Disappointed by TJ decision?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do they give a breakdown of how many girls are admitted each year?

If the essay matters more, then I would expect more girls to be getting in the past few years.

Interestingly enough, the Class of 2026 was the first class admitted that was majority female in the school's history - and it was 55-45!

This is in fact interesting. But, I wonder if there is a reason behind it especially since a much higher percent of male students apply for TJ, but the opposite is true for those who are admitted. This wasn't the case in the earlier admission process. Could it be that new admission criteria is somehow favoring the female students?

Among STEM students, the girls will be much better at writing essays than boys, particularly in middle school.

Aren't these programs gender balanced? And what happens if apply as non-binary?

[Anonymous]

Time to lawyer up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They also had Aspire Reading and Science tests along with this QuantQ.

Yes, but if you didn't perform adequately on the Quant-Q relative to the rest of the population, you weren't going to make the semifinalist round. That's the problem - it's not even that you had to achieve a minimum acceptable score - it's that you had to perform well enough to be in the top half of a pool that included a bunch of kids who (unknowingly, and through no fault of their own) had access to actual questions and sophisticated strategies for solving the various problem types.

I can't emphasize this enough - the whole point of the Quant-Q is to test a student's ability to develop a quick elegant solution to a problem. If they enter the exam already having those methods to solve the problems, the exam is worse than useless - it actually occludes the process.

DP. This is the best explanation I've seen so far that addresses why the Curie scandal was such a big deal. TJ Admissions made such a big deal about the fact that no prep was available for the Quant-Q, while in fact the opposite was the case for a huge chunk of the applicants.

I remember hearing about this in information sessions and videos.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They also had Aspire Reading and Science tests along with this QuantQ.

Yes, but if you didn't perform adequately on the Quant-Q relative to the rest of the population, you weren't going to make the semifinalist round. That's the problem - it's not even that you had to achieve a minimum acceptable score - it's that you had to perform well enough to be in the top half of a pool that included a bunch of kids who (unknowingly, and through no fault of their own) had access to actual questions and sophisticated strategies for solving the various problem types.

I can't emphasize this enough - the whole point of the Quant-Q is to test a student's ability to develop a quick elegant solution to a problem. If they enter the exam already having those methods to solve the problems, the exam is worse than useless - it actually occludes the process.

People always find a way to hack the system. It's kind of predictable, and my guess is this is why they won't go back to this. Nevertheless, they could figure out how to address the issues with teacher recs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They also had Aspire Reading and Science tests along with this QuantQ.

Yes, but if you didn't perform adequately on the Quant-Q relative to the rest of the population, you weren't going to make the semifinalist round. That's the problem - it's not even that you had to achieve a minimum acceptable score - it's that you had to perform well enough to be in the top half of a pool that included a bunch of kids who (unknowingly, and through no fault of their own) had access to actual questions and sophisticated strategies for solving the various problem types.

I can't emphasize this enough - the whole point of the Quant-Q is to test a student's ability to develop a quick elegant solution to a problem. If they enter the exam already having those methods to solve the problems, the exam is worse than useless - it actually occludes the process.

People always find a way to hack the system. It's kind of predictable, and my guess is this is why they won't go back to this. Nevertheless, they could figure out how to address the issues with teacher recs.

They had two other tests called Aspire that they dropped at the same time. These do not have this issue of needing to secure the test.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They also had Aspire Reading and Science tests along with this QuantQ.

Yes, but if you didn't perform adequately on the Quant-Q relative to the rest of the population, you weren't going to make the semifinalist round. That's the problem - it's not even that you had to achieve a minimum acceptable score - it's that you had to perform well enough to be in the top half of a pool that included a bunch of kids who (unknowingly, and through no fault of their own) had access to actual questions and sophisticated strategies for solving the various problem types.

I can't emphasize this enough - the whole point of the Quant-Q is to test a student's ability to develop a quick elegant solution to a problem. If they enter the exam already having those methods to solve the problems, the exam is worse than useless - it actually occludes the process.

People always find a way to hack the system. It's kind of predictable, and my guess is this is why they won't go back to this. Nevertheless, they could figure out how to address the issues with teacher recs.

They had two other tests called Aspire that they dropped at the same time. These do not have this issue of needing to secure the test.

Odds are they do have the same issues and places like Curie will offer classes to help students prepare and improve their scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They also had Aspire Reading and Science tests along with this QuantQ.

