TJ 2025 seniors destination

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You all realize that a student who selected College X might have gotten into 10+ other schools, right? The destinations are in no way indicative of TJ admissions to colleges overall.

Of course it's indicative of where they got in.

Sure there are corner cases, but by and large it is pretty indicative of the best schools they got into.

You don't have 20 kids that are going to GMU that got into VT but just couldn't afford it. And they certainly didn't get into Ivy+.

You don’t know that. Kids apply for a variety of college, hoping to get in and get enough aid to attend. Maybe they get in but they don’t get the aid. Maybe they get i but their parents financial picture has changed and they can no longer afford it.

Maybe they choose GMU for cost purposes and because they need to be around to help take care of siblings or a family business.

Plenty of people realize that the prestige of the school is not the only reason to attend the school and have other criteria that they are looking at. The FARMs rate at TJ went up, so it makes sense that some kids would be looking for good colleges that are more affordable. The Ivies and other schools might not be affordable even with aid. You have to pay for books, housing, food, and other expenses. You can attend GMU and live at home.

For any individual, there are all sorts of factors that can come into play but when dealing with large groups, the law of large numbers starts to kick in and kids will select a good option over a less good option.

Perhaps there is a kid in there somewhere that picked GMU over VT but not many and there are NONE that picked GMU over any of the ivy+ schools. We lost a lot of kids going to top 20 schools and gained a lot of kids going to GMU. And we don't have as many poor kids as you think. We admitted 25% FARM but I doubt we have 15% in the graduating class. Many of them returned to their base school.

Once again, GMU is a good school but it's less good than VT, UVA or ivy+

If you cannot afford the Ivy and you don't want to rack up a ton f debt, you might choose GMU or VT or UVA. If you have family that you need to help, like watching siblings for working parents or helping with the family business, you might choose GMU.

No one is saying that GMU is equal in prestige or quality to an Ivy or VT or UVA but there are reasons for smart kids who graduate from any school to choose that path over the Ivy. Plenty of people understand that you don't have to have a degree from an Ivy to do well in life. It would be great but there are kids who could attend that cannot for other reasons.

This is clearly the exception. The population of kids that can only afford GMU but not UVA/VT and will not get aid at ivy+ is a small small population

GMU is local. Living at home is likely a plus for some kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t this the class that was admitted with the new admissions to have less Asians?

Yes, and no. This class was admitted under the new system but has historically high Asian enrollment. In fact, the change helped low-income Asians mroe than any other group.

The class of 2025 admitted a significantly lower percent of Asian students and ALSO admitted a significantly higher percent of low income Asians with bonus points who were admitted over other Asian students who had higher grades or essay scores.

What is categories as “significant” here?. The Farms rate under new admissions is still very low only around 11%. Big majority TJ students is still from wealthy family.

Going from 0.1% to 11% is a 110x increase.

Seems significant to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t this the class that was admitted with the new admissions to have less Asians?

Yes, and no. This class was admitted under the new system but has historically high Asian enrollment. In fact, the change helped low-income Asians mroe than any other group.

The class of 2025 admitted a significantly lower percent of Asian students and ALSO admitted a significantly higher percent of low income Asians with bonus points who were admitted over other Asian students who had higher grades or essay scores.

What is categories as “significant” here?. The Farms rate under new admissions is still very low only around 11%. Big majority TJ students is still from wealthy family.

It was 25% farm for the class of 2025.

Yes, but then it dropped to 10% because so many of the FARM kids got really bad grades and went back to their base schools much worse off than if they had never attended at all.

Cite, proof?

Wait, you know that a large number of FARM kids went back to their base school after freshman year but you want proof that they did so because of their bad grades? Are you stupid?

DP. There are a lot of reasons why someone may choose to leave TJ.

You are fabricating the narrative around the grades and the students being “worse off”.

But we all know that is exactly what happened. It's no secret which kids were struggling academically.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t this the class that was admitted with the new admissions to have less Asians?

The purpose want necessarily less Asians, it was racial balancing and THAT meant get Asians than would otherwise get in.

Except they added seats. It wasn’t zero sum.

Yes. They increased the class size by 10% and the Asian population STILL went down. Not because they wanted fewer Asians, just more of everybody else and that meant fewer Asians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You all realize that a student who selected College X might have gotten into 10+ other schools, right? The destinations are in no way indicative of TJ admissions to colleges overall.

Of course it's indicative of where they got in.

