous and way ahead of where the numbers were 10 years ago.

It really isn't a huge number. It might have been a huge number before FCPS greatly expanded access to Algebra I in 7th. Nowadays, the kids in 8th grade Algebra I aren't even in the top 10-15% of FCPS kids. There is no reason to select so many kids for TJ who are at pretty pedestrian levels of math achievement and will not surpass the offerings at every single FCPS high school. The expressly stated mission for governor's schools is serving the kids who are so academically advanced that they can't be served in their normal schools. TJ's purpose is not to grab a diverse group of somewhat above average kids.

Yes, the old system was flawed, but surely the school board could have come up with a happy medium between the old system and what they're currently using. They could keep the 1.5% allocations, but also keep lists of achievements, teacher recommendations, and more substantial essays.

But the flaws were a huge deal. The fact that SO many kids were coming from a single prep center for instance is a huge indication it was not finding the tippy top kids that could not be served at home schools but rather those that invested in working the system.

I agree though that they should have kept teacher recommendations

Meh. In the past, the 50 or so kids who were outliers and who needed TJ got in. The top 3/4 of the class was solid, and the bottom 1/4 may have had too many prep kids. Now, the outliers often aren't getting in, a large portion of the prep kids are still getting in, and at the higher SES schools, the mediocre kids are getting picked over the outliers, since there's insufficient info to distinguish between a 4.0 heavily tutored, barely above average kid and a 4.0 highly gifted kid with numerous accolades.

I guess if your main concern is adding diversity to the bottom of TJ rather than serving the kids at the top who truly can't have their needs met at the base school, then the reforms are working.

No issue with trying to find those super tippy top kids - best way is likely teacher recc’s and without a bias toward having to have done things that garner “accolades” as that is going to hinge a lot on availability and students degree of outside time available. It should be about what is going on in school primarily.

But there I’m not crying any tears over spreading out more the rest of the slots vs letting those with a TJ mission and prep approach scoop them up. For those “regular great” kids having been on the Geometry track by 8th seems a good indicator.