TJ - admissions: GPA and essays vulnerable to prep and affluence

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Simple and honest question: Why do so many of you think that GPA and essays are *less* vulnerable to prep and effects of affluence than test scores? Affluent kids with motivated parents likely have been in enrichment classes for quite awhile and are likely ahead. If the kid struggles at all, the affluent parents are likely to get a tutor and shore up any deficiencies the kid might have. If all else fails, the affluent parents are much more likely to badger the teacher and administration until their kid's grade turns into an A. It honestly doesn't seem hard for any parent with the money and motivation to make sure any average kid could get straight As in middle school.

Likewise, it's pretty easy to talk about love for STEM and such when the kid has been attending enrichment and camps for many years. Again, it would also be easy to get prep and tutoring to write a highly polished essay.

With tests like PSAT, while prep helps to some degree, there is a pretty strong limit. Kids who are naturally 99th percentile will likely earn very high scores with no or minimal prep. Kids who are pretty average but privileged will see score increases, but they're still unlikely to earn super high scores. It seems easier for affluent parents to ensure that their kids have straight As and can write strong essays than it would be to ensure that their kid would earn a very high PSAT score.

So what am I missing, here?

This appears not to be an issue since the entering classes are economically more diverse than any before the change.

There is an explicit preference for FARM students. Why do we also have to remove merit to achieve the economic diversity?

Because the fair, objective selection process that other top magnets (Stuy, etc) use to get both highly qualified students who are also economically diverse (an objective test for which prep resources are widely and freely available) is off the table for TJ due to racial reasons.

The preference is so important and why is the number of farm students so low?

The FARM rate was lower than it needed to be under the old system because the old system included a holistic component.
The kids who tested into the pool had a much higher FARM rate than 2% but very few poor kids made it through the holistic part of the admissions process.

You missed the point. If the FARMS preference gives such a significant bump, why are the number of FARMS students still so low?

I like hard data. FCPS school profiles show that 13.6% of the TJ kids are economically disadvantaged. Looking at 8th grade SOL scores from last year:
of those who passed the Algebra II SOL, 185 were not economically disadvantaged and 14 were, meaning only 7.04% of the highest math level kids are FARMS. For 8th grade Geometry, there were 1500 non FARMS and 122 FARMS, so only 7.52% of these kids were FARMS. In this case, I didn't even look at pass advanced, but the numbers are even worse for economically disadvantaged kids.

If you look at Algebra I (and keep in mind that this includes kids who didn't take honors and thus weren't eligible in the first place), and in this case consider only those who got pass advanced on the test (considering that a kid who is not even pass advanced in the lowest math level allowed is likely not really TJ material), there were 1256 non FARMS and 202 FARMS, meaning only 13.85% of the kids at this level were FARMS.

If anything, FARMS kids look pretty overrepresented at TJ compared to their math level and demonstrated mastery of the material.

The county's FARMs rate is closer to 40%, and at 13% of TJ, they would be underrepresented.

25% of the class of 2025 was FARM
20% of the class of 2026 was FARM
11% of the class of 2027 was FARM
16% of the class of 2028 was FARM

18% of admits during the admissions period for the current cadre of students
The admits are either (i) not coming to TJ, (ii) leaving to return to their base school, (iii) getting wealthier, (iv) some combination of the above.

But the point isn't that the FARM students are over-represented relative to the population of all kids. The PPP is saying they are over-represented relative to their proportion of kids that are at an advanced level of math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Simple and honest question: Why do so many of you think that GPA and essays are *less* vulnerable to prep and effects of affluence than test scores? Affluent kids with motivated parents likely have been in enrichment classes for quite awhile and are likely ahead. If the kid struggles at all, the affluent parents are likely to get a tutor and shore up any deficiencies the kid might have. If all else fails, the affluent parents are much more likely to badger the teacher and administration until their kid's grade turns into an A. It honestly doesn't seem hard for any parent with the money and motivation to make sure any average kid could get straight As in middle school.

Likewise, it's pretty easy to talk about love for STEM and such when the kid has been attending enrichment and camps for many years. Again, it would also be easy to get prep and tutoring to write a highly polished essay.

With tests like PSAT, while prep helps to some degree, there is a pretty strong limit. Kids who are naturally 99th percentile will likely earn very high scores with no or minimal prep. Kids who are pretty average but privileged will see score increases, but they're still unlikely to earn super high scores. It seems easier for affluent parents to ensure that their kids have straight As and can write strong essays than it would be to ensure that their kid would earn a very high PSAT score.

So what am I missing, here?

This appears not to be an issue since the entering classes are economically more diverse than any before the change.

And yet they did.

The admissions process was changed to increase diversity to make TJ "look" more like the rest of the county.

There is an explicit preference for FARM students. Why do we also have to remove merit to achieve the economic diversity?

Because the fair, objective selection process that other top magnets (Stuy, etc) use to get both highly qualified students who are also economically diverse (an objective test for which prep resources are widely and freely available) is off the table for TJ due to racial reasons.

You are mistaken. They cannot legally use race in the US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Simple and honest question: Why do so many of you think that GPA and essays are *less* vulnerable to prep and effects of affluence than test scores? Affluent kids with motivated parents likely have been in enrichment classes for quite awhile and are likely ahead. If the kid struggles at all, the affluent parents are likely to get a tutor and shore up any deficiencies the kid might have. If all else fails, the affluent parents are much more likely to badger the teacher and administration until their kid's grade turns into an A. It honestly doesn't seem hard for any parent with the money and motivation to make sure any average kid could get straight As in middle school.

