TJ Admin Test & Walls

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Walls vs TJ: Apples and Oranges

Walls was always diverse, including with the test. Dropping the test has done nothing to increase diversity...just swapped out less qualified white kids.

^^This. Walls has always courted students of color and understandably so even if they skew more affluent/UMC. Unlike Banneker Walls has virtually no economically disadvantaged students. The most qualified white students used to have a reasonable shot with the test over other white students. Now it's a total crapshoot.

From what I understand, Walls was majority black before the admission test was instituted. It's no crapshoot. Top GPAs and interview, plain and simple. You may not like it but it's pretty clear.

An interview is the MOST subjective way to evaluate 8th graders. And having kids who conducted the interview process, yes, it's a total crapshoot.

Add to that, a GPA coming out of certain middle schools is not equivalent to a GPA coming out of other middle schools (e.g. Jefferson vs. BASIS).

At least a test sets a certain universal academic standard that students must meet in order to gain admission.

Equating GPAs and schools is like comparing teachers-one harder than the other for the same subject. No way to fix that. We went thru the process as well as multiple private school interviews. There wasn't much difference besides the essay's required from privates. I do think testing should be a component but not the dominant one. The interview does help distinguish a kid that wants to attend vs parents that wants it for the kid. That's a complaint I've heard from a lot of educators. Kids even bomb things on purpose.

The test should be pass/fail. You pass, you advance. You fail, you do not advance. I would even be cool with a re-take option. But to have no objective standard is ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I didn't know there was a $100 application fee. That just seems weird and elitist for a public school. These kids are amazing.

They waived it when there was financial need. The Post has a narrative here, so they don't mention that.

Phew, this comment says a lot about you and your understanding of structural barriers.

Do you think if the issue had previously been that low-income kids were doing great on the test when they applied but, gosh, they just weren't applying in very high numbers that the the Post wouldn't mention that to you?

Low income kids cannot afford the test prep classes that Asian kids take.

Because no Asians are low-income?! What?!

There are low income Asians but it’s a different community with different challenges. There is also a culture of test prep that goes beyond anything I have ever seen in other cultures.

The Asians that are not low income got that way by an intense focus on education!

Agree but with one caveat, test prep isn’t education. The “intense focus” comes with a cost too. My experience as a college professor has lead me to identify that cheating is more acceptable in some groups than others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We live in a strange time when admissions processes are tinkered with solely to change the racial makeup of a school, and the people who call it out are called racist.

If you don’t want parents to say “this kid only got in because they wanted more blacks and fewer Asians ,” don’t change admission processes with that very outcome in mind.

The attempt to engineer the make up of the class at Walls didn’t even work. If the move back to race-blind standards, it will at least shut up the racists.

Mic drop.

If you think the previous process was race blind you can pick that mic back up and explain how you rationalize that

Because PP buys into the myth of a meritocracy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Walls vs TJ: Apples and Oranges

Walls was always diverse, including with the test. Dropping the test has done nothing to increase diversity...just swapped out less qualified white kids.

^^This. Walls has always courted students of color and understandably so even if they skew more affluent/UMC. Unlike Banneker Walls has virtually no economically disadvantaged students. The most qualified white students used to have a reasonable shot with the test over other white students. Now it's a total crapshoot.

From what I understand, Walls was majority black before the admission test was instituted. It's no crapshoot. Top GPAs and interview, plain and simple. You may not like it but it's pretty clear.

An interview is the MOST subjective way to evaluate 8th graders. And having kids who conducted the interview process, yes, it's a total crapshoot.

Add to that, a GPA coming out of certain middle schools is not equivalent to a GPA coming out of other middle schools (e.g. Jefferson vs. BASIS).

At least a test sets a certain universal academic standard that students must meet in order to gain admission.

Equating GPAs and schools is like comparing teachers-one harder than the other for the same subject. No way to fix that. We went thru the process as well as multiple private school interviews. There wasn't much difference besides the essay's required from privates. I do think testing should be a component but not the dominant one. The interview does help distinguish a kid that wants to attend vs parents that wants it for the kid. That's a complaint I've heard from a lot of educators. Kids even bomb things on purpose.

