Test is gone

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's get rid of driving tests while we are at it.

I definitely agree with this one!

+100”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh, some states don’t even require law school.

FWIW, I’m an attorney. Law school did not teach me how to actually practice law. I had no classes in client consultations, deposition prep, depositions, mother drafting, drafting and reviewing discovery, preparing settlement agreements or retainers, etc.

I assure you that going to law school does not assure competence. It assures a standard amount of basic general legal knowledge but really nothing more than that.

But you still have to pass the bar.

Not sure how that answers the competency question, but yes. A new lawyer has had zero training in the actual practice of law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh, some states don’t even require law school.

FWIW, I’m an attorney. Law school did not teach me how to actually practice law. I had no classes in client consultations, deposition prep, depositions, mother drafting, drafting and reviewing discovery, preparing settlement agreements or retainers, etc.

I assure you that going to law school does not assure competence. It assures a standard amount of basic general legal knowledge but really nothing more than that.

But you still have to pass the bar.

Not sure how that answers the competency question, but yes. A new lawyer has had zero training in the actual practice of law.

It's a minimum. You should be able to meet some standard. Should airline pilots have to show they can fly a plane or not? As someone mentioned, should we eliminate the driving test? A passing score on the road test does not prove that you're a good driver, just that you understand the minimum of how to actually drive a car and the rules of the road.

I feel we will come full circle with testing. SOLs or common core tests were put in place to make sure that students of all schools, poor or not receive the same education and that teachers are actually teaching a set forth curriculum.

The TJ test is no different. It is a minimum bar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh, some states don’t even require law school.

FWIW, I’m an attorney. Law school did not teach me how to actually practice law. I had no classes in client consultations, deposition prep, depositions, mother drafting, drafting and reviewing discovery, preparing settlement agreements or retainers, etc.

I assure you that going to law school does not assure competence. It assures a standard amount of basic general legal knowledge but really nothing more than that.

But you still have to pass the bar.

Not sure how that answers the competency question, but yes. A new lawyer has had zero training in the actual practice of law.

It's a minimum. You should be able to meet some standard. Should airline pilots have to show they can fly a plane or not? As someone mentioned, should we eliminate the driving test? A passing score on the road test does not prove that you're a good driver, just that you understand the minimum of how to actually drive a car and the rules of the road.

I feel we will come full circle with testing. SOLs or common core tests were put in place to make sure that students of all schools, poor or not receive the same education and that teachers are actually teaching a set forth curriculum.

The TJ test is no different. It is a minimum bar.

NP: I think tests are important but the TJ test is not a minimum bar. If students needed to achieve a minimum score on the test to be considered for admissions your analogy would work. That may be the solution for TJ and the SATs for college admissions. What is the minimum score to succeed (B avg?) at TJ? What is the minimum SAT score for Ivies, top 30, flagship state school, etc.?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's get rid of driving tests while we are at it.

I definitely agree with this one!

+100”

Let’s get rid of tests for band and orchestra placement too. And how about those annoying tryouts for varsity sports! We can’t have an outcome that chooses the best and most talented in a certain area if we run the risk of not taking RACE into account! What if we accidentally have a sports team that is dominated by players who are all of the same race? If equity is the driver here, then I expect FCPS to be consistent and they better apply these policies to athletics and arts in the same way they are applying it to academics!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh, some states don’t even require law school.

FWIW, I’m an attorney. Law school did not teach me how to actually practice law. I had no classes in client consultations, deposition prep, depositions, mother drafting, drafting and reviewing discovery, preparing settlement agreements or retainers, etc.

I assure you that going to law school does not assure competence. It assures a standard amount of basic general legal knowledge but really nothing more than that.

But you still have to pass the bar.

Not sure how that answers the competency question, but yes. A new lawyer has had zero training in the actual practice of law.

It's a minimum. You should be able to meet some standard. Should airline pilots have to show they can fly a plane or not? As someone mentioned, should we eliminate the driving test? A passing score on the road test does not prove that you're a good driver, just that you understand the minimum of how to actually drive a car and the rules of the road.

I feel we will come full circle with testing. SOLs or common core tests were put in place to make sure that students of all schools, poor or not receive the same education and that teachers are actually teaching a set forth curriculum.

The TJ test is no different. It is a minimum bar.