Likewise, it's pretty easy to talk about love for STEM and such when the kid has been attending enrichment and camps for many years. Again, it would also be easy to get prep and tutoring to write a highly polished essay.

With tests like PSAT, while prep helps to some degree, there is a pretty strong limit. Kids who are naturally 99th percentile will likely earn very high scores with no or minimal prep. Kids who are pretty average but privileged will see score increases, but they're still unlikely to earn super high scores. It seems easier for affluent parents to ensure that their kids have straight As and can write strong essays than it would be to ensure that their kid would earn a very high PSAT score.

So what am I missing, here?

This appears not to be an issue since the entering classes are economically more diverse than any before the change.

There is an explicit preference for FARM students. Why do we also have to remove merit to achieve the economic diversity?

Because the fair, objective selection process that other top magnets (Stuy, etc) use to get both highly qualified students who are also economically diverse (an objective test for which prep resources are widely and freely available) is off the table for TJ due to racial reasons.

The preference is so important and why is the number of farm students so low?

The FARM rate was lower than it needed to be under the old system because the old system included a holistic component.
The kids who tested into the pool had a much higher FARM rate than 2% but very few poor kids made it through the holistic part of the admissions process.

You missed the point. If the FARMS preference gives such a significant bump, why are the number of FARMS students still so low?

I like hard data. FCPS school profiles show that 13.6% of the TJ kids are economically disadvantaged. Looking at 8th grade SOL scores from last year:
of those who passed the Algebra II SOL, 185 were not economically disadvantaged and 14 were, meaning only 7.04% of the highest math level kids are FARMS. For 8th grade Geometry, there were 1500 non FARMS and 122 FARMS, so only 7.52% of these kids were FARMS. In this case, I didn't even look at pass advanced, but the numbers are even worse for economically disadvantaged kids.

If you look at Algebra I (and keep in mind that this includes kids who didn't take honors and thus weren't eligible in the first place), and in this case consider only those who got pass advanced on the test (considering that a kid who is not even pass advanced in the lowest math level allowed is likely not really TJ material), there were 1256 non FARMS and 202 FARMS, meaning only 13.85% of the kids at this level were FARMS.

If anything, FARMS kids look pretty overrepresented at TJ compared to their math level and demonstrated mastery of the material.

The county's FARMs rate is closer to 40%, and at 13% of TJ, they would be underrepresented.

So, you didn't read or understand any of the data. For TJ admissions, if you're trying to determine whether the FARMS bump is significant, you really can only look at the rate of acceptance for the kids who applied. The large portion of FARMS kids who were not interested in attending or who did not meet the minimum standards for applying are relevant for other discussions, but not this specific one about the effect of the FARMS preference in TJ admissions.

The SOL data shows that there are not many FARMS kids at the level where they'd even be eligible to apply for TJ or be at all reasonable admits. When only 7.5% of the FARMS kids are even in Geometry, but 13.6% of the TJ kids are FARMS, that means they're boosting a lot of FARMS kids into the program, whether through the FARMS experience factor or the 1.5% seat allocation.

The SOL data doesn't say that at all, but it doesn't matter. In fact, FARMS students at TJ are far lower than FCPS average so they are under represented at TJ. We should be giving it more weight until it reaches the county average.

Why?

Are you under the impression that academic talent is evenly distributed across income?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Simple and honest question: Why do so many of you think that GPA and essays are *less* vulnerable to prep and effects of affluence than test scores? Affluent kids with motivated parents likely have been in enrichment classes for quite awhile and are likely ahead. If the kid struggles at all, the affluent parents are likely to get a tutor and shore up any deficiencies the kid might have. If all else fails, the affluent parents are much more likely to badger the teacher and administration until their kid's grade turns into an A. It honestly doesn't seem hard for any parent with the money and motivation to make sure any average kid could get straight As in middle school.

Likewise, it's pretty easy to talk about love for STEM and such when the kid has been attending enrichment and camps for many years. Again, it would also be easy to get prep and tutoring to write a highly polished essay.

With tests like PSAT, while prep helps to some degree, there is a pretty strong limit. Kids who are naturally 99th percentile will likely earn very high scores with no or minimal prep. Kids who are pretty average but privileged will see score increases, but they're still unlikely to earn super high scores. It seems easier for affluent parents to ensure that their kids have straight As and can write strong essays than it would be to ensure that their kid would earn a very high PSAT score.

So what am I missing, here?

This appears not to be an issue since the entering classes are economically more diverse than any before the change.

There is an explicit preference for FARM students. Why do we also have to remove merit to achieve the economic diversity?

Because the fair, objective selection process that other top magnets (Stuy, etc) use to get both highly qualified students who are also economically diverse (an objective test for which prep resources are widely and freely available) is off the table for TJ due to racial reasons.

You are mistaken. They cannot legally use race in the US.

The purpose of the admissions policy change was to get TJ to reflect the racial diversity of fairfax.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Simple and honest question: Why do so many of you think that GPA and essays are *less* vulnerable to prep and effects of affluence than test scores? Affluent kids with motivated parents likely have been in enrichment classes for quite awhile and are likely ahead. If the kid struggles at all, the affluent parents are likely to get a tutor and shore up any deficiencies the kid might have. If all else fails, the affluent parents are much more likely to badger the teacher and administration until their kid's grade turns into an A. It honestly doesn't seem hard for any parent with the money and motivation to make sure any average kid could get straight As in middle school.

