Disappointed by TJ decision?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No there isnt. experience factors are unearned.

I do like that proponents of this DEI-centric application process finally could pick and choose who they want and they ended up with kids who dont even have 7th grade Algebra. I find it hard to believe that the underrepresented MS didnt have kids with 7th grade algebra who wanted those auto 1.5 spots. The underrepresented MS's either dont have advanced kids (unlikely) or the advanced kids there met the same profile as years past and therefore couldnt be accepted.

It is more complicated than that. I've been posting how they got it wrong at our school. I'm not certain but I don't think any bonus points came into play on these selections.

I just find it surprising that they couldnt fill out the ranks to meet their diversity goals AND keep it equally advanced.

It's not possible since selection is race blind. They can only admit the students who best fit their criteria.

[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: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.

I have heard some superstars, who were winning STEM awards at the state level, were getting rejected. And it had nothing to do with bad grades as others here like to claim.

This was true at our feeder school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

MIT doesn't select a homogeneous group, but they also don't pass on the highest competency math and science people in favor of students who score below 600 Math SAT.

How do you know that!

[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: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.

I have heard some superstars, who were winning STEM awards at the state level, were getting rejected. And it had nothing to do with bad grades as others here like to claim.

Proof or it didn't happen.

No one is going to post names here I think. It has already been posted on here that kids who made USAJMO in 7th grade were not accepted in previous years. I know one student who was rejected this year, not waitlisted, who will be representing Virginia at a well known national STEM contest. I have heard the same happened with winners in another prominent STEM contest, but do not know names. It would be easy for me to find out, but again I wouldn't be posting them.

This is true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These new classes are definitely not academically as strong. Greater number of kids struggling already and they haven’t experienced notoriously difficult junior year yet. My kid knows multiple classmates repeating math as sophomores.

If the classes were not as strong as before, kids would not be struggling. Good to know they are maintaining high standards in their teaching.

The good news is I heard the exact opposite was true. The new kids are the strongest cohort in years. In the past, many average kids were admitted only because they had early access to the admissions test by paying thousands to outside prep. At least these new kids are the very best and brightest from their respective schools based on fair and objective criteria.

This is 100% BS. Many current students have confirmed that many new enrollments are retaking math courses because they cannot pass the requirements. And that rarely happened in the past.
This guy keeps trying to push the blatant lie of “prep course = cheating and buying test questions”. What a shame!

[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: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.

I feel compelled to ask how it is that you know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that those students who were admitted are "3rd or fourth tier". Do you actually know what those students have accomplished? Do you feel like you can confidently speak to the quality of their ENTIRE academic profile? And if so, why on earth do you have that information?

To go into detail on this would reveal individual students. But yes, I am confident of 3rd or 4th tier, and that higher caliber kids were rejected.
Note when I say 3rd or 4th tier, I don't mean 100 in tier 1, 100 in tier 2, etc, but ability levels. There are very few in tier 1 or 2, and I am not confident I know everyone in these tiers at the school. It may be the kids who I think should have gotten in are not the top students, though I would be surprised. But I know they are higher caliber than the ones who got in, multiple tiers above. Also, some of these top students didn't even get on to the waitlist, which makes me give some weight to the idea that they are deliberately rejecting top students. I suppose it is possible the student put in the essay that he or she does not want to go to TJ, but I find this extremely unlikely.

That's a non-answer. I have every confidence that there are a small group of students about whom you know an incredible amount within your school. But I strongly - STRONGLY - doubt that you have the same sort of knowledge about the students who did get in. They just don't happen to belong to your small cohort.

It is a small cohort who got in from this school. We are not talking about Carson or Longfellow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These new classes are definitely not academically as strong. Greater number of kids struggling already and they haven’t experienced notoriously difficult junior year yet. My kid knows multiple classmates repeating math as sophomores.

If the classes were not as strong as before, kids would not be struggling. Good to know they are maintaining high standards in their teaching.

The good news is I heard the exact opposite was true. The new kids are the strongest cohort in years. In the past, many average kids were admitted only because they had early access to the admissions test by paying thousands to outside prep. At least these new kids are the very best and brightest from their respective schools based on fair and objective criteria.

This is 100% BS. Many current students have confirmed that many new enrollments are retaking math courses because they cannot pass the requirements. And that rarely happened in the past.
This guy keeps trying to push the blatant lie of “prep course = cheating and buying test questions”. What a shame!

DP. That was true. Whether this year's class is unprepared or suffered during the pandemic, the change in admissions succeeded in several of their goals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No there isnt. experience factors are unearned.

I do like that proponents of this DEI-centric application process finally could pick and choose who they want and they ended up with kids who dont even have 7th grade Algebra. I find it hard to believe that the underrepresented MS didnt have kids with 7th grade algebra who wanted those auto 1.5 spots. The underrepresented MS's either dont have advanced kids (unlikely) or the advanced kids there met the same profile as years past and therefore couldnt be accepted.

It is more complicated than that. I've been posting how they got it wrong at our school. I'm not certain but I don't think any bonus points came into play on these selections.

