TJ Falls to 14th in the Nation Per US News

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did the philosophy behind the 2021-22 9th grade admissions changes also carry over to 10th and 11th grade admissions?

No, those admissions don't make headlines so those admissions are still merit based.

In 2021-22, there were a number of 10th and 11th graders that failed an SOL. In 2022-23, there were a number of 11th graders that failed an SOL. That's a new phenomenon. That's why I wondered if admissions policies changed in the upper grades beginning in 2021-22 as well.

No they didn't. So much for that conspiracy theory.

It looks like there was an 84% pass rate in chemistry in 2021-2022 That would probably be sophomores.
It doesn't look like there were any SOL failures among juniors in 2022-2023.

Seven juniors failed the English reading SOL in 2022-23.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did the philosophy behind the 2021-22 9th grade admissions changes also carry over to 10th and 11th grade admissions?

No, those admissions don't make headlines so those admissions are still merit based.

In 2021-22, there were a number of 10th and 11th graders that failed an SOL. In 2022-23, there were a number of 11th graders that failed an SOL. That's a new phenomenon. That's why I wondered if admissions policies changed in the upper grades beginning in 2021-22 as well.

No they didn't. So much for that conspiracy theory.

It looks like there was an 84% pass rate in chemistry in 2021-2022 That would probably be sophomores.
It doesn't look like there were any SOL failures among juniors in 2022-2023.

Seven juniors failed the English reading SOL in 2022-23.

PP again. The reading SOL is given to 11th graders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did the philosophy behind the 2021-22 9th grade admissions changes also carry over to 10th and 11th grade admissions?

No, those admissions don't make headlines so those admissions are still merit based.

Previously, that makes sense. Prior TJ leadership favored a more traditional approach than FCPS and used that traditional approach when admitting upper level students. But current TJ leadership is ideologically aligned with FCPS, so why wouldn't they replicate FCPS's new admission strategy for upper level students also?

Because they are not actually interested in diversity, only the appearance of diversity at their flagship magnets school.
Right now they are struggling to keep the bottom from falling out academically, so they are open to a little bit of invisible merit.

The sophomore application is currently test optional and holistic which seems more in line with the current 9th grade admissions approach.

There does appear to have been a shift in sophomore admission policy:
For SY2020-21, PSAT/SAT scores were required for sophomore applicants. https://web.archive.org/web/20200501070914/https://www.fcps.edu/registration/thomas-jefferson-admissions/sophomore-application-process There were no SOL failures in 2020-21.
However, for SY2021-22, PSAT/SAT scores were made optional for sophomore applicants. https://web.archive.org/web/20210429231119/https://www.fcps.edu/registration/thomas-jefferson-admissions/sophomore-application-process Coincident with that change, six sophomores failed the science SOL in 2021-22 and seven juniors failed the reading SOL in 2022-23.

Thus, it appears that the both the freshman and sophomore admissions processes were modified beginning with the classes entering in 2021-22.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did the philosophy behind the 2021-22 9th grade admissions changes also carry over to 10th and 11th grade admissions?

No, those admissions don't make headlines so those admissions are still merit based.

In 2021-22, there were a number of 10th and 11th graders that failed an SOL. In 2022-23, there were a number of 11th graders that failed an SOL. That's a new phenomenon. That's why I wondered if admissions policies changed in the upper grades beginning in 2021-22 as well.

No they didn't. So much for that conspiracy theory.

It looks like there was an 84% pass rate in chemistry in 2021-2022 That would probably be sophomores.
It doesn't look like there were any SOL failures among juniors in 2022-2023.

Seven juniors failed the English reading SOL in 2022-23.

I guess they weren't able to buy the test answers for the SOL that year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did the philosophy behind the 2021-22 9th grade admissions changes also carry over to 10th and 11th grade admissions?

No, those admissions don't make headlines so those admissions are still merit based.

In 2021-22, there were a number of 10th and 11th graders that failed an SOL. In 2022-23, there were a number of 11th graders that failed an SOL. That's a new phenomenon. That's why I wondered if admissions policies changed in the upper grades beginning in 2021-22 as well.

No they didn't. So much for that conspiracy theory.

It looks like there was an 84% pass rate in chemistry in 2021-2022 That would probably be sophomores.
It doesn't look like there were any SOL failures among juniors in 2022-2023.

Seven juniors failed the English reading SOL in 2022-23.

I guess they weren't able to buy the test answers for the SOL that year.