Likewise, it's pretty easy to talk about love for STEM and such when the kid has been attending enrichment and camps for many years. Again, it would also be easy to get prep and tutoring to write a highly polished essay.

With tests like PSAT, while prep helps to some degree, there is a pretty strong limit. Kids who are naturally 99th percentile will likely earn very high scores with no or minimal prep. Kids who are pretty average but privileged will see score increases, but they're still unlikely to earn super high scores. It seems easier for affluent parents to ensure that their kids have straight As and can write strong essays than it would be to ensure that their kid would earn a very high PSAT score.

So what am I missing, here?

This appears not to be an issue since the entering classes are economically more diverse than any before the change.

There is an explicit preference for FARM students. Why do we also have to remove merit to achieve the economic diversity?

Because the fair, objective selection process that other top magnets (Stuy, etc) use to get both highly qualified students who are also economically diverse (an objective test for which prep resources are widely and freely available) is off the table for TJ due to racial reasons.

The preference is so important and why is the number of farm students so low?

The FARM rate was lower than it needed to be under the old system because the old system included a holistic component.
The kids who tested into the pool had a much higher FARM rate than 2% but very few poor kids made it through the holistic part of the admissions process.

You missed the point. If the FARMS preference gives such a significant bump, why are the number of FARMS students still so low?

I like hard data. FCPS school profiles show that 13.6% of the TJ kids are economically disadvantaged. Looking at 8th grade SOL scores from last year:
of those who passed the Algebra II SOL, 185 were not economically disadvantaged and 14 were, meaning only 7.04% of the highest math level kids are FARMS. For 8th grade Geometry, there were 1500 non FARMS and 122 FARMS, so only 7.52% of these kids were FARMS. In this case, I didn't even look at pass advanced, but the numbers are even worse for economically disadvantaged kids.

If you look at Algebra I (and keep in mind that this includes kids who didn't take honors and thus weren't eligible in the first place), and in this case consider only those who got pass advanced on the test (considering that a kid who is not even pass advanced in the lowest math level allowed is likely not really TJ material), there were 1256 non FARMS and 202 FARMS, meaning only 13.85% of the kids at this level were FARMS.

If anything, FARMS kids look pretty overrepresented at TJ compared to their math level and demonstrated mastery of the material.

The county's FARMs rate is closer to 40%, and at 13% of TJ, they would be underrepresented.

25% of the class of 2025 was FARM
20% of the class of 2026 was FARM
11% of the class of 2027 was FARM
16% of the class of 2028 was FARM

18% of admits during the admissions period for the current cadre of students
The admits are either (i) not coming to TJ, (ii) leaving to return to their base school, (iii) getting wealthier, (iv) some combination of the above.

But the point isn't that the FARM students are over-represented relative to the population of all kids. The PPP is saying they are over-represented relative to their proportion of kids that are at an advanced level of math.

This. Some PP said that the FARMS preference must not mean much since FARMS are still underrepresented. But, unless FCPS releases info on the admissions rates for FARMS kids, we won't know the effect of the experience factor points on admissions. If SOL scores can be used as somewhat of a proxy for TJ eligibility, it is important to note that while FARMS kids make up 40% of the FCPS population, they make up much smaller percentages of the kids likely meeting the TJ minima for math level and GPA.

[Anonymous]

The FRE % before the change was tiny: less than 1% for the class of 2024 admits.

The new admissions process removed some barriers for kids from low-income families but not all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Simple and honest question: Why do so many of you think that GPA and essays are *less* vulnerable to prep and effects of affluence than test scores? Affluent kids with motivated parents likely have been in enrichment classes for quite awhile and are likely ahead. If the kid struggles at all, the affluent parents are likely to get a tutor and shore up any deficiencies the kid might have. If all else fails, the affluent parents are much more likely to badger the teacher and administration until their kid's grade turns into an A. It honestly doesn't seem hard for any parent with the money and motivation to make sure any average kid could get straight As in middle school.

Likewise, it's pretty easy to talk about love for STEM and such when the kid has been attending enrichment and camps for many years. Again, it would also be easy to get prep and tutoring to write a highly polished essay.

With tests like PSAT, while prep helps to some degree, there is a pretty strong limit. Kids who are naturally 99th percentile will likely earn very high scores with no or minimal prep. Kids who are pretty average but privileged will see score increases, but they're still unlikely to earn super high scores. It seems easier for affluent parents to ensure that their kids have straight As and can write strong essays than it would be to ensure that their kid would earn a very high PSAT score.

So what am I missing, here?

This appears not to be an issue since the entering classes are economically more diverse than any before the change.

There is an explicit preference for FARM students. Why do we also have to remove merit to achieve the economic diversity?

Because the fair, objective selection process that other top magnets (Stuy, etc) use to get both highly qualified students who are also economically diverse (an objective test for which prep resources are widely and freely available) is off the table for TJ due to racial reasons.

The preference is so important and why is the number of farm students so low?

The FARM rate was lower than it needed to be under the old system because the old system included a holistic component.
The kids who tested into the pool had a much higher FARM rate than 2% but very few poor kids made it through the holistic part of the admissions process.

