TJ admission should be a pure lottery for all who meet application requirements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If students are responsible for younger siblings, working, and don't have parental support, how will they handle the workload at TJ?

Not saying they shouldn't be given a shot but it doesn't seem like an environment in which they would be able to keep up.

That's their business, not yours. You are looking for a reason not to admit them or for them not to apply. Stop.

Besides, in many of those instances, "care" involves literally just being at home so that the party in question isn't home alone. That doesn't preclude one from doing homework. It does, however, preclude being out at an extracurricular activity.

First, I said in my post that I wasn't saying they shouldn't be given a shot
Second, if the entire process is being re-arranged to accommodate these students and then they fail because the problems they face are still there we will again hear calls for more accommodation. As a taxpayer, its actually my business since those pushing for this made it so. You can't reconfigure everything based on these factors and then say its no one's business. They've made it our business.

Taxpayers have a vested interest in these kids succeeding. Would you rather later pay for their housing food and medical care or for them to create jobs for your grandchildren, pay your pension or create your elder care equipment?

I don't assume TJ is the only path to success or that they will be on the public dole if they don't go to TJ. Why would you assume that?

Why do you assume that the "elite" kids who don't get into TJ because of the change won't be just as successful elsewhere? They are brilliant, they'll rise to the top anywhere.

Please highlight where i've assumed the "elite" (as you call them) kids won't be successful elsewhere...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If students are responsible for younger siblings, working, and don't have parental support, how will they handle the workload at TJ?

Not saying they shouldn't be given a shot but it doesn't seem like an environment in which they would be able to keep up.

That's their business, not yours. You are looking for a reason not to admit them or for them not to apply. Stop.

Besides, in many of those instances, "care" involves literally just being at home so that the party in question isn't home alone. That doesn't preclude one from doing homework. It does, however, preclude being out at an extracurricular activity.

First, I said in my post that I wasn't saying they shouldn't be given a shot
Second, if the entire process is being re-arranged to accommodate these students and then they fail because the problems they face are still there we will again hear calls for more accommodation. As a taxpayer, its actually my business since those pushing for this made it so. You can't reconfigure everything based on these factors and then say its no one's business. They've made it our business.

TJ has been working for years on decoupling rigor and workload through the Challenge Success initiative - meaning that they are working to maintain the exceptional rigor of the school while reducing the impact on students in terms of time and stress spent outside of the school day on homework and study. That initiative is in its fourth year, well pre-dating any of this business with admissions.

You will notice that at literally no point has anyone involved in this process from the FCPS level said anything about lowering the standards of the TJ education. There is no sense in which your comments about "reconfiguring everything based on these factors" and "calls for more accommodation" have any merit at all.

If they fail, they fail. Plenty of TJ kids (10-15% every year) have been failing via the previous admissions process. If the Class of 2025 loses a quarter of its class year over year, then perhaps you'll have a case to make. Until then, kindly have a seat and go the way of the "defund/eliminate TJ" sycophants.

They have just reconfigured the standards for entry based on these students. If they fail, you can guarantee the conversation about lowering standards is coming (if it hasn't already started privately).

It has already come, if you pay attention to these fora.

There is a distinct difference between "reconfiguring" the standards and "lowering" the standards.

Indeed, the new admissions process resulted in a significantly lower acceptance rate among the applicant pool and a significantly higher average GPA among those initially offered admission. One imagines that that average GPA likely increased further once some initial offers were declined and spaces were granted to students on the wait list, especially if they were offered to students in the unallocated pool.

Wait for them to fail before you bury them. Engaging in speculation about 14 year olds failing because their race, culture, or background is not your is gross.

hyperbolic nonsense.

There's nothing hyperbolic about it. It's what everyone in the regressive camp has been doing for months - presuming that there are only three options for these students: 1) they will fail because they are unprepared; 2) the school will be somehow "watered down" in an attempt to prove that they weren't unprepared; 3) both.