Sure there are corner cases, but by and large it is pretty indicative of the best schools they got into.

You don't have 20 kids that are going to GMU that got into VT but just couldn't afford it. And they certainly didn't get into Ivy+.

You don’t know that. Kids apply for a variety of college, hoping to get in and get enough aid to attend. Maybe they get in but they don’t get the aid. Maybe they get i but their parents financial picture has changed and they can no longer afford it.

Maybe they choose GMU for cost purposes and because they need to be around to help take care of siblings or a family business.

Plenty of people realize that the prestige of the school is not the only reason to attend the school and have other criteria that they are looking at. The FARMs rate at TJ went up, so it makes sense that some kids would be looking for good colleges that are more affordable. The Ivies and other schools might not be affordable even with aid. You have to pay for books, housing, food, and other expenses. You can attend GMU and live at home.

For any individual, there are all sorts of factors that can come into play but when dealing with large groups, the law of large numbers starts to kick in and kids will select a good option over a less good option.

Perhaps there is a kid in there somewhere that picked GMU over VT but not many and there are NONE that picked GMU over any of the ivy+ schools. We lost a lot of kids going to top 20 schools and gained a lot of kids going to GMU. And we don't have as many poor kids as you think. We admitted 25% FARM but I doubt we have 15% in the graduating class. Many of them returned to their base school.

Once again, GMU is a good school but it's less good than VT, UVA or ivy+

If you cannot afford the Ivy and you don't want to rack up a ton f debt, you might choose GMU or VT or UVA. If you have family that you need to help, like watching siblings for working parents or helping with the family business, you might choose GMU.

No one is saying that GMU is equal in prestige or quality to an Ivy or VT or UVA but there are reasons for smart kids who graduate from any school to choose that path over the Ivy. Plenty of people understand that you don't have to have a degree from an Ivy to do well in life. It would be great but there are kids who could attend that cannot for other reasons.

This is clearly the exception. The population of kids that can only afford GMU but not UVA/VT and will not get aid at ivy+ is a small small population

GMU is local. Living at home is likely a plus for some kids.

That is a small small population of kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t this the class that was admitted with the new admissions to have less Asians?

Yes, and no. This class was admitted under the new system but has historically high Asian enrollment. In fact, the change helped low-income Asians mroe than any other group.

The class of 2025 admitted a significantly lower percent of Asian students and ALSO admitted a significantly higher percent of low income Asians with bonus points who were admitted over other Asian students who had higher grades or essay scores.

What is categories as “significant” here?. The Farms rate under new admissions is still very low only around 11%. Big majority TJ students is still from wealthy family.

Going from 0.1% to 11% is a 110x increase.

Seems significant to me.

It went from 2% to 11%. Still significant but I don't know where you are getting 0.1% from.

And frankly a lot of those kids are struggling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t this the class that was admitted with the new admissions to have less Asians?

Yes, and no. This class was admitted under the new system but has historically high Asian enrollment. In fact, the change helped low-income Asians mroe than any other group.

The class of 2025 admitted a significantly lower percent of Asian students and ALSO admitted a significantly higher percent of low income Asians with bonus points who were admitted over other Asian students who had higher grades or essay scores.

What is categories as “significant” here?. The Farms rate under new admissions is still very low only around 11%. Big majority TJ students is still from wealthy family.

Going from 0.1% to 11% is a 110x increase.

Seems significant to me.

It went from 2% to 11%. Still significant but I don't know where you are getting 0.1% from.

And frankly a lot of those kids are struggling.

Many kids are struggling after remote learning but it will even out in time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t this the class that was admitted with the new admissions to have less Asians?

Yes, and no. This class was admitted under the new system but has historically high Asian enrollment. In fact, the change helped low-income Asians mroe than any other group.

The class of 2025 admitted a significantly lower percent of Asian students and ALSO admitted a significantly higher percent of low income Asians with bonus points who were admitted over other Asian students who had higher grades or essay scores.

What is categories as “significant” here?. The Farms rate under new admissions is still very low only around 11%. Big majority TJ students is still from wealthy family.

It was 25% farm for the class of 2025.

Yes, but then it dropped to 10% because so many of the FARM kids got really bad grades and went back to their base schools much worse off than if they had never attended at all.

Cite, proof?

Wait, you know that a large number of FARM kids went back to their base school after freshman year but you want proof that they did so because of their bad grades? Are you stupid?

DP. There are a lot of reasons why someone may choose to leave TJ.