Citation?

The middle schools with lower FRE% generally had a higher % of kids make it into the pool. {b]The % of kids accepted from pool wasn’t generally higher at low FRE% schools. [/b]

Pool to admit rate for class of 2024

Nysmith 90
Willard Intermediate School LCPS 69
Kilmer Middle School 67
Longfellow Middle School 59
Cooper Middle School 57
Jackson Middle School 57
Carson Middle School 57
Frost Middle School 47
Lake Braddock Middle School 47
Lunsford LCPS 44
Rocky Run Middle School 42
Stone Hill LCPS 41

Other schools had too few admits to report.

So you don't actually have the FRE % of kids who tested into the pool?

The data available shows that wealth plays the biggest role for entry into the pool. (and overall admit rate)




(red is best case scenario for TS)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Simple and honest question: Why do so many of you think that GPA and essays are *less* vulnerable to prep and effects of affluence than test scores? Affluent kids with motivated parents likely have been in enrichment classes for quite awhile and are likely ahead. If the kid struggles at all, the affluent parents are likely to get a tutor and shore up any deficiencies the kid might have. If all else fails, the affluent parents are much more likely to badger the teacher and administration until their kid's grade turns into an A. It honestly doesn't seem hard for any parent with the money and motivation to make sure any average kid could get straight As in middle school.

Likewise, it's pretty easy to talk about love for STEM and such when the kid has been attending enrichment and camps for many years. Again, it would also be easy to get prep and tutoring to write a highly polished essay.

With tests like PSAT, while prep helps to some degree, there is a pretty strong limit. Kids who are naturally 99th percentile will likely earn very high scores with no or minimal prep. Kids who are pretty average but privileged will see score increases, but they're still unlikely to earn super high scores. It seems easier for affluent parents to ensure that their kids have straight As and can write strong essays than it would be to ensure that their kid would earn a very high PSAT score.

So what am I missing, here?

This appears not to be an issue since the entering classes are economically more diverse than any before the change.

There is an explicit preference for FARM students. Why do we also have to remove merit to achieve the economic diversity?

Because the fair, objective selection process that other top magnets (Stuy, etc) use to get both highly qualified students who are also economically diverse (an objective test for which prep resources are widely and freely available) is off the table for TJ due to racial reasons.

The preference is so important and why is the number of farm students so low?

The FARM rate was lower than it needed to be under the old system because the old system included a holistic component.
The kids who tested into the pool had a much higher FARM rate than 2% but very few poor kids made it through the holistic part of the admissions process.

Citation?

The middle schools with lower FRE% generally had a higher % of kids make it into the pool. {b]The % of kids accepted from pool wasn’t generally higher at low FRE% schools. [/b]

Pool to admit rate for class of 2024

Nysmith 90
Willard Intermediate School LCPS 69
Kilmer Middle School 67
Longfellow Middle School 59
Cooper Middle School 57
Jackson Middle School 57
Carson Middle School 57
Frost Middle School 47
Lake Braddock Middle School 47
Lunsford LCPS 44
Rocky Run Middle School 42
Stone Hill LCPS 41

Other schools had too few admits to report.

So you don't actually have the FRE % of kids who tested into the pool?

The data available shows that wealth plays the biggest role for entry into the pool. (and overall admit rate)




(red is best case scenario for TS)

Correlation /= causation

Academic ability is not evenly spread across the income spectrum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Simple and honest question: Why do so many of you think that GPA and essays are *less* vulnerable to prep and effects of affluence than test scores? Affluent kids with motivated parents likely have been in enrichment classes for quite awhile and are likely ahead. If the kid struggles at all, the affluent parents are likely to get a tutor and shore up any deficiencies the kid might have. If all else fails, the affluent parents are much more likely to badger the teacher and administration until their kid's grade turns into an A. It honestly doesn't seem hard for any parent with the money and motivation to make sure any average kid could get straight As in middle school.

Likewise, it's pretty easy to talk about love for STEM and such when the kid has been attending enrichment and camps for many years. Again, it would also be easy to get prep and tutoring to write a highly polished essay.

With tests like PSAT, while prep helps to some degree, there is a pretty strong limit. Kids who are naturally 99th percentile will likely earn very high scores with no or minimal prep. Kids who are pretty average but privileged will see score increases, but they're still unlikely to earn super high scores. It seems easier for affluent parents to ensure that their kids have straight As and can write strong essays than it would be to ensure that their kid would earn a very high PSAT score.

So what am I missing, here?

This appears not to be an issue since the entering classes are economically more diverse than any before the change.

There is an explicit preference for FARM students. Why do we also have to remove merit to achieve the economic diversity?

Because the fair, objective selection process that other top magnets (Stuy, etc) use to get both highly qualified students who are also economically diverse (an objective test for which prep resources are widely and freely available) is off the table for TJ due to racial reasons.

The preference is so important and why is the number of farm students so low?

The FARM rate was lower than it needed to be under the old system because the old system included a holistic component.
The kids who tested into the pool had a much higher FARM rate than 2% but very few poor kids made it through the holistic part of the admissions process.

Citation?