Every college in America has fixed this. They know what a grade means from one school vs another. It is the reason that maybe 1 or 2 kids in most high schools gain admission to an Ivy and 15 might from an elite prep school or an elite application HS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If you think the previous process was race blind you can pick that mic back up and explain how you rationalize that

In a sense it was race blind, or at least it wasn't created, by design, to boost particular asian enrollment. Strangely enough (or not), white kids are underrepresented relatively to the population as a whole at TJ. You'd have to be delusional to think the previous admission process was created to boost asian kids at the expense of white (and black/latino) kids. The new process is specifically designed to boost enrollment of black and hispanic kids. The massive overrepresentation of asian kids at magnet schools is not local phenomena, the same is true at magnet schools around the country. Stuyvesant, for example, is 72% asian. Whether thats actually a problem or not is a matter of opinion, but it's factually incorrect to believe the previous process was designed to boost asian kids in the way the new process is intended to boost black and hispanic enrollment.

People always figure out how to game a system. And then you need to try to address however it's being gamed. Of course, those who have figured out how to game it are going to be upset when the rules then change. So instead of seeing the new process as a way to just boost black and hispanic enrollment, why not see it as a way to get closer to the goal of making the opportunities offered by TJ available to all of its residents?

This is the same thing that's trying to be had at Walls. It's supposed to be a citywide school, but it basically looks like a Ward 3 and Ward 6 school.

[Anonymous]

The Supreme Court is going to rule on the Harvard and Chapel Hill admissions cases about a year from now. If the Court rolls back, or ditches, affirmative action in college admissions, as many commentators expect, the impact will be felt at the HS magnet level nationwide. Interesting times ahead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Walls vs TJ: Apples and Oranges

Walls was always diverse, including with the test. Dropping the test has done nothing to increase diversity...just swapped out less qualified white kids.

^^This. Walls has always courted students of color and understandably so even if they skew more affluent/UMC. Unlike Banneker Walls has virtually no economically disadvantaged students. The most qualified white students used to have a reasonable shot with the test over other white students. Now it's a total crapshoot.

From what I understand, Walls was majority black before the admission test was instituted. It's no crapshoot. Top GPAs and interview, plain and simple. You may not like it but it's pretty clear.

An interview is the MOST subjective way to evaluate 8th graders. And having kids who conducted the interview process, yes, it's a total crapshoot.

Add to that, a GPA coming out of certain middle schools is not equivalent to a GPA coming out of other middle schools (e.g. Jefferson vs. BASIS).

At least a test sets a certain universal academic standard that students must meet in order to gain admission.

Equating GPAs and schools is like comparing teachers-one harder than the other for the same subject. No way to fix that. We went thru the process as well as multiple private school interviews. There wasn't much difference besides the essay's required from privates. I do think testing should be a component but not the dominant one. The interview does help distinguish a kid that wants to attend vs parents that wants it for the kid. That's a complaint I've heard from a lot of educators. Kids even bomb things on purpose.

Every college in America has fixed this. They know what a grade means from one school vs another. It is the reason that maybe 1 or 2 kids in most high schools gain admission to an Ivy and 15 might from an elite prep school or an elite application HS.

Every college in American has resources far beyond an admissions based public school. It’s a silly comparison to make.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Walls vs TJ: Apples and Oranges

Walls was always diverse, including with the test. Dropping the test has done nothing to increase diversity...just swapped out less qualified white kids.

^^This. Walls has always courted students of color and understandably so even if they skew more affluent/UMC. Unlike Banneker Walls has virtually no economically disadvantaged students. The most qualified white students used to have a reasonable shot with the test over other white students. Now it's a total crapshoot.

From what I understand, Walls was majority black before the admission test was instituted. It's no crapshoot. Top GPAs and interview, plain and simple. You may not like it but it's pretty clear.

An interview is the MOST subjective way to evaluate 8th graders. And having kids who conducted the interview process, yes, it's a total crapshoot.