You are fabricating the narrative around the grades and the students being “worse off”.

But we all know that is exactly what happened. It's no secret which kids were struggling academically.

No, you don’t know. You are making assumptions based on your biases.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t this the class that was admitted with the new admissions to have less Asians?

Yes, and no. This class was admitted under the new system but has historically high Asian enrollment. In fact, the change helped low-income Asians mroe than any other group.

The class of 2025 admitted a significantly lower percent of Asian students and ALSO admitted a significantly higher percent of low income Asians with bonus points who were admitted over other Asian students who had higher grades or essay scores.

What is categories as “significant” here?. The Farms rate under new admissions is still very low only around 11%. Big majority TJ students is still from wealthy family.

Going from 0.1% to 11% is a 110x increase.

Seems significant to me.

It went from 2% to 11%. Still significant but I don't know where you are getting 0.1% from.

And frankly a lot of those kids are struggling.

Oops. I mistyped and then absent-mindedly calculated off of that.

It was 0.62% ED for the admitted class of 2024. It was >10% for class of 2029. That would be a >1600% increase in admitted students.

As for enrollment, it went from 2.05% ED in 2020-21 to 16.82% for 2024-25. That’s a 820% increase.

You are assuming that “those kids” are struggling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t this the class that was admitted with the new admissions to have less Asians?

Yes, and no. This class was admitted under the new system but has historically high Asian enrollment. In fact, the change helped low-income Asians mroe than any other group.

The class of 2025 admitted a significantly lower percent of Asian students and ALSO admitted a significantly higher percent of low income Asians with bonus points who were admitted over other Asian students who had higher grades or essay scores.

What is categories as “significant” here?. The Farms rate under new admissions is still very low only around 11%. Big majority TJ students is still from wealthy family.

Going from 0.1% to 11% is a 110x increase.

Seems significant to me.

It went from 2% to 11%. Still significant but I don't know where you are getting 0.1% from.

And frankly a lot of those kids are struggling.

Many kids are struggling after remote learning but it will even out in time.

Then why aren't the kids at Stuyvesant similarly struggling after COVID?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t this the class that was admitted with the new admissions to have less Asians?

Yes, and no. This class was admitted under the new system but has historically high Asian enrollment. In fact, the change helped low-income Asians mroe than any other group.

The class of 2025 admitted a significantly lower percent of Asian students and ALSO admitted a significantly higher percent of low income Asians with bonus points who were admitted over other Asian students who had higher grades or essay scores.

What is categories as “significant” here?. The Farms rate under new admissions is still very low only around 11%. Big majority TJ students is still from wealthy family.

It was 25% farm for the class of 2025.

Yes, but then it dropped to 10% because so many of the FARM kids got really bad grades and went back to their base schools much worse off than if they had never attended at all.

Cite, proof?

Wait, you know that a large number of FARM kids went back to their base school after freshman year but you want proof that they did so because of their bad grades? Are you stupid?

DP. There are a lot of reasons why someone may choose to leave TJ.

You are fabricating the narrative around the grades and the students being “worse off”.

But we all know that is exactly what happened. It's no secret which kids were struggling academically.

No, you don’t know. You are making assumptions based on your biases.

Of course we know this. It was plain and obvious. It is a bit better now that they are taking 10% farm instead of 25% farm. But the class of 2025 was a disaster with 25% farm. You can only push the rope so much before shit falls apart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t this the class that was admitted with the new admissions to have less Asians?

Yes, and no. This class was admitted under the new system but has historically high Asian enrollment. In fact, the change helped low-income Asians mroe than any other group.

The class of 2025 admitted a significantly lower percent of Asian students and ALSO admitted a significantly higher percent of low income Asians with bonus points who were admitted over other Asian students who had higher grades or essay scores.

What is categories as “significant” here?. The Farms rate under new admissions is still very low only around 11%. Big majority TJ students is still from wealthy family.

Going from 0.1% to 11% is a 110x increase.

Seems significant to me.

It went from 2% to 11%. Still significant but I don't know where you are getting 0.1% from.

And frankly a lot of those kids are struggling.

Oops. I mistyped and then absent-mindedly calculated off of that.

It was 0.62% ED for the admitted class of 2024. It was >10% for class of 2029. That would be a >1600% increase in admitted students.

As for enrollment, it went from 2.05% ED in 2020-21 to 16.82% for 2024-25. That’s a 820% increase.

You are assuming that “those kids” are struggling.

