Anonymous wrote:Please await next years’ scores - the class of 25 will be the first coming out of the new and improved process.

Anonymous wrote:My son went to TJ and now is at the University of Pennsylvania. Not sure anyone even knows where he went to HS. I'd bet money that they do not care.

Anonymous wrote:Please await next years’ scores - the class of 25 will be the first coming out of the new and improved process.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My son went to TJ and now is at the University of Pennsylvania. Not sure anyone even knows where he went to HS. I'd bet money that they do not care.

The admissions officers certainly did

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please await next years’ scores - the class of 25 will be the first coming out of the new and improved process.

I’m the loudest and most well-informed advocate for TJ admissions on this thread. I’ve probably sent a thousand replies and posts over the last few years talking about the critical importance of opening TJ to the entire spectrum of socioeconomic backgrounds represented in Northern Virginia. And I will go to war with anyone on here about the fact that things are going really well at TJ three years into the new process.

But I expect standardized exam scores to go down somewhat next year because we are no longer overselecting for test taking ability in the admissions process.

In the old process you literally could not become a semifinalist without strong test-taking skills. Students could be absolutely brilliant but if they were not strong in a standardized test environment, for whatever reason, they were cut out of the process.

So yes, the scores will go down slightly, almost for certain. And it doesn’t matter, but you’ll get a bunch of myopic trolls on here with an archaic and limited idea of the concept of merit who think it does. And they’ll needlessly insult thousands of kids in the process.

Anonymous wrote:1 Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology Alexandria, Virginia 1515 (originally 2198/2400)
70% Asian

2 Middlesex County Academy for Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Technologies Edison, New Jersey 1502
84% Asian


3 High Technology High School Lincroft, New Jersey 1500
55% Asian

4 Felicity-Franklin High School Felicity, Ohio 1480 (originally 2120/2400)
95% white

greatschools has this school ranked as 2, and niche gives it a C

So I am not sure what the SAT scores in that school means. Did only a handful of kids take it?

5 Biotechnology High School Freehold Township, New Jersey 1477
51% Asian


6 Bergen County Academies Hackensack, New Jersey 1470
51% Asian

7 Stuyvesant High School New York City, New York 1466 (originally 2096/2400)
73% Asian

8 Texas Academy of Mathematics and Science Denton, Texas 1465
No info on demographics
Residential program.

9 Massachusetts Academy of Math and Science Worcester, Massachusetts 1457
50% Asian


10 Jasper High School Plano, Texas 1446
48.8% Asian


So basically, the schools with the top SAT Scores, are majority Asian. News at 11.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please await next years’ scores - the class of 25 will be the first coming out of the new and improved process.

I’m the loudest and most well-informed advocate for TJ admissions on this thread. I’ve probably sent a thousand replies and posts over the last few years talking about the critical importance of opening TJ to the entire spectrum of socioeconomic backgrounds represented in Northern Virginia. And I will go to war with anyone on here about the fact that things are going really well at TJ three years into the new process.

But I expect standardized exam scores to go down somewhat next year because we are no longer overselecting for test taking ability in the admissions process.

In the old process you literally could not become a semifinalist without strong test-taking skills. Students could be absolutely brilliant but if they were not strong in a standardized test environment, for whatever reason, they were cut out of the process.

So yes, the scores will go down slightly, almost for certain. And it doesn’t matter, but you’ll get a bunch of myopic trolls on here with an archaic and limited idea of the concept of merit who think it does. And they’ll needlessly insult thousands of kids in the process.

Even if your argument is right (that the prior admissions process overselected for test taking), how do you know that the current admissions brings in a more meritous population? "Not overselecting" is not congruent to "more meritous."

As evidence, note that SAT scores are highly correlated to college success outcomes, so there is a strong positive correlation between test taking skills and college success. To the extent that these are correlated, admitting worse test takers means admitting worse college-succeeders (on average).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please await next years’ scores - the class of 25 will be the first coming out of the new and improved process.

I’m the loudest and most well-informed advocate for TJ admissions on this thread. I’ve probably sent a thousand replies and posts over the last few years talking about the critical importance of opening TJ to the entire spectrum of socioeconomic backgrounds represented in Northern Virginia. And I will go to war with anyone on here about the fact that things are going really well at TJ three years into the new process.

But I expect standardized exam scores to go down somewhat next year because we are no longer overselecting for test taking ability in the admissions process.

In the old process you literally could not become a semifinalist without strong test-taking skills. Students could be absolutely brilliant but if they were not strong in a standardized test environment, for whatever reason, they were cut out of the process.

