Reply to Young Scholars Admittance

Forum Index » Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS)

Reply to "Young Scholars Admittance"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]It’s bonkers that people are complaining about early intervention to help talented kids succeed academically when they might not have as much of a chance on their own.

I am very against the TJ admissions changed and test optional policies because those try to rig admissions to ensure certain outcomes. This is helping achieve positive outcomes through honest measures!

These coalition for TJ folks have lost the plot.[/quote]

+1 million. I'm a PP but this is exactly what we should be doing. If you front load services at younger ages, there's no argument to change later policies in the name of equity. This is exactly what Coalition for TJ should support.[/quote]

When it started, Young Scholars had as one of its stated goals as gaining more admissions to TJ for URM students.  TJ was back then an admission by mostly objective standard school, so I don't see how encouraging students to reach higher or think differently was objectionable.   The real challenge, and I suspect that it remains, is that a student has to do very well in algebra in 7th or 8th grade.  The system was simply not generating enough candidates.  It strikes me this is still the case or there would not be a need to alter admissions criteria as is being done today.  I have surmised at times that the algebra metric is too simplistic but I have been told it is an excellent marker.

Academic disparities are really a tough challenge.  I do support the notion that the earlier the intervention, the better.  I did as well as one could do at a top law school, and was the law review editor.  Oddly, I came from a poor background but talked my way into a honors program in a so-called prestige undergrad school which was so brutal it made the Socratic method in law school seem like a relative layup.  I actually cringed at this teaching method because it was clear to me that some awfully bright people (i.e., smarter than I was) just didn't have that kind of learning style.  But the rules of the game at top law schools have been set in place for decades, at least for first year study, which is all that matters. Even the most progressive professors were law review types at Harvard or Yale and they teach the way they were taught, no matter their politics.

The Dean of the School approached me (an incredible guy) and a few of my colleagues to run seminars to first year URM students on how to take tests.  I gladly did it, but found the results disappointing.  The kids in the seminar by the way were in general far more interesting than the typical I am in law school because its what my family wants types, and it was a joy to work with them.  The problem is that graduate school is way too late to make up for deficiencies (and the disparities associated with the group, with a few exceptions who I knew well and who had no need to attend the seminars, were just too large). I do hold out the possibility that my teaching was mediocre but one of my law review colleagues was a URM who led the FBI in their training regime.  She was the best student and teacher I have ever come across in any field.  It seems obvious to state that graduate school was too late to fix these challenges but I think the point is that whatever can be done much earlier is worth trying, subject to reasonable accountability measures. There were a few conservative students (and I was a centrist) who objected to these seminars and I told them that were simply being petty to complain.  The program did not impact them in any way, and even if not successful, it certainly made us question as to how to get better at the endeavor of helping others to get better.  Griping about the kids opportunities with these seminars is also reflective of zero sum thinking, which is not the way the world works.  These kids gains didn't detract from what I could do.

I know this is way too much detail, but it gives one an idea of what getting people to accelerate in learning entails.  The professors in the seminar wanted us to use past exams as a teaching tool.  The exams were in the law library so it was no great secret.  I objected to this method - although it sounds crazy - because how can seeing past exams hurt?  My observation was that these diligent kids who wanted to catch up (after all, most of them had a lifetime worth of lifestyle choking student loans) would memorize the exams as this is what worked in undergrad  - and not drill down on the relentless questioning and issue spotting and think on your feet ability required to do well on tests. The endless so what? of the Socratic method.  I wanted a much simplified group of fact patterns - very simplified - to get at the method behind what law schools teach.  These students with teaching to full past exams would react to new elaborate fact patterns on the actual test by attempting to memorize it just as they did in the seminar. This was no way to get through these tests because virtually everyone who did this would run out of time.  You just can't score well if you can't finish the test - scores of points are missed.  I did not test this view empirically, but I think i was right.  Even if I wasn't it reminded me of the importance of listening to teachers carefully and listen to their front line inputs.  My own kids did as well as any students could possibly do in FCPS and while I was in no state to reach their academic levels I was very supportive of their teachers.   I hope Young Scholars has the mindset to look at their work critically while being supportive. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics