If TJ has such smart kids, why so much cheating?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All fcps students have access to the public libraries and public basketball courts? Based on their means and personal interest, they enroll in paid enrichment centers and paid sports leagues to take it further?

Selection was limited to a few wealthy feeders where parents could afford outside enrichment that included access to many questions used on the test. It was a problem. The new process is more inclusive since it gives all FC residents equal access.

+1

[Anonymous]

There are at least 160+ students who struggle with Cs and Ds. Remedial is now formalized, and upfront from the beginning of freshman. To satisfy whose need are they deliberately admitting remedial bound students?

[Anonymous]

Why do so many people conflate merit with standardized test scores, and remedial with anything short of having taken Geometry in 8th?

[Anonymous]

Remedial in freshmen third month? Remedial is not merit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do so many people conflate merit with standardized test scores, and remedial with anything short of having taken Geometry in 8th?

It makes much more sense than conflating merit with ability to write fluff personal essays. Some recent studies showed that SAT score is a much stronger predictor of college success than high school GPA.

In FCPS, geometry in 8th is not a high bar. Every kid is given the tools they would need to access Geometry in 8th. Any kid vaguely close to being gifted in math should have no problem with being allowed to take Algebra in 7th. Why should TJ take kids who are at best somewhat above average in math? At the very least, those kids should be the exception and not the rule.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do so many people conflate merit with standardized test scores, and remedial with anything short of having taken Geometry in 8th?

It makes much more sense than conflating merit with ability to write fluff personal essays. Some recent studies showed that SAT score is a much stronger predictor of college success than high school GPA.

In FCPS, geometry in 8th is not a high bar. Every kid is given the tools they would need to access Geometry in 8th. Any kid vaguely close to being gifted in math should have no problem with being allowed to take Algebra in 7th. Why should TJ take kids who are at best somewhat above average in math? At the very least, those kids should be the exception and not the rule.

Or conflating merit with memorizing test answers...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do so many people conflate merit with standardized test scores, and remedial with anything short of having taken Geometry in 8th?

Because standardized test scores like the SHSAT predict academic outcomes more consistently and more accurately than GPA, essays or teacher recommendations.
Remedial isn't anything less than algebra 1. Remedial is having kids take algebra 1 over again because their "A" in algebra doesn't reflect their actual proficiency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do so many people conflate merit with standardized test scores, and remedial with anything short of having taken Geometry in 8th?

It makes much more sense than conflating merit with ability to write fluff personal essays. Some recent studies showed that SAT score is a much stronger predictor of college success than high school GPA.

In FCPS, geometry in 8th is not a high bar. Every kid is given the tools they would need to access Geometry in 8th. Any kid vaguely close to being gifted in math should have no problem with being allowed to take Algebra in 7th. Why should TJ take kids who are at best somewhat above average in math? At the very least, those kids should be the exception and not the rule.

It would be easier just to use a standardized test like most competitive college is returning to after their dalliance with test optional admissions led to subpar students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do so many people conflate merit with standardized test scores, and remedial with anything short of having taken Geometry in 8th?

Because standardized test scores like the SHSAT predict academic outcomes more consistently and more accurately than GPA, essays or teacher recommendations.

I've seen studies that argue standardized test scores are a more reliable indicator, and others (more) that indicate GPA is stronger. What seems obvious is that all of these things (standardized test scores, GPAs, essay, teacher recs, etc.) can be indicators of merit, and each measure has strengths and weaknesses, such that none should none of them should really be used as the one-and-only measure of "merit". Personally I do wish that standardized test scores were still one component of the evaluation process, but it seems more than a bit disingenuous, or perhaps more innocuously just misguided, to equate that one measure alone with the broader concept of "merit".

Remedial isn't anything less than algebra 1. Remedial is having kids take algebra 1 over again because their "A" in algebra doesn't reflect their actual proficiency.

I see, and do we have data on how many students had to re-take Algebra in 9th at TJ this past year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do so many people conflate merit with standardized test scores, and remedial with anything short of having taken Geometry in 8th?

It makes much more sense than conflating merit with ability to write fluff personal essays. Some recent studies showed that SAT score is a much stronger predictor of college success than high school GPA.

In FCPS, geometry in 8th is not a high bar. Every kid is given the tools they would need to access Geometry in 8th. Any kid vaguely close to being gifted in math should have no problem with being allowed to take Algebra in 7th. Why should TJ take kids who are at best somewhat above average in math? At the very least, those kids should be the exception and not the rule.

Or conflating merit with memorizing test answers...