NP: I think tests are important but the TJ test is not a minimum bar. If students needed to achieve a minimum score on the test to be considered for admissions your analogy would work. That may be the solution for TJ and the SATs for college admissions. What is the minimum score to succeed (B avg?) at TJ? What is the minimum SAT score for Ivies, top 30, flagship state school, etc.?

By this logic if I can catch a football and run 50 yards I should be eligible to be selected for the varsity football team. Shouldn’t matter that someone else can do it better than I can! As long as we both meet that “minimum requirement” then I deserve a slot on the team same as the guy who has “prepped” by playing in peewee league or who can throw a spiral with 90% accuracy.
Why are we pretending that every candidate has academic talent/ability that is equivalent to every other candidate who meets an arbitrary minimum? We don’t do that in sports? Why do that in academics?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh, some states don’t even require law school.

FWIW, I’m an attorney. Law school did not teach me how to actually practice law. I had no classes in client consultations, deposition prep, depositions, mother drafting, drafting and reviewing discovery, preparing settlement agreements or retainers, etc.

I assure you that going to law school does not assure competence. It assures a standard amount of basic general legal knowledge but really nothing more than that.

But you still have to pass the bar.

Not sure how that answers the competency question, but yes. A new lawyer has had zero training in the actual practice of law.

It's a minimum. You should be able to meet some standard. Should airline pilots have to show they can fly a plane or not? As someone mentioned, should we eliminate the driving test? A passing score on the road test does not prove that you're a good driver, just that you understand the minimum of how to actually drive a car and the rules of the road.

I feel we will come full circle with testing. SOLs or common core tests were put in place to make sure that students of all schools, poor or not receive the same education and that teachers are actually teaching a set forth curriculum.

The TJ test is no different. It is a minimum bar.

The minimum standard could be that you went to law school. No one is advocating there be zero minimum standards for admission to TJ. You just don’t like the new minimum standards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's get rid of driving tests while we are at it.

I definitely agree with this one!

+100”

Let’s get rid of tests for band and orchestra placement too. And how about those annoying tryouts for varsity sports! We can’t have an outcome that chooses the best and most talented in a certain area if we run the risk of not taking RACE into account! What if we accidentally have a sports team that is dominated by players who are all of the same race? If equity is the driver here, then I expect FCPS to be consistent and they better apply these policies to athletics and arts in the same way they are applying it to academics!

Your logic is flawless. More people need to push back with this argument.

[Anonymous]

They should hire everyone who wants to be a teacher, no matter if they can read or do math. Teachers should look like the students they teach. Let all the old white women teachers retire and hire more Black, Hispanic, and Asians as teacher. We also need 50% MALE teachers and 10% LBGtQ teachers..
Hire more men to be nurses and health care persons.
Hire more women in construction, pluming, and Landscape field.
The white woke women should give up their fancy lawyer job and take a job to pick up trash everyday.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh, some states don’t even require law school.

FWIW, I’m an attorney. Law school did not teach me how to actually practice law. I had no classes in client consultations, deposition prep, depositions, mother drafting, drafting and reviewing discovery, preparing settlement agreements or retainers, etc.

I assure you that going to law school does not assure competence. It assures a standard amount of basic general legal knowledge but really nothing more than that.

But you still have to pass the bar.

Not sure how that answers the competency question, but yes. A new lawyer has had zero training in the actual practice of law.

It's a minimum. You should be able to meet some standard. Should airline pilots have to show they can fly a plane or not? As someone mentioned, should we eliminate the driving test? A passing score on the road test does not prove that you're a good driver, just that you understand the minimum of how to actually drive a car and the rules of the road.

I feel we will come full circle with testing. SOLs or common core tests were put in place to make sure that students of all schools, poor or not receive the same education and that teachers are actually teaching a set forth curriculum.

The TJ test is no different. It is a minimum bar.

NP: I think tests are important but the TJ test is not a minimum bar. If students needed to achieve a minimum score on the test to be considered for admissions your analogy would work. That may be the solution for TJ and the SATs for college admissions. What is the minimum score to succeed (B avg?) at TJ? What is the minimum SAT score for Ivies, top 30, flagship state school, etc.?

