Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Strawman. No one thinks affluence doesn’t affect GPA, activities, etc.

So you haven't read any of the TJ admissions threads, apparently? People there are insisting that a test like PSAT absolutely couldn't and shouldn't be used for admissions, since it's too easily gamed by wealthy parents, but they're totally fine with using GPA and essays as the entire admissions process, since they're fair. The premise of the OP is that this is backward, and that places like Stuyvesant use a sole admissions test for placement because it's the most fair way to do it for lower income, high ability kids.

I don't think that's it. I think the issue is why throw up more barriers when we have perfectly fine measures to use like those already given by the school.

Because peer reviewed research from Harvard and Brown show that tests like the PSAT are a much better measure than GPA.

DP. SOLs would work too.

Link to the research about PSATs?

I don't think SOLs work as well as more transparent standardized tests because SOL prep will develop and it will only be available from local test prep organizations and those will be costly. PSAT prep is available from khan academy and has a much lower barrier to entry.

Here is the research that standardized tests matter.
https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/CollegeAdmissions_Paper.pdf

Here are some videos, the first one seems to be presenting the conclusions of the Harvard Brown study; the second one is older and probably a little more comprehensive
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnyiRjPxU_s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gv_Cr1a6rj4

That isn't research about PSATs or middle schoolers. It's a very narrow study.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Strawman. No one thinks affluence doesn’t affect GPA, activities, etc.

So you haven't read any of the TJ admissions threads, apparently? People there are insisting that a test like PSAT absolutely couldn't and shouldn't be used for admissions, since it's too easily gamed by wealthy parents, but they're totally fine with using GPA and essays as the entire admissions process, since they're fair. The premise of the OP is that this is backward, and that places like Stuyvesant use a sole admissions test for placement because it's the most fair way to do it for lower income, high ability kids.

I don't think that's it. I think the issue is why throw up more barriers when we have perfectly fine measures to use like those already given by the school.

Because peer reviewed research from Harvard and Brown show that tests like the PSAT are a much better measure than GPA.

DP. SOLs would work too.

Link to the research about PSATs?

I don't think SOLs work as well as more transparent standardized tests because SOL prep will develop and it will only be available from local test prep organizations and those will be costly. PSAT prep is available from khan academy and has a much lower barrier to entry.

Here is the research that standardized tests matter.
https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/CollegeAdmissions_Paper.pdf

Here are some videos, the first one seems to be presenting the conclusions of the Harvard Brown study; the second one is older and probably a little more comprehensive
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnyiRjPxU_s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gv_Cr1a6rj4

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Strawman. No one thinks affluence doesn’t affect GPA, activities, etc.

So you haven't read any of the TJ admissions threads, apparently? People there are insisting that a test like PSAT absolutely couldn't and shouldn't be used for admissions, since it's too easily gamed by wealthy parents, but they're totally fine with using GPA and essays as the entire admissions process, since they're fair. The premise of the OP is that this is backward, and that places like Stuyvesant use a sole admissions test for placement because it's the most fair way to do it for lower income, high ability kids.

I don't think that's it. I think the issue is why throw up more barriers when we have perfectly fine measures to use like those already given by the school.

Because peer reviewed research from Harvard and Brown show that tests like the PSAT are a much better measure than GPA.

DP. SOLs would work too.

Link to the research about PSATs?

Anonymous wrote:Yes, grades and essays are influenced through enrichment, tutoring, and other mechanisms. That is why I like the 1.5% distribution to each school. The kids are taking the same curriculum across the schools and have the same basic opportunity to succeed. We can compare the classwork and the grade outcome. At some point in time, every kid learns the same material for Algebra. Maybe there are kids at Carson who take the Algebra prep class in the summer so that they learn some of the material in advance and the A that they get at school is easier for them then the kid who is taking Algebra for the first time at Poe but they have both earned an A in Algebra. The A is what matters.

And how do you select between the students at the same middle school? What if 5% of the students all get straight A's?

The issue with the Quant test was that there were test banks that some kids had access to that others did not. The test that the kids were taking was not accurately comparing the ability of the kids to answer the questions equally because some kids had exposure to the types of questions being asked while others didn’t. That would be the same for something like the PSAT. It isn’t that the kids have the exact questions but that they have exposure to the types of questions and are more comfortable answering them in advance.