It's not an assumption. The class of 2025 had 25% farm. That was too big a preference. They've scaled it back 10 closer to 10-15% but we are still selecting for an academically competitive program using something other than academic ability. The kids picked based on non academic criteria are more likely to struggle and the greater the preference, the greater the struggle.

[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:Isn’t this the class that was admitted with the new admissions to have less Asians?

Yes, and no. This class was admitted under the new system but has historically high Asian enrollment. In fact, the change helped low-income Asians mroe than any other group.

The class of 2025 admitted a significantly lower percent of Asian students and ALSO admitted a significantly higher percent of low income Asians with bonus points who were admitted over other Asian students who had higher grades or essay scores.

What is categories as “significant” here?. The Farms rate under new admissions is still very low only around 11%. Big majority TJ students is still from wealthy family.

It was 25% farm for the class of 2025.

Yes, but then it dropped to 10% because so many of the FARM kids got really bad grades and went back to their base schools much worse off than if they had never attended at all.

Cite, proof?

Wait, you know that a large number of FARM kids went back to their base school after freshman year but you want proof that they did so because of their bad grades? Are you stupid?

DP. There are a lot of reasons why someone may choose to leave TJ.

You are fabricating the narrative around the grades and the students being “worse off”.

But we all know that is exactly what happened. It's no secret which kids were struggling academically.

No, you don’t know. You are making assumptions based on your biases.

Of course we know this. It was plain and obvious. It is a bit better now that they are taking 10% farm instead of 25% farm. But the class of 2025 was a disaster with 25% farm. You can only push the rope so much before shit falls apart.

No, you have zero data supporting your comments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t this the class that was admitted with the new admissions to have less Asians?

Yes, and no. This class was admitted under the new system but has historically high Asian enrollment. In fact, the change helped low-income Asians mroe than any other group.

The class of 2025 admitted a significantly lower percent of Asian students and ALSO admitted a significantly higher percent of low income Asians with bonus points who were admitted over other Asian students who had higher grades or essay scores.

What is categories as “significant” here?. The Farms rate under new admissions is still very low only around 11%. Big majority TJ students is still from wealthy family.

Going from 0.1% to 11% is a 110x increase.

Seems significant to me.

It went from 2% to 11%. Still significant but I don't know where you are getting 0.1% from.

And frankly a lot of those kids are struggling.

Oops. I mistyped and then absent-mindedly calculated off of that.

It was 0.62% ED for the admitted class of 2024. It was >10% for class of 2029. That would be a >1600% increase in admitted students.

As for enrollment, it went from 2.05% ED in 2020-21 to 16.82% for 2024-25. That’s a 820% increase.

You are assuming that “those kids” are struggling.

It's not an assumption. The class of 2025 had 25% farm. That was too big a preference. They've scaled it back 10 closer to 10-15% but we are still selecting for an academically competitive program using something other than academic ability. The kids picked based on non academic criteria are more likely to struggle and the greater the preference, the greater the struggle.

No, you have zero facts to back this up. You are making assumptions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t this the class that was admitted with the new admissions to have less Asians?

Yes, and no. This class was admitted under the new system but has historically high Asian enrollment. In fact, the change helped low-income Asians mroe than any other group.

The class of 2025 admitted a significantly lower percent of Asian students and ALSO admitted a significantly higher percent of low income Asians with bonus points who were admitted over other Asian students who had higher grades or essay scores.

What is categories as “significant” here?. The Farms rate under new admissions is still very low only around 11%. Big majority TJ students is still from wealthy family.

Going from 0.1% to 11% is a 110x increase.

Seems significant to me.

It went from 2% to 11%. Still significant but I don't know where you are getting 0.1% from.

And frankly a lot of those kids are struggling.

Oops. I mistyped and then absent-mindedly calculated off of that.

It was 0.62% ED for the admitted class of 2024. It was >10% for class of 2029. That would be a >1600% increase in admitted students.

As for enrollment, it went from 2.05% ED in 2020-21 to 16.82% for 2024-25. That’s a 820% increase.

You are assuming that “those kids” are struggling.

It's not an assumption. The class of 2025 had 25% farm. That was too big a preference. They've scaled it back 10 closer to 10-15% but we are still selecting for an academically competitive program using something other than academic ability. The kids picked based on non academic criteria are more likely to struggle and the greater the preference, the greater the struggle.

No, you have zero facts to back this up. You are making assumptions.

You're the fact you need to deal with.