The middle schools with lower FRE% generally had a higher % of kids make it into the pool. {b]The % of kids accepted from pool wasn’t generally higher at low FRE% schools. [/b]

Pool to admit rate for class of 2024

Nysmith 90
Willard Intermediate School LCPS 69
Kilmer Middle School 67
Longfellow Middle School 59
Cooper Middle School 57
Jackson Middle School 57
Carson Middle School 57
Frost Middle School 47
Lake Braddock Middle School 47
Lunsford LCPS 44
Rocky Run Middle School 42
Stone Hill LCPS 41

Other schools had too few admits to report.

So you don't actually have the FRE % of kids who tested into the pool?

The data available shows that wealth plays the biggest role for entry into the pool. (and overall admit rate)




(red is best case scenario for TS)

Correlation /= causation

Academic ability is not evenly spread across the income spectrum.

The "academic ability" of kids from wealthier MSs was shaped by parents who wanted their kids to attend TJ and corralled them into relevant tutoring, prep programs, extracurricular activities, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Simple and honest question: Why do so many of you think that GPA and essays are *less* vulnerable to prep and effects of affluence than test scores? Affluent kids with motivated parents likely have been in enrichment classes for quite awhile and are likely ahead. If the kid struggles at all, the affluent parents are likely to get a tutor and shore up any deficiencies the kid might have. If all else fails, the affluent parents are much more likely to badger the teacher and administration until their kid's grade turns into an A. It honestly doesn't seem hard for any parent with the money and motivation to make sure any average kid could get straight As in middle school.

Likewise, it's pretty easy to talk about love for STEM and such when the kid has been attending enrichment and camps for many years. Again, it would also be easy to get prep and tutoring to write a highly polished essay.

With tests like PSAT, while prep helps to some degree, there is a pretty strong limit. Kids who are naturally 99th percentile will likely earn very high scores with no or minimal prep. Kids who are pretty average but privileged will see score increases, but they're still unlikely to earn super high scores. It seems easier for affluent parents to ensure that their kids have straight As and can write strong essays than it would be to ensure that their kid would earn a very high PSAT score.

So what am I missing, here?

This appears not to be an issue since the entering classes are economically more diverse than any before the change.

There is an explicit preference for FARM students. Why do we also have to remove merit to achieve the economic diversity?

Because the fair, objective selection process that other top magnets (Stuy, etc) use to get both highly qualified students who are also economically diverse (an objective test for which prep resources are widely and freely available) is off the table for TJ due to racial reasons.

The preference is so important and why is the number of farm students so low?

The FARM rate was lower than it needed to be under the old system because the old system included a holistic component.
The kids who tested into the pool had a much higher FARM rate than 2% but very few poor kids made it through the holistic part of the admissions process.

Citation?

The middle schools with lower FRE% generally had a higher % of kids make it into the pool. {b]The % of kids accepted from pool wasn’t generally higher at low FRE% schools. [/b]

Pool to admit rate for class of 2024

Nysmith 90
Willard Intermediate School LCPS 69
Kilmer Middle School 67
Longfellow Middle School 59
Cooper Middle School 57
Jackson Middle School 57
Carson Middle School 57
Frost Middle School 47
Lake Braddock Middle School 47
Lunsford LCPS 44
Rocky Run Middle School 42
Stone Hill LCPS 41

Other schools had too few admits to report.

So you don't actually have the FRE % of kids who tested into the pool?

The data available shows that wealth plays the biggest role for entry into the pool. (and overall admit rate)




(red is best case scenario for TS)

Correlation /= causation

Academic ability is not evenly spread across the income spectrum.

The "academic ability" of kids from wealthier MSs was shaped by parents who wanted their kids to attend TJ and corralled them into relevant tutoring, prep programs, extracurricular activities, etc.

DP. We don't like to talk about it anymore but TJ is actually a governor's school for gifted students, i.e., high IQ students. Usually that correlates with academic achievement, so there's no IQ test for it, only grades and an academic test.

IQ is heritable and also usually correlates with wealth. Not necessarily UC but generally MC or UMC. There are outliers but it's not unexpected that most students at a gifted magnet school would not be FARMs.

[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:Simple and honest question: Why do so many of you think that GPA and essays are *less* vulnerable to prep and effects of affluence than test scores? Affluent kids with motivated parents likely have been in enrichment classes for quite awhile and are likely ahead. If the kid struggles at all, the affluent parents are likely to get a tutor and shore up any deficiencies the kid might have. If all else fails, the affluent parents are much more likely to badger the teacher and administration until their kid's grade turns into an A. It honestly doesn't seem hard for any parent with the money and motivation to make sure any average kid could get straight As in middle school.

Likewise, it's pretty easy to talk about love for STEM and such when the kid has been attending enrichment and camps for many years. Again, it would also be easy to get prep and tutoring to write a highly polished essay.

With tests like PSAT, while prep helps to some degree, there is a pretty strong limit. Kids who are naturally 99th percentile will likely earn very high scores with no or minimal prep. Kids who are pretty average but privileged will see score increases, but they're still unlikely to earn super high scores. It seems easier for affluent parents to ensure that their kids have straight As and can write strong essays than it would be to ensure that their kid would earn a very high PSAT score.

So what am I missing, here?

This appears not to be an issue since the entering classes are economically more diverse than any before the change.

There is an explicit preference for FARM students. Why do we also have to remove merit to achieve the economic diversity?

Because the fair, objective selection process that other top magnets (Stuy, etc) use to get both highly qualified students who are also economically diverse (an objective test for which prep resources are widely and freely available) is off the table for TJ due to racial reasons.

The preference is so important and why is the number of farm students so low?