Not sure why some people still insist that buying an advantage equates to merit. The definitive post on the subject had the following items:

4. TJ STUDENTS ACKNOWLEDGED UNFAIR ADVANTAGE
TH students and others have acknowledged the unfair advantage that money can buy.

https://www.tjtoday.org/29411/features/studen...-admissions-process/
“ “Personally, TJ admissions was not a challenge to navigate. I had a sibling who attended before me. However, a lot of resources needed to navigate admissions cost money. That is an unfair advantage given to more economically advantaged students,” junior Vivi Rao said. ”



5. TJ STUDENTS ADMIT SHARING QUANT-Q QUESTIONS
TJ students admitted both on DCUM and on Facebook, anonymously and with real name, that they shared quant-q test questions with a test prep company or they saw nearly identical questions on the test.
https://www.facebook.com/tjvents
Thread started July 11, 2020

I have screenshots but won’t share because they have student names on them.

https://www.tjtoday.org/23143/showcase/the-children-left-behind/
“ Families with more money can afford to give children that extra edge by signing them up for whatever prep classes they can find. They can pay money to tutoring organizations to teach their children test-taking skills, “skills learned outside of school,” and to access a cache of previous and example prompts, as I witnessed when I took TJ prep; even if prompts become outdated by test changes, even access to old prompts enables private tutoring pupils to gain an upper edge over others: pupils become accustomed to the format of the writing sections and gain an approximate idea of what to expect.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do so many people conflate merit with standardized test scores, and remedial with anything short of having taken Geometry in 8th?

It makes much more sense than conflating merit with ability to write fluff personal essays. Some recent studies showed that SAT score is a much stronger predictor of college success than high school GPA.

In FCPS, geometry in 8th is not a high bar. Every kid is given the tools they would need to access Geometry in 8th. Any kid vaguely close to being gifted in math should have no problem with being allowed to take Algebra in 7th. Why should TJ take kids who are at best somewhat above average in math? At the very least, those kids should be the exception and not the rule.

Or conflating merit with memorizing test answers...

Not sure why some people still insist that buying an advantage equates to merit. The definitive post on the subject had the following items:

4. TJ STUDENTS ACKNOWLEDGED UNFAIR ADVANTAGE
TH students and others have acknowledged the unfair advantage that money can buy.

https://www.tjtoday.org/29411/features/studen...-admissions-process/
“ “Personally, TJ admissions was not a challenge to navigate. I had a sibling who attended before me. However, a lot of resources needed to navigate admissions cost money. That is an unfair advantage given to more economically advantaged students,” junior Vivi Rao said. ”



5. TJ STUDENTS ADMIT SHARING QUANT-Q QUESTIONS
TJ students admitted both on DCUM and on Facebook, anonymously and with real name, that they shared quant-q test questions with a test prep company or they saw nearly identical questions on the test.
https://www.facebook.com/tjvents
Thread started July 11, 2020

I have screenshots but won’t share because they have student names on them.

https://www.tjtoday.org/23143/showcase/the-children-left-behind/
“ Families with more money can afford to give children that extra edge by signing them up for whatever prep classes they can find. They can pay money to tutoring organizations to teach their children test-taking skills, “skills learned outside of school,” and to access a cache of previous and example prompts, as I witnessed when I took TJ prep; even if prompts become outdated by test changes, even access to old prompts enables private tutoring pupils to gain an upper edge over others: pupils become accustomed to the format of the writing sections and gain an approximate idea of what to expect.”

Why do you think that a merit-based system only admits those who "memorize test answers"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I've seen studies that argue standardized test scores are a more reliable indicator, and others (more) that indicate GPA is stronger. What seems obvious is that all of these things (standardized test scores, GPAs, essay, teacher recs, etc.) can be indicators of merit, and each measure has strengths and weaknesses, such that none should none of them should really be used as the one-and-only measure of "merit". Personally I do wish that standardized test scores were still one component of the evaluation process, but it seems more than a bit disingenuous, or perhaps more innocuously just misguided, to equate that one measure alone with the broader concept of "merit".

Nobody is arguing for any indicator to be a one-and-only. A true holistic evaluation should take in a lot of inputs. Test scores, GPA, courses taken, math level, teacher recommendations, essays, and significant achievements all belong in a holistic evaluation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I've seen studies that argue standardized test scores are a more reliable indicator, and others (more) that indicate GPA is stronger. What seems obvious is that all of these things (standardized test scores, GPAs, essay, teacher recs, etc.) can be indicators of merit, and each measure has strengths and weaknesses, such that none should none of them should really be used as the one-and-only measure of "merit". Personally I do wish that standardized test scores were still one component of the evaluation process, but it seems more than a bit disingenuous, or perhaps more innocuously just misguided, to equate that one measure alone with the broader concept of "merit".