Yes, but if you didn't perform adequately on the Quant-Q relative to the rest of the population, you weren't going to make the semifinalist round. That's the problem - it's not even that you had to achieve a minimum acceptable score - it's that you had to perform well enough to be in the top half of a pool that included a bunch of kids who (unknowingly, and through no fault of their own) had access to actual questions and sophisticated strategies for solving the various problem types.

I can't emphasize this enough - the whole point of the Quant-Q is to test a student's ability to develop a quick elegant solution to a problem. If they enter the exam already having those methods to solve the problems, the exam is worse than useless - it actually occludes the process.

People always find a way to hack the system. It's kind of predictable, and my guess is this is why they won't go back to this. Nevertheless, they could figure out how to address the issues with teacher recs.

They had two other tests called Aspire that they dropped at the same time. These do not have this issue of needing to secure the test.

The two Aspire exams (Reading and Science) were not secured. The Admissions Office was open about prep opportunities for these.

What they acknowledged is that free prep is, by its nature, not nearly as effective as expensive, time-intensive prep. As such, even offering exams with free prep opportunities results in an imbalanced playing field even if the students are equivalent in academic capability and potential.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They also had Aspire Reading and Science tests along with this QuantQ.

Yes, but if you didn't perform adequately on the Quant-Q relative to the rest of the population, you weren't going to make the semifinalist round. That's the problem - it's not even that you had to achieve a minimum acceptable score - it's that you had to perform well enough to be in the top half of a pool that included a bunch of kids who (unknowingly, and through no fault of their own) had access to actual questions and sophisticated strategies for solving the various problem types.

I can't emphasize this enough - the whole point of the Quant-Q is to test a student's ability to develop a quick elegant solution to a problem. If they enter the exam already having those methods to solve the problems, the exam is worse than useless - it actually occludes the process.

People always find a way to hack the system. It's kind of predictable, and my guess is this is why they won't go back to this. Nevertheless, they could figure out how to address the issues with teacher recs.

They had two other tests called Aspire that they dropped at the same time. These do not have this issue of needing to secure the test.

The two Aspire exams (Reading and Science) were not secured. The Admissions Office was open about prep opportunities for these.

What they acknowledged is that free prep is, by its nature, not nearly as effective as expensive, time-intensive prep. As such, even offering exams with free prep opportunities results in an imbalanced playing field even if the students are equivalent in academic capability and potential.

That applies to course grades and essay writing as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They also had Aspire Reading and Science tests along with this QuantQ.

Yes, but if you didn't perform adequately on the Quant-Q relative to the rest of the population, you weren't going to make the semifinalist round. That's the problem - it's not even that you had to achieve a minimum acceptable score - it's that you had to perform well enough to be in the top half of a pool that included a bunch of kids who (unknowingly, and through no fault of their own) had access to actual questions and sophisticated strategies for solving the various problem types.

I can't emphasize this enough - the whole point of the Quant-Q is to test a student's ability to develop a quick elegant solution to a problem. If they enter the exam already having those methods to solve the problems, the exam is worse than useless - it actually occludes the process.

People always find a way to hack the system. It's kind of predictable, and my guess is this is why they won't go back to this. Nevertheless, they could figure out how to address the issues with teacher recs.

They had two other tests called Aspire that they dropped at the same time. These do not have this issue of needing to secure the test.

The two Aspire exams (Reading and Science) were not secured. The Admissions Office was open about prep opportunities for these.

What they acknowledged is that free prep is, by its nature, not nearly as effective as expensive, time-intensive prep. As such, even offering exams with free prep opportunities results in an imbalanced playing field even if the students are equivalent in academic capability and potential.

That applies to course grades and essay writing as well.

Not in nearly the same way. With respect to course grades, students begin on a much more level playing field - ~4 hours of professional instruction in the content area per week for the entire year/semester.

And with respect to essay writing, the evaluation of them is purely subjective, there usually isn’t a correct answer, and most parents would agree that, while they have opinions about how they SHOULD be evaluated, they don’t really know much about how they ARE evaluated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They also had Aspire Reading and Science tests along with this QuantQ.

Yes, but if you didn't perform adequately on the Quant-Q relative to the rest of the population, you weren't going to make the semifinalist round. That's the problem - it's not even that you had to achieve a minimum acceptable score - it's that you had to perform well enough to be in the top half of a pool that included a bunch of kids who (unknowingly, and through no fault of their own) had access to actual questions and sophisticated strategies for solving the various problem types.