So yes, the scores will go down slightly, almost for certain. And it doesn’t matter, but you’ll get a bunch of myopic trolls on here with an archaic and limited idea of the concept of merit who think it does. And they’ll needlessly insult thousands of kids in the process.

Even if your argument is right (that the prior admissions process overselected for test taking), how do you know that the current admissions brings in a more meritous population? "Not overselecting" is not congruent to "more meritous."

As evidence, note that SAT scores are highly correlated to college success outcomes, so there is a strong positive correlation between test taking skills and college success. To the extent that these are correlated, admitting worse test takers means admitting worse college-succeeders (on average).

I’m not arguing that the new population is more meritorious. I’m merely arguing that they’re not inherently less so.

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:We’ve combed through thousands of records to find the top high schools in the country by test scores in a massive study. The results are in.

The two best high schools in America by test scores only are Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology in Alexandria, Virginia, which was the top-scoring high school for the SATs, and Davidson Academy in Reno, Nevada, which was the top-scoring high school for the ACTs. The two high schools in America that should still work on their test scores are the Second Start School in Concord, New Hampshire, which had the country’s lowest average SAT score, and the Variety School in Las Vegas, Nevada, which had the country’s lowest average ACT score.

Rank School Location Average SAT Score

1 Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology Alexandria, Virginia 1515 (originally 2198/2400)

2 Middlesex County Academy for Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Technologies Edison, New Jersey 1502

3 High Technology High School Lincroft, New Jersey 1500

4 Felicity-Franklin High School Felicity, Ohio 1480 (originally 2120/2400)

5 Biotechnology High School Freehold Township, New Jersey 1477

6 Bergen County Academies Hackensack, New Jersey 1470

7 Stuyvesant High School New York City, New York 1466 (originally 2096/2400)

8 Texas Academy of Mathematics and Science Denton, Texas 1465

9 Massachusetts Academy of Math and Science Worcester, Massachusetts 1457

10 Jasper High School Plano, Texas 1446

https://brainly.com/insights/best-worst-public-high-schools-us-by-sat-act-scores

If TJ was so great hy is TJ's SAT average so much lower than the MCPS STEM magnets?

Along comes the MCPS moron as usual.

So where is Poolesville on this list? And what do you think the TJ average would have been if it were as small as the Blair magnet?

In any event MCPS doesn’t report SAT scores externally any longer and TJ #s will plummet with the admissions change so it will all be moot soon.

The Blair manget average SAT is around 20-30 points higher than TJ. The info is available online via google.

The magnet had 95 kids sit for the SAT an got an average of 1531. TJ has 500 kids taking the test and averaged 1527. If you took TJs top 95, you would be at about 1570.

And if you took the top 500 from Moco you'd also have closer to 1600. Seriously, TJ is just a poornan's Blair. It looses on every front.

That is classic MoCo. Don't you have a consultant's report about MoCo catching up to Fairfax you could go read for a day or two?

Sorry was watching a rerun of TJ losing to Blair (again) on It's Academic.

It’s Academic is a child’s play. How many times did Blair win the national quizbowl tournaments in the last several years while TJ was dominating?

In every category, it seems to outperform TJ. In terms of NMSF, in terms of Intel scholars, Math and Physics Olympiad members. You name it. TJ like AAP is just too watered down to compete.

Granted Blair does very well for a small program, but it seems like MCPS could stand to have more programs like that than anything. Even TJ seems too restrictive these days. People would probably be better off if they offered courses like this at any home school.

Just about every HS in MCPS hosts some specialty program. Blair hosts 2 even. I think it's just a different way to do things. For example, there's global ecology at Poolesville or Biomedical Engineering program at Wheaton, the Commuicatin Arts program at Blair, or even the rigorous IB at RM.

Well you will find better resources in Montgomery County. That’s where the old money is

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please await next years’ scores - the class of 25 will be the first coming out of the new and improved process.

I’m the loudest and most well-informed advocate for TJ admissions on this thread. I’ve probably sent a thousand replies and posts over the last few years talking about the critical importance of opening TJ to the entire spectrum of socioeconomic backgrounds represented in Northern Virginia. And I will go to war with anyone on here about the fact that things are going really well at TJ three years into the new process.

But I expect standardized exam scores to go down somewhat next year because we are no longer overselecting for test taking ability in the admissions process.

In the old process you literally could not become a semifinalist without strong test-taking skills. Students could be absolutely brilliant but if they were not strong in a standardized test environment, for whatever reason, they were cut out of the process.

So yes, the scores will go down slightly, almost for certain. And it doesn’t matter, but you’ll get a bunch of myopic trolls on here with an archaic and limited idea of the concept of merit who think it does. And they’ll needlessly insult thousands of kids in the process.

Even if your argument is right (that the prior admissions process overselected for test taking), how do you know that the current admissions brings in a more meritous population? "Not overselecting" is not congruent to "more meritous."

As evidence, note that SAT scores are highly correlated to college success outcomes, so there is a strong positive correlation between test taking skills and college success. To the extent that these are correlated, admitting worse test takers means admitting worse college-succeeders (on average).

I’m not arguing that the new population is more meritorious. I’m merely arguing that they’re not inherently less so.

But statistically, they are less meritorious. Noisy as it is, test (SAT) scores are positively correlated with merit (or aptitude, or whatever non-observable measure of ability you want to call it). Removing test scores from an admissions process will thus lower the admitted population's average merit, all else equal. If the substitute admissions process doesn't have a measure that is more positively correlated with merit than test scores, the new population will be less meritorious*.

* I'm using "college success" as the observable instrument for measuring merit. Feel free to suggest other observable measures.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please await next years’ scores - the class of 25 will be the first coming out of the new and improved process.

I’m the loudest and most well-informed advocate for TJ admissions on this thread. I’ve probably sent a thousand replies and posts over the last few years talking about the critical importance of opening TJ to the entire spectrum of socioeconomic backgrounds represented in Northern Virginia. And I will go to war with anyone on here about the fact that things are going really well at TJ three years into the new process.

But I expect standardized exam scores to go down somewhat next year because we are no longer overselecting for test taking ability in the admissions process.

In the old process you literally could not become a semifinalist without strong test-taking skills. Students could be absolutely brilliant but if they were not strong in a standardized test environment, for whatever reason, they were cut out of the process.

So yes, the scores will go down slightly, almost for certain. And it doesn’t matter, but you’ll get a bunch of myopic trolls on here with an archaic and limited idea of the concept of merit who think it does. And they’ll needlessly insult thousands of kids in the process.

Even if your argument is right (that the prior admissions process overselected for test taking), how do you know that the current admissions brings in a more meritous population? "Not overselecting" is not congruent to "more meritous."

As evidence, note that SAT scores are highly correlated to college success outcomes, so there is a strong positive correlation between test taking skills and college success. To the extent that these are correlated, admitting worse test takers means admitting worse college-succeeders (on average).

I’m not arguing that the new population is more meritorious. I’m merely arguing that they’re not inherently less so.

But statistically, they are less meritorious. Noisy as it is, test (SAT) scores are positively correlated with merit (or aptitude, or whatever non-observable measure of ability you want to call it). Removing test scores from an admissions process will thus lower the admitted population's average merit, all else equal. If the substitute admissions process doesn't have a measure that is more positively correlated with merit than test scores, the new population will be less meritorious*.

* I'm using "college success" as the observable instrument for measuring merit. Feel free to suggest other observable measures.

This is where you ran into difficulty. "Merit" is simply not a concept that is observable in such a way that everyone will agree on it and truly evaluating it depends entirely on context. It just does and every single business in America understands this.

Say you have two students that you're evaluating for admission to your elite school. You are trying to predict which of these students is going to be the best endorsement for your school in four years when they graduate and in ten, twenty, and thirty years down the road. You have space for only one and these two are the only two candidates.

Student A comes from a wealthy, two-parent family and has attended the best advanced programs in the area. Their older sister attended your school. On your standardized exam this student gets a 93/100 and when asked why they want to attend your school, they respond "because it's the best school in the area and my sister went there".

Student B comes from a disadvantaged background and only has one parent in the house who works two jobs. No one from their school has ever attended your school, nor even applied. On your standardized exam this student gets an 89/100 and when asked, they reply "because it's always been my dream to study the thing you specialize in at the highest level and I want to use my studies to solve this problem that exists in my community and others like it".

If you understand admissions at all, you select Student B 100% of the time - not because you're trying to do a favor for kids from disadvantaged communities, but because it's fairly obvious that Student B is going to contribute more to your school and probably by a mile.

Anonymous wrote:And everyone knows in the grand scheme of life no one cares what HS you went to and where your HS ranked nationally. Seriously, unless your 21 see if anyone at your job gives a F about where you went to HS and what your HS was ranked.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please await next years’ scores - the class of 25 will be the first coming out of the new and improved process.