I just find it surprising that they couldnt fill out the ranks to meet their diversity goals AND keep it equally advanced.

They are supposed to be race-blind in the process. Kids would have to mention race in their essay. However, in our school it was less advanced and there was no change in diversity. If anything it became more Asian.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

No one is going to post names here I think. It has already been posted on here that kids who made USAJMO in 7th grade were not accepted in previous years. I know one student who was rejected this year, not waitlisted, who will be representing Virginia at a well known national STEM contest. I have heard the same happened with winners in another prominent STEM contest, but do not know names. It would be easy for me to find out, but again I wouldn't be posting them.

JMO is cool. But we all know that science fairs are just parent frauds. Plus, I will put a question mark on all the contest winners in the past 2 years as those contests were most likely remote. And people do cheat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
But I strongly - STRONGLY - doubt that you have the same sort of knowledge about the students who did get in. They just don't happen to belong to your small cohort.

That was more the case last year. I'm pretty sure the people accepted were lower caliber, but I did not have personal experience to say so for sure. Others were saying this about some of the students, but just kind of assumed they did well on the essay. Also, last year at least one top tier student was accepted.
This year, I had more personal knowledge of those accepted, and the person who should have definitely gotten in was rejected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No one is going to post names here I think. It has already been posted on here that kids who made USAJMO in 7th grade were not accepted in previous years. I know one student who was rejected this year, not waitlisted, who will be representing Virginia at a well known national STEM contest. I have heard the same happened with winners in another prominent STEM contest, but do not know names. It would be easy for me to find out, but again I wouldn't be posting them.

JMO is cool. But we all know that science fairs are just parent frauds. Plus, I will put a question mark on all the contest winners in the past 2 years as those contests were most likely remote. And people do cheat.

A lot. At all the local high schools. And at TJ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These new classes are definitely not academically as strong. Greater number of kids struggling already and they haven’t experienced notoriously difficult junior year yet. My kid knows multiple classmates repeating math as sophomores.

If the classes were not as strong as before, kids would not be struggling. Good to know they are maintaining high standards in their teaching.

The good news is I heard the exact opposite was true. The new kids are the strongest cohort in years. In the past, many average kids were admitted only because they had early access to the admissions test by paying thousands to outside prep. At least these new kids are the very best and brightest from their respective schools based on fair and objective criteria.

This is 100% BS. Many current students have confirmed that many new enrollments are retaking math courses because they cannot pass the requirements. And that rarely happened in the past.
This guy keeps trying to push the blatant lie of “prep course = cheating and buying test questions”. What a shame!

DP. That was true. Whether this year's class is unprepared or suffered during the pandemic, the change in admissions succeeded in several of their goals.

To some ppl, standard test = cheating, because they cannot cry their way out.
Algebra is racist, IT is racist, AI is racial suppression… all come from the same group of ppl.

Equity is a lie. Let evolution take its own course!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No one is going to post names here I think. It has already been posted on here that kids who made USAJMO in 7th grade were not accepted in previous years. I know one student who was rejected this year, not waitlisted, who will be representing Virginia at a well known national STEM contest. I have heard the same happened with winners in another prominent STEM contest, but do not know names. It would be easy for me to find out, but again I wouldn't be posting them.

JMO is cool. But we all know that science fairs are just parent frauds. Plus, I will put a question mark on all the contest winners in the past 2 years as those contests were most likely remote. And people do cheat.

Eh, Remember the TJ essay's for the last 2 years were remote from home too. That too without Cameras or Microphone!!! No proof that the essays etc. (major criteria for selection) were written by the candidate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No one is going to post names here I think. It has already been posted on here that kids who made USAJMO in 7th grade were not accepted in previous years. I know one student who was rejected this year, not waitlisted, who will be representing Virginia at a well known national STEM contest. I have heard the same happened with winners in another prominent STEM contest, but do not know names. It would be easy for me to find out, but again I wouldn't be posting them.

JMO is cool. But we all know that science fairs are just parent frauds. Plus, I will put a question mark on all the contest winners in the past 2 years as those contests were most likely remote. And people do cheat.

I didn't say science fair. And the contests were not all remote this year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No there isnt. experience factors are unearned.

I do like that proponents of this DEI-centric application process finally could pick and choose who they want and they ended up with kids who dont even have 7th grade Algebra. I find it hard to believe that the underrepresented MS didnt have kids with 7th grade algebra who wanted those auto 1.5 spots. The underrepresented MS's either dont have advanced kids (unlikely) or the advanced kids there met the same profile as years past and therefore couldnt be accepted.

It is more complicated than that. I've been posting how they got it wrong at our school. I'm not certain but I don't think any bonus points came into play on these selections.

I just find it surprising that they couldnt fill out the ranks to meet their diversity goals AND keep it equally advanced.

It's not possible since selection is race blind. They can only admit the students who best fit their criteria.

Sure its possible. Young Scholars criteria gives the admissions people everything they need to achieve their desired demographics.