What exactly is the "holistic review"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are discussing with DC about TJ application. At the TJ admission information session, students asked about the admission criteria. The lady answered that all applications would go through a holistic review. My current 8th grader knows some students who applied for TJ last school year. He knows them by taking the same class or doing the same club activities. Among the student he knows who got admitted, quite a few weren't strong in math and science, but strong in writing instead. Several students who were not strong in either STEM or writing also got admitted including someone who is a continuous free rider in group work. Surprisingly, some students who earned good rank in math competition and Scioly, science bowl didn't get in.
DC is strong in math and science. After watching TJ student's Vlog, as parents, we kinda think that DC might be a good fit to TJ. But DC seems not very motivated to apply for TJ. He is passionate in STEM and has perfect GPA. We tried to persuade him to apply. But based on what he observed, he is still hesitating to apply because of the the ambiguous process and result.
Does anyone know what type of students TJ are looking for. How does TJ decide whether a student should be admitted? How exactly does the "holistic" process work?

They admit the very top students from each school.

You have a strange way of defining top. Once the GPAs qualify a student, they are discarded. The test scores end up bunched. The differentiator is experience factors which are ELL, SPED, FARMS.

So if 200 kids from a school apply and all have 4.0 and half of those in Algebra 2 and other in Geometry and all take test and 20 all get same scores, who will be the “top 1.5%” and who decides that? Does the “top 1.5%” go back to MS or does Gatehouse decide that? Assuming 1.5% would be 10 students, how does the ranking get weighted? If click all 3 experience factors is that the absolute top and then anyone who clicks 2 factors and then 1 factor and then would it go by student in algebra 2 and then the one in geometry? It’s the 1.5% ranking that I don’t get for schools with so many kids applying, almost guaranteed to have many kids with exact same scores- so when that happens, how are those kids ranked to get the 1.5%?

They don't look at courses taken as part of the holistic review. They're only looking at GPA and essays. An 8th grader in pre-calc and all AAP classes who got an A- in AAP History and all As otherwise would be rated lower than a kid in Honors Algebra I, Honors English, Honors Science, and gen ed level history with all As. I would imagine that there are a lot of kids at schools like Longfellow with 4.0 GPAs who can write a decent essay. So, there would be a lot of kids clumped at the top. Since experience factors are now so important, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people try to get their kid an ADHD diagnosis.

Adhd diagnosis is not an experience factor. IEP is the experience factor. And to get an IEP is not an easy process. School will do thorough evaluation to determine if the students is really struggling and in needs of support. And if your kids needs IEP in middle school, their disabilities is quite clear, and I tell you as an 2e parent, you DON’T want that.
People here is really are crazy and heartless.

Sorry you had this experience as a 2E parent.

You are urging parents to not abuse the IEP process, and I fully agree.

I will point out there’s growing evidence of massive abuse and fraud involving IEPs. Universities are required to track all disabilities as a result of the ADA. Many universities report percentages over 20, and approaching 30, percent of students claiming “disabilities,” and getting accommodations- most commonly additional time to do tests and complete work compared to other students.

30% may not seem extreme. But when investigators factored out international students (who never had access to the ADA or IEPs), the rate of “disabled students” approached 50%.

Half of US college students disabled? That is a ridiculous proposition, and it demonstrates fraud and unchecked abuse.

PP - it should make you especially outraged, as the parent of a child who actually IS 2E.

I am not seeing anyone notable raise this issue as the problem it truly is.

Any articles on this? Would be interested to read more on it as would also mean funds being diverted to kids where need is not a need, but a want (want more time, etc.) and away from 2E kids who DO need the support.

Getting fake IEPs to get extra time on the SAT was part of the Varsity Blues scandal.

Would extra time even help for new digital SAT- isn’t it adaptive?

Absolutely, especially for the harder second section where many students report running out of time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.insidehighered.com/admissions/article/2019/05/28/new-scrutiny-patterns-which-wealthier-students-are-more-likely-get

Thanks for this link, don't know if you are same or diff PP who said that it was like 30% disabled and 50% when you factor out international students, but that's not supported by this article. There's one quote from one particular Superintendent where he throws out the 30% number but that's clearly a loose and anecdotal stat. The most directly relevant part of this article is:

"The Journal found that at wealthy high schools (defined as those where no more than 10 percent of students are eligible for free or reduced-price school lunch) 4.2 percent of students are eligible for extra time on tests. In low-income areas (high schools where at least 75 percent of students are eligible for free or reduced-price school lunch), the figure is 1.6 percent."

So if we assume that disabilities where an appropriate accommodation is extra time on a test are fairly evenly distributed among the population regardless of family income, and that such students in low-income areas may be somewhat under-identified, then we might infer a "true" rate of about 2-3% (above the low-income 1.6%), and that there's 1-2% over-identification at wealthy high schools. Which is a problem, sure, and maybe this is even more magnified in very isolated instances amongst the uber-wealthy varsity-blues cohort (like the anecdotal superintendent quote)... but overall, ~96% of students even at wealthy high schools are NOT receiving the extra time accommodation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.insidehighered.com/admissions/article/2019/05/28/new-scrutiny-patterns-which-wealthier-students-are-more-likely-get

Thanks for this link, don't know if you are same or diff PP who said that it was like 30% disabled and 50% when you factor out international students, but that's not supported by this article. There's one quote from one particular Superintendent where he throws out the 30% number but that's clearly a loose and anecdotal stat. The most directly relevant part of this article is:

"The Journal found that at wealthy high schools (defined as those where no more than 10 percent of students are eligible for free or reduced-price school lunch) 4.2 percent of students are eligible for extra time on tests. In low-income areas (high schools where at least 75 percent of students are eligible for free or reduced-price school lunch), the figure is 1.6 percent."

So if we assume that disabilities where an appropriate accommodation is extra time on a test are fairly evenly distributed among the population regardless of family income, and that such students in low-income areas may be somewhat under-identified, then we might infer a "true" rate of about 2-3% (above the low-income 1.6%), and that there's 1-2% over-identification at wealthy high schools. Which is a problem, sure, and maybe this is even more magnified in very isolated instances amongst the uber-wealthy varsity-blues cohort (like the anecdotal superintendent quote)... but overall, ~96% of students even at wealthy high schools are NOT receiving the extra time accommodation.

This article states 19% of students identify as being disabled:

https://www.bestcolleges.com/research/students-with-disabilities-higher-education-statistics/

However, it is from 2015-16. That 19% figure is pre-Covid 19. And for colleges.

Have mental health disabilities increased or decreased, since the Covid quarantine ?