TJ admissions results out?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wealthy families spreading out is a good thing.

Renting for 2 years is not spreading out.

For those two years they are engaged with that middle school community. No downside here.

The downside is that the goal of racial diversity is thrown by the wayside.

The mantra will be that we are ok with 70% Asians now as long as they come from different middle schools. Any faux metric to declare success - be it low-income or anything else. What you get with politicians running the school board

If they lock down on families cheating on the application and therefore are able to get geographical and economic diversity I call that a step in the right direction.

Correction

If they are competent enough to frame questions that are not open to interpretation then they might get somewhere. Perhaps they were not incompetent but conniving. They knew that the ambiguous FARMS question will help them get the press release they needed.

Ps: nobody cheated - they responded to questions after checking with FCPS.

Knowingly misrepresenting your family is unethical. Cheating.

Agreed. But that was not the case here. The question was answered literally as requested. Some with doubt checked with Admissions and we’re told it was ok to answer literally.

And before you jump to pointing a finger at me and my family. Don’t go there. If I benefited from these shenanigans I would like to bury the issue and not take it up for scrutiny.

That was absolutely the case here.

Why did some even bother to ask the admissions office? Because we all know it’s wrong.

Misrepresenting your family’s income = cheating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wealthy families spreading out is a good thing.

Renting for 2 years is not spreading out.

For those two years they are engaged with that middle school community. No downside here.

The downside is that the goal of racial diversity is thrown by the wayside.

The mantra will be that we are ok with 70% Asians now as long as they come from different middle schools. Any faux metric to declare success - be it low-income or anything else. What you get with politicians running the school board

If they lock down on families cheating on the application and therefore are able to get geographical and economic diversity I call that a step in the right direction.

Correction

If they are competent enough to frame questions that are not open to interpretation then they might get somewhere. Perhaps they were not incompetent but conniving. They knew that the ambiguous FARMS question will help them get the press release they needed.

Ps: nobody cheated - they responded to questions after checking with FCPS.

Knowingly misrepresenting your family is unethical. Cheating.

Agreed. But that was not the case here. The question was answered literally as requested. Some with doubt checked with Admissions and we’re told it was ok to answer literally.

And before you jump to pointing a finger at me and my family. Don’t go there. If I benefited from these shenanigans I would like to bury the issue and not take it up for scrutiny.

That was absolutely the case here.

Why did some even bother to ask the admissions office? Because we all know it’s wrong.

Misrepresenting your family’s income = cheating.

The question was not about somebody’s family income. It was about their eligibility for FARMS which during the pandemic was a yes for everyone. So you can let this rest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wealthy families spreading out is a good thing.

Renting for 2 years is not spreading out.

For those two years they are engaged with that middle school community. No downside here.

The downside is that the goal of racial diversity is thrown by the wayside.

The mantra will be that we are ok with 70% Asians now as long as they come from different middle schools. Any faux metric to declare success - be it low-income or anything else. What you get with politicians running the school board

If they lock down on families cheating on the application and therefore are able to get geographical and economic diversity I call that a step in the right direction.

Correction

If they are competent enough to frame questions that are not open to interpretation then they might get somewhere. Perhaps they were not incompetent but conniving. They knew that the ambiguous FARMS question will help them get the press release they needed.

Ps: nobody cheated - they responded to questions after checking with FCPS.

Knowingly misrepresenting your family is unethical. Cheating.

Agreed. But that was not the case here. The question was answered literally as requested. Some with doubt checked with Admissions and we’re told it was ok to answer literally.

And before you jump to pointing a finger at me and my family. Don’t go there. If I benefited from these shenanigans I would like to bury the issue and not take it up for scrutiny.

That was absolutely the case here.

Why did some even bother to ask the admissions office? Because we all know it’s wrong.

Misrepresenting your family’s income = cheating.

The question was not about somebody’s family income. It was about their eligibility for FARMS which during the pandemic was a yes for everyone. So you can let this rest.