I can't emphasize this enough - the whole point of the Quant-Q is to test a student's ability to develop a quick elegant solution to a problem. If they enter the exam already having those methods to solve the problems, the exam is worse than useless - it actually occludes the process.

People always find a way to hack the system. It's kind of predictable, and my guess is this is why they won't go back to this. Nevertheless, they could figure out how to address the issues with teacher recs.

They had two other tests called Aspire that they dropped at the same time. These do not have this issue of needing to secure the test.

The two Aspire exams (Reading and Science) were not secured. The Admissions Office was open about prep opportunities for these.

What they acknowledged is that free prep is, by its nature, not nearly as effective as expensive, time-intensive prep. As such, even offering exams with free prep opportunities results in an imbalanced playing field even if the students are equivalent in academic capability and potential.

That applies to course grades and essay writing as well.

Not in nearly the same way. With respect to course grades, students begin on a much more level playing field - ~4 hours of professional instruction in the content area per week for the entire year/semester.

And with respect to essay writing, the evaluation of them is purely subjective, there usually isn’t a correct answer, and most parents would agree that, while they have opinions about how they SHOULD be evaluated, they don’t really know much about how they ARE evaluated.

But there is prep available for this, and the numbers appear to show it is working, maybe not as much as before, but definitely an impact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They also had Aspire Reading and Science tests along with this QuantQ.

Yes, but if you didn't perform adequately on the Quant-Q relative to the rest of the population, you weren't going to make the semifinalist round. That's the problem - it's not even that you had to achieve a minimum acceptable score - it's that you had to perform well enough to be in the top half of a pool that included a bunch of kids who (unknowingly, and through no fault of their own) had access to actual questions and sophisticated strategies for solving the various problem types.

I can't emphasize this enough - the whole point of the Quant-Q is to test a student's ability to develop a quick elegant solution to a problem. If they enter the exam already having those methods to solve the problems, the exam is worse than useless - it actually occludes the process.

People always find a way to hack the system. It's kind of predictable, and my guess is this is why they won't go back to this. Nevertheless, they could figure out how to address the issues with teacher recs.

They had two other tests called Aspire that they dropped at the same time. These do not have this issue of needing to secure the test.

The two Aspire exams (Reading and Science) were not secured. The Admissions Office was open about prep opportunities for these.

What they acknowledged is that free prep is, by its nature, not nearly as effective as expensive, time-intensive prep. As such, even offering exams with free prep opportunities results in an imbalanced playing field even if the students are equivalent in academic capability and potential.

It's a nice way to pretend that things are fair when they really are heavily skewed in the favor of those with means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They also had Aspire Reading and Science tests along with this QuantQ.

Yes, but if you didn't perform adequately on the Quant-Q relative to the rest of the population, you weren't going to make the semifinalist round. That's the problem - it's not even that you had to achieve a minimum acceptable score - it's that you had to perform well enough to be in the top half of a pool that included a bunch of kids who (unknowingly, and through no fault of their own) had access to actual questions and sophisticated strategies for solving the various problem types.

I can't emphasize this enough - the whole point of the Quant-Q is to test a student's ability to develop a quick elegant solution to a problem. If they enter the exam already having those methods to solve the problems, the exam is worse than useless - it actually occludes the process.

People always find a way to hack the system. It's kind of predictable, and my guess is this is why they won't go back to this. Nevertheless, they could figure out how to address the issues with teacher recs.

They had two other tests called Aspire that they dropped at the same time. These do not have this issue of needing to secure the test.

The two Aspire exams (Reading and Science) were not secured. The Admissions Office was open about prep opportunities for these.

What they acknowledged is that free prep is, by its nature, not nearly as effective as expensive, time-intensive prep. As such, even offering exams with free prep opportunities results in an imbalanced playing field even if the students are equivalent in academic capability and potential.

That applies to course grades and essay writing as well.

Not in nearly the same way. With respect to course grades, students begin on a much more level playing field - ~4 hours of professional instruction in the content area per week for the entire year/semester.

And with respect to essay writing, the evaluation of them is purely subjective, there usually isn’t a correct answer, and most parents would agree that, while they have opinions about how they SHOULD be evaluated, they don’t really know much about how they ARE evaluated.

