Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not trying to be rude, bit it astounds me that you/your child believe they are so superior to other potential applicants. You are aware that each year there were 1000 plus kids who did well enough on the standardized test to get to the semi-final round but only 400+ accepted?

Yes, probably most of those 1000+ would have been highly advanced and capable. However, the admission criteria are very different now and will produce a cohort with a much broader range of abilities. This is not about being superior.

You are implying that bright kids who might not have applied in the past are less capable/intelligent/advanced then the kids who applied and were not accepted in the past. So you are willing to not apply because there might be a small percentage of kids who might apply and be guaranteed acceptance when those kids meet all the same criteria as the past except a math test?

Because the differences this year are no math test and 1.5% of seats set aside for every MS in FCPS who meet the eligibility requirements.

I am totally fine with your kid not applying. I hope that your kid eventually understands who narrow minded that decision was and how they may very well have given up on an amazing opportunity because they were raised to think that kids from less privileged schools are lesser and could not possibly be as a smart and motivated as kids from more privileged schools who have had more access to tutoring and programs that gave them a leg up in testing and taking Algebra a year earlier then others.

No math test and 1.5% are not the only differences. There are no teacher recommendations allowed and