But then again it wouldn't really matter if they did misreperent it since they already have that information.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wealthy families spreading out is a good thing.

Renting for 2 years is not spreading out.

For those two years they are engaged with that middle school community. No downside here.

The downside is that the goal of racial diversity is thrown by the wayside.

The mantra will be that we are ok with 70% Asians now as long as they come from different middle schools. Any faux metric to declare success - be it low-income or anything else. What you get with politicians running the school board

If they lock down on families cheating on the application and therefore are able to get geographical and economic diversity I call that a step in the right direction.

Correction

If they are competent enough to frame questions that are not open to interpretation then they might get somewhere. Perhaps they were not incompetent but conniving. They knew that the ambiguous FARMS question will help them get the press release they needed.

Ps: nobody cheated - they responded to questions after checking with FCPS.

Knowingly misrepresenting your family is unethical. Cheating.

Agreed. But that was not the case here. The question was answered literally as requested. Some with doubt checked with Admissions and we’re told it was ok to answer literally.

And before you jump to pointing a finger at me and my family. Don’t go there. If I benefited from these shenanigans I would like to bury the issue and not take it up for scrutiny.

That was absolutely the case here.

Why did some even bother to ask the admissions office? Because we all know it’s wrong.

Misrepresenting your family’s income = cheating.

The question was not about somebody’s family income. It was about their eligibility for FARMS which during the pandemic was a yes for everyone. So you can let this rest.

But then again it wouldn't really matter if they did misreperent it since they already have that information.

I heard they only added to help identify and eliminate the toxic applicants who will do anything to game admissions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wealthy families spreading out is a good thing.

Renting for 2 years is not spreading out.

For those two years they are engaged with that middle school community. No downside here.

The downside is that the goal of racial diversity is thrown by the wayside.

The mantra will be that we are ok with 70% Asians now as long as they come from different middle schools. Any faux metric to declare success - be it low-income or anything else. What you get with politicians running the school board

If they lock down on families cheating on the application and therefore are able to get geographical and economic diversity I call that a step in the right direction.

Correction

If they are competent enough to frame questions that are not open to interpretation then they might get somewhere. Perhaps they were not incompetent but conniving. They knew that the ambiguous FARMS question will help them get the press release they needed.

Ps: nobody cheated - they responded to questions after checking with FCPS.

Knowingly misrepresenting your family is unethical. Cheating.

Agreed. But that was not the case here. The question was answered literally as requested. Some with doubt checked with Admissions and we’re told it was ok to answer literally.

And before you jump to pointing a finger at me and my family. Don’t go there. If I benefited from these shenanigans I would like to bury the issue and not take it up for scrutiny.

That was absolutely the case here.

Why did some even bother to ask the admissions office? Because we all know it’s wrong.

Misrepresenting your family’s income = cheating.

The question was not about somebody’s family income. It was about their eligibility for FARMS which during the pandemic was a yes for everyone. So you can let this rest.

But then again it wouldn't really matter if they did misreperent it since they already have that information.

Nice try.

Don’t forget to take your meds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wealthy families spreading out is a good thing.

Renting for 2 years is not spreading out.

For those two years they are engaged with that middle school community. No downside here.

The downside is that the goal of racial diversity is thrown by the wayside.

The mantra will be that we are ok with 70% Asians now as long as they come from different middle schools. Any faux metric to declare success - be it low-income or anything else. What you get with politicians running the school board

If they lock down on families cheating on the application and therefore are able to get geographical and economic diversity I call that a step in the right direction.

Correction

If they are competent enough to frame questions that are not open to interpretation then they might get somewhere. Perhaps they were not incompetent but conniving. They knew that the ambiguous FARMS question will help them get the press release they needed.

Ps: nobody cheated - they responded to questions after checking with FCPS.

Knowingly misrepresenting your family is unethical. Cheating.

Agreed. But that was not the case here. The question was answered literally as requested. Some with doubt checked with Admissions and we’re told it was ok to answer literally.