By this logic if I can catch a football and run 50 yards I should be eligible to be selected for the varsity football team. Shouldn’t matter that someone else can do it better than I can! As long as we both meet that “minimum requirement” then I deserve a slot on the team same as the guy who has “prepped” by playing in peewee league or who can throw a spiral with 90% accuracy.
Why are we pretending that every candidate has academic talent/ability that is equivalent to every other candidate who meets an arbitrary minimum? We don’t do that in sports? Why do that in academics?

I was responding to the OP, maybe you, that used pilots and driving as examples. The tests for those examples are minimum standards. The TJ test is not a "minimum bar" as stated in the original posts because the goal is to get the highest score for admittance.

The goal of professional sports is to win with the best players. That is not the goal of education in general or most professions. My friend, who is an excellent doctor and went to a top 5 medical school and was top of his class still acknowledges that his cohort that graduated from medical school at the bottom of the class are still doctors. Now I admit that I would want to see the best doctor if I were sick but our educational system, at least in the US, is not based on the highest scores or most talented, like sports, music, etc.

I think there should be a test but no fee. I just think the analogy used above is weak and also doesn't acknowledge the reality of the US education system and the values/beliefs that it is based on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh, some states don’t even require law school.

FWIW, I’m an attorney. Law school did not teach me how to actually practice law. I had no classes in client consultations, deposition prep, depositions, mother drafting, drafting and reviewing discovery, preparing settlement agreements or retainers, etc.

I assure you that going to law school does not assure competence. It assures a standard amount of basic general legal knowledge but really nothing more than that.

But you still have to pass the bar.

Not sure how that answers the competency question, but yes. A new lawyer has had zero training in the actual practice of law.

It's a minimum. You should be able to meet some standard. Should airline pilots have to show they can fly a plane or not? As someone mentioned, should we eliminate the driving test? A passing score on the road test does not prove that you're a good driver, just that you understand the minimum of how to actually drive a car and the rules of the road.

I feel we will come full circle with testing. SOLs or common core tests were put in place to make sure that students of all schools, poor or not receive the same education and that teachers are actually teaching a set forth curriculum.

The TJ test is no different. It is a minimum bar.

NP: I think tests are important but the TJ test is not a minimum bar. If students needed to achieve a minimum score on the test to be considered for admissions your analogy would work. That may be the solution for TJ and the SATs for college admissions. What is the minimum score to succeed (B avg?) at TJ? What is the minimum SAT score for Ivies, top 30, flagship state school, etc.?

By this logic if I can catch a football and run 50 yards I should be eligible to be selected for the varsity football team. Shouldn’t matter that someone else can do it better than I can! As long as we both meet that “minimum requirement” then I deserve a slot on the team same as the guy who has “prepped” by playing in peewee league or who can throw a spiral with 90% accuracy.
Why are we pretending that every candidate has academic talent/ability that is equivalent to every other candidate who meets an arbitrary minimum? We don’t do that in sports? Why do that in academics?

I was responding to the OP, maybe you, that used pilots and driving as examples. The tests for those examples are minimum standards. The TJ test is not a "minimum bar" as stated in the original posts because the goal is to get the highest score for admittance.

The goal of professional sports is to win with the best players. That is not the goal of education in general or most professions. My friend, who is an excellent doctor and went to a top 5 medical school and was top of his class still acknowledges that his cohort that graduated from medical school at the bottom of the class are still doctors. Now I admit that I would want to see the best doctor if I were sick but our educational system, at least in the US, is not based on the highest scores or most talented, like sports, music, etc.

I think there should be a test but no fee. I just think the analogy used above is weak and also doesn't acknowledge the reality of the US education system and the values/beliefs that it is based on.

The U.S. value system used to be merit based - valedictorian, awards, college admissions, etc. The achievement gap in education is what led to the phenomena that makes you think the analogy is weak. The TJ admissions test had a minimum score, it wasn't the highest 900 scores that moved on to the semi-final round. It's just the 1/3 of test takers that moved on had very few URM that caused the problems. Lowering the bar to move on is one thing, but getting rid of the bar completely is another and the school will certainly reflect that decision is a few years as its ranking falls off a cliff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh, some states don’t even require law school.

FWIW, I’m an attorney. Law school did not teach me how to actually practice law. I had no classes in client consultations, deposition prep, depositions, mother drafting, drafting and reviewing discovery, preparing settlement agreements or retainers, etc.