Add to that, a GPA coming out of certain middle schools is not equivalent to a GPA coming out of other middle schools (e.g. Jefferson vs. BASIS).

At least a test sets a certain universal academic standard that students must meet in order to gain admission.

Equating GPAs and schools is like comparing teachers-one harder than the other for the same subject. No way to fix that. We went thru the process as well as multiple private school interviews. There wasn't much difference besides the essay's required from privates. I do think testing should be a component but not the dominant one. The interview does help distinguish a kid that wants to attend vs parents that wants it for the kid. That's a complaint I've heard from a lot of educators. Kids even bomb things on purpose.

The test should be pass/fail. You pass, you advance. You fail, you do not advance. I would even be cool with a re-take option. But to have no objective standard is ridiculous.

Pass based on what? DCPS passing rate is 64%, that’s certainly not impressive. The test was never pass/fail. It ranked students as compared to each other to decide who moves on to the interview.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Walls vs TJ: Apples and Oranges

Walls was always diverse, including with the test. Dropping the test has done nothing to increase diversity...just swapped out less qualified white kids.

^^This. Walls has always courted students of color and understandably so even if they skew more affluent/UMC. Unlike Banneker Walls has virtually no economically disadvantaged students. The most qualified white students used to have a reasonable shot with the test over other white students. Now it's a total crapshoot.

From what I understand, Walls was majority black before the admission test was instituted. It's no crapshoot. Top GPAs and interview, plain and simple. You may not like it but it's pretty clear.

An interview is the MOST subjective way to evaluate 8th graders. And having kids who conducted the interview process, yes, it's a total crapshoot.

Add to that, a GPA coming out of certain middle schools is not equivalent to a GPA coming out of other middle schools (e.g. Jefferson vs. BASIS).

At least a test sets a certain universal academic standard that students must meet in order to gain admission.

Equating GPAs and schools is like comparing teachers-one harder than the other for the same subject. No way to fix that. We went thru the process as well as multiple private school interviews. There wasn't much difference besides the essay's required from privates. I do think testing should be a component but not the dominant one. The interview does help distinguish a kid that wants to attend vs parents that wants it for the kid. That's a complaint I've heard from a lot of educators. Kids even bomb things on purpose.

Every college in America has fixed this. They know what a grade means from one school vs another. It is the reason that maybe 1 or 2 kids in most high schools gain admission to an Ivy and 15 might from an elite prep school or an elite application HS.

Every college in American has resources far beyond an admissions based public school. It’s a silly comparison to make.

But they're also pulling from a much bigger set of schools. It would not be difficult to track how students from particular middle schools in DC do in high school and use that in admissions. I don't think it's a good idea - just use a test, it's more transparent and fair - but that's not a resources issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Walls vs TJ: Apples and Oranges

Walls was always diverse, including with the test. Dropping the test has done nothing to increase diversity...just swapped out less qualified white kids.

^^This. Walls has always courted students of color and understandably so even if they skew more affluent/UMC. Unlike Banneker Walls has virtually no economically disadvantaged students. The most qualified white students used to have a reasonable shot with the test over other white students. Now it's a total crapshoot.

From what I understand, Walls was majority black before the admission test was instituted. It's no crapshoot. Top GPAs and interview, plain and simple. You may not like it but it's pretty clear.

With grade inflation plus 5 minute interviews, it’s a crap shoot.

(And it’s not top grades, it’s goodish grades.)

The interview is the most egregious part of the Walls process. If they don't want to use the test (and I get the issues these tests have vis-a-vis equity), I have no problem with them using GPA as a threshold and then using a lottery to determine who gets in. But using interviews as heavily as they do with zero transparency, consistency, or accountability? That is a problem. Telling a straight A student that they didn't get in after a 3 minute interview but a B+ friend of theirs got in because the students and teachers on the call determined they weren't a good "fit"....yes, it's a life lesson that things aren't fair. But it's BS and doesn't serve anyone well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Walls vs TJ: Apples and Oranges

Walls was always diverse, including with the test. Dropping the test has done nothing to increase diversity...just swapped out less qualified white kids.

