TJ admissions decision - repercussions for Class of 2026

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Turns out that “low income” didn’t really add that many points.

The cheaters must be disappointed.

Is there any evidence that people cheating or is this like Trump's self-serving claims of voter fraud?

The evidence is that they ended up with 25% FARMS and even higher this time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^ some even encourage it

I encourage it, because I feel it is the honest answer.
However, I have not seen what the application actually said.

My son was eligible for free meals. He received free meals. So I feel the correct answer was to put yes to both questions, based on what I read here about the questions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ some even encourage it

I encourage it, because I feel it is the honest answer.
However, I have not seen what the application actually said.

My son was eligible for free meals. He received free meals. So I feel the correct answer was to put yes to both questions, based on what I read here about the questions.

Is your family low-income?

[Anonymous]

It is not the applicant's job to determine what the intention of the question is and to answer accordingly, but rather to honestly answer the question that was actually asked.

The question was *not* "Is your family low-income?", no matter how much you argue that this is secretly the intended question.

If the admissions committee used a question about eligibility for free meals as a proxy for low-income, then they screwed up. They should have asked the question to which they wanted the answer, not a different question. They especially shouldn't have asked a question which was confounded by pandemic policies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is not the applicant's job to determine what the intention of the question is and to answer accordingly, but rather to honestly answer the question that was actually asked.

The question was *not* "Is your family low-income?", no matter how much you argue that this is secretly the intended question.

If the admissions committee used a question about eligibility for free meals as a proxy for low-income, then they screwed up. They should have asked the question to which they wanted the answer, not a different question. They especially shouldn't have asked a question which was confounded by pandemic policies.

+1
They screwed up.
We answered no to the questions but only because it felt wrong to answer yes. I would not have been lying to answer yes though so it would have been a truthful answer even if it felt a little dishonest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is not the applicant's job to determine what the intention of the question is and to answer accordingly, but rather to honestly answer the question that was actually asked.

The question was *not* "Is your family low-income?", no matter how much you argue that this is secretly the intended question.

If the admissions committee used a question about eligibility for free meals as a proxy for low-income, then they screwed up. They should have asked the question to which they wanted the answer, not a different question. They especially shouldn't have asked a question which was confounded by pandemic policies.

And remember this is FCPS - who likely had a communications firm on retainer to help design surveys. Every communication is put out in zillion languages from an inclusivity perspective so it is inexcusable that would screw up on something so material. Where was the communications team? Where were the consultants? Begs the question if this was all too deliberate to pretty up the press release.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not the applicant's job to determine what the intention of the question is and to answer accordingly, but rather to honestly answer the question that was actually asked.

The question was *not* "Is your family low-income?", no matter how much you argue that this is secretly the intended question.

If the admissions committee used a question about eligibility for free meals as a proxy for low-income, then they screwed up. They should have asked the question to which they wanted the answer, not a different question. They especially shouldn't have asked a question which was confounded by pandemic policies.

And remember this is FCPS - who likely had a communications firm on retainer to help design surveys. Every communication is put out in zillion languages from an inclusivity perspective so it is inexcusable that would screw up on something so material. Where was the communications team? Where were the consultants? Begs the question if this was all too deliberate to pretty up the press release.

It was definitely deliberate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not the applicant's job to determine what the intention of the question is and to answer accordingly, but rather to honestly answer the question that was actually asked.

The question was *not* "Is your family low-income?", no matter how much you argue that this is secretly the intended question.

If the admissions committee used a question about eligibility for free meals as a proxy for low-income, then they screwed up. They should have asked the question to which they wanted the answer, not a different question. They especially shouldn't have asked a question which was confounded by pandemic policies.

And remember this is FCPS - who likely had a communications firm on retainer to help design surveys. Every communication is put out in zillion languages from an inclusivity perspective so it is inexcusable that would screw up on something so material. Where was the communications team? Where were the consultants? Begs the question if this was all too deliberate to pretty up the press release.

It was definitely deliberate.

Maybe it was a decision lead by the LEGAL team. Since, you know, a bunch of insane parents decided to sue FCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not the applicant's job to determine what the intention of the question is and to answer accordingly, but rather to honestly answer the question that was actually asked.

The question was *not* "Is your family low-income?", no matter how much you argue that this is secretly the intended question.

If the admissions committee used a question about eligibility for free meals as a proxy for low-income, then they screwed up. They should have asked the question to which they wanted the answer, not a different question. They especially shouldn't have asked a question which was confounded by pandemic policies.

And remember this is FCPS - who likely had a communications firm on retainer to help design surveys. Every communication is put out in zillion languages from an inclusivity perspective so it is inexcusable that would screw up on something so material. Where was the communications team? Where were the consultants? Begs the question if this was all too deliberate to pretty up the press release.