But there is prep available for this, and the numbers appear to show it is working, maybe not as much as before, but definitely an impact.

Too early to tell. It's also challenging because, unlike in previous years, the Admissions Office did not release a demographic breakdown of the applicants to the class of 2026 along with the demos of those who were offered admission.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They also had Aspire Reading and Science tests along with this QuantQ.

Yes, but if you didn't perform adequately on the Quant-Q relative to the rest of the population, you weren't going to make the semifinalist round. That's the problem - it's not even that you had to achieve a minimum acceptable score - it's that you had to perform well enough to be in the top half of a pool that included a bunch of kids who (unknowingly, and through no fault of their own) had access to actual questions and sophisticated strategies for solving the various problem types.

I can't emphasize this enough - the whole point of the Quant-Q is to test a student's ability to develop a quick elegant solution to a problem. If they enter the exam already having those methods to solve the problems, the exam is worse than useless - it actually occludes the process.

People always find a way to hack the system. It's kind of predictable, and my guess is this is why they won't go back to this. Nevertheless, they could figure out how to address the issues with teacher recs.

They had two other tests called Aspire that they dropped at the same time. These do not have this issue of needing to secure the test.

The two Aspire exams (Reading and Science) were not secured. The Admissions Office was open about prep opportunities for these.

What they acknowledged is that free prep is, by its nature, not nearly as effective as expensive, time-intensive prep. As such, even offering exams with free prep opportunities results in an imbalanced playing field even if the students are equivalent in academic capability and potential.

That applies to course grades and essay writing as well.

Not in nearly the same way. With respect to course grades, students begin on a much more level playing field - ~4 hours of professional instruction in the content area per week for the entire year/semester.

And with respect to essay writing, the evaluation of them is purely subjective, there usually isn’t a correct answer, and most parents would agree that, while they have opinions about how they SHOULD be evaluated, they don’t really know much about how they ARE evaluated.

But there is prep available for this, and the numbers appear to show it is working, maybe not as much as before, but definitely an impact.

Too early to tell. It's also challenging because, unlike in previous years, the Admissions Office did not release a demographic breakdown of the applicants to the class of 2026 along with the demos of those who were offered admission.

Is it (not releasing the breakdown) bcos it did not meet there expectation (similar to previous years)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They also had Aspire Reading and Science tests along with this QuantQ.

Yes, but if you didn't perform adequately on the Quant-Q relative to the rest of the population, you weren't going to make the semifinalist round. That's the problem - it's not even that you had to achieve a minimum acceptable score - it's that you had to perform well enough to be in the top half of a pool that included a bunch of kids who (unknowingly, and through no fault of their own) had access to actual questions and sophisticated strategies for solving the various problem types.

I can't emphasize this enough - the whole point of the Quant-Q is to test a student's ability to develop a quick elegant solution to a problem. If they enter the exam already having those methods to solve the problems, the exam is worse than useless - it actually occludes the process.

People always find a way to hack the system. It's kind of predictable, and my guess is this is why they won't go back to this. Nevertheless, they could figure out how to address the issues with teacher recs.

They had two other tests called Aspire that they dropped at the same time. These do not have this issue of needing to secure the test.

The two Aspire exams (Reading and Science) were not secured. The Admissions Office was open about prep opportunities for these.

What they acknowledged is that free prep is, by its nature, not nearly as effective as expensive, time-intensive prep. As such, even offering exams with free prep opportunities results in an imbalanced playing field even if the students are equivalent in academic capability and potential.

That applies to course grades and essay writing as well.

Not in nearly the same way. With respect to course grades, students begin on a much more level playing field - ~4 hours of professional instruction in the content area per week for the entire year/semester.

And with respect to essay writing, the evaluation of them is purely subjective, there usually isn’t a correct answer, and most parents would agree that, while they have opinions about how they SHOULD be evaluated, they don’t really know much about how they ARE evaluated.

But there is prep available for this, and the numbers appear to show it is working, maybe not as much as before, but definitely an impact.

Too early to tell. It's also challenging because, unlike in previous years, the Admissions Office did not release a demographic breakdown of the applicants to the class of 2026 along with the demos of those who were offered admission.

Is it (not releasing the breakdown) bcos it did not meet there expectation (similar to previous years)?

No way to know. The Admissions Office is notoriously quiet when they want to be.

[Anonymous]

The lack of transparency will only lead to a further decline in interest in TJ. They really have no clear vision for that place.