And before you jump to pointing a finger at me and my family. Don’t go there. If I benefited from these shenanigans I would like to bury the issue and not take it up for scrutiny.

That was absolutely the case here.

Why did some even bother to ask the admissions office? Because we all know it’s wrong.

Misrepresenting your family’s income = cheating.

The question was not about somebody’s family income. It was about their eligibility for FARMS which during the pandemic was a yes for everyone. So you can let this rest.

But then again it wouldn't really matter if they did misreperent it since they already have that information.

Nice try.

Don’t forget to take your meds.

Ignore this troll. She is earning her keep from her paymasters by keeping alive the false narrative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wealthy families spreading out is a good thing.

Renting for 2 years is not spreading out.

For those two years they are engaged with that middle school community. No downside here.

The downside is that the goal of racial diversity is thrown by the wayside.

The mantra will be that we are ok with 70% Asians now as long as they come from different middle schools. Any faux metric to declare success - be it low-income or anything else. What you get with politicians running the school board

If they lock down on families cheating on the application and therefore are able to get geographical and economic diversity I call that a step in the right direction.

Correction

If they are competent enough to frame questions that are not open to interpretation then they might get somewhere. Perhaps they were not incompetent but conniving. They knew that the ambiguous FARMS question will help them get the press release they needed.

Ps: nobody cheated - they responded to questions after checking with FCPS.

Knowingly misrepresenting your family is unethical. Cheating.

Agreed. But that was not the case here. The question was answered literally as requested. Some with doubt checked with Admissions and we’re told it was ok to answer literally.

And before you jump to pointing a finger at me and my family. Don’t go there. If I benefited from these shenanigans I would like to bury the issue and not take it up for scrutiny.

That was absolutely the case here.

Why did some even bother to ask the admissions office? Because we all know it’s wrong.

Misrepresenting your family’s income = cheating.

The question was not about somebody’s family income. It was about their eligibility for FARMS which during the pandemic was a yes for everyone. So you can let this rest.

Right. It represented family income.

We all knew what it meant. Don’t play obtuse now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wealthy families spreading out is a good thing.

Renting for 2 years is not spreading out.

For those two years they are engaged with that middle school community. No downside here.

The downside is that the goal of racial diversity is thrown by the wayside.

The mantra will be that we are ok with 70% Asians now as long as they come from different middle schools. Any faux metric to declare success - be it low-income or anything else. What you get with politicians running the school board

If they lock down on families cheating on the application and therefore are able to get geographical and economic diversity I call that a step in the right direction.

Correction

If they are competent enough to frame questions that are not open to interpretation then they might get somewhere. Perhaps they were not incompetent but conniving. They knew that the ambiguous FARMS question will help them get the press release they needed.

Ps: nobody cheated - they responded to questions after checking with FCPS.

Knowingly misrepresenting your family is unethical. Cheating.

Agreed. But that was not the case here. The question was answered literally as requested. Some with doubt checked with Admissions and we’re told it was ok to answer literally.

And before you jump to pointing a finger at me and my family. Don’t go there. If I benefited from these shenanigans I would like to bury the issue and not take it up for scrutiny.

That was absolutely the case here.

Why did some even bother to ask the admissions office? Because we all know it’s wrong.

Misrepresenting your family’s income = cheating.

The question was not about somebody’s family income. It was about their eligibility for FARMS which during the pandemic was a yes for everyone. So you can let this rest.

But then again it wouldn't really matter if they did misreperent it since they already have that information.

I heard they only added to help identify and eliminate the toxic applicants who will do anything to game admissions.

Haha. Seems like the people looking to game the system would say yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:1. They may have 2019 and earlier info for FCPS families, but they wouldn't have that data for APS, LCPS, or other non-FCPS families. If every single kid who attends a prep center were instructed to check 'yes' to those questions, then they're counting 90-100 UMC LCPS kids as low income. FCPS doesn't care, though, as long as they can get a good press release.