The FARM rate was lower than it needed to be under the old system because the old system included a holistic component.
The kids who tested into the pool had a much higher FARM rate than 2% but very few poor kids made it through the holistic part of the admissions process.

Citation?

The middle schools with lower FRE% generally had a higher % of kids make it into the pool. {b]The % of kids accepted from pool wasn’t generally higher at low FRE% schools. [/b]

Pool to admit rate for class of 2024

Nysmith 90
Willard Intermediate School LCPS 69
Kilmer Middle School 67
Longfellow Middle School 59
Cooper Middle School 57
Jackson Middle School 57
Carson Middle School 57
Frost Middle School 47
Lake Braddock Middle School 47
Lunsford LCPS 44
Rocky Run Middle School 42
Stone Hill LCPS 41

Other schools had too few admits to report.

So you don't actually have the FRE % of kids who tested into the pool?

The data available shows that wealth plays the biggest role for entry into the pool. (and overall admit rate)




(red is best case scenario for TS)

Correlation /= causation

Academic ability is not evenly spread across the income spectrum.

The "academic ability" of kids from wealthier MSs was shaped by parents who wanted their kids to attend TJ and corralled them into relevant tutoring, prep programs, extracurricular activities, etc.

DP. We don't like to talk about it anymore but TJ is actually a governor's school for gifted students, i.e., high IQ students. Usually that correlates with academic achievement, so there's no IQ test for it, only grades and an academic test.

IQ is heritable and also usually correlates with wealth. Not necessarily UC but generally MC or UMC. There are outliers but it's not unexpected that most students at a gifted magnet school would not be FARMs.

They weren’t looking at IQ. They were evaluating applicants based on things where wealthy kids had an unfair advantage: specialized tests, activities/clubs, etc.

[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:Simple and honest question: Why do so many of you think that GPA and essays are *less* vulnerable to prep and effects of affluence than test scores? Affluent kids with motivated parents likely have been in enrichment classes for quite awhile and are likely ahead. If the kid struggles at all, the affluent parents are likely to get a tutor and shore up any deficiencies the kid might have. If all else fails, the affluent parents are much more likely to badger the teacher and administration until their kid's grade turns into an A. It honestly doesn't seem hard for any parent with the money and motivation to make sure any average kid could get straight As in middle school.

Likewise, it's pretty easy to talk about love for STEM and such when the kid has been attending enrichment and camps for many years. Again, it would also be easy to get prep and tutoring to write a highly polished essay.

With tests like PSAT, while prep helps to some degree, there is a pretty strong limit. Kids who are naturally 99th percentile will likely earn very high scores with no or minimal prep. Kids who are pretty average but privileged will see score increases, but they're still unlikely to earn super high scores. It seems easier for affluent parents to ensure that their kids have straight As and can write strong essays than it would be to ensure that their kid would earn a very high PSAT score.

So what am I missing, here?

This appears not to be an issue since the entering classes are economically more diverse than any before the change.

There is an explicit preference for FARM students. Why do we also have to remove merit to achieve the economic diversity?

Because the fair, objective selection process that other top magnets (Stuy, etc) use to get both highly qualified students who are also economically diverse (an objective test for which prep resources are widely and freely available) is off the table for TJ due to racial reasons.

The preference is so important and why is the number of farm students so low?

The FARM rate was lower than it needed to be under the old system because the old system included a holistic component.
The kids who tested into the pool had a much higher FARM rate than 2% but very few poor kids made it through the holistic part of the admissions process.

Citation?

The middle schools with lower FRE% generally had a higher % of kids make it into the pool. {b]The % of kids accepted from pool wasn’t generally higher at low FRE% schools. [/b]

Pool to admit rate for class of 2024

Nysmith 90
Willard Intermediate School LCPS 69
Kilmer Middle School 67
Longfellow Middle School 59
Cooper Middle School 57
Jackson Middle School 57
Carson Middle School 57
Frost Middle School 47
Lake Braddock Middle School 47
Lunsford LCPS 44
Rocky Run Middle School 42
Stone Hill LCPS 41

Other schools had too few admits to report.

So you don't actually have the FRE % of kids who tested into the pool?

The data available shows that wealth plays the biggest role for entry into the pool. (and overall admit rate)




(red is best case scenario for TS)

Correlation /= causation

Academic ability is not evenly spread across the income spectrum.

The "academic ability" of kids from wealthier MSs was shaped by parents who wanted their kids to attend TJ and corralled them into relevant tutoring, prep programs, extracurricular activities, etc.

DP. We don't like to talk about it anymore but TJ is actually a governor's school for gifted students, i.e., high IQ students. Usually that correlates with academic achievement, so there's no IQ test for it, only grades and an academic test.

IQ is heritable and also usually correlates with wealth. Not necessarily UC but generally MC or UMC. There are outliers but it's not unexpected that most students at a gifted magnet school would not be FARMs.

They weren’t looking at IQ. They were evaluating applicants based on things where wealthy kids had an unfair advantage: specialized tests, activities/clubs, etc.