I’m the loudest and most well-informed advocate for TJ admissions on this thread. I’ve probably sent a thousand replies and posts over the last few years talking about the critical importance of opening TJ to the entire spectrum of socioeconomic backgrounds represented in Northern Virginia. And I will go to war with anyone on here about the fact that things are going really well at TJ three years into the new process.

But I expect standardized exam scores to go down somewhat next year because we are no longer overselecting for test taking ability in the admissions process.

In the old process you literally could not become a semifinalist without strong test-taking skills. Students could be absolutely brilliant but if they were not strong in a standardized test environment, for whatever reason, they were cut out of the process.

So yes, the scores will go down slightly, almost for certain. And it doesn’t matter, but you’ll get a bunch of myopic trolls on here with an archaic and limited idea of the concept of merit who think it does. And they’ll needlessly insult thousands of kids in the process.

Even if your argument is right (that the prior admissions process overselected for test taking), how do you know that the current admissions brings in a more meritous population? "Not overselecting" is not congruent to "more meritous."

As evidence, note that SAT scores are highly correlated to college success outcomes, so there is a strong positive correlation between test taking skills and college success. To the extent that these are correlated, admitting worse test takers means admitting worse college-succeeders (on average).

I’m not arguing that the new population is more meritorious. I’m merely arguing that they’re not inherently less so.

But statistically, they are less meritorious. Noisy as it is, test (SAT) scores are positively correlated with merit (or aptitude, or whatever non-observable measure of ability you want to call it). Removing test scores from an admissions process will thus lower the admitted population's average merit, all else equal. If the substitute admissions process doesn't have a measure that is more positively correlated with merit than test scores, the new population will be less meritorious*.

* I'm using "college success" as the observable instrument for measuring merit. Feel free to suggest other observable measures.

This is where you ran into difficulty. "Merit" is simply not a concept that is observable in such a way that everyone will agree on it and truly evaluating it depends entirely on context. It just does and every single business in America understands this.

Say you have two students that you're evaluating for admission to your elite school. You are trying to predict which of these students is going to be the best endorsement for your school in four years when they graduate and in ten, twenty, and thirty years down the road. You have space for only one and these two are the only two candidates.

Student A comes from a wealthy, two-parent family and has attended the best advanced programs in the area. Their older sister attended your school. On your standardized exam this student gets a 93/100 and when asked why they want to attend your school, they respond "because it's the best school in the area and my sister went there".

Student B comes from a disadvantaged background and only has one parent in the house who works two jobs. No one from their school has ever attended your school, nor even applied. On your standardized exam this student gets an 89/100 and when asked, they reply "because it's always been my dream to study the thing you specialize in at the highest level and I want to use my studies to solve this problem that exists in my community and others like it".

If you understand admissions at all, you select Student B 100% of the time - not because you're trying to do a favor for kids from disadvantaged communities, but because it's fairly obvious that Student B is going to contribute more to your school and probably by a mile.

I assume you picked 93 and 89 in your example because they were close enough so that the difference could be attributed to noise (you don't state the standard deviation). Can I recast your example using real world numbers: suppose student A has 1530 SAT (average at TJ last year) and student B has a 1300 (average at Langley last year). Does the AO still take Student B who wrote the "better" essay?

I agree that merit is unobservable: the above example used merit as the term to describe the unobserved characteristic. But observable outcomes can (noisily) proxy for merit... College success is one used by any researchers, and that outcome has been shown to be highly correlated to SAT scores.

Your anecdotal hypothetical can be extended to a statistical hypothetical: supposed there are two groups of students, one with 1500 SATs and one with 1300 SATs. Can you devise a strategy where you admit the most "meritorious" 1300 SAT students that would be more successful (on average) than the group of 1500 SAT students?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please await next years’ scores - the class of 25 will be the first coming out of the new and improved process.

I’m the loudest and most well-informed advocate for TJ admissions on this thread. I’ve probably sent a thousand replies and posts over the last few years talking about the critical importance of opening TJ to the entire spectrum of socioeconomic backgrounds represented in Northern Virginia. And I will go to war with anyone on here about the fact that things are going really well at TJ three years into the new process.

But I expect standardized exam scores to go down somewhat next year because we are no longer overselecting for test taking ability in the admissions process.

In the old process you literally could not become a semifinalist without strong test-taking skills. Students could be absolutely brilliant but if they were not strong in a standardized test environment, for whatever reason, they were cut out of the process.