I assure you that going to law school does not assure competence. It assures a standard amount of basic general legal knowledge but really nothing more than that.

But you still have to pass the bar.

Not sure how that answers the competency question, but yes. A new lawyer has had zero training in the actual practice of law.

It's a minimum. You should be able to meet some standard. Should airline pilots have to show they can fly a plane or not? As someone mentioned, should we eliminate the driving test? A passing score on the road test does not prove that you're a good driver, just that you understand the minimum of how to actually drive a car and the rules of the road.

I feel we will come full circle with testing. SOLs or common core tests were put in place to make sure that students of all schools, poor or not receive the same education and that teachers are actually teaching a set forth curriculum.

The TJ test is no different. It is a minimum bar.

NP: I think tests are important but the TJ test is not a minimum bar. If students needed to achieve a minimum score on the test to be considered for admissions your analogy would work. That may be the solution for TJ and the SATs for college admissions. What is the minimum score to succeed (B avg?) at TJ? What is the minimum SAT score for Ivies, top 30, flagship state school, etc.?

By this logic if I can catch a football and run 50 yards I should be eligible to be selected for the varsity football team. Shouldn’t matter that someone else can do it better than I can! As long as we both meet that “minimum requirement” then I deserve a slot on the team same as the guy who has “prepped” by playing in peewee league or who can throw a spiral with 90% accuracy.
Why are we pretending that every candidate has academic talent/ability that is equivalent to every other candidate who meets an arbitrary minimum? We don’t do that in sports? Why do that in academics?

I was responding to the OP, maybe you, that used pilots and driving as examples. The tests for those examples are minimum standards. The TJ test is not a "minimum bar" as stated in the original posts because the goal is to get the highest score for admittance.

The goal of professional sports is to win with the best players. That is not the goal of education in general or most professions. My friend, who is an excellent doctor and went to a top 5 medical school and was top of his class still acknowledges that his cohort that graduated from medical school at the bottom of the class are still doctors. Now I admit that I would want to see the best doctor if I were sick but our educational system, at least in the US, is not based on the highest scores or most talented, like sports, music, etc.

I think there should be a test but no fee. I just think the analogy used above is weak and also doesn't acknowledge the reality of the US education system and the values/beliefs that it is based on.

The U.S. value system used to be merit based - valedictorian, awards, college admissions, etc. The achievement gap in education is what led to the phenomena that makes you think the analogy is weak. The TJ admissions test had a minimum score, it wasn't the highest 900 scores that moved on to the semi-final round. It's just the 1/3 of test takers that moved on had very few URM that caused the problems. Lowering the bar to move on is one thing, but getting rid of the bar completely is another and the school will certainly reflect that decision is a few years as its ranking falls off a cliff.

No, the US education system was not historically based on merit, especially at the college level. The historic of K-12 education is about educating the masses for the public good, not merit. Have you heard of a gentleman's C? Admissions at college only recently in US history was about merit and we still have issues such as legacy and donations that circumvent merit. I agree that it should be. Although US culture is based on the value of individual merit and hard work (boot straps) our society is full of contradictions as we also value wealth and privilege and innate "talent." Hence the argument against prepping for a magnet program but arguing it is okay or the different for the SATs for college.

And yes, you are correct that there is a minimum score to move on in the TJ process, but we also need to be honest that earning the highest score is the ultimate goal in being admitted. I'm not advocating for lowering the bar by eliminating the test. I am pointing out the issues with your argument and how framing an argument for testing needs to be based in the realities of the US education system. Using sports and other examples outside of education are straw man fallacies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yep you can no longer over prep your kid for the TJ test. Good move FCPS

Should law school remove test since people can prep for it? Should medical school remove test since people can prep for it? Let's all switch to the lottery system!

You sound ignorant. Do you know anyone who has taken the LSAT or MCAT?

Does that matter if I know anyone who has take the LSAT or MCAT? You simply can not justify yourself. So don't try to switch the topic!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's get rid of driving tests while we are at it.

I definitely agree with this one!

+100”

Agree. Privileged people pay for driving schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's get rid of driving tests while we are at it.

I definitely agree with this one!

+100”

Agree. Privileged people pay for driving schools.

Close the driving school prep centers!!