Disappointed by TJ decision?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe that the TJ tests measure aptitude or smartness in any manner. The tests just gauge your passion for STEM. My son did get accepted today to TJ. Do I believe he is THE smartest student at his school? Of course not. I am sure there are some really smart and passionate students who got rejected and sadly this is just the nature of the TJ admission process. We'll just have to take these kind of things in our stride with the belief that bigger and better things await these kids in the future!

The old tests did but they got rid of them.

But why is that wrong? A kid already has the aptitude based on other screening factors (GPA and course rigor). Sure, the old tests layered another screen on top of that, but there was also the prep problem. What’s wrong with having a process for admission to a high school where, once you meet the screen, you identify candidates who have a passion for STEM that can express that passion effectively and convincingly in the essays?

It is hard to differentiate just based on essays that are very constrained to cookie cutter answers. At a minimum you need teacher recommendations. Those who have observed the students in a class room setting would be able to provide valuable input. That would fix a major part of the current admissions weakness.

+1
Adding teacher recc’s back in would fix the main flaw right now which is that it’s hard to pick the top kids within each MS. I firmly support the seats per MS model but they need to fine how the kids get picked within those pools.

I’m the poster you’re both responding to (with the post asking “why is that wrong?”). I agree that teacher recommendations would be a useful data point.

Except for the fact they are often inconsistent biased and unreliable but sure

Sure they could be but right now admissions is flying pretty blind in picking the kids at a given MS. In most cases the teacher recc’s would help a lot with that.

The actual data tells another story... The bottom line is they're selecting the very top kids before they were simply picking those who could afford to buy test answers.

This is false. TJ needed to offer universal tutoring to the first class admitted with the new standards.

Because they couldn’t afford the private tutoring that the previous classes were paying thousands for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe that the TJ tests measure aptitude or smartness in any manner. The tests just gauge your passion for STEM. My son did get accepted today to TJ. Do I believe he is THE smartest student at his school? Of course not. I am sure there are some really smart and passionate students who got rejected and sadly this is just the nature of the TJ admission process. We'll just have to take these kind of things in our stride with the belief that bigger and better things await these kids in the future!

The old tests did but they got rid of them.

But why is that wrong? A kid already has the aptitude based on other screening factors (GPA and course rigor). Sure, the old tests layered another screen on top of that, but there was also the prep problem. What’s wrong with having a process for admission to a high school where, once you meet the screen, you identify candidates who have a passion for STEM that can express that passion effectively and convincingly in the essays?

It is hard to differentiate just based on essays that are very constrained to cookie cutter answers. At a minimum you need teacher recommendations. Those who have observed the students in a class room setting would be able to provide valuable input. That would fix a major part of the current admissions weakness.

+1
Adding teacher recc’s back in would fix the main flaw right now which is that it’s hard to pick the top kids within each MS. I firmly support the seats per MS model but they need to fine how the kids get picked within those pools.

I’m the poster you’re both responding to (with the post asking “why is that wrong?”). I agree that teacher recommendations would be a useful data point.

Except for the fact they are often inconsistent biased and unreliable but sure

Sure they could be but right now admissions is flying pretty blind in picking the kids at a given MS. In most cases the teacher recc’s would help a lot with that.

The actual data tells another story... The bottom line is they're selecting the very top kids before they were simply picking those who could afford to buy test answers.

Yes, the new admissions has resulted in a much stronger cohort. Sure, a few kids weren't Algerbra 2 or prepped out the gills but they were overall much brighter than many who were only able to sneak in because the extensive prep made them present as gifted when in fact they were average kids. At least with the new system you get the top kids from each school instead of 3rd rate preppers from wealthy areas.

If these kids were average, then why TJ consistently ranked # 1 in nation?

DP. They weren’t average, but they weren’t anything special either.