So yes, the scores will go down slightly, almost for certain. And it doesn’t matter, but you’ll get a bunch of myopic trolls on here with an archaic and limited idea of the concept of merit who think it does. And they’ll needlessly insult thousands of kids in the process.

Even if your argument is right (that the prior admissions process overselected for test taking), how do you know that the current admissions brings in a more meritous population? "Not overselecting" is not congruent to "more meritous."

As evidence, note that SAT scores are highly correlated to college success outcomes, so there is a strong positive correlation between test taking skills and college success. To the extent that these are correlated, admitting worse test takers means admitting worse college-succeeders (on average).

I’m not arguing that the new population is more meritorious. I’m merely arguing that they’re not inherently less so.

But statistically, they are less meritorious. Noisy as it is, test (SAT) scores are positively correlated with merit (or aptitude, or whatever non-observable measure of ability you want to call it). Removing test scores from an admissions process will thus lower the admitted population's average merit, all else equal. If the substitute admissions process doesn't have a measure that is more positively correlated with merit than test scores, the new population will be less meritorious*.

* I'm using "college success" as the observable instrument for measuring merit. Feel free to suggest other observable measures.

This is where you ran into difficulty. "Merit" is simply not a concept that is observable in such a way that everyone will agree on it and truly evaluating it depends entirely on context. It just does and every single business in America understands this.

Say you have two students that you're evaluating for admission to your elite school. You are trying to predict which of these students is going to be the best endorsement for your school in four years when they graduate and in ten, twenty, and thirty years down the road. You have space for only one and these two are the only two candidates.

Student A comes from a wealthy, two-parent family and has attended the best advanced programs in the area. Their older sister attended your school. On your standardized exam this student gets a 93/100 and when asked why they want to attend your school, they respond "because it's the best school in the area and my sister went there".

Student B comes from a disadvantaged background and only has one parent in the house who works two jobs. No one from their school has ever attended your school, nor even applied. On your standardized exam this student gets an 89/100 and when asked, they reply "because it's always been my dream to study the thing you specialize in at the highest level and I want to use my studies to solve this problem that exists in my community and others like it".

If you understand admissions at all, you select Student B 100% of the time - not because you're trying to do a favor for kids from disadvantaged communities, but because it's fairly obvious that Student B is going to contribute more to your school and probably by a mile.

I assume you picked 93 and 89 in your example because they were close enough so that the difference could be attributed to noise (you don't state the standard deviation). Can I recast your example using real world numbers: suppose student A has 1530 SAT (average at TJ last year) and student B has a 1300 (average at Langley last year). Does the AO still take Student B who wrote the "better" essay?

I agree that merit is unobservable: the above example used merit as the term to describe the unobserved characteristic. But observable outcomes can (noisily) proxy for merit... College success is one used by any researchers, and that outcome has been shown to be highly correlated to SAT scores.

Your anecdotal hypothetical can be extended to a statistical hypothetical: supposed there are two groups of students, one with 1500 SATs and one with 1300 SATs. Can you devise a strategy where you admit the most "meritorious" 1300 SAT students that would be more successful (on average) than the group of 1500 SAT students?

NP, the bolded words are doing a lot of work in that sentence, and when putting together an incoming class colleges care about a lot more than individual likelihood of "success" (even if you allow for an appropriately broad definition thereof) but on the face of it, yes, of course, a strategy where you also consider GPA, personal background and life challenges, whether their passions and interests are conveyed in the essay/interview and seem like a good fit for the school, what sports or music or other ECs do they stand out in and are those aligned with what the school offers or is looking to achieve, do they have ambition?... on and on. This is exactly what schools do in their admission process.

Are they going to pick the 1500s at a higher rate than 1300s from this pool? Yeah, almost certainly. That seems to be your point. But so what?
Are they going to pick the 3.9UWs at a higher rate than 3.8UWs from this pool? Yeah, almost certainly.
Are they going to pick the standout musician/artist/athletes at a higher rate than the non-standout musician/artist/athletes from this pool? Yeah, almost certainly.
Are they going to pick the kids with passion at a higher rate than kids with vanilla essays/interviews from this pool? Yeah, almost certainly.
Etc.

There are going to be many criteria which will be positively correlated with admissions chances (and merit), but the SATs are just one measure, upon which you seem to be overindexing. Most folks (self included) aren't suggesting that such scores should be completely ignored, but just that they should be seen for what they are... merely one of many elements of what constitutes merit, and one which seems to be frequently overemphasized due to convenience.