The PSAT is different than Quant Q. Quant Q tries to make it hard to prep by denying access and transparency for it's effectiveness while the PSAT makes it easy to prep with widespread access and transparency. Quant Q creates a high barrier to prepping that some families can afford while others cannot. The PSAt creates a very low barrier to prepping where the primary barrier is the child's effort.
The PSAT is extremely easy to prep for if you want to put in the effort but there is an aversion to measuring merit that results from effort because some people don't like the racial disparity this creates. So they try to get further away from merit and closer to random selection. Put simply asian kids work harder than white kids and white parents think that merit should not measure the effects of hard work.

The metrics that we have that can be compared across the schools equally are grades. The math essay seems to be something that could be prepped for but the scoring seems to be more on how the kids explain why they answered the way the did and less the answer that they gave. That allows for a kid who is strong at math but maybe has not prepped for the essay to provide their process in a way that allows the grader to understand how well they understood the problem and explained their solution vs checking for answers only.

Of course there is some measure of merit in an essay, but it is a much less precise measure of cognitive and academic ability than a standardized test.

TJ is a public school that should be accessible to everyone in the county and not just those who can afford enrichment, test prep and outside activities. I would guess that a good percentage of the Algebra 1 only kids are from those schools but not all of them. I don’t think that kids with Algebra 1 only should be coming out of schools where there are kids in Algebra 2 and Geometry. I have no problem with kids from schools that have fewer kids available to take Geometry or higher getting into TJ with only Algebra 1.

PSAT prep is available for free from Khan Academy plus college board.
It can be enhanced with a $20 prep book from amazon, the vast majority of kids will be prepping this way.
Private prep classes are available for $300 to $3000 and offer varying degrees of hand holding for the student.
Having taught prep for the SAT and stuyvesant exam for years, if you are the sort of kid that needs hand holding to do well on these tests, you are not going to to do well enough to get into stuy.
If you are trying to get from a 98 percentile to 99th percentile on the SAT, a tutor might be useful but the 98th percentile is already good enough to get into TJ.

The reason so many poor kids get into stuy is because the SHSAT is so cheap and easy to prep for.
One way to measure the effects of "wealth" on test scores is to look at the FARM rates at stuyvesant, bronx science and brooklyn tech.
Stuyvesant (the most selective of the 8 specialized high schools) has a FARM rate of 42%
Bronx Science (2nd though 4th in selectivity) has a FARM rate of 45%
Brooklyn Tech (the 7th most selective of the specialized high schools) has a FARM rate of 51%

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Strawman. No one thinks affluence doesn’t affect GPA, activities, etc.

So you haven't read any of the TJ admissions threads, apparently? People there are insisting that a test like PSAT absolutely couldn't and shouldn't be used for admissions, since it's too easily gamed by wealthy parents, but they're totally fine with using GPA and essays as the entire admissions process, since they're fair. The premise of the OP is that this is backward, and that places like Stuyvesant use a sole admissions test for placement because it's the most fair way to do it for lower income, high ability kids.

I don't think that's it. I think the issue is why throw up more barriers when we have perfectly fine measures to use like those already given by the school.

Because peer reviewed research from Harvard and Brown show that tests like the PSAT are a much better measure than GPA.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Strawman. No one thinks affluence doesn’t affect GPA, activities, etc.

So you haven't read any of the TJ admissions threads, apparently? People there are insisting that a test like PSAT absolutely couldn't and shouldn't be used for admissions, since it's too easily gamed by wealthy parents, but they're totally fine with using GPA and essays as the entire admissions process, since they're fair. The premise of the OP is that this is backward, and that places like Stuyvesant use a sole admissions test for placement because it's the most fair way to do it for lower income, high ability kids.

NP. No, I haven't seen people arguing against using the PSAT or another standardized test for admissions. The reason that FCPS is not using it is obvious, I think, but DCUM does not subscribe to that reasoning.

As far as OP's argument against essays, I think she is misunderstanding the essays. They are not about being "polished" or about talking about love for STEM and such or enrichment. I think that they could change the essays from 4 POG essays and 1 math/science essay to 1-2 POG essays and 3-4 math/science essays, but students are having a hard time finishing in the allotted time, so that change might make the essays prohibitively difficult for too many students. In any event, the lawsuits and acrimony about the admissions changes has effectively put off any changes to the admissions process for years and years. So while we can opine all we want about how we would fix the admissions process, if we were in charge, it ain't changing any time soon.

The entire reason for the change in admissions at TJ was to get rid of the standardized test.