The biggest change in raw numbers was the increase in number of white students admitted this year. Your comments on race, culture -whatever that means in this context, or background are hyperbolic nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
There is a distinct difference between "reconfiguring" the standards and "lowering" the standards.

Indeed, the new admissions process resulted in a significantly lower acceptance rate among the applicant pool and a significantly higher average GPA among those initially offered admission. One imagines that that average GPA likely increased further once some initial offers were declined and spaces were granted to students on the wait list, especially if they were offered to students in the unallocated pool.

Wait for them to fail before you bury them. Engaging in speculation about 14 year olds failing because their race, culture, or background is not your is gross.

In a normal year, I would agree with you. The class of 2025 had both their 7th and 8th grade GPAs formed under covid, where the school gave tons of retakes, didn't penalize late work, and made it very easy generally for above average, somewhat motivated kids to get a lot of As. Due to the virtual learning, it also would be super easy for kids to cheat and get As. I wouldn't assume that for 2025 the higher GPA was due to the selection process and not due to the watering down of standards due to covid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is an important piece. What a shame the cretins in charge of FCPS have never given the matter of TJ admissions a sliver of the attention this author devoted to the topic.

https://www.inquiremore.com/p/culture-not-racism-explains-asian

It is about what's in it for me NOW, not about the truth or long term. So stop with your logic.

Yes, I agree. The School Board members only think about the short-term political benefits they expect to get from sticking it to Asian kids who work harder.

There comes a point when working harder becomes destructive and counterproductive to a healthy society. FCPS has a duty not to drag all students into an unhealthy race to nowhere because some parents want to drag their kids there.

I work harder than you. So you go crying to your FCPS mama to fix me. OK.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If students are responsible for younger siblings, working, and don't have parental support, how will they handle the workload at TJ?

Not saying they shouldn't be given a shot but it doesn't seem like an environment in which they would be able to keep up.

That's their business, not yours. You are looking for a reason not to admit them or for them not to apply. Stop.

Besides, in many of those instances, "care" involves literally just being at home so that the party in question isn't home alone. That doesn't preclude one from doing homework. It does, however, preclude being out at an extracurricular activity.

First, I said in my post that I wasn't saying they shouldn't be given a shot
Second, if the entire process is being re-arranged to accommodate these students and then they fail because the problems they face are still there we will again hear calls for more accommodation. As a taxpayer, its actually my business since those pushing for this made it so. You can't reconfigure everything based on these factors and then say its no one's business. They've made it our business.

TJ has been working for years on decoupling rigor and workload through the Challenge Success initiative - meaning that they are working to maintain the exceptional rigor of the school while reducing the impact on students in terms of time and stress spent outside of the school day on homework and study. That initiative is in its fourth year, well pre-dating any of this business with admissions.

You will notice that at literally no point has anyone involved in this process from the FCPS level said anything about lowering the standards of the TJ education. There is no sense in which your comments about "reconfiguring everything based on these factors" and "calls for more accommodation" have any merit at all.

If they fail, they fail. Plenty of TJ kids (10-15% every year) have been failing via the previous admissions process. If the Class of 2025 loses a quarter of its class year over year, then perhaps you'll have a case to make. Until then, kindly have a seat and go the way of the "defund/eliminate TJ" sycophants.

They have just reconfigured the standards for entry based on these students. If they fail, you can guarantee the conversation about lowering standards is coming (if it hasn't already started privately).

It has already come, if you pay attention to these fora.

There is a distinct difference between "reconfiguring" the standards and "lowering" the standards.

Indeed, the new admissions process resulted in a significantly lower acceptance rate among the applicant pool and a significantly higher average GPA among those initially offered admission. One imagines that that average GPA likely increased further once some initial offers were declined and spaces were granted to students on the wait list, especially if they were offered to students in the unallocated pool.

Wait for them to fail before you bury them. Engaging in speculation about 14 year olds failing because their race, culture, or background is not your is gross.

hyperbolic nonsense.

There's nothing hyperbolic about it. It's what everyone in the regressive camp has been doing for months - presuming that there are only three options for these students: 1) they will fail because they are unprepared; 2) the school will be somehow "watered down" in an attempt to prove that they weren't unprepared; 3) both.

The biggest change in raw numbers was the increase in number of white students admitted this year. Your comments on race, culture -whatever that means in this context, or background are hyperbolic nonsense.

Factually incorrect. White students increased from 86 to 123, a delta of 37. Hispanic students increased from 16 to 62, a delta of 46. Black students increased from TS, which can be anywhere from zero to 9, to 39.

2024: https://www.fcps.edu/news/tjhsst-offers-admission-486-students
2025: https://www.fcps.edu/news/tjhsst-offers-admission-550-students-broadens-access-students-who-have-aptitude-stem

You're done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There is a distinct difference between "reconfiguring" the standards and "lowering" the standards.

Indeed, the new admissions process resulted in a significantly lower acceptance rate among the applicant pool and a significantly higher average GPA among those initially offered admission. One imagines that that average GPA likely increased further once some initial offers were declined and spaces were granted to students on the wait list, especially if they were offered to students in the unallocated pool.

Wait for them to fail before you bury them. Engaging in speculation about 14 year olds failing because their race, culture, or background is not your is gross.

In a normal year, I would agree with you. The class of 2025 had both their 7th and 8th grade GPAs formed under covid, where the school gave tons of retakes, didn't penalize late work, and made it very easy generally for above average, somewhat motivated kids to get a lot of As. Due to the virtual learning, it also would be super easy for kids to cheat and get As. I wouldn't assume that for 2025 the higher GPA was due to the selection process and not due to the watering down of standards due to covid.

The numbers are what they are. The average GPA of applicants did not change substantially. The increase in average GPA in admits is better explained by the fact that what was prioritized was the work in the classroom and not performance on an exam that favored wealth and motivated parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If students are responsible for younger siblings, working, and don't have parental support, how will they handle the workload at TJ?

Not saying they shouldn't be given a shot but it doesn't seem like an environment in which they would be able to keep up.

That's their business, not yours. You are looking for a reason not to admit them or for them not to apply. Stop.

Besides, in many of those instances, "care" involves literally just being at home so that the party in question isn't home alone. That doesn't preclude one from doing homework. It does, however, preclude being out at an extracurricular activity.

First, I said in my post that I wasn't saying they shouldn't be given a shot
Second, if the entire process is being re-arranged to accommodate these students and then they fail because the problems they face are still there we will again hear calls for more accommodation. As a taxpayer, its actually my business since those pushing for this made it so. You can't reconfigure everything based on these factors and then say its no one's business. They've made it our business.

TJ has been working for years on decoupling rigor and workload through the Challenge Success initiative - meaning that they are working to maintain the exceptional rigor of the school while reducing the impact on students in terms of time and stress spent outside of the school day on homework and study. That initiative is in its fourth year, well pre-dating any of this business with admissions.

You will notice that at literally no point has anyone involved in this process from the FCPS level said anything about lowering the standards of the TJ education. There is no sense in which your comments about "reconfiguring everything based on these factors" and "calls for more accommodation" have any merit at all.

If they fail, they fail. Plenty of TJ kids (10-15% every year) have been failing via the previous admissions process. If the Class of 2025 loses a quarter of its class year over year, then perhaps you'll have a case to make. Until then, kindly have a seat and go the way of the "defund/eliminate TJ" sycophants.

They have just reconfigured the standards for entry based on these students. If they fail, you can guarantee the conversation about lowering standards is coming (if it hasn't already started privately).

It has already come, if you pay attention to these fora.

There is a distinct difference between "reconfiguring" the standards and "lowering" the standards.

Indeed, the new admissions process resulted in a significantly lower acceptance rate among the applicant pool and a significantly higher average GPA among those initially offered admission. One imagines that that average GPA likely increased further once some initial offers were declined and spaces were granted to students on the wait list, especially if they were offered to students in the unallocated pool.