2. They didn't collect income data during the pandemic, since families previously above the income cutoff may have had a loss of income or a loss of jobs from the pandemic. This unfortunately makes a very large, exploitable loophole for UMC families. Undoubtedly, the free meals question allowed some portion of mediocre, higher SES kids to leapfrog the highly gifted ones at the "TJ Feeder" Centers. If every applicant has nearly a 4.0 and decent essays, the free points for checking the ED boxes would make a huge difference.

3. There surely are some low income kids who are well qualified for TJ. The kids who are well qualified for TJ don't need a substantial number of bonus points allocated to them, especially since every MS has a 1.5% allocation. Giving them the extra points is akin to saying that they aren't qualified enough to be picked on their own merits.

This 👆

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hannah Natanson needs to start reading DCUM

+1
She is a very shallow reporter. To simply parrot the 33% low income figure - which is entirely unbelievable - without any mention of the fact that the question for that highly likely resulted in many non-low income kids replying yes to it - is the best example.

Is anyone actually going to offer any evidence to support this claim?

What do you mean? There is no evidence that could be provided given how FCPS designed this parameter.
They did not require families to show any income info to qualify for the low income category (which got plus points in the application process).
They did not square those replying yes to the free meals question against prior FCPS FARMS status records to try to help confirm anything.
The question was one that anyone could have truthfully (if not entirely honestly in spirit) answered yes to as all families this year were eligible for free meals and many did eat free meals at least some of the time.

Given the reality of FCPS testing data for FARMS it defies belief to think that 1/3 of the class is actually low income. I would happily bet a ton of money on that being false. When free meals for all are gone and FCPS has to resume checking eligibility again this number will plummet like a rock. There will still be some kids but absolutely zero chance it will be 1/3 of the class.

I find it mind boggling that a reporter could parrot this figure without noting it is self reported and based on replies to the “are you eligible for free lunch during a year when all students are eligible for it?” question.

My understanding was they only asked this for private school students whose info they didn't already have.

My child attends an FCPS middle school and applied this year. Here are the two questions that his TJ Application asked:

1. Are you eligible for free meals?
2. Are you currently receiving free meals?

I contacted the TJ Admissions office and they said that they were aware of the issue and that parents could say Yes to Question #1. If your child was actually eating the free meals, they could say yes to #2.

It did not make any sense at the time and it still does not make sense.

Exactly!
As to knowing FCPS did not verify it…at some point someone will spend the money on a FOIA to get that. I have not. But again, I’d be willing to bet my house that they did not verify actual low income status simply because the 33% low income is so ludicrously high.

It’s highly unlikely that a lot of parents misrepresented their incomes on the application. Very unethical.

Agreed.

But FCPS did not ask for income. It asked the 2 FARMS questions and all county residents would be totally ethical in saying yes to question #1; and many could have said yes to #2.

No. Everyone understands what the question represents. It’s unethical to answer yes if you aren’t low-income.

We checked no for both because we aren’t low-income.

Was your child admitted? If no, do you wish that you had checked yes now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hannah Natanson needs to start reading DCUM

+1
She is a very shallow reporter. To simply parrot the 33% low income figure - which is entirely unbelievable - without any mention of the fact that the question for that highly likely resulted in many non-low income kids replying yes to it - is the best example.

Is anyone actually going to offer any evidence to support this claim?

What do you mean? There is no evidence that could be provided given how FCPS designed this parameter.
They did not require families to show any income info to qualify for the low income category (which got plus points in the application process).
They did not square those replying yes to the free meals question against prior FCPS FARMS status records to try to help confirm anything.
The question was one that anyone could have truthfully (if not entirely honestly in spirit) answered yes to as all families this year were eligible for free meals and many did eat free meals at least some of the time.

Given the reality of FCPS testing data for FARMS it defies belief to think that 1/3 of the class is actually low income. I would happily bet a ton of money on that being false. When free meals for all are gone and FCPS has to resume checking eligibility again this number will plummet like a rock. There will still be some kids but absolutely zero chance it will be 1/3 of the class.

