Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Real name. Took the prep class.

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and to access a cache of previous and example prompts, as I witnessed when I took TJ prep; even if prompts become outdated by test changes, even access to old prompts enables private tutoring pupils to gain an upper edge over others: pupils become accustomed to the format of the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.”

No one is debating that prep courses help the affluent. That's obvious. It's also enough on its own to justify some sort of change to the admissions process. I have no doubt that prep centers now have their own cache of math problem solving essays as well as portrait of a graduate essays, both from the ones asked in the last few years and ones they made up on their own in a similar vein. Prepped kids will still have an unfair advantage.

This is also not proof of #5 in OP's post. There's no indication that the cache of previous questions was unfairly obtained or amounted to anything on the scope of selling the test answers. It's also highly unlikely that the author attended Curie, based on the last name.

I like the 1.5% allocations. I dislike paring down the application packet so it has no substance and cannot differentiate between a top kid and a pretty average one.

I like the seat allocations.

Be transparent in how the top 1.5% is being considered and adjust that to a weight for the level of math. The kids coming from schools with small numbers of students taking Algebra 1 in 7th grade will mean that there are kids attending TJ whose highest level of math will be Algebra 1, that is fine. I don't think those schools are getting more then the allotted 1.5% into TJ. The Schools where there are kids taking Algebra II should not be sending kids kids with only Algebra 1 to TJ. Create a weight for level of math that is equal to the FARMs, ELL, and IEP weight. I think it is an easy fix that would allow for kids who have a late start due to different opportunities at home and their ES have a shot at TJ while more likely capturing kids who are strong at math and advanced enough to take advantage of the unique offerings that TJ has.

I can’t agree more. Have a transparent point system for comprehensive factors like teachers’ recommendations, STEM courses, essays, and entrance exam. Give kids from low-income or URM families significant bonus points. The current lottery system is a disgrace.

That is why SAT/ACT/LSAT/MCAT/GRE/GMAT are ALL preppable. Claiming one's test 'unpreppable' and accusing those who prep for it as unethical is absurd.

If they want to give low income student an chance to compete, use a preppable test and pay for their prep class.

Anonymous wrote:Regarding the NDA, does NDA even bind a 14 year old kid taking the tests? They don't have capacity to sign a contract. I think the Quant-t's marketing of "not-preppable" is BS.

I think Curie cracked the Quant-t's system. Plain and simple. It's not cheating, it's just the Art of Solving Problems (pun intended).

Frankly, life is unfair because affluent families would usually come on top.

But why “crack” a test that is meant to be unpreppable? Unless the goal is to give an advantage to families who can pay for an advantage?

The most fair test situation is to have a test that no one can prep for. Then, every test taker has the same previous knowledge of the test: none. “Cracking” the test and sharing sample questions with kids whose families can pay extra for that information upsets the balance and gives just another of the many advantages that middle and upper class families already have.

“Cracking” the test ruined it for everyone, so now there is no standardized test included in the TJ application process.

Anonymous wrote:Regarding the NDA, does NDA even bind a 14 year old kid taking the tests? They don't have capacity to sign a contract. I think the Quant-t's marketing of "not-preppable" is BS.

I think Curie cracked the Quant-t's system. Plain and simple. It's not cheating, it's just the Art of Solving Problems (pun intended).

Frankly, life is unfair because affluent families would usually come on top.

At a minimum, it's unethical for test prep centers to ask the kids to share the questions and then to distribute to others.

They cracked it which defeated the whole purpose of using it.

Regarding the NDA, does NDA even bind a 14 year old kid taking the tests? They don't have capacity to sign a contract. I think the Quant-t's marketing of "not-preppable" is BS.

I think Curie cracked the Quant-t's system. Plain and simple. It's not cheating, it's just the Art of Solving Problems (pun intended).

Frankly, life is unfair because affluent families would usually come on top.

^ through unethical means

Anonymous wrote:OP passed off her thread as factual.