Wait for them to fail before you bury them. Engaging in speculation about 14 year olds failing because their race, culture, or background is not your is gross.

hyperbolic nonsense.

There's nothing hyperbolic about it. It's what everyone in the regressive camp has been doing for months - presuming that there are only three options for these students: 1) they will fail because they are unprepared; 2) the school will be somehow "watered down" in an attempt to prove that they weren't unprepared; 3) both.

The biggest change in raw numbers was the increase in number of white students admitted this year. Your comments on race, culture -whatever that means in this context, or background are hyperbolic nonsense.

Factually incorrect. White students increased from 86 to 123, a delta of 37. Hispanic students increased from 16 to 62, a delta of 46. Black students increased from TS, which can be anywhere from zero to 9, to 39.

2024: https://www.fcps.edu/news/tjhsst-offers-admission-486-students
2025: https://www.fcps.edu/news/tjhsst-offers-admission-550-students-broadens-access-students-who-have-aptitude-stem

You're done.

You do realize that hispanics can also be white right?

Done with what?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If students are responsible for younger siblings, working, and don't have parental support, how will they handle the workload at TJ?

Not saying they shouldn't be given a shot but it doesn't seem like an environment in which they would be able to keep up.

That's their business, not yours. You are looking for a reason not to admit them or for them not to apply. Stop.

Besides, in many of those instances, "care" involves literally just being at home so that the party in question isn't home alone. That doesn't preclude one from doing homework. It does, however, preclude being out at an extracurricular activity.

First, I said in my post that I wasn't saying they shouldn't be given a shot
Second, if the entire process is being re-arranged to accommodate these students and then they fail because the problems they face are still there we will again hear calls for more accommodation. As a taxpayer, its actually my business since those pushing for this made it so. You can't reconfigure everything based on these factors and then say its no one's business. They've made it our business.

TJ has been working for years on decoupling rigor and workload through the Challenge Success initiative - meaning that they are working to maintain the exceptional rigor of the school while reducing the impact on students in terms of time and stress spent outside of the school day on homework and study. That initiative is in its fourth year, well pre-dating any of this business with admissions.

You will notice that at literally no point has anyone involved in this process from the FCPS level said anything about lowering the standards of the TJ education. There is no sense in which your comments about "reconfiguring everything based on these factors" and "calls for more accommodation" have any merit at all.

If they fail, they fail. Plenty of TJ kids (10-15% every year) have been failing via the previous admissions process. If the Class of 2025 loses a quarter of its class year over year, then perhaps you'll have a case to make. Until then, kindly have a seat and go the way of the "defund/eliminate TJ" sycophants.

They have just reconfigured the standards for entry based on these students. If they fail, you can guarantee the conversation about lowering standards is coming (if it hasn't already started privately).

It has already come, if you pay attention to these fora.

There is a distinct difference between "reconfiguring" the standards and "lowering" the standards.

Indeed, the new admissions process resulted in a significantly lower acceptance rate among the applicant pool and a significantly higher average GPA among those initially offered admission. One imagines that that average GPA likely increased further once some initial offers were declined and spaces were granted to students on the wait list, especially if they were offered to students in the unallocated pool.

Wait for them to fail before you bury them. Engaging in speculation about 14 year olds failing because their race, culture, or background is not your is gross.

hyperbolic nonsense.

There's nothing hyperbolic about it. It's what everyone in the regressive camp has been doing for months - presuming that there are only three options for these students: 1) they will fail because they are unprepared; 2) the school will be somehow "watered down" in an attempt to prove that they weren't unprepared; 3) both.

The biggest change in raw numbers was the increase in number of white students admitted this year. Your comments on race, culture -whatever that means in this context, or background are hyperbolic nonsense.

Factually incorrect. White students increased from 86 to 123, a delta of 37. Hispanic students increased from 16 to 62, a delta of 46. Black students increased from TS, which can be anywhere from zero to 9, to 39.

2024: https://www.fcps.edu/news/tjhsst-offers-admission-486-students
2025: https://www.fcps.edu/news/tjhsst-offers-admission-550-students-broadens-access-students-who-have-aptitude-stem

You're done.

You do realize that hispanics can also be white right?

Done with what?

Generally speaking, that falls in the category of "multiracial", a designation that did not change significantly year-over-year.

When you post a factual inaccuracy that is demonstrably false, you are done - that is to say, not to be taken seriously anymore because you don't know what you're talking about.

[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:If students are responsible for younger siblings, working, and don't have parental support, how will they handle the workload at TJ?

Not saying they shouldn't be given a shot but it doesn't seem like an environment in which they would be able to keep up.

That's their business, not yours. You are looking for a reason not to admit them or for them not to apply. Stop.

Besides, in many of those instances, "care" involves literally just being at home so that the party in question isn't home alone. That doesn't preclude one from doing homework. It does, however, preclude being out at an extracurricular activity.

First, I said in my post that I wasn't saying they shouldn't be given a shot
Second, if the entire process is being re-arranged to accommodate these students and then they fail because the problems they face are still there we will again hear calls for more accommodation. As a taxpayer, its actually my business since those pushing for this made it so. You can't reconfigure everything based on these factors and then say its no one's business. They've made it our business.

TJ has been working for years on decoupling rigor and workload through the Challenge Success initiative - meaning that they are working to maintain the exceptional rigor of the school while reducing the impact on students in terms of time and stress spent outside of the school day on homework and study. That initiative is in its fourth year, well pre-dating any of this business with admissions.

You will notice that at literally no point has anyone involved in this process from the FCPS level said anything about lowering the standards of the TJ education. There is no sense in which your comments about "reconfiguring everything based on these factors" and "calls for more accommodation" have any merit at all.

If they fail, they fail. Plenty of TJ kids (10-15% every year) have been failing via the previous admissions process. If the Class of 2025 loses a quarter of its class year over year, then perhaps you'll have a case to make. Until then, kindly have a seat and go the way of the "defund/eliminate TJ" sycophants.

They have just reconfigured the standards for entry based on these students. If they fail, you can guarantee the conversation about lowering standards is coming (if it hasn't already started privately).

It has already come, if you pay attention to these fora.

There is a distinct difference between "reconfiguring" the standards and "lowering" the standards.

Indeed, the new admissions process resulted in a significantly lower acceptance rate among the applicant pool and a significantly higher average GPA among those initially offered admission. One imagines that that average GPA likely increased further once some initial offers were declined and spaces were granted to students on the wait list, especially if they were offered to students in the unallocated pool.

Wait for them to fail before you bury them. Engaging in speculation about 14 year olds failing because their race, culture, or background is not your is gross.

hyperbolic nonsense.

There's nothing hyperbolic about it. It's what everyone in the regressive camp has been doing for months - presuming that there are only three options for these students: 1) they will fail because they are unprepared; 2) the school will be somehow "watered down" in an attempt to prove that they weren't unprepared; 3) both.

The biggest change in raw numbers was the increase in number of white students admitted this year. Your comments on race, culture -whatever that means in this context, or background are hyperbolic nonsense.

Factually incorrect. White students increased from 86 to 123, a delta of 37. Hispanic students increased from 16 to 62, a delta of 46. Black students increased from TS, which can be anywhere from zero to 9, to 39.

2024: https://www.fcps.edu/news/tjhsst-offers-admission-486-students
2025: https://www.fcps.edu/news/tjhsst-offers-admission-550-students-broadens-access-students-who-have-aptitude-stem

You're done.

You do realize that hispanics can also be white right?

Done with what?

Generally speaking, that falls in the category of "multiracial", a designation that did not change significantly year-over-year.

When you post a factual inaccuracy that is demonstrably false, you are done - that is to say, not to be taken seriously anymore because you don't know what you're talking about.