And TJ got number 1 rankings because those rankings were based on flawed metrics like exam scores. Which, when your admissions process overselects for test taking ability and makes it a requirement, is naturally going to be inflated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe that the TJ tests measure aptitude or smartness in any manner. The tests just gauge your passion for STEM. My son did get accepted today to TJ. Do I believe he is THE smartest student at his school? Of course not. I am sure there are some really smart and passionate students who got rejected and sadly this is just the nature of the TJ admission process. We'll just have to take these kind of things in our stride with the belief that bigger and better things await these kids in the future!

The old tests did but they got rid of them.

But why is that wrong? A kid already has the aptitude based on other screening factors (GPA and course rigor). Sure, the old tests layered another screen on top of that, but there was also the prep problem. What’s wrong with having a process for admission to a high school where, once you meet the screen, you identify candidates who have a passion for STEM that can express that passion effectively and convincingly in the essays?

It is hard to differentiate just based on essays that are very constrained to cookie cutter answers. At a minimum you need teacher recommendations. Those who have observed the students in a class room setting would be able to provide valuable input. That would fix a major part of the current admissions weakness.

+1
Adding teacher recc’s back in would fix the main flaw right now which is that it’s hard to pick the top kids within each MS. I firmly support the seats per MS model but they need to fine how the kids get picked within those pools.

I’m the poster you’re both responding to (with the post asking “why is that wrong?”). I agree that teacher recommendations would be a useful data point.

Except for the fact they are often inconsistent biased and unreliable but sure

Sure they could be but right now admissions is flying pretty blind in picking the kids at a given MS. In most cases the teacher recc’s would help a lot with that.

The actual data tells another story... The bottom line is they're selecting the very top kids before they were simply picking those who could afford to buy test answers.

This is false. TJ needed to offer universal tutoring to the first class admitted with the new standards.

Because they couldn’t afford the private tutoring that the previous classes were paying thousands for.

BINGO!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Diversity and equity over iq

You mean prep > IQ

You mean cheating and prep > IQ

Sorry, you are correct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe that the TJ tests measure aptitude or smartness in any manner. The tests just gauge your passion for STEM. My son did get accepted today to TJ. Do I believe he is THE smartest student at his school? Of course not. I am sure there are some really smart and passionate students who got rejected and sadly this is just the nature of the TJ admission process. We'll just have to take these kind of things in our stride with the belief that bigger and better things await these kids in the future!

The old tests did but they got rid of them.

But why is that wrong? A kid already has the aptitude based on other screening factors (GPA and course rigor). Sure, the old tests layered another screen on top of that, but there was also the prep problem. What’s wrong with having a process for admission to a high school where, once you meet the screen, you identify candidates who have a passion for STEM that can express that passion effectively and convincingly in the essays?

It is hard to differentiate just based on essays that are very constrained to cookie cutter answers. At a minimum you need teacher recommendations. Those who have observed the students in a class room setting would be able to provide valuable input. That would fix a major part of the current admissions weakness.

+1
Adding teacher recc’s back in would fix the main flaw right now which is that it’s hard to pick the top kids within each MS. I firmly support the seats per MS model but they need to fine how the kids get picked within those pools.

I’m the poster you’re both responding to (with the post asking “why is that wrong?”). I agree that teacher recommendations would be a useful data point.

Except for the fact they are often inconsistent biased and unreliable but sure

I tend to agree. I think the idea of the new admissions approach is to find kids who are academically highly capable, but also espouse good values, such as camaraderie and helping each other as opposed to putting a personal success ahead of integrity and empathy. I would imagine that if you select your students this way, you would be on path to creating a pretty amazing community, one that is even greater for the kids that what TJ used to be . But yes, high academic achievement should still be a priority, that is what TJ was created for in the first place.

I know they've done an amazing job improving the process and detoxifying TJ.

dog whistle for lowering the percentage of Asians. So much hate.

Who is it that’s hating on the asians?

Nobody. They're just paranoid and keep asserting that a race-blind process is against them.

