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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Even for college admissions grades are the most important measure of merit.

[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.

This infatuation with "holistic" admissions is no better than an infatuation with a test driven system.
There are dozens of very effective educations systems in the world that rely almost exclusively on exam results.
There are some very good systems that use a holistic system.

We don't have to choose one to the exclusion of all others.
If you have one that is largely exam based and you don't like what you are getting, then just create another school that selects students a different way.
I suspect that over time we will see better results with systems that use more objective measures of merit unless the subjective measures of merit are really just measuring wealth and privilege.
And don't fool yourself, almost all subjective measures of merit are really just measures of wealth and privilege.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Is "gamed" another word for hard work and study?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Even for college admissions grades are the most important measure of merit.

This is clearly not true.

Between GPA and test scores, test scores are far more predictive than GPA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Even for college admissions grades are the most important measure of merit.

https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/SAT_ACT_on_Grades.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Even for college admissions grades are the most important measure of merit.

This is clearly not true.

Between GPA and test scores, test scores are far more predictive than GPA.

Lies! GPA carries the most weight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Is "gamed" another word for hard work and study?

If by work study you mean buying the test answers sure!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Even for college admissions grades are the most important measure of merit.

This is clearly not true.

Between GPA and test scores, test scores are far more predictive than GPA.

Lies! GPA carries the most weight.

On the one hand we've got Peer reviewed research from harvard, on the other hand we have internet racists.

[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.

This infatuation with "holistic" admissions is no better than an infatuation with a test driven system.
There are dozens of very effective educations systems in the world that rely almost exclusively on exam results.
There are some very good systems that use a holistic system.

We don't have to choose one to the exclusion of all others.
If you have one that is largely exam based and you don't like what you are getting, then just create another school that selects students a different way.
I suspect that over time we will see better results with systems that use more objective measures of merit unless the subjective measures of merit are really just measuring wealth and privilege.
And don't fool yourself, almost all subjective measures of merit are really just measures of wealth and privilege.

Maybe they can create a new school with a test that rich people can buy the answers to make you and the other C4TJ people happy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Even for college admissions grades are the most important measure of merit.

This is clearly not true.

Between GPA and test scores, test scores are far more predictive than GPA.

It's true that test scores are more predictive but it's also well known that colleges put more weight on GPA. Many don't even require SATs these days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Even for college admissions grades are the most important measure of merit.

This is clearly not true.

Between GPA and test scores, test scores are far more predictive than GPA.

It's true that test scores are more predictive but it's also well known that colleges put more weight on GPA. Many don't even require SATs these days.

Aren't most competitive colleges returning to requiring test scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Even for college admissions grades are the most important measure of merit.

This is clearly not true.

Between GPA and test scores, test scores are far more predictive than GPA.

It's true that test scores are more predictive but it's also well known that colleges put more weight on GPA. Many don't even require SATs these days.

How do you distinguish between a bunch of straight A students?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Even for college admissions grades are the most important measure of merit.

This is clearly not true.

Between GPA and test scores, test scores are far more predictive than GPA.

It's true that test scores are more predictive but it's also well known that colleges put more weight on GPA. Many don't even require SATs these days.

Aren't most competitive colleges returning to requiring test scores.

Some have but still carries less weight than GPA since that's based off many tests and involves far more objective merit just like TJ's new process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Even for college admissions grades are the most important measure of merit.

This is clearly not true.

Between GPA and test scores, test scores are far more predictive than GPA.

It's true that test scores are more predictive but it's also well known that colleges put more weight on GPA. Many don't even require SATs these days.

How do you distinguish between a bunch of straight A students?

This isn't especially difficult. Harvard does it annually.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Even for college admissions grades are the most important measure of merit.

This is clearly not true.

Between GPA and test scores, test scores are far more predictive than GPA.

It's true that test scores are more predictive but it's also well known that colleges put more weight on GPA. Many don't even require SATs these days.

Aren't most competitive colleges returning to requiring test scores.

Some have but still carries less weight than GPA since that's based off many tests and involves far more objective merit just like TJ's new process.

Harvard and a lot of other schools re-compute GPA and definitely give some level of credit for courseload. This is very different from TJ applications, where a kid taking Algebra I in 8th and gen ed level English is viewed as the same as a kid taking Pre-calc in 8th and Honors classes in all subjects. Both kids have straight As, but one is objectively better than the other in all processes except TJ admissions.