And the admissions process will change if there courts say they must change or if the state government says it must change.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Strawman. No one thinks affluence doesn’t affect GPA, activities, etc.

So you haven't read any of the TJ admissions threads, apparently? People there are insisting that a test like PSAT absolutely couldn't and shouldn't be used for admissions, since it's too easily gamed by wealthy parents, but they're totally fine with using GPA and essays as the entire admissions process, since they're fair. The premise of the OP is that this is backward, and that places like Stuyvesant use a sole admissions test for placement because it's the most fair way to do it for lower income, high ability kids.

I don't think that's it. I think the issue is why throw up more barriers when we have perfectly fine measures to use like those already given by the school.

Yes, grades and essays are influenced through enrichment, tutoring, and other mechanisms. That is why I like the 1.5% distribution to each school. The kids are taking the same curriculum across the schools and have the same basic opportunity to succeed. We can compare the classwork and the grade outcome. At some point in time, every kid learns the same material for Algebra. Maybe there are kids at Carson who take the Algebra prep class in the summer so that they learn some of the material in advance and the A that they get at school is easier for them then the kid who is taking Algebra for the first time at Poe but they have both earned an A in Algebra. The A is what matters.

The issue with the Quant test was that there were test banks that some kids had access to that others did not. The test that the kids were taking was not accurately comparing the ability of the kids to answer the questions equally because some kids had exposure to the types of questions being asked while others didn’t. That would be the same for something like the PSAT. It isn’t that the kids have the exact questions but that they have exposure to the types of questions and are more comfortable answering them in advance.

The metrics that we have that can be compared across the schools equally are grades. The math essay seems to be something that could be prepped for but the scoring seems to be more on how the kids explain why they answered the way the did and less the answer that they gave. That allows for a kid who is strong at math but maybe has not prepped for the essay to provide their process in a way that allows the grader to understand how well they understood the problem and explained their solution vs checking for answers only.

TJ is a public school that should be accessible to everyone in the county and not just those who can afford enrichment, test prep and outside activities. I would guess that a good percentage of the Algebra 1 only kids are from those schools but not all of them. I don’t think that kids with Algebra 1 only should be coming out of schools where there are kids in Algebra 2 and Geometry. I have no problem with kids from schools that have fewer kids available to take Geometry or higher getting into TJ with only Algebra 1.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Strawman. No one thinks affluence doesn’t affect GPA, activities, etc.

So you haven't read any of the TJ admissions threads, apparently? People there are insisting that a test like PSAT absolutely couldn't and shouldn't be used for admissions, since it's too easily gamed by wealthy parents, but they're totally fine with using GPA and essays as the entire admissions process, since they're fair. The premise of the OP is that this is backward, and that places like Stuyvesant use a sole admissions test for placement because it's the most fair way to do it for lower income, high ability kids.

Still strawman. No one claimed affluence doesn’t affect GPA, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Strawman. No one thinks affluence doesn’t affect GPA, activities, etc.

So you haven't read any of the TJ admissions threads, apparently? People there are insisting that a test like PSAT absolutely couldn't and shouldn't be used for admissions, since it's too easily gamed by wealthy parents, but they're totally fine with using GPA and essays as the entire admissions process, since they're fair. The premise of the OP is that this is backward, and that places like Stuyvesant use a sole admissions test for placement because it's the most fair way to do it for lower income, high ability kids.

NP. No, I haven't seen people arguing against using the PSAT or another standardized test for admissions. The reason that FCPS is not using it is obvious, I think, but DCUM does not subscribe to that reasoning.

As far as OP's argument against essays, I think she is misunderstanding the essays. They are not about being "polished" or about talking about love for STEM and such or enrichment. I think that they could change the essays from 4 POG essays and 1 math/science essay to 1-2 POG essays and 3-4 math/science essays, but students are having a hard time finishing in the allotted time, so that change might make the essays prohibitively difficult for too many students. In any event, the lawsuits and acrimony about the admissions changes has effectively put off any changes to the admissions process for years and years. So while we can opine all we want about how we would fix the admissions process, if we were in charge, it ain't changing any time soon.

Anonymous wrote:Strawman. No one thinks affluence doesn’t affect GPA, activities, etc.

So you haven't read any of the TJ admissions threads, apparently? People there are insisting that a test like PSAT absolutely couldn't and shouldn't be used for admissions, since it's too easily gamed by wealthy parents, but they're totally fine with using GPA and essays as the entire admissions process, since they're fair. The premise of the OP is that this is backward, and that places like Stuyvesant use a sole admissions test for placement because it's the most fair way to do it for lower income, high ability kids.