However, it is purely subjective opinion as to whether paying for preparation classes to improve performance (including prep classes for SAT, ACT, MCAT, LSAT, etc etc ), is “unfair.”

That is your opinion, OP. It is not a fact.

While it’s true that affluence does make test prep for standardized testing easier, the points above were specifically about Quant-Q.

Quant-Q is different than those tests. Unlike College Boatd, they don’t provide free materials.

The TJ student made some great points about it:
https://www.tjtoday.org/23143/showcase/the-children-left-behind/
“Beyond the constant changes, the agency making the Quant-Q/ACT-Aspire doesn’t release public materials. Subsequently, already disadvantaged students have a low chance of bolstering themselves up onto the same playing field as other applicants. Nowhere on the website does it list expectations or a rubric or any sort of document I could use to prepare for the exam. “

“the lack of exam transparency and any support materials inherently discriminates against low-income applicants.”

“The Admissions Office needs to provide more notice of any exam changes and free, comprehensive preparation materials for the redesigned exam”


Quant-Q was an objectively unfair measure given that affluent kids had the ability to prepare.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Real name. Took the prep class.

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.”

No one is debating that prep courses help the affluent. That's obvious. It's also enough on its own to justify some sort of change to the admissions process. I have no doubt that prep centers now have their own cache of math problem solving essays as well as portrait of a graduate essays, both from the ones asked in the last few years and ones they made up on their own in a similar vein. Prepped kids will still have an unfair advantage.

This is also not proof of #5 in OP's post. There's no indication that the cache of previous questions was unfairly obtained or amounted to anything on the scope of selling the test answers. It's also highly unlikely that the author attended Curie, based on the last name.

I like the 1.5% allocations. I dislike paring down the application packet so it has no substance and cannot differentiate between a top kid and a pretty average one.

I like the seat allocations.

Be transparent in how the top 1.5% is being considered and adjust that to a weight for the level of math. The kids coming from schools with small numbers of students taking Algebra 1 in 7th grade will mean that there are kids attending TJ whose highest level of math will be Algebra 1, that is fine. I don't think those schools are getting more then the allotted 1.5% into TJ. The Schools where there are kids taking Algebra II should not be sending kids kids with only Algebra 1 to TJ. Create a weight for level of math that is equal to the FARMs, ELL, and IEP weight. I think it is an easy fix that would allow for kids who have a late start due to different opportunities at home and their ES have a shot at TJ while more likely capturing kids who are strong at math and advanced enough to take advantage of the unique offerings that TJ has.

OP passed off her thread as factual.

However, it is purely subjective opinion as to whether paying for preparation classes to improve performance (including prep classes for SAT, ACT, MCAT, LSAT, etc etc ), is “unfair.”

That is your opinion, OP. It is not a fact.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Real name. Took the prep class.

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.”

No one is debating that prep courses help the affluent. That's obvious. It's also enough on its own to justify some sort of change to the admissions process. I have no doubt that prep centers now have their own cache of math problem solving essays as well as portrait of a graduate essays, both from the ones asked in the last few years and ones they made up on their own in a similar vein. Prepped kids will still have an unfair advantage.

This is also not proof of #5 in OP's post. There's no indication that the cache of previous questions was unfairly obtained or amounted to anything on the scope of selling the test answers. It's also highly unlikely that the author attended Curie, based on the last name.

I like the 1.5% allocations. I dislike paring down the application packet so it has no substance and cannot differentiate between a top kid and a pretty average one.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Real name. Took the prep class.

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.”

No one is debating that prep courses help the affluent. That's obvious. It's also enough on its own to justify some sort of change to the admissions process. I have no doubt that prep centers now have their own cache of math problem solving essays as well as portrait of a graduate essays, both from the ones asked in the last few years and ones they made up on their own in a similar vein. Prepped kids will still have an unfair advantage.