[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:I don't believe that the TJ tests measure aptitude or smartness in any manner. The tests just gauge your passion for STEM. My son did get accepted today to TJ. Do I believe he is THE smartest student at his school? Of course not. I am sure there are some really smart and passionate students who got rejected and sadly this is just the nature of the TJ admission process. We'll just have to take these kind of things in our stride with the belief that bigger and better things await these kids in the future!

The old tests did but they got rid of them.

But why is that wrong? A kid already has the aptitude based on other screening factors (GPA and course rigor). Sure, the old tests layered another screen on top of that, but there was also the prep problem. What’s wrong with having a process for admission to a high school where, once you meet the screen, you identify candidates who have a passion for STEM that can express that passion effectively and convincingly in the essays?

It is hard to differentiate just based on essays that are very constrained to cookie cutter answers. At a minimum you need teacher recommendations. Those who have observed the students in a class room setting would be able to provide valuable input. That would fix a major part of the current admissions weakness.

+1
Adding teacher recc’s back in would fix the main flaw right now which is that it’s hard to pick the top kids within each MS. I firmly support the seats per MS model but they need to fine how the kids get picked within those pools.

I’m the poster you’re both responding to (with the post asking “why is that wrong?”). I agree that teacher recommendations would be a useful data point.

Except for the fact they are often inconsistent biased and unreliable but sure

I tend to agree. I think the idea of the new admissions approach is to find kids who are academically highly capable, but also espouse good values, such as camaraderie and helping each other as opposed to putting a personal success ahead of integrity and empathy. I would imagine that if you select your students this way, you would be on path to creating a pretty amazing community, one that is even greater for the kids that what TJ used to be . But yes, high academic achievement should still be a priority, that is what TJ was created for in the first place.

I know they've done an amazing job improving the process and detoxifying TJ.

dog whistle for lowering the percentage of Asians. So much hate.

Who is it that’s hating on the asians?

Nobody. They're just paranoid and keep asserting that a race-blind process is against them.

+1000. Noboday is hating on Asians, it's so ridiculous. Why would a race -blind process be against them. I would say people who are espousing the "discrimination against Asian" stuff need to unclench are are simply reaching for a reason why they should get preferential treatment. I promise you that they probably don't give a crap about actual discrimination, they just want their group to be protected at all costs.

[Anonymous]

I think it is just hard to stand out in this process, especially if your kid is from a competitive middle school. I would imagine the top 10 percent have the same GPA so it is not a slam dunk to be in the top 1.5 percent.

My child has a strong interest in stem, top GPA, and is a great writer and was waitlisted. I really don't think the child is missing anything except maybe the child has a lot of interacts outside of school so didn't go the traditional science Olympiad and math competition route though the child does a lot of stem programs by themselves . It seems like the kids who did clinch the top 1.5 percent in the school did fit that bill.

[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:I don't believe that the TJ tests measure aptitude or smartness in any manner. The tests just gauge your passion for STEM. My son did get accepted today to TJ. Do I believe he is THE smartest student at his school? Of course not. I am sure there are some really smart and passionate students who got rejected and sadly this is just the nature of the TJ admission process. We'll just have to take these kind of things in our stride with the belief that bigger and better things await these kids in the future!

The old tests did but they got rid of them.

But why is that wrong? A kid already has the aptitude based on other screening factors (GPA and course rigor). Sure, the old tests layered another screen on top of that, but there was also the prep problem. What’s wrong with having a process for admission to a high school where, once you meet the screen, you identify candidates who have a passion for STEM that can express that passion effectively and convincingly in the essays?

It is hard to differentiate just based on essays that are very constrained to cookie cutter answers. At a minimum you need teacher recommendations. Those who have observed the students in a class room setting would be able to provide valuable input. That would fix a major part of the current admissions weakness.

+1
Adding teacher recc’s back in would fix the main flaw right now which is that it’s hard to pick the top kids within each MS. I firmly support the seats per MS model but they need to fine how the kids get picked within those pools.

I’m the poster you’re both responding to (with the post asking “why is that wrong?”). I agree that teacher recommendations would be a useful data point.

