TJ Admissions Roundup
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Haha! |
Anonymous
They added “experience factors” to tip the scales in the direction they wanted. I wasn’t aware they had done away with that advantage this cycle. |
Anonymous
#fakenews |
Anonymous
Never raised by the FCPS Board or in either of the lawsuits. If there was any truth to test buying access to the questions it would have come up. |
Anonymous
Rings true != true. |
Anonymous
It's actually easier now. Simply attend a low-SES middle school and if the kid is as bright as parents believe, they should have no problem making the top 1.5% for a guaranteed spot. They should be able to outshine ELL and poverty kids so drastically that they would be shoo-ins. |
Anonymous
Not true since you have to be in the top 1.5% to make the cut. In the old days, you only had to memorize the test questions. |
Anonymous
Although there are a few C4TJ deniers, it's been well-established and not even up for debate. |
Anonymous
It didn't really have the desired effect. QuantQ made an impact but probably not a big enough impact to satisfy folks that wanted more equity. Before QuantQ 3% of the entering class was URM. The first year of QuantQ pushed that number up to 7%. What you call "cracking the process" is usually referred to as studying in most places where effort is rewarded. I do think you have to be cautious about pushing your kid into the most competitive environment you can possibly squeak them into. |
Anonymous
“Cracking the test” so that kids could know what the questions would be like in advance is in no way the same as “studying.” Test takers are not supposed to have access to the types of questions in advance because part of the usefulness of the test is seeing how students handle new to them problems. Having access to the types of problems in advance when the test is meant to be a secure instrument is unethical. In no way is it the same as “studying.” |
Anonymous
|
2. CONCERN ABOUT TJ PREP INDUSTRY
There was also public concern about the TJ test prep industry that led, in part, to changes in the admissions process. By reverse engineering the admissions criteria/process, prep companies offered kids an unfair advantage in admissions. In fact, back in 2017 the SB switched to quant-q, which intentionally didn’t share prep, in an effort to reduce this unfair advantage. https://www.washingtonian.com/2017/04/26/is-the-no-1-high-school-in-america-thomas-jefferson-fairfax-discrimination/ “ “Is it gonna once again advantage those kids whose parents can pay to sign them up for special prep camps to now be prepping for science testing as well?” Megan McLaughlin asked when presented with the new plan. Admissions director Jeremy Shughart doesn’t think so. The firm that markets the math portion of the test, Quant-Q, doesn’t release materials to the public, a practice that should make them harder for test-prep schools to crack.” This has all been discussed countless times on DCUM. Feel free to go read old threads for more details. It was well known in my affluent area that you could greatly improve chances of admissions by paying $$$ for prep classes. 3. QUANT-Q DOESN’T RELEASE MATERIALS The company that offers Quant-Q intentionally does NOT release materials to the public - it’s very different than SAT, ACT, etc. They want to “measure your natural ability”. And test takers agreed to not share any parts of the test. https://www.washingtonian.com/2017/04/26/is-the-no-1-high-school-in-america-thomas-jefferson-fairfax-discrimination/ “The firm that markets the math portion of the test, Quant-Q, doesn’t release materials to the public, a practice that should make them harder for test-prep schools to crack.” Based on the NDAs, any test prep books or companies that obtain and share example quant-q test questions may have been unethically, or even potentially illegally, produced. https://insightassessment.com/policies/ “Test Taker Interface User Agreement In this agreement, each person who accesses this interface is called a “user,” and whatever a user accesses is called an “instrument.” Copyright Protected: The user acknowledges that this online interface and everything in it are proprietary business property of the California Academic Press LLC and are protected by international copyrights. Except as permitted by purchased use licenses, the user agrees not to reproduce, distribute, hack, harm, limit, alter, or edit this interface or any part of any instrument or results report, table or analysis stored in, generated by, or delivered through this interface. Non-Disclosure and Non-Compete Agreement: The user agrees not to copy, disclose, describe, imitate, replicate, or mirror this interface or this instrument(s) in whole or in part for any purpose. The user agrees not to create, design, develop, publish, market, or distribute any comparable or competitive instrument or instruments for a period of up to four years from the date of the user’s most recent access. Non-Disclosure and Non-Compete Agreement By accessing the Insight Assessment online testing interface or purchasing a preview pack or instrument use licenses, all clients acknowledge that the on-line interface and the testing instrument(s) it contains or displays include proprietary business information, such as but