This is also not proof of #5 in OP's post. There's no indication that the cache of previous questions was unfairly obtained or amounted to anything on the scope of selling the test answers. It's also highly unlikely that the author attended Curie, based on the last name.

I like the 1.5% allocations. I dislike paring down the application packet so it has no substance and cannot differentiate between a top kid and a pretty average one.

DP. I'm strongly, strongly pro-reform and I think this is the right take with respect to the current admissions process. I would like to see the allocated seats continue with a much more robust application process. TJ deserves nothing less.

Anonymous wrote:Real name. Took the prep class.

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.”

No one is debating that prep courses help the affluent. That's obvious. It's also enough on its own to justify some sort of change to the admissions process. I have no doubt that prep centers now have their own cache of math problem solving essays as well as portrait of a graduate essays, both from the ones asked in the last few years and ones they made up on their own in a similar vein. Prepped kids will still have an unfair advantage.

This is also not proof of #5 in OP's post. There's no indication that the cache of previous questions was unfairly obtained or amounted to anything on the scope of selling the test answers. It's also highly unlikely that the author attended Curie, based on the last name.

I like the 1.5% allocations. I dislike paring down the application packet so it has no substance and cannot differentiate between a top kid and a pretty average one.

Real name. Took the prep class.

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.”

https://www.facebook.com/tjvents/posts/pfbid0jKy4hotXF8AxKwfHm2MAVi7e2yYoCqtrTTXPYsszAdQg6uMoTmReMidqyM1mpu9Bl

That's the post that's referred to.

Rather than jumping between a few older threads, let’s recap a whole series of recent TJ topics.

1. CHANGES TO TJ ADMISSIONS PROCESS
FCPS has changed the TJ admissions process multiple times over the years to address systemic inequalities.

https://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/8W9QET68F25B/$file/Changes%20to%20TJHSST%20Admissions%20Since%202004.pdf

https://www.fcag.org/tjadmissions.shtml

https://virginiamercury.com/2024/02/20/supreme-court-wont-hear-thomas-jefferson-admissions-case/

Before the most recent change, the class of 2024 had less than 1% (0.6%) of the students came from economically-disadvantaged families. There was also very little representation from the less affluent schools.



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
Thread started July 11, 2020

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.”




6. COURT RULED THERE IS NO DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ASIAN STUDENTS
https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/221280.P.pdf
Pg 7
“we are satisfied that the challenged admissions policy does not disparately impact Asian American students”

SCOTUS left ruling in place:
https://virginiamercury.com/2024/02/20/supreme-court-wont-hear-thomas-jefferson-admissions-case/



7. THE DATA BACKS THIS UP:

There are MORE Asian students at TJ since the admissions change than almost any other year in the school’s history.

Asian students still make up the majority of students. More than all other groups, combined.

And Asian students are still accepted at a higher rate than almost all other groups, aside from Hispanic students (class of 25).

The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ by school year (fall):


The data also shows that Asian students were accepted at a higher rate than almost all other groups, aside from Hispanic students.

Asian 19%
Black 14%
Hispanic 21%
White 17%
Multiracial/Other* 13%
ALL 18%



8. LOW-INCOME ASIAN STUDENTS BENEFITED THE MOST FROM CHANGES
https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/221280.P.pdf
page 16
"Nevertheless, in the 2021 application cycle, Asian American students attending middle schools historically underrepresented at TJ saw a sixfold increase in offers, and the number of low-income Asian American admittees to TJ increased to 51 — from a mere one in 2020."



9. TJ RANKING IS CONSISTENT WITH PREVIOUS RANKINGS
TJ isn’t usually #1. The rankings are volatile because the infinitesimal differences between the top schools. The 2024 ranking was within the range of recent rankings.

2015 #3
2016 #5
2017 #20
2018 #6
2019 #10
2020 #4
2021 #1
2022 #1
2023 #5
2024 #14


FWIW, there are multiple posters. I’ve never claimed anything about “cheating” or articles.