It was definitely deliberate.

Input - concerned parents are “insane”

Output - Youngkin

Keep going…..

Maybe it was a decision lead by the LEGAL team. Since, you know, a bunch of insane parents decided to sue FCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not the applicant's job to determine what the intention of the question is and to answer accordingly, but rather to honestly answer the question that was actually asked.

The question was *not* "Is your family low-income?", no matter how much you argue that this is secretly the intended question.

If the admissions committee used a question about eligibility for free meals as a proxy for low-income, then they screwed up. They should have asked the question to which they wanted the answer, not a different question. They especially shouldn't have asked a question which was confounded by pandemic policies.

And remember this is FCPS - who likely had a communications firm on retainer to help design surveys. Every communication is put out in zillion languages from an inclusivity perspective so it is inexcusable that would screw up on something so material. Where was the communications team? Where were the consultants? Begs the question if this was all too deliberate to pretty up the press release.

It was definitely deliberate.

Input - concerned parents are “insane”

Output - Youngkin

Keep going…..

Maybe it was a decision lead by the LEGAL team. Since, you know, a bunch of insane parents decided to sue FCPS.

You base your vote on anonymous comments?

That sounds more insane than the c4tj.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Turns out that “low income” didn’t really add that many points.

The cheaters must be disappointed.

Is there any evidence that people cheating or is this like Trump's self-serving claims of voter fraud?

The evidence is that they ended up with 25% FARMS and even higher this time.

So there was no evidence of fraud. Thanks!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You taught DC integrity which is valuable. Also,. I'm still hoping they investigated everyone who ticked off these boxes and disqualified anyone who lied.

It was not a lie. To answer no was the real lie, since everyone was eligible for free meals. People asked the admissions office and were told they could answer yes. To disqualify someone for answering correctly is unethical. They could maybe investigate and take away the bonus points.

We all know what the questions meant.

Very unethical to misrepresent your family situation.

I guess some people will try to rationalize their bad behavior.

It really wouldn't matter even if they lied since data for that student ID would override it when they processed the application.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You taught DC integrity which is valuable. Also,. I'm still hoping they investigated everyone who ticked off these boxes and disqualified anyone who lied.

It was not a lie. To answer no was the real lie, since everyone was eligible for free meals. People asked the admissions office and were told they could answer yes. To disqualify someone for answering correctly is unethical. They could maybe investigate and take away the bonus points.

We all know what the questions meant.

Very unethical to misrepresent your family situation.

I guess some people will try to rationalize their bad behavior.

It really wouldn't matter even if they lied since data for that student ID would override it when they processed the application.

I was thinking I could quit my job a few weeks before the apps are due so I can get FARMS status to help my kid's chances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You taught DC integrity which is valuable. Also,. I'm still hoping they investigated everyone who ticked off these boxes and disqualified anyone who lied.

It was not a lie. To answer no was the real lie, since everyone was eligible for free meals. People asked the admissions office and were told they could answer yes. To disqualify someone for answering correctly is unethical. They could maybe investigate and take away the bonus points.

We all know what the questions meant.

Very unethical to misrepresent your family situation.

I guess some people will try to rationalize their bad behavior.

It really wouldn't matter even if they lied since data for that student ID would override it when they processed the application.

This poster will spout disinformation that FCPS has IRS information that can override the FARMS question. She needs to be exposed every time she repeats the lie.

This is what happened.

Anonymous wrote:
1. They may have 2019 and earlier info for FCPS families, but they wouldn't have that data for APS, LCPS, or other non-FCPS families. If every single kid who attends a prep center were instructed to check 'yes' to those questions, then they're counting 90-100 UMC LCPS kids as low income. FCPS doesn't care, though, as long as they can get a good press release.

2. They didn't collect income data during the pandemic, since families previously above the income cutoff may have had a loss of income or a loss of jobs from the pandemic. This unfortunately makes a very large, exploitable loophole for UMC families. Undoubtedly, the free meals question allowed some portion of mediocre, higher SES kids to leapfrog the highly gifted ones at the "TJ Feeder" Centers. If every applicant has nearly a 4.0 and decent essays, the free points for checking the ED boxes would make a huge difference.

3. There surely are some low income kids who are well qualified for TJ. The kids who are well qualified for TJ don't need a substantial number of bonus points allocated to them, especially since every MS has a 1.5% allocation. Giving them the extra points is akin to saying that they aren't qualified enough to be picked on their own merits

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Turns out that “low income” didn’t really add that many points.

The cheaters must be disappointed.

Is there any evidence that people cheating or is this like Trump's self-serving claims of voter fraud?