Strawman. No one thinks affluence doesn’t affect GPA, activities, etc.

Anonymous wrote:Simple and honest question: Why do so many of you think that GPA and essays are *less* vulnerable to prep and effects of affluence than test scores? Affluent kids with motivated parents likely have been in enrichment classes for quite awhile and are likely ahead. If the kid struggles at all, the affluent parents are likely to get a tutor and shore up any deficiencies the kid might have. If all else fails, the affluent parents are much more likely to badger the teacher and administration until their kid's grade turns into an A. It honestly doesn't seem hard for any parent with the money and motivation to make sure any average kid could get straight As in middle school.

Likewise, it's pretty easy to talk about love for STEM and such when the kid has been attending enrichment and camps for many years. Again, it would also be easy to get prep and tutoring to write a highly polished essay.

With tests like PSAT, while prep helps to some degree, there is a pretty strong limit. Kids who are naturally 99th percentile will likely earn very high scores with no or minimal prep. Kids who are pretty average but privileged will see score increases, but they're still unlikely to earn super high scores. It seems easier for affluent parents to ensure that their kids have straight As and can write strong essays than it would be to ensure that their kid would earn a very high PSAT score.

So what am I missing, here?

I agree with you (almost entirely) but I will try to play devil's advocate.

While standardized tests are generally very good measurement tools, they are just snapshots and some people are naturally more "photogenic" than others.
Women and URM are more affected by stereotype threat than men and whites.
So by using standardized tests, we are taking a snapshot using a camera filter that is more flattering to white men than black women.

Stereotype threat is really weird. Nobody fully understands it but it is well documented and real.
We did see a large drop in stereotype threat after Obama was elected president.

Anonymous wrote:Simple and honest question: Why do so many of you think that GPA and essays are *less* vulnerable to prep and effects of affluence than test scores? Affluent kids with motivated parents likely have been in enrichment classes for quite awhile and are likely ahead. If the kid struggles at all, the affluent parents are likely to get a tutor and shore up any deficiencies the kid might have. If all else fails, the affluent parents are much more likely to badger the teacher and administration until their kid's grade turns into an A. It honestly doesn't seem hard for any parent with the money and motivation to make sure any average kid could get straight As in middle school.

Likewise, it's pretty easy to talk about love for STEM and such when the kid has been attending enrichment and camps for many years. Again, it would also be easy to get prep and tutoring to write a highly polished essay.

With tests like PSAT, while prep helps to some degree, there is a pretty strong limit. Kids who are naturally 99th percentile will likely earn very high scores with no or minimal prep. Kids who are pretty average but privileged will see score increases, but they're still unlikely to earn super high scores. It seems easier for affluent parents to ensure that their kids have straight As and can write strong essays than it would be to ensure that their kid would earn a very high PSAT score.

So what am I missing, here?

A supposed top ranked stem high school is not the age when exposure to math and science should be happening. At that point where and how kids got stem focused becomes irrelevant. The beef should be at improving at the k-8 level, not trying to be restorative about kids who got left behind. Sucks to be the "middle child" but someone has to be left out and I'd prefer the effort to improve early education at underperforming schools to produce a far larger number of better students than a handful that go to TJ.

Simple and honest question: Why do so many of you think that GPA and essays are *less* vulnerable to prep and effects of affluence than test scores? Affluent kids with motivated parents likely have been in enrichment classes for quite awhile and are likely ahead. If the kid struggles at all, the affluent parents are likely to get a tutor and shore up any deficiencies the kid might have. If all else fails, the affluent parents are much more likely to badger the teacher and administration until their kid's grade turns into an A. It honestly doesn't seem hard for any parent with the money and motivation to make sure any average kid could get straight As in middle school.

Likewise, it's pretty easy to talk about love for STEM and such when the kid has been attending enrichment and camps for many years. Again, it would also be easy to get prep and tutoring to write a highly polished essay.

With tests like PSAT, while prep helps to some degree, there is a pretty strong limit. Kids who are naturally 99th percentile will likely earn very high scores with no or minimal prep. Kids who are pretty average but privileged will see score increases, but they're still unlikely to earn super high scores. It seems easier for affluent parents to ensure that their kids have straight As and can write strong essays than it would be to ensure that their kid would earn a very high PSAT score.

So what am I missing, here?