+1
I would be fine if they shifted to some type of IQ test that couldn’t be prepped for. People strategizing their kids’ childhoods for years to get in is what broke the former system.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:Simple and honest question: Why do so many of you think that GPA and essays are *less* vulnerable to prep and effects of affluence than test scores? Affluent kids with motivated parents likely have been in enrichment classes for quite awhile and are likely ahead. If the kid struggles at all, the affluent parents are likely to get a tutor and shore up any deficiencies the kid might have. If all else fails, the affluent parents are much more likely to badger the teacher and administration until their kid's grade turns into an A. It honestly doesn't seem hard for any parent with the money and motivation to make sure any average kid could get straight As in middle school.

Likewise, it's pretty easy to talk about love for STEM and such when the kid has been attending enrichment and camps for many years. Again, it would also be easy to get prep and tutoring to write a highly polished essay.

With tests like PSAT, while prep helps to some degree, there is a pretty strong limit. Kids who are naturally 99th percentile will likely earn very high scores with no or minimal prep. Kids who are pretty average but privileged will see score increases, but they're still unlikely to earn super high scores. It seems easier for affluent parents to ensure that their kids have straight As and can write strong essays than it would be to ensure that their kid would earn a very high PSAT score.

So what am I missing, here?

This appears not to be an issue since the entering classes are economically more diverse than any before the change.

There is an explicit preference for FARM students. Why do we also have to remove merit to achieve the economic diversity?

Because the fair, objective selection process that other top magnets (Stuy, etc) use to get both highly qualified students who are also economically diverse (an objective test for which prep resources are widely and freely available) is off the table for TJ due to racial reasons.

The preference is so important and why is the number of farm students so low?

The FARM rate was lower than it needed to be under the old system because the old system included a holistic component.
The kids who tested into the pool had a much higher FARM rate than 2% but very few poor kids made it through the holistic part of the admissions process.

Citation?

The middle schools with lower FRE% generally had a higher % of kids make it into the pool. {b]The % of kids accepted from pool wasn’t generally higher at low FRE% schools. [/b]

Pool to admit rate for class of 2024

Nysmith 90
Willard Intermediate School LCPS 69
Kilmer Middle School 67
Longfellow Middle School 59
Cooper Middle School 57
Jackson Middle School 57
Carson Middle School 57
Frost Middle School 47
Lake Braddock Middle School 47
Lunsford LCPS 44
Rocky Run Middle School 42
Stone Hill LCPS 41

Other schools had too few admits to report.

So you don't actually have the FRE % of kids who tested into the pool?

The data available shows that wealth plays the biggest role for entry into the pool. (and overall admit rate)




(red is best case scenario for TS)

Correlation /= causation

Academic ability is not evenly spread across the income spectrum.

The "academic ability" of kids from wealthier MSs was shaped by parents who wanted their kids to attend TJ and corralled them into relevant tutoring, prep programs, extracurricular activities, etc.

DP. We don't like to talk about it anymore but TJ is actually a governor's school for gifted students, i.e., high IQ students. Usually that correlates with academic achievement, so there's no IQ test for it, only grades and an academic test.

IQ is heritable and also usually correlates with wealth. Not necessarily UC but generally MC or UMC. There are outliers but it's not unexpected that most students at a gifted magnet school would not be FARMs.

They weren’t looking at IQ. They were evaluating applicants based on things where wealthy kids had an unfair advantage: specialized tests, activities/clubs, etc.

+1
I would be fine if they shifted to some type of IQ test that couldn’t be prepped for. People strategizing their kids’ childhoods for years to get in is what broke the former system.

If by broken you mean too many asians and not enough whites.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Simple and honest question: Why do so many of you think that GPA and essays are *less* vulnerable to prep and effects of affluence than test scores? Affluent kids with motivated parents likely have been in enrichment classes for quite awhile and are likely ahead. If the kid struggles at all, the affluent parents are likely to get a tutor and shore up any deficiencies the kid might have. If all else fails, the affluent parents are much more likely to badger the teacher and administration until their kid's grade turns into an A. It honestly doesn't seem hard for any parent with the money and motivation to make sure any average kid could get straight As in middle school.

Likewise, it's pretty easy to talk about love for STEM and such when the kid has been attending enrichment and camps for many years. Again, it would also be easy to get prep and tutoring to write a highly polished essay.

With tests like PSAT, while prep helps to some degree, there is a pretty strong limit. Kids who are naturally 99th percentile will likely earn very high scores with no or minimal prep. Kids who are pretty average but privileged will see score increases, but they're still unlikely to earn super high scores. It seems easier for affluent parents to ensure that their kids have straight As and can write strong essays than it would be to ensure that their kid would earn a very high PSAT score.

So what am I missing, here?

This appears not to be an issue since the entering classes are economically more diverse than any before the change.

There is an explicit preference for FARM students. Why do we also have to remove merit to achieve the economic diversity?

Because the fair, objective selection process that other top magnets (Stuy, etc) use to get both highly qualified students who are also economically diverse (an objective test for which prep resources are widely and freely available) is off the table for TJ due to racial reasons.

The preference is so important and why is the number of farm students so low?

The FARM rate was lower than it needed to be under the old system because the old system included a holistic component.
The kids who tested into the pool had a much higher FARM rate than 2% but very few poor kids made it through the holistic part of the admissions process.

Citation?

The middle schools with lower FRE% generally had a higher % of kids make it into the pool. {b]The % of kids accepted from pool wasn’t generally higher at low FRE% schools. [/b]

Pool to admit rate for class of 2024

Nysmith 90
Willard Intermediate School LCPS 69
Kilmer Middle School 67
Longfellow Middle School 59
Cooper Middle School 57
Jackson Middle School 57
Carson Middle School 57
Frost Middle School 47
Lake Braddock Middle School 47
Lunsford LCPS 44
Rocky Run Middle School 42
Stone Hill LCPS 41

Other schools had too few admits to report.

