Disappointed by TJ decision?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe that the TJ tests measure aptitude or smartness in any manner. The tests just gauge your passion for STEM. My son did get accepted today to TJ. Do I believe he is THE smartest student at his school? Of course not. I am sure there are some really smart and passionate students who got rejected and sadly this is just the nature of the TJ admission process. We'll just have to take these kind of things in our stride with the belief that bigger and better things await these kids in the future!

The old tests did but they got rid of them.

But why is that wrong? A kid already has the aptitude based on other screening factors (GPA and course rigor). Sure, the old tests layered another screen on top of that, but there was also the prep problem. What’s wrong with having a process for admission to a high school where, once you meet the screen, you identify candidates who have a passion for STEM that can express that passion effectively and convincingly in the essays?

It is hard to differentiate just based on essays that are very constrained to cookie cutter answers. At a minimum you need teacher recommendations. Those who have observed the students in a class room setting would be able to provide valuable input. That would fix a major part of the current admissions weakness.

+1
Adding teacher recc’s back in would fix the main flaw right now which is that it’s hard to pick the top kids within each MS. I firmly support the seats per MS model but they need to fine how the kids get picked within those pools.

I’m the poster you’re both responding to (with the post asking “why is that wrong?”). I agree that teacher recommendations would be a useful data point.

Except for the fact they are often inconsistent biased and unreliable but sure

I tend to agree. I think the idea of the new admissions approach is to find kids who are academically highly capable, but also espouse good values, such as camaraderie and helping each other as opposed to putting a personal success ahead of integrity and empathy. I would imagine that if you select your students this way, you would be on path to creating a pretty amazing community, one that is even greater for the kids that what TJ used to be . But yes, high academic achievement should still be a priority, that is what TJ was created for in the first place.

I think there’s a lot of projection involved in ascribing those characteristics to the recently admitted classes, given that there’s so little in the new process to bring them to the forefront, but I guess it sounds better than just saying TJ now has less well prepared entering classes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe that the TJ tests measure aptitude or smartness in any manner. The tests just gauge your passion for STEM. My son did get accepted today to TJ. Do I believe he is THE smartest student at his school? Of course not. I am sure there are some really smart and passionate students who got rejected and sadly this is just the nature of the TJ admission process. We'll just have to take these kind of things in our stride with the belief that bigger and better things await these kids in the future!

The old tests did but they got rid of them.

But why is that wrong? A kid already has the aptitude based on other screening factors (GPA and course rigor). Sure, the old tests layered another screen on top of that, but there was also the prep problem. What’s wrong with having a process for admission to a high school where, once you meet the screen, you identify candidates who have a passion for STEM that can express that passion effectively and convincingly in the essays?

It is hard to differentiate just based on essays that are very constrained to cookie cutter answers. At a minimum you need teacher recommendations. Those who have observed the students in a class room setting would be able to provide valuable input. That would fix a major part of the current admissions weakness.

+1
Adding teacher recc’s back in would fix the main flaw right now which is that it’s hard to pick the top kids within each MS. I firmly support the seats per MS model but they need to fine how the kids get picked within those pools.

I’m the poster you’re both responding to (with the post asking “why is that wrong?”). I agree that teacher recommendations would be a useful data point.

Except for the fact they are often inconsistent biased and unreliable but sure

I tend to agree. I think the idea of the new admissions approach is to find kids who are academically highly capable, but also espouse good values, such as camaraderie and helping each other as opposed to putting a personal success ahead of integrity and empathy. I would imagine that if you select your students this way, you would be on path to creating a pretty amazing community, one that is even greater for the kids that what TJ used to be . But yes, high academic achievement should still be a priority, that is what TJ was created for in the first place.

I know they've done an amazing job improving the process and detoxifying TJ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe that the TJ tests measure aptitude or smartness in any manner. The tests just gauge your passion for STEM. My son did get accepted today to TJ. Do I believe he is THE smartest student at his school? Of course not. I am sure there are some really smart and passionate students who got rejected and sadly this is just the nature of the TJ admission process. We'll just have to take these kind of things in our stride with the belief that bigger and better things await these kids in the future!

The old tests did but they got rid of them.

But why is that wrong? A kid already has the aptitude based on other screening factors (GPA and course rigor). Sure, the old tests layered another screen on top of that, but there was also the prep problem. What’s wrong with having a process for admission to a high school where, once you meet the screen, you identify candidates who have a passion for STEM that can express that passion effectively and convincingly in the essays?

It is hard to differentiate just based on essays that are very constrained to cookie cutter answers. At a minimum you need teacher recommendations. Those who have observed the students in a class room setting would be able to provide valuable input. That would fix a major part of the current admissions weakness.