^^This. Walls has always courted students of color and understandably so even if they skew more affluent/UMC. Unlike Banneker Walls has virtually no economically disadvantaged students. The most qualified white students used to have a reasonable shot with the test over other white students. Now it's a total crapshoot.

From what I understand, Walls was majority black before the admission test was instituted. It's no crapshoot. Top GPAs and interview, plain and simple. You may not like it but it's pretty clear.

With grade inflation plus 5 minute interviews, it’s a crap shoot.

(And it’s not top grades, it’s goodish grades.)

The interview is the most egregious part of the Walls process. If they don't want to use the test (and I get the issues these tests have vis-a-vis equity), I have no problem with them using GPA as a threshold and then using a lottery to determine who gets in. But using interviews as heavily as they do with zero transparency, consistency, or accountability? That is a problem. Telling a straight A student that they didn't get in after a 3 minute interview but a B+ friend of theirs got in because the students and teachers on the call determined they weren't a good "fit"....yes, it's a life lesson that things aren't fair. But it's BS and doesn't serve anyone well.

Walls should put more effort into the interviews. Because the interview process was such a waste of time at Walls, my kid opted to put Banneker as top choice because it was a much better and real interview. Banneker saw it as time to interview kids but also have kids interview them. The people interviewing seemed engaged. It was such a huge disparity between the schools. Walls came off as the low energy, sad school. (Which I know it isn’t but that’s what it looked like!) I don’t think anyone in my house cared what Walls scored my kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Walls vs TJ: Apples and Oranges

Walls was always diverse, including with the test. Dropping the test has done nothing to increase diversity...just swapped out less qualified white kids.

^^This. Walls has always courted students of color and understandably so even if they skew more affluent/UMC. Unlike Banneker Walls has virtually no economically disadvantaged students. The most qualified white students used to have a reasonable shot with the test over other white students. Now it's a total crapshoot.

From what I understand, Walls was majority black before the admission test was instituted. It's no crapshoot. Top GPAs and interview, plain and simple. You may not like it but it's pretty clear.

With grade inflation plus 5 minute interviews, it’s a crap shoot.

(And it’s not top grades, it’s goodish grades.)

The interview is the most egregious part of the Walls process. If they don't want to use the test (and I get the issues these tests have vis-a-vis equity), I have no problem with them using GPA as a threshold and then using a lottery to determine who gets in. But using interviews as heavily as they do with zero transparency, consistency, or accountability? That is a problem. Telling a straight A student that they didn't get in after a 3 minute interview but a B+ friend of theirs got in because the students and teachers on the call determined they weren't a good "fit"....yes, it's a life lesson that things aren't fair. But it's BS and doesn't serve anyone well.

Walls should put more effort into the interviews. Because the interview process was such a waste of time at Walls, my kid opted to put Banneker as top choice because it was a much better and real interview. Banneker saw it as time to interview kids but also have kids interview them. The people interviewing seemed engaged. It was such a huge disparity between the schools. Walls came off as the low energy, sad school. (Which I know it isn’t but that’s what it looked like!) I don’t think anyone in my house cared what Walls scored my kid.

Well we never heard from Banneker and flipped Walls as the top choice. It's not too much to ask for a status. The Walls interview was very engaging and gave insight what to expect. I guess we were deemed "not a fit" for the Banneker narrative. IMO, their process is more screwed up than Walls-no penalty if you don't have recommendations and very arbitrary to say the least. It's all a black box even with rubrics published out there. All anyone can ask for is open and fair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I didn't know there was a $100 application fee. That just seems weird and elitist for a public school. These kids are amazing.

They waived it when there was financial need. The Post has a narrative here, so they don't mention that.

Phew, this comment says a lot about you and your understanding of structural barriers.

Do you think if the issue had previously been that low-income kids were doing great on the test when they applied but, gosh, they just weren't applying in very high numbers that the the Post wouldn't mention that to you? [/quote

Low income kids cannot afford the test prep classes that Asian kids take.