So you don't actually have the FRE % of kids who tested into the pool?

The data available shows that wealth plays the biggest role for entry into the pool. (and overall admit rate)




(red is best case scenario for TS)

Correlation /= causation

Academic ability is not evenly spread across the income spectrum.

The "academic ability" of kids from wealthier MSs was shaped by parents who wanted their kids to attend TJ and corralled them into relevant tutoring, prep programs, extracurricular activities, etc.

DP. We don't like to talk about it anymore but TJ is actually a governor's school for gifted students, i.e., high IQ students. Usually that correlates with academic achievement, so there's no IQ test for it, only grades and an academic test.

IQ is heritable and also usually correlates with wealth. Not necessarily UC but generally MC or UMC. There are outliers but it's not unexpected that most students at a gifted magnet school would not be FARMs.

They weren’t looking at IQ. They were evaluating applicants based on things where wealthy kids had an unfair advantage: specialized tests, activities/clubs, etc.

+1
I would be fine if they shifted to some type of IQ test that couldn’t be prepped for. People strategizing their kids’ childhoods for years to get in is what broke the former system.

If by broken you mean too many asians and not enough whites.

PP mentioned behaviors that many flavors of affluent parents engaged in.

Money bought access.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Simple and honest question: Why do so many of you think that GPA and essays are *less* vulnerable to prep and effects of affluence than test scores? Affluent kids with motivated parents likely have been in enrichment classes for quite awhile and are likely ahead. If the kid struggles at all, the affluent parents are likely to get a tutor and shore up any deficiencies the kid might have. If all else fails, the affluent parents are much more likely to badger the teacher and administration until their kid's grade turns into an A. It honestly doesn't seem hard for any parent with the money and motivation to make sure any average kid could get straight As in middle school.

Likewise, it's pretty easy to talk about love for STEM and such when the kid has been attending enrichment and camps for many years. Again, it would also be easy to get prep and tutoring to write a highly polished essay.

With tests like PSAT, while prep helps to some degree, there is a pretty strong limit. Kids who are naturally 99th percentile will likely earn very high scores with no or minimal prep. Kids who are pretty average but privileged will see score increases, but they're still unlikely to earn super high scores. It seems easier for affluent parents to ensure that their kids have straight As and can write strong essays than it would be to ensure that their kid would earn a very high PSAT score.

So what am I missing, here?

This appears not to be an issue since the entering classes are economically more diverse than any before the change.

There is an explicit preference for FARM students. Why do we also have to remove merit to achieve the economic diversity?

Because the fair, objective selection process that other top magnets (Stuy, etc) use to get both highly qualified students who are also economically diverse (an objective test for which prep resources are widely and freely available) is off the table for TJ due to racial reasons.

The preference is so important and why is the number of farm students so low?

The FARM rate was lower than it needed to be under the old system because the old system included a holistic component.
The kids who tested into the pool had a much higher FARM rate than 2% but very few poor kids made it through the holistic part of the admissions process.

Citation?

The middle schools with lower FRE% generally had a higher % of kids make it into the pool. {b]The % of kids accepted from pool wasn’t generally higher at low FRE% schools. [/b]

Pool to admit rate for class of 2024

Nysmith 90
Willard Intermediate School LCPS 69
Kilmer Middle School 67
Longfellow Middle School 59
Cooper Middle School 57
Jackson Middle School 57
Carson Middle School 57
Frost Middle School 47
Lake Braddock Middle School 47
Lunsford LCPS 44
Rocky Run Middle School 42
Stone Hill LCPS 41

Other schools had too few admits to report.

So you don't actually have the FRE % of kids who tested into the pool?

The data available shows that wealth plays the biggest role for entry into the pool. (and overall admit rate)




(red is best case scenario for TS)

Correlation /= causation

Academic ability is not evenly spread across the income spectrum.

The "academic ability" of kids from wealthier MSs was shaped by parents who wanted their kids to attend TJ and corralled them into relevant tutoring, prep programs, extracurricular activities, etc.

DP. We don't like to talk about it anymore but TJ is actually a governor's school for gifted students, i.e., high IQ students. Usually that correlates with academic achievement, so there's no IQ test for it, only grades and an academic test.

IQ is heritable and also usually correlates with wealth. Not necessarily UC but generally MC or UMC. There are outliers but it's not unexpected that most students at a gifted magnet school would not be FARMs.

They weren’t looking at IQ. They were evaluating applicants based on things where wealthy kids had an unfair advantage: specialized tests, activities/clubs, etc.

+1
I would be fine if they shifted to some type of IQ test that couldn’t be prepped for. People strategizing their kids’ childhoods for years to get in is what broke the former system.

If by broken you mean too many asians and not enough whites.

PP mentioned behaviors that many flavors of affluent parents engaged in.

Money bought access.

If money bought access, then in a county where there are more white kids than asian kids and white families are wealthier than asian families, we would see more white kids.
We do not.

I know some people think it's because white families don't want their kids going to TJ but then how would you explain the fact that TJ was predominantly white before the asians showed up.

At every income level asians outperform others. Not because of some innate talent but because of effort, unequal effort leads to unequal results.