I find it mind boggling that a reporter could parrot this figure without noting it is self reported and based on replies to the “are you eligible for free lunch during a year when all students are eligible for it?” question.

My understanding was they only asked this for private school students whose info they didn't already have.

My child attends an FCPS middle school and applied this year. Here are the two questions that his TJ Application asked:

1. Are you eligible for free meals?
2. Are you currently receiving free meals?

I contacted the TJ Admissions office and they said that they were aware of the issue and that parents could say Yes to Question #1. If your child was actually eating the free meals, they could say yes to #2.

It did not make any sense at the time and it still does not make sense.

Exactly!
As to knowing FCPS did not verify it…at some point someone will spend the money on a FOIA to get that. I have not. But again, I’d be willing to bet my house that they did not verify actual low income status simply because the 33% low income is so ludicrously high.

It’s highly unlikely that a lot of parents misrepresented their incomes on the application. Very unethical.

Agreed.

But FCPS did not ask for income. It asked the 2 FARMS questions and all county residents would be totally ethical in saying yes to question #1; and many could have said yes to #2.

No. Everyone understands what the question represents. It’s unethical to answer yes if you aren’t low-income.

We checked no for both because we aren’t low-income.

Was your child admitted? If no, do you wish that you had checked yes now?

No. I wouldn’t check yes because it’s unethical.

Did your kid get in? Did you check yes?

[Anonymous]

Not previous poster, but I know someone who checked yes to both the questions after taking to school admission. Their kid didn’t get in. I am sure their kid had 4.0 gpa

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Asians are already creeping up in admission stats. 54% last year to 60% this year. They will be back to 70% in 2 years time as families spread out to maximize likelihood of securing admission. The whole premise of the reform to boost racial diversity will be under water. The only claim then will be the 1/3 (sic) of low-income students admitted.

Saturday Night Live had a skit about an Ebonics spelling bee. The winner was a Chinese girl.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hannah Natanson needs to start reading DCUM

+1
She is a very shallow reporter. To simply parrot the 33% low income figure - which is entirely unbelievable - without any mention of the fact that the question for that highly likely resulted in many non-low income kids replying yes to it - is the best example.

Is anyone actually going to offer any evidence to support this claim?

What do you mean? There is no evidence that could be provided given how FCPS designed this parameter.
They did not require families to show any income info to qualify for the low income category (which got plus points in the application process).
They did not square those replying yes to the free meals question against prior FCPS FARMS status records to try to help confirm anything.
The question was one that anyone could have truthfully (if not entirely honestly in spirit) answered yes to as all families this year were eligible for free meals and many did eat free meals at least some of the time.

Given the reality of FCPS testing data for FARMS it defies belief to think that 1/3 of the class is actually low income. I would happily bet a ton of money on that being false. When free meals for all are gone and FCPS has to resume checking eligibility again this number will plummet like a rock. There will still be some kids but absolutely zero chance it will be 1/3 of the class.

I find it mind boggling that a reporter could parrot this figure without noting it is self reported and based on replies to the “are you eligible for free lunch during a year when all students are eligible for it?” question.

My understanding was they only asked this for private school students whose info they didn't already have.

My child attends an FCPS middle school and applied this year. Here are the two questions that his TJ Application asked:

1. Are you eligible for free meals?
2. Are you currently receiving free meals?

I contacted the TJ Admissions office and they said that they were aware of the issue and that parents could say Yes to Question #1. If your child was actually eating the free meals, they could say yes to #2.

It did not make any sense at the time and it still does not make sense.

Exactly!
As to knowing FCPS did not verify it…at some point someone will spend the money on a FOIA to get that. I have not. But again, I’d be willing to bet my house that they did not verify actual low income status simply because the 33% low income is so ludicrously high.

I don't think it is ludicrously high. It could be they gave so many bonus points for it, that this cohort is just substantially more likely to get in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You really should have answered yes to at least #2

Not if you are an ethical person.

Why not? My son was eligible for free meals, and he had free lunch at school at least a few times this year.
By answering NO to the questions, he was lying.