+1
Adding teacher recc’s back in would fix the main flaw right now which is that it’s hard to pick the top kids within each MS. I firmly support the seats per MS model but they need to fine how the kids get picked within those pools.

I’m the poster you’re both responding to (with the post asking “why is that wrong?”). I agree that teacher recommendations would be a useful data point.

Except for the fact they are often inconsistent biased and unreliable but sure

Sure they could be but right now admissions is flying pretty blind in picking the kids at a given MS. In most cases the teacher recc’s would help a lot with that.

The actual data tells another story... The bottom line is they're selecting the very top kids before they were simply picking those who could afford to buy test answers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe that the TJ tests measure aptitude or smartness in any manner. The tests just gauge your passion for STEM. My son did get accepted today to TJ. Do I believe he is THE smartest student at his school? Of course not. I am sure there are some really smart and passionate students who got rejected and sadly this is just the nature of the TJ admission process. We'll just have to take these kind of things in our stride with the belief that bigger and better things await these kids in the future!

The old tests did but they got rid of them.

But why is that wrong? A kid already has the aptitude based on other screening factors (GPA and course rigor). Sure, the old tests layered another screen on top of that, but there was also the prep problem. What’s wrong with having a process for admission to a high school where, once you meet the screen, you identify candidates who have a passion for STEM that can express that passion effectively and convincingly in the essays?

It is hard to differentiate just based on essays that are very constrained to cookie cutter answers. At a minimum you need teacher recommendations. Those who have observed the students in a class room setting would be able to provide valuable input. That would fix a major part of the current admissions weakness.

+1
Adding teacher recc’s back in would fix the main flaw right now which is that it’s hard to pick the top kids within each MS. I firmly support the seats per MS model but they need to fine how the kids get picked within those pools.

I’m the poster you’re both responding to (with the post asking “why is that wrong?”). I agree that teacher recommendations would be a useful data point.

Except for the fact they are often inconsistent biased and unreliable but sure

Sure they could be but right now admissions is flying pretty blind in picking the kids at a given MS. In most cases the teacher recc’s would help a lot with that.

The actual data tells another story... The bottom line is they're selecting the very top kids before they were simply picking those who could afford to buy test answers.

This is false. TJ needed to offer universal tutoring to the first class admitted with the new standards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Diversity and equity over iq

You mean prep > IQ

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe that the TJ tests measure aptitude or smartness in any manner. The tests just gauge your passion for STEM. My son did get accepted today to TJ. Do I believe he is THE smartest student at his school? Of course not. I am sure there are some really smart and passionate students who got rejected and sadly this is just the nature of the TJ admission process. We'll just have to take these kind of things in our stride with the belief that bigger and better things await these kids in the future!

The old tests did but they got rid of them.

But why is that wrong? A kid already has the aptitude based on other screening factors (GPA and course rigor). Sure, the old tests layered another screen on top of that, but there was also the prep problem. What’s wrong with having a process for admission to a high school where, once you meet the screen, you identify candidates who have a passion for STEM that can express that passion effectively and convincingly in the essays?

It is hard to differentiate just based on essays that are very constrained to cookie cutter answers. At a minimum you need teacher recommendations. Those who have observed the students in a class room setting would be able to provide valuable input. That would fix a major part of the current admissions weakness.

+1
Adding teacher recc’s back in would fix the main flaw right now which is that it’s hard to pick the top kids within each MS. I firmly support the seats per MS model but they need to fine how the kids get picked within those pools.

I’m the poster you’re both responding to (with the post asking “why is that wrong?”). I agree that teacher recommendations would be a useful data point.

Except for the fact they are often inconsistent biased and unreliable but sure

Sure they could be but right now admissions is flying pretty blind in picking the kids at a given MS. In most cases the teacher recc’s would help a lot with that.

The actual data tells another story... The bottom line is they're selecting the very top kids before they were simply picking those who could afford to buy test answers.

Yes, the new admissions has resulted in a much stronger cohort. Sure, a few kids weren't Algerbra 2 or prepped out the gills but they were overall much brighter than many who were only able to sneak in because the extensive prep made them present as gifted when in fact they were average kids. At least with the new system you get the top kids from each school instead of 3rd rate preppers from wealthy areas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe that the TJ tests measure aptitude or smartness in any manner. The tests just gauge your passion for STEM. My son did get accepted today to TJ. Do I believe he is THE smartest student at his school? Of course not. I am sure there are some really smart and passionate students who got rejected and sadly this is just the nature of the TJ admission process. We'll just have to take these kind of things in our stride with the belief that bigger and better things await these kids in the future!