The SOL failures occurred immediately after the switch to test optional. These are students who are struggling with grade level content, which means that their time at TJ must be stressful. It is a disservice to admit students to TJ who do not have adequate preparation. Standardized test scores serve to identify gaps in content knowledge and should be reinstated as requirements for sophomore admissions to preempt these unfortunate outcomes.

[Anonymous]

In regards to the struggling students mentioned above, TJ used to counsel out struggling students, one reason they were able to keep their stats high. Is TJ still counseling out students?

[Anonymous]

TJ is not counseling out, but desperately convincing students not to dropout. From the original 550 admitted after admissions change, significant number dropped out already, close to a hundred over three years. Even after admitting about 45+ froshmores to that class, the overall count is still down by 50 or so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In regards to the struggling students mentioned above, TJ used to counsel out struggling students, one reason they were able to keep their stats high. Is TJ still counseling out students?

The fact that the cohort that failed the SOL in 10th grade is similarly sized to the cohort that failed it the next year in 11th grade suggests otherwise. That makes sense as counseling out might undermine the demographic shift that the admissions changes were designed to achieve. In the period you reference where counseling out occurred, Asian students made up roughly 70-75% of the incoming freshman class but accounted for roughly 85% of the class by senior year following the net outflow/inflow of students during high school. That may explain why FCPS/TJ changed both 9th and 10th grade admissions policies simultaneously, to minimize the chance of demographic drift occurring during high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In regards to the struggling students mentioned above, TJ used to counsel out struggling students, one reason they were able to keep their stats high. Is TJ still counseling out students?

The fact that the cohort that failed the SOL in 10th grade is similarly sized to the cohort that failed it the next year in 11th grade suggests otherwise. That makes sense as counseling out might undermine the demographic shift that the admissions changes were designed to achieve. In the period you reference where counseling out occurred, Asian students made up roughly 70-75% of the incoming freshman class but accounted for roughly 85% of the class by senior year following the net outflow/inflow of students during high school. That may explain why FCPS/TJ changed both 9th and 10th grade admissions policies simultaneously, to minimize the chance of demographic drift occurring during high school.

There demographic shift in admissions seems pretty negligible. Sure, instead of 3% of a URM group there's now 4% which is a big improvement I guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In regards to the struggling students mentioned above, TJ used to counsel out struggling students, one reason they were able to keep their stats high. Is TJ still counseling out students?

The fact that the cohort that failed the SOL in 10th grade is similarly sized to the cohort that failed it the next year in 11th grade suggests otherwise. That makes sense as counseling out might undermine the demographic shift that the admissions changes were designed to achieve. In the period you reference where counseling out occurred, Asian students made up roughly 70-75% of the incoming freshman class but accounted for roughly 85% of the class by senior year following the net outflow/inflow of students during high school. That may explain why FCPS/TJ changed both 9th and 10th grade admissions policies simultaneously, to minimize the chance of demographic drift occurring during high school.

There demographic shift in admissions seems pretty negligible. Sure, instead of 3% of a URM group there's now 4% which is a big improvement I guess.

The first class of the new admissions was 25% FARMs. That’s not negligible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In regards to the struggling students mentioned above, TJ used to counsel out struggling students, one reason they were able to keep their stats high. Is TJ still counseling out students?

The fact that the cohort that failed the SOL in 10th grade is similarly sized to the cohort that failed it the next year in 11th grade suggests otherwise. That makes sense as counseling out might undermine the demographic shift that the admissions changes were designed to achieve. In the period you reference where counseling out occurred, Asian students made up roughly 70-75% of the incoming freshman class but accounted for roughly 85% of the class by senior year following the net outflow/inflow of students during high school. That may explain why FCPS/TJ changed both 9th and 10th grade admissions policies simultaneously, to minimize the chance of demographic drift occurring during high school.

There demographic shift in admissions seems pretty negligible. Sure, instead of 3% of a URM group there's now 4% which is a big improvement I guess.

The first class of the new admissions was 25% FARMs. That’s not negligible.

Yes, I had read low-income Asians were the largest beneficiary of the changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In regards to the struggling students mentioned above, TJ used to counsel out struggling students, one reason they were able to keep their stats high. Is TJ still counseling out students?

The fact that the cohort that failed the SOL in 10th grade is similarly sized to the cohort that failed it the next year in 11th grade suggests otherwise. That makes sense as counseling out might undermine the demographic shift that the admissions changes were designed to achieve. In the period you reference where counseling out occurred, Asian students made up roughly 70-75% of the incoming freshman class but accounted for roughly 85% of the class by senior year following the net outflow/inflow of students during high school. That may explain why FCPS/TJ changed both 9th and 10th grade admissions policies simultaneously, to minimize the chance of demographic drift occurring during high school.