Hispanic is not a race. Factual inaccuracy. So does that mean you're "done" too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Generally speaking, that falls in the category of "multiracial", a designation that did not change significantly year-over-year.

When you post a factual inaccuracy that is demonstrably false, you are done - that is to say, not to be taken seriously anymore because you don't know what you're talking about.

Hispanic is an ethnicity and not a race. You'd have to be comatose to have failed to notice that on every single school or medical form you fill out, under "Race", there is not a Hispanic category. Then, there's a separate checkbox for Hispanic or non-Hispanic after the race one. Many kids would check the boxes for White under race and then Hispanic under ethnicity. Some would check black or something else under race, and then Hispanic for ethnicity.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:If students are responsible for younger siblings, working, and don't have parental support, how will they handle the workload at TJ?

Not saying they shouldn't be given a shot but it doesn't seem like an environment in which they would be able to keep up.

That's their business, not yours. You are looking for a reason not to admit them or for them not to apply. Stop.

Besides, in many of those instances, "care" involves literally just being at home so that the party in question isn't home alone. That doesn't preclude one from doing homework. It does, however, preclude being out at an extracurricular activity.

First, I said in my post that I wasn't saying they shouldn't be given a shot
Second, if the entire process is being re-arranged to accommodate these students and then they fail because the problems they face are still there we will again hear calls for more accommodation. As a taxpayer, its actually my business since those pushing for this made it so. You can't reconfigure everything based on these factors and then say its no one's business. They've made it our business.

TJ has been working for years on decoupling rigor and workload through the Challenge Success initiative - meaning that they are working to maintain the exceptional rigor of the school while reducing the impact on students in terms of time and stress spent outside of the school day on homework and study. That initiative is in its fourth year, well pre-dating any of this business with admissions.

You will notice that at literally no point has anyone involved in this process from the FCPS level said anything about lowering the standards of the TJ education. There is no sense in which your comments about "reconfiguring everything based on these factors" and "calls for more accommodation" have any merit at all.

If they fail, they fail. Plenty of TJ kids (10-15% every year) have been failing via the previous admissions process. If the Class of 2025 loses a quarter of its class year over year, then perhaps you'll have a case to make. Until then, kindly have a seat and go the way of the "defund/eliminate TJ" sycophants.

They have just reconfigured the standards for entry based on these students. If they fail, you can guarantee the conversation about lowering standards is coming (if it hasn't already started privately).

It has already come, if you pay attention to these fora.

There is a distinct difference between "reconfiguring" the standards and "lowering" the standards.

Indeed, the new admissions process resulted in a significantly lower acceptance rate among the applicant pool and a significantly higher average GPA among those initially offered admission. One imagines that that average GPA likely increased further once some initial offers were declined and spaces were granted to students on the wait list, especially if they were offered to students in the unallocated pool.

Wait for them to fail before you bury them. Engaging in speculation about 14 year olds failing because their race, culture, or background is not your is gross.

hyperbolic nonsense.

There's nothing hyperbolic about it. It's what everyone in the regressive camp has been doing for months - presuming that there are only three options for these students: 1) they will fail because they are unprepared; 2) the school will be somehow "watered down" in an attempt to prove that they weren't unprepared; 3) both.

The biggest change in raw numbers was the increase in number of white students admitted this year. Your comments on race, culture -whatever that means in this context, or background are hyperbolic nonsense.

Factually incorrect. White students increased from 86 to 123, a delta of 37. Hispanic students increased from 16 to 62, a delta of 46. Black students increased from TS, which can be anywhere from zero to 9, to 39.

2024: https://www.fcps.edu/news/tjhsst-offers-admission-486-students
2025: https://www.fcps.edu/news/tjhsst-offers-admission-550-students-broadens-access-students-who-have-aptitude-stem

You're done.

You do realize that hispanics can also be white right?

Done with what?

Generally speaking, that falls in the category of "multiracial", a designation that did not change significantly year-over-year.