The old tests did but they got rid of them.

But why is that wrong? A kid already has the aptitude based on other screening factors (GPA and course rigor). Sure, the old tests layered another screen on top of that, but there was also the prep problem. What’s wrong with having a process for admission to a high school where, once you meet the screen, you identify candidates who have a passion for STEM that can express that passion effectively and convincingly in the essays?

It is hard to differentiate just based on essays that are very constrained to cookie cutter answers. At a minimum you need teacher recommendations. Those who have observed the students in a class room setting would be able to provide valuable input. That would fix a major part of the current admissions weakness.

+1
Adding teacher recc’s back in would fix the main flaw right now which is that it’s hard to pick the top kids within each MS. I firmly support the seats per MS model but they need to fine how the kids get picked within those pools.

I’m the poster you’re both responding to (with the post asking “why is that wrong?”). I agree that teacher recommendations would be a useful data point.

Except for the fact they are often inconsistent biased and unreliable but sure

Sure they could be but right now admissions is flying pretty blind in picking the kids at a given MS. In most cases the teacher recc’s would help a lot with that.

The actual data tells another story... The bottom line is they're selecting the very top kids before they were simply picking those who could afford to buy test answers.

Yes, the new admissions has resulted in a much stronger cohort. Sure, a few kids weren't Algerbra 2 or prepped out the gills but they were overall much brighter than many who were only able to sneak in because the extensive prep made them present as gifted when in fact they were average kids. At least with the new system you get the top kids from each school instead of 3rd rate preppers from wealthy areas.

Puhlease. Top kids from each school does not equal top kids in the county. Oh, and it’s top kids from each school who apply, not all top kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe that the TJ tests measure aptitude or smartness in any manner. The tests just gauge your passion for STEM. My son did get accepted today to TJ. Do I believe he is THE smartest student at his school? Of course not. I am sure there are some really smart and passionate students who got rejected and sadly this is just the nature of the TJ admission process. We'll just have to take these kind of things in our stride with the belief that bigger and better things await these kids in the future!

The old tests did but they got rid of them.

But why is that wrong? A kid already has the aptitude based on other screening factors (GPA and course rigor). Sure, the old tests layered another screen on top of that, but there was also the prep problem. What’s wrong with having a process for admission to a high school where, once you meet the screen, you identify candidates who have a passion for STEM that can express that passion effectively and convincingly in the essays?

It is hard to differentiate just based on essays that are very constrained to cookie cutter answers. At a minimum you need teacher recommendations. Those who have observed the students in a class room setting would be able to provide valuable input. That would fix a major part of the current admissions weakness.

+1
Adding teacher recc’s back in would fix the main flaw right now which is that it’s hard to pick the top kids within each MS. I firmly support the seats per MS model but they need to fine how the kids get picked within those pools.

I’m the poster you’re both responding to (with the post asking “why is that wrong?”). I agree that teacher recommendations would be a useful data point.

Except for the fact they are often inconsistent biased and unreliable but sure

Sure they could be but right now admissions is flying pretty blind in picking the kids at a given MS. In most cases the teacher recc’s would help a lot with that.

The actual data tells another story... The bottom line is they're selecting the very top kids before they were simply picking those who could afford to buy test answers.

They wouldn’t have the data yet to tell a story, which indicates that you’re invested in a specific narrative without regard to the facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe that the TJ tests measure aptitude or smartness in any manner. The tests just gauge your passion for STEM. My son did get accepted today to TJ. Do I believe he is THE smartest student at his school? Of course not. I am sure there are some really smart and passionate students who got rejected and sadly this is just the nature of the TJ admission process. We'll just have to take these kind of things in our stride with the belief that bigger and better things await these kids in the future!

The old tests did but they got rid of them.

But why is that wrong? A kid already has the aptitude based on other screening factors (GPA and course rigor). Sure, the old tests layered another screen on top of that, but there was also the prep problem. What’s wrong with having a process for admission to a high school where, once you meet the screen, you identify candidates who have a passion for STEM that can express that passion effectively and convincingly in the essays?

It is hard to differentiate just based on essays that are very constrained to cookie cutter answers. At a minimum you need teacher recommendations. Those who have observed the students in a class room setting would be able to provide valuable input. That would fix a major part of the current admissions weakness.

+1
Adding teacher recc’s back in would fix the main flaw right now which is that it’s hard to pick the top kids within each MS. I firmly support the seats per MS model but they need to fine how the kids get picked within those pools.