There demographic shift in admissions seems pretty negligible. Sure, instead of 3% of a URM group there's now 4% which is a big improvement I guess.

The first class of the new admissions was 25% FARMs. That’s not negligible.

Yes, I had read low-income Asians were the largest beneficiary of the changes.

Correct. Given bonus points, Asians will over perform compared to their peer groups. Just like medium and high income Asians. Doesn’t mean they were the most deserving students, just means, as expected poor Asians perform better than other poor demographics just like rich Asians and middle income asians. It’s not about the money. Honestly TJ should have more Asians if it were merit based.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In regards to the struggling students mentioned above, TJ used to counsel out struggling students, one reason they were able to keep their stats high. Is TJ still counseling out students?

The fact that the cohort that failed the SOL in 10th grade is similarly sized to the cohort that failed it the next year in 11th grade suggests otherwise. That makes sense as counseling out might undermine the demographic shift that the admissions changes were designed to achieve. In the period you reference where counseling out occurred, Asian students made up roughly 70-75% of the incoming freshman class but accounted for roughly 85% of the class by senior year following the net outflow/inflow of students during high school. That may explain why FCPS/TJ changed both 9th and 10th grade admissions policies simultaneously, to minimize the chance of demographic drift occurring during high school.

There demographic shift in admissions seems pretty negligible. Sure, instead of 3% of a URM group there's now 4% which is a big improvement I guess.

There has been a much larger increase in URM representation than that. In the first year of the admissions change, the URM share rose 15 percentage points. In the latest year, the URM share is 8 percentage points higher than pre-admissions changes. Those are notable shifts.

Pre-admissions change, the share of Black & Hispanic students was 3% in Class 2024.
Post-admissions change, the share of Black & Hispanic students was 18% in Class 2025, 14% Class 2026, 13% Class 2027, and 11% Class of 2028.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In regards to the struggling students mentioned above, TJ used to counsel out struggling students, one reason they were able to keep their stats high. Is TJ still counseling out students?

The fact that the cohort that failed the SOL in 10th grade is similarly sized to the cohort that failed it the next year in 11th grade suggests otherwise. That makes sense as counseling out might undermine the demographic shift that the admissions changes were designed to achieve. In the period you reference where counseling out occurred, Asian students made up roughly 70-75% of the incoming freshman class but accounted for roughly 85% of the class by senior year following the net outflow/inflow of students during high school. That may explain why FCPS/TJ changed both 9th and 10th grade admissions policies simultaneously, to minimize the chance of demographic drift occurring during high school.

There demographic shift in admissions seems pretty negligible. Sure, instead of 3% of a URM group there's now 4% which is a big improvement I guess.

The first class of the new admissions was 25% FARMs. That’s not negligible.

Yes, I had read low-income Asians were the largest beneficiary of the changes.

Correct. Given bonus points, Asians will over perform compared to their peer groups. Just like medium and high income Asians. Doesn’t mean they were the most deserving students, just means, as expected poor Asians perform better than other poor demographics just like rich Asians and middle income asians. It’s not about the money. Honestly TJ should have more Asians if it were merit based.

Poor asians outperform poor non-asians by more than wealthy asians outperform wealthy non-asians.
At the lower income ranges the cultural difference has a more pronounced effect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In regards to the struggling students mentioned above, TJ used to counsel out struggling students, one reason they were able to keep their stats high. Is TJ still counseling out students?

The fact that the cohort that failed the SOL in 10th grade is similarly sized to the cohort that failed it the next year in 11th grade suggests otherwise. That makes sense as counseling out might undermine the demographic shift that the admissions changes were designed to achieve. In the period you reference where counseling out occurred, Asian students made up roughly 70-75% of the incoming freshman class but accounted for roughly 85% of the class by senior year following the net outflow/inflow of students during high school. That may explain why FCPS/TJ changed both 9th and 10th grade admissions policies simultaneously, to minimize the chance of demographic drift occurring during high school.

There demographic shift in admissions seems pretty negligible. Sure, instead of 3% of a URM group there's now 4% which is a big improvement I guess.

The first class of the new admissions was 25% FARMs. That’s not negligible.

Yes, I had read low-income Asians were the largest beneficiary of the changes.

Correct. Given bonus points, Asians will over perform compared to their peer groups. Just like medium and high income Asians. Doesn’t mean they were the most deserving students, just means, as expected poor Asians perform better than other poor demographics just like rich Asians and middle income asians. It’s not about the money. Honestly TJ should have more Asians if it were merit based.

It is merit based. You just want them to use a metric that can be easily gamed.