Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I wish we hadn't gotten away from the teacher recommendations conversation here.
I think we have to get them back but that it has to be done intelligently and with an eye toward minimizing 1) the load on middle school teachers to write them and 2) the impact of experience in recommendation writing on the evaluation of the applicant. That is to say, you don't want to have a kid whose application is negatively impacted because their rec didn't come from Vern Williams or Eugene Huang.
My thought process would be to design them to be used to evaluate applicants from the same school against each other to help determine that top 1-1.5% (I am strongly pro-reform but in favor of a 1% threshold while still considering underrepresented school status as part of the holistic evaluation).
You use a Likert scale, but you ask the teachers to evaluate each of the students based on how they fit in the context of their current class and, in some rare cases, in the history of their student population. And the metrics you ask them to evaluate on go well beyond the standard evaluation of content area knowledge and include things like "intellectual curiosity", "contributions to the classroom", "collaborative instincts", and the like.
And lastly, you afford each teacher the opportunity to write on an open-ended basis about a maximum of, say, three students - and with the ability to do so either positively or negatively (to spare TJ from, for example, a problematic parent or a student who is a strongly suspected cheater).
As I've said before, it is absurd to attempt to select the most worthy students from a school with no input from the classroom teachers at that school - and while we're at it, there should be an affordance for the Student Services department to write on behalf of a small group of students as well.
Jumping through so many goddam hoops all to avoid using a standardized tests like the rest of the fkn world.
Standardized tests can have limited value. I will submit that. The problem is that any time you use them, they take on an importance to the public (and sometimes to evaluators) that is way above their actual value because they're theoretically an objective measuring stick.
The problem is that the thing that they measure just isn't that critical. You learn absolutely nothing about what a child will contribute to a classroom dynamic from a standardized test, and the classroom dynamic is the defining feature of any quality educational experience. And it's especially critical in elite and advanced educational settings.
Failing to understand this is a failure to understand why the world's brightest minds move to America (or occasionally England) to go to college and don't move to "the rest of the fkn world".
"classroom dynamic" WTF are you talking about?
That such cotton headed bull. People don't come to american colleges because of the conversation. They come here because this is where the money is.
You come to school here because it means you can get a job here. How do you think you get into Oxbridge and a brit? Do you have any idea how smart the kids at tsinghua and peking are, you need a test score at least 680 out of 750. That places you in the top 0.07% that's over 3 standard deviations from the mean, 7 people out of 10,000 get a score that high. You know who is going to the IIT schools in India?
We are not producing more patents than these countries.
We are not producing more science than these countries.
These countries are going to eat our lunch if we keep promoting the wrong kids to receive scarce educational resources.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}