I’m the poster you’re both responding to (with the post asking “why is that wrong?”). I agree that teacher recommendations would be a useful data point.

Except for the fact they are often inconsistent biased and unreliable but sure

I tend to agree. I think the idea of the new admissions approach is to find kids who are academically highly capable, but also espouse good values, such as camaraderie and helping each other as opposed to putting a personal success ahead of integrity and empathy. I would imagine that if you select your students this way, you would be on path to creating a pretty amazing community, one that is even greater for the kids that what TJ used to be . But yes, high academic achievement should still be a priority, that is what TJ was created for in the first place.

I know they've done an amazing job improving the process and detoxifying TJ.

dog whistle for lowering the percentage of Asians. So much hate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe that the TJ tests measure aptitude or smartness in any manner. The tests just gauge your passion for STEM. My son did get accepted today to TJ. Do I believe he is THE smartest student at his school? Of course not. I am sure there are some really smart and passionate students who got rejected and sadly this is just the nature of the TJ admission process. We'll just have to take these kind of things in our stride with the belief that bigger and better things await these kids in the future!

The old tests did but they got rid of them.

But why is that wrong? A kid already has the aptitude based on other screening factors (GPA and course rigor). Sure, the old tests layered another screen on top of that, but there was also the prep problem. What’s wrong with having a process for admission to a high school where, once you meet the screen, you identify candidates who have a passion for STEM that can express that passion effectively and convincingly in the essays?

It is hard to differentiate just based on essays that are very constrained to cookie cutter answers. At a minimum you need teacher recommendations. Those who have observed the students in a class room setting would be able to provide valuable input. That would fix a major part of the current admissions weakness.

+1
Adding teacher recc’s back in would fix the main flaw right now which is that it’s hard to pick the top kids within each MS. I firmly support the seats per MS model but they need to fine how the kids get picked within those pools.

I’m the poster you’re both responding to (with the post asking “why is that wrong?”). I agree that teacher recommendations would be a useful data point.

Except for the fact they are often inconsistent biased and unreliable but sure

Sure they could be but right now admissions is flying pretty blind in picking the kids at a given MS. In most cases the teacher recc’s would help a lot with that.

The actual data tells another story... The bottom line is they're selecting the very top kids before they were simply picking those who could afford to buy test answers.

#backdoorKaren

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe that the TJ tests measure aptitude or smartness in any manner. The tests just gauge your passion for STEM. My son did get accepted today to TJ. Do I believe he is THE smartest student at his school? Of course not. I am sure there are some really smart and passionate students who got rejected and sadly this is just the nature of the TJ admission process. We'll just have to take these kind of things in our stride with the belief that bigger and better things await these kids in the future!

The old tests did but they got rid of them.

But why is that wrong? A kid already has the aptitude based on other screening factors (GPA and course rigor). Sure, the old tests layered another screen on top of that, but there was also the prep problem. What’s wrong with having a process for admission to a high school where, once you meet the screen, you identify candidates who have a passion for STEM that can express that passion effectively and convincingly in the essays?

It is hard to differentiate just based on essays that are very constrained to cookie cutter answers. At a minimum you need teacher recommendations. Those who have observed the students in a class room setting would be able to provide valuable input. That would fix a major part of the current admissions weakness.

+1
Adding teacher recc’s back in would fix the main flaw right now which is that it’s hard to pick the top kids within each MS. I firmly support the seats per MS model but they need to fine how the kids get picked within those pools.

I’m the poster you’re both responding to (with the post asking “why is that wrong?”). I agree that teacher recommendations would be a useful data point.

Except for the fact they are often inconsistent biased and unreliable but sure

Sure they could be but right now admissions is flying pretty blind in picking the kids at a given MS. In most cases the teacher recc’s would help a lot with that.

The actual data tells another story... The bottom line is they're selecting the very top kids before they were simply picking those who could afford to buy test answers.

Yes, the new admissions has resulted in a much stronger cohort. Sure, a few kids weren't Algerbra 2 or prepped out the gills but they were overall much brighter than many who were only able to sneak in because the extensive prep made them present as gifted when in fact they were average kids. At least with the new system you get the top kids from each school instead of 3rd rate preppers from wealthy areas.

If these kids were average, then why TJ consistently ranked # 1 in nation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe that the TJ tests measure aptitude or smartness in any manner. The tests just gauge your passion for STEM. My son did get accepted today to TJ. Do I believe he is THE smartest student at his school? Of course not. I am sure there are some really smart and passionate students who got rejected and sadly this is just the nature of the TJ admission process. We'll just have to take these kind of things in our stride with the belief that bigger and better things await these kids in the future!