When you post a factual inaccuracy that is demonstrably false, you are done - that is to say, not to be taken seriously anymore because you don't know what you're talking about.

Hispanic is not a race. Factual inaccuracy. So does that mean you're "done" too?

It is when it comes to reporting on the TJ admissions process. Nice try.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Generally speaking, that falls in the category of "multiracial", a designation that did not change significantly year-over-year.

When you post a factual inaccuracy that is demonstrably false, you are done - that is to say, not to be taken seriously anymore because you don't know what you're talking about.

Hispanic is an ethnicity and not a race. You'd have to be comatose to have failed to notice that on every single school or medical form you fill out, under "Race", there is not a Hispanic category. Then, there's a separate checkbox for Hispanic or non-Hispanic after the race one. Many kids would check the boxes for White under race and then Hispanic under ethnicity. Some would check black or something else under race, and then Hispanic for ethnicity.

That's not how the TJ application works. The category is "Race/Ethnicity", and you have the following options: "White (non-Hispanic), Black (non-Hispanic), Hispanic, Asian, Multi-Racial/Other".

Again, you're not wrong, you just don't understand (or are choosing to conveniently ignore) the core concept of what's being discussed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If students are responsible for younger siblings, working, and don't have parental support, how will they handle the workload at TJ?

Not saying they shouldn't be given a shot but it doesn't seem like an environment in which they would be able to keep up.

That's their business, not yours. You are looking for a reason not to admit them or for them not to apply. Stop.

Besides, in many of those instances, "care" involves literally just being at home so that the party in question isn't home alone. That doesn't preclude one from doing homework. It does, however, preclude being out at an extracurricular activity.

First, I said in my post that I wasn't saying they shouldn't be given a shot
Second, if the entire process is being re-arranged to accommodate these students and then they fail because the problems they face are still there we will again hear calls for more accommodation. As a taxpayer, its actually my business since those pushing for this made it so. You can't reconfigure everything based on these factors and then say its no one's business. They've made it our business.

Taxpayers have a vested interest in these kids succeeding. Would you rather later pay for their housing food and medical care or for them to create jobs for your grandchildren, pay your pension or create your elder care equipment?

Agreed. Support school choice. Vote Republican.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Generally speaking, that falls in the category of "multiracial", a designation that did not change significantly year-over-year.

When you post a factual inaccuracy that is demonstrably false, you are done - that is to say, not to be taken seriously anymore because you don't know what you're talking about.

Hispanic is an ethnicity and not a race. You'd have to be comatose to have failed to notice that on every single school or medical form you fill out, under "Race", there is not a Hispanic category. Then, there's a separate checkbox for Hispanic or non-Hispanic after the race one. Many kids would check the boxes for White under race and then Hispanic under ethnicity. Some would check black or something else under race, and then Hispanic for ethnicity.

That's not how the TJ application works. The category is "Race/Ethnicity", and you have the following options: "White (non-Hispanic), Black (non-Hispanic), Hispanic, Asian, Multi-Racial/Other".

Again, you're not wrong, you just don't understand (or are choosing to conveniently ignore) the core concept of what's being discussed.

Uh.. No. Someone (you?) asserted that kids who are white and hispanic would fall under the multiracial category. That is absolutely false, and they would not be considered multiracial. For FCPS paperwork, a white child of Hispanic ethnicity would check "White" for their race, and then they'd check "Hispanic". If they did a combined race/ethnicity, they would simply check Hispanic. Either way, TJ would consider those kids to be Hispanic and not white or multiracial. Multiracial is for kids who are of two races. It isn't used for Hispanic kids of a single race.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nope. One time I taught a truly special kid. Perfect recall. The only thing she got wrong all year was repeating a mistake I had made and later corrected. Kids like that really need TJ.

Lame.

You had one kid like that one time. TJ isn’t there for one kid.

TJ lottery all the way!

You misunderstood. If each high school got two slots to nominate (which I believe is the plan) , it ensures that the profoundly gifted kids get through. They really need it.