Except for the fact they are often inconsistent biased and unreliable but sure

Sure they could be but right now admissions is flying pretty blind in picking the kids at a given MS. In most cases the teacher recc’s would help a lot with that.

The actual data tells another story... The bottom line is they're selecting the very top kids before they were simply picking those who could afford to buy test answers.

This is false. TJ needed to offer universal tutoring to the first class admitted with the new standards.

Because they couldn’t afford the private tutoring that the previous classes were paying thousands for.

BINGO!!

Ha good no. But no. It means the best of the best aren’t admitted. Otherwise the quotas would not exist.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe that the TJ tests measure aptitude or smartness in any manner. The tests just gauge your passion for STEM. My son did get accepted today to TJ. Do I believe he is THE smartest student at his school? Of course not. I am sure there are some really smart and passionate students who got rejected and sadly this is just the nature of the TJ admission process. We'll just have to take these kind of things in our stride with the belief that bigger and better things await these kids in the future!

The old tests did but they got rid of them.

But why is that wrong? A kid already has the aptitude based on other screening factors (GPA and course rigor). Sure, the old tests layered another screen on top of that, but there was also the prep problem. What’s wrong with having a process for admission to a high school where, once you meet the screen, you identify candidates who have a passion for STEM that can express that passion effectively and convincingly in the essays?

It is hard to differentiate just based on essays that are very constrained to cookie cutter answers. At a minimum you need teacher recommendations. Those who have observed the students in a class room setting would be able to provide valuable input. That would fix a major part of the current admissions weakness.

+1
Adding teacher recc’s back in would fix the main flaw right now which is that it’s hard to pick the top kids within each MS. I firmly support the seats per MS model but they need to fine how the kids get picked within those pools.

I’m the poster you’re both responding to (with the post asking “why is that wrong?”). I agree that teacher recommendations would be a useful data point.

Except for the fact they are often inconsistent biased and unreliable but sure

Sure they could be but right now admissions is flying pretty blind in picking the kids at a given MS. In most cases the teacher recc’s would help a lot with that.

The actual data tells another story... The bottom line is they're selecting the very top kids before they were simply picking those who could afford to buy test answers.

This is false. TJ needed to offer universal tutoring to the first class admitted with the new standards.

Because they couldn’t afford the private tutoring that the previous classes were paying thousands for.

BINGO!!

Ha good no. But no. It means the best of the best aren’t admitted. Otherwise the quotas would not exist.

Yes, it means the best at test buying are no longer admitted.

[Anonymous]

Please remember TJ is a STEM oriented school. And while M is for Math, it also underpins the STE in a big way.

These results show that some of the best STEM applicants are no longer being accepted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Please remember TJ is a STEM oriented school. And while M is for Math, it also underpins the STE in a big way.

These results show that some of the best STEM applicants are no longer being accepted.

Your assumption is that acceleration == merit is faulty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please remember TJ is a STEM oriented school. And while M is for Math, it also underpins the STE in a big way.

These results show that some of the best STEM applicants are no longer being accepted.

Your assumption is that acceleration == merit is faulty.

Your assumption that I was claiming acceleration == merit is faulty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it is just hard to stand out in this process, especially if your kid is from a competitive middle school. I would imagine the top 10 percent have the same GPA so it is not a slam dunk to be in the top 1.5 percent.

My child has a strong interest in stem, top GPA, and is a great writer and was waitlisted. I really don't think the child is missing anything except maybe the child has a lot of interacts outside of school so didn't go the traditional science Olympiad and math competition route though the child does a lot of stem programs by themselves . It seems like the kids who did clinch the top 1.5 percent in the school did fit that bill.

That happened to my DC too, who is in waited pool, who should be top 1.5% but we are thinking what can we do now.

[Anonymous]

NP and 5th parent. May I ask - How do TJ determine to 1.5%?

[Anonymous]

Pp here- we are trying to help get our child excited about the base school now as I don't think it is realistic to hope to get off the waitlist.