The old tests did but they got rid of them.

But why is that wrong? A kid already has the aptitude based on other screening factors (GPA and course rigor). Sure, the old tests layered another screen on top of that, but there was also the prep problem. What’s wrong with having a process for admission to a high school where, once you meet the screen, you identify candidates who have a passion for STEM that can express that passion effectively and convincingly in the essays?

It is hard to differentiate just based on essays that are very constrained to cookie cutter answers. At a minimum you need teacher recommendations. Those who have observed the students in a class room setting would be able to provide valuable input. That would fix a major part of the current admissions weakness.

+1
Adding teacher recc’s back in would fix the main flaw right now which is that it’s hard to pick the top kids within each MS. I firmly support the seats per MS model but they need to fine how the kids get picked within those pools.

I’m the poster you’re both responding to (with the post asking “why is that wrong?”). I agree that teacher recommendations would be a useful data point.

Except for the fact they are often inconsistent biased and unreliable but sure

I tend to agree. I think the idea of the new admissions approach is to find kids who are academically highly capable, but also espouse good values, such as camaraderie and helping each other as opposed to putting a personal success ahead of integrity and empathy. I would imagine that if you select your students this way, you would be on path to creating a pretty amazing community, one that is even greater for the kids that what TJ used to be . But yes, high academic achievement should still be a priority, that is what TJ was created for in the first place.

I know they've done an amazing job improving the process and detoxifying TJ.

dog whistle for lowering the percentage of Asians. So much hate.

Who is it that’s hating on the asians?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Diversity and equity over iq

You mean prep > IQ

You mean cheating and prep > IQ

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe that the TJ tests measure aptitude or smartness in any manner. The tests just gauge your passion for STEM. My son did get accepted today to TJ. Do I believe he is THE smartest student at his school? Of course not. I am sure there are some really smart and passionate students who got rejected and sadly this is just the nature of the TJ admission process. We'll just have to take these kind of things in our stride with the belief that bigger and better things await these kids in the future!

The old tests did but they got rid of them.

But why is that wrong? A kid already has the aptitude based on other screening factors (GPA and course rigor). Sure, the old tests layered another screen on top of that, but there was also the prep problem. What’s wrong with having a process for admission to a high school where, once you meet the screen, you identify candidates who have a passion for STEM that can express that passion effectively and convincingly in the essays?

You think this essay based process doesn't have the prep problem?

I’m the PP you’re responding to. Yes, I think prep is less of a problem with essays. Good writing is a combination of talent and practice—it’s not something that can be learned overnight through a prep class. And if anything, I think prep classes for writing can be counterproductive. Whoever is screening the essays probably has to read hundreds of them (assuming multiple people screen the thousands of essays that are submitted). Out of that pile, you’ve got to find the essays that stand out in a good way. And there will be some that will stand out. The problem with prep classes is that they teach people to write in the same way (“follow our four-step approach to this essay problem”)—which means that the essays all look the same. If your goal is to stand out, it doesn’t make sense to write in a formulaic way that looks just like everyone else’s essay based on what you learned in a class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe that the TJ tests measure aptitude or smartness in any manner. The tests just gauge your passion for STEM. My son did get accepted today to TJ. Do I believe he is THE smartest student at his school? Of course not. I am sure there are some really smart and passionate students who got rejected and sadly this is just the nature of the TJ admission process. We'll just have to take these kind of things in our stride with the belief that bigger and better things await these kids in the future!

The old tests did but they got rid of them.

But why is that wrong? A kid already has the aptitude based on other screening factors (GPA and course rigor). Sure, the old tests layered another screen on top of that, but there was also the prep problem. What’s wrong with having a process for admission to a high school where, once you meet the screen, you identify candidates who have a passion for STEM that can express that passion effectively and convincingly in the essays?

You think this essay based process doesn't have the prep problem?

I’m the PP you’re responding to. Yes, I think prep is less of a problem with essays. Good writing is a combination of talent and practice—it’s not something that can be learned overnight through a prep class. And if anything, I think prep classes for writing can be counterproductive. Whoever is screening the essays probably has to read hundreds of them (assuming multiple people screen the thousands of essays that are submitted). Out of that pile, you’ve got to find the essays that stand out in a good way. And there will be some that will stand out. The problem with prep classes is that they teach people to write in the same way (“follow our four-step approach to this essay problem”)—which means that the essays all look the same. If your goal is to stand out, it doesn’t make sense to write in a formulaic way that looks just like everyone else’s essay based on what you learned in a class.

Different poster. I have a child that can write in the most beautiful and intricate of ways. Writing helps anyone, but this is a stem school.