not limited to the structure of test questions or the presentation of those questions and other information displayed in conjunction with the use of this testing interface. In the absence of a specific written agreement between the client and Insight Assessment, the client agrees that by purchasing a preview pack or testing licenses, the client and their organization, shall not disclose, copy, or replicate this testing interface or this testing instrument(s) in whole or in part in comparable or competitive product or interface of any kind. In the absence of a specific written agreement between the client and Insight Assessment, the client agrees that by accessing the testing instrument(s) for any purpose, including but not limited to previewing the instrument(s), the client and the client’s organization shall not create, design, develop, publish, market, or distribute any comparable or competitive testing instrument(s). By clicking the “Agree” button, the user acknowledges reading, understanding, and agreeing to abide by the statements above and by all the policies and notices posted on Insight Assessment public website(s).” "Remember that the goal of a critical thinking assessment is to measure your natural ability to think critically, so there’s no need for extensive preparation. Just be yourself and approach the assessment with a clear mind." 4. TJ STUDENTS ACKNOWLEDGED UNFAIR ADVANTAGE TH students and others have acknowledged the unfair advantage that money can buy. https://www.tjtoday.org/29411/features/students-divided-on-proposed-changes-to-admissions-process/ “ “Personally, TJ admissions was not a challenge to navigate. I had a sibling who attended before me. However, a lot of resources needed to navigate admissions cost money. That is an unfair advantage given to more economically advantaged students,” junior Vivi Rao said. ” 5. TJ STUDENTS ADMIT SHARING QUANT-Q QUESTIONS TJ students admitted both on DCUM and on Facebook, anonymously and with real name, that they shared quant-q test questions with a test prep company or they saw nearly identical questions on the test. https://www.facebook.com/tjvents/posts/pfbid0jKy4hotXF8AxKwfHm2MAVi7e2yYoCqtrTTXPYsszAdQg6uMoTmReMidqyM1mpu9Bl I have screenshots but won’t share because they have student names on them. https://www.tjtoday.org/23143/showcase/the-children-left-behind/ “ Families with more money can afford to give children that extra edge by signing them up for whatever prep classes they can find. They can pay money to tutoring organizations to teach their children test-taking skills, “skills learned outside of school,” and to access a cache of previous and example prompts, as I witnessed when I took TJ prep; even if prompts become outdated by test changes, even access to old prompts enables private tutoring pupils to gain an upper edge over others: pupils become accustomed to the format of the writing sections and gain an approximate idea of what to expect.” |
Anonymous
Having access to the question format and question types is absolutely the same thing as studying. Advertising a test as non-preppable is dishonest if it relies on noone ever discussing what the format of the test is. I mean every standardized test would be unpreppable if noone ever knew what the test looked like. How effective would an SAT class be if they didn't know reading comprehension, and analogies were going to be on the test? Believing that a test's format remaining secret is naive. The test had a mild effect the first year it was administered but that was about it. Even if they came up witgh a new format every year, FCPS would have changed the admissions process because they were not concerned about the prepping, there is prepping going on right now. They were concerned about the race of the students. |
Anonymous
The company that offers Quant-Q intentionally does NOT release materials to the public - it’s very different than SAT, ACT, etc. 1. They want to “measure your natural ability”. "Remember that the goal of a critical thinking assessment is to measure your natural ability to think critically" 2. Test takers agreed to not share any parts of the test. "Non-Disclosure and Non-Compete Agreement: The user agrees not to copy, disclose, describe, imitate, replicate, or mirror this interface or this instrument(s) in whole or in part for any purpose." 3. Quant-Q was selected because FCPS was looking for ways to level the playing field - so kids who can't afford expensive test prep programs would have a chance: https://www.washingtonian.com/2017/04/26/is-the-no-1-high-school-in-america-thomas-jefferson-fairfax-discrimination/ “The firm that markets the math portion of the test, Quant-Q, doesn’t release materials to the public, a practice that should make them harder for test-prep schools to crack.” |
Anonymous
The author didn't specifically state that she had access to Quant Q questions and is more suggesting that test prep in general is incredibly beneficial. If she did indeed have advance access to the questions, then sharing Quant Q materials was more widespread than Curie. The author has a Chinese surname, and thus almost certainly didn't attend Curie. |
Anonymous
|
Unethical test prep behaviors were not limited to Curie. They are mentioned the most because they were so blatant about it.
|