That's a hypothesis. Not a particularly strong one given the limited effect of multiple, free SHSAT courses on admissions to the selective high schools in New York. But regardless, it probably wasn't the application fee that was the issue.

Based on what? You’ve presented no evidence whatsoever to support your assertion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Walls vs TJ: Apples and Oranges

Walls was always diverse, including with the test. Dropping the test has done nothing to increase diversity...just swapped out less qualified white kids.

^^This. Walls has always courted students of color and understandably so even if they skew more affluent/UMC. Unlike Banneker Walls has virtually no economically disadvantaged students. The most qualified white students used to have a reasonable shot with the test over other white students. Now it's a total crapshoot.

From what I understand, Walls was majority black before the admission test was instituted. It's no crapshoot. Top GPAs and interview, plain and simple. You may not like it but it's pretty clear.

An interview is the MOST subjective way to evaluate 8th graders. And having kids who conducted the interview process, yes, it's a total crapshoot.

Add to that, a GPA coming out of certain middle schools is not equivalent to a GPA coming out of other middle schools (e.g. Jefferson vs. BASIS).

At least a test sets a certain universal academic standard that students must meet in order to gain admission.

Equating GPAs and schools is like comparing teachers-one harder than the other for the same subject. No way to fix that. We went thru the process as well as multiple private school interviews. There wasn't much difference besides the essay's required from privates. I do think testing should be a component but not the dominant one. The interview does help distinguish a kid that wants to attend vs parents that wants it for the kid. That's a complaint I've heard from a lot of educators. Kids even bomb things on purpose.

Every college in America has fixed this. They know what a grade means from one school vs another. It is the reason that maybe 1 or 2 kids in most high schools gain admission to an Ivy and 15 might from an elite prep school or an elite application HS.

Every college in American has resources far beyond an admissions based public school. It’s a silly comparison to make.

But they're also pulling from a much bigger set of schools. It would not be difficult to track how students from particular middle schools in DC do in high school and use that in admissions. I don't think it's a good idea - just use a test, it's more transparent and fair - but that's not a resources issue.

It absolutely is a resource issue. Someone has to go through and determine which classes a student took at a particular middle school and how that has tracked over the years and how one gpa compares to another.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If you think the previous process was race blind you can pick that mic back up and explain how you rationalize that

In a sense it was race blind, or at least it wasn't created, by design, to boost particular asian enrollment. Strangely enough (or not), white kids are underrepresented relatively to the population as a whole at TJ. You'd have to be delusional to think the previous admission process was created to boost asian kids at the expense of white (and black/latino) kids. The new process is specifically designed to boost enrollment of black and hispanic kids. The massive overrepresentation of asian kids at magnet schools is not local phenomena, the same is true at magnet schools around the country. Stuyvesant, for example, is 72% asian. Whether thats actually a problem or not is a matter of opinion, but it's factually incorrect to believe the previous process was designed to boost asian kids in the way the new process is intended to boost black and hispanic enrollment.

People always figure out how to game a system. And then you need to try to address however it's being gamed. Of course, those who have figured out how to game it are going to be upset when the rules then change. So instead of seeing the new process as a way to just boost black and hispanic enrollment, why not see it as a way to get closer to the goal of making the opportunities offered by TJ available to all of its residents?

This is the same thing that's trying to be had at Walls. It's supposed to be a citywide school, but it basically looks like a Ward 3 and Ward 6 school.

So you contend asian people in particular figured out how to "game" the old system at the expense of everyone else? Seems absurd, what exactly did asian families do to game the system that white families couldn't (since white families were also underrepresented by population)? Anyway, I wasn't making a comment on which system was more "gameable." I was referring to the stated goals of the creators of each system. It's not a matter of whether I see the new system as a way to "just boost black and hispanic enrollment," it's that this was an explicitly state goal. Whether it works or not, and whether it turns out to be less gameable, I have no idea. I'm not even suggesting one way is better, just stating a fact: one system was not intended to explicitly boost admissions for particular racial groups and the other was.