Nobody is arguing for any indicator to be a one-and-only. A true holistic evaluation should take in a lot of inputs. Test scores, GPA, courses taken, math level, teacher recommendations, essays, and significant achievements all belong in a holistic evaluation.

Base ES and personal experience factors as well, I'm sure there are other things we could think of for a holistic evaluation, many of which are currently included in the current process. But the outcry is that one factor has been eliminated (standardized test score) on the basis that this removes "merit" from the process. In the eyes of most who use that phrase, standardized tests are 1:1 with the concept of merit, which is obviously false on the face of it.

And when you DO include standardized tests, myriad parents start complaining when a kid with a lower score got in over their kid, blasting every other measure as subjective and/or biased, but having full blinders on when it comes to the similar limitations and bias of standardized tests. I don't know what the right answer is, but I do know that it's not as cut-and-dry obvious as many seem to want to oversimplify it down to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I've seen studies that argue standardized test scores are a more reliable indicator, and others (more) that indicate GPA is stronger. What seems obvious is that all of these things (standardized test scores, GPAs, essay, teacher recs, etc.) can be indicators of merit, and each measure has strengths and weaknesses, such that none should none of them should really be used as the one-and-only measure of "merit". Personally I do wish that standardized test scores were still one component of the evaluation process, but it seems more than a bit disingenuous, or perhaps more innocuously just misguided, to equate that one measure alone with the broader concept of "merit".

Nobody is arguing for any indicator to be a one-and-only. A true holistic evaluation should take in a lot of inputs. Test scores, GPA, courses taken, math level, teacher recommendations, essays, and significant achievements all belong in a holistic evaluation.

Base ES and personal experience factors as well, I'm sure there are other things we could think of for a holistic evaluation, many of which are currently included in the current process. But the outcry is that one factor has been eliminated (standardized test score) on the basis that this removes "merit" from the process. In the eyes of most who use that phrase, standardized tests are 1:1 with the concept of merit, which is obviously false on the face of it.

And when you DO include standardized tests, myriad parents start complaining when a kid with a lower score got in over their kid, blasting every other measure as subjective and/or biased, but having full blinders on when it comes to the similar limitations and bias of standardized tests. I don't know what the right answer is, but I do know that it's not as cut-and-dry obvious as many seem to want to oversimplify it down to.

I know what you mean. I wish they'd include more criteria that can be gamed through outside prep like the good old days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I've seen studies that argue standardized test scores are a more reliable indicator, and others (more) that indicate GPA is stronger. What seems obvious is that all of these things (standardized test scores, GPAs, essay, teacher recs, etc.) can be indicators of merit, and each measure has strengths and weaknesses, such that none should none of them should really be used as the one-and-only measure of "merit". Personally I do wish that standardized test scores were still one component of the evaluation process, but it seems more than a bit disingenuous, or perhaps more innocuously just misguided, to equate that one measure alone with the broader concept of "merit".

Nobody is arguing for any indicator to be a one-and-only. A true holistic evaluation should take in a lot of inputs. Test scores, GPA, courses taken, math level, teacher recommendations, essays, and significant achievements all belong in a holistic evaluation.

Base ES and personal experience factors as well, I'm sure there are other things we could think of for a holistic evaluation, many of which are currently included in the current process. But the outcry is that one factor has been eliminated (standardized test score) on the basis that this removes "merit" from the process. In the eyes of most who use that phrase, standardized tests are 1:1 with the concept of merit, which is obviously false on the face of it.

And when you DO include standardized tests, myriad parents start complaining when a kid with a lower score got in over their kid, blasting every other measure as subjective and/or biased, but having full blinders on when it comes to the similar limitations and bias of standardized tests. I don't know what the right answer is, but I do know that it's not as cut-and-dry obvious as many seem to want to oversimplify it down to.

What do you imagine is included in the current process? Math level isn't. Rigor of courses isn't. Standardized test scores aren't. SOL scores aren't. Achievements aren't. Teacher recommendations aren't. There honestly isn't much left in the application, which is why people think the process is no longer based on merit.

The only things included are GPA, which isn't counted heavily and is pretty meaningless when grades are so absurdly inflated, experience factors, a super trivial math problem solving essay, and a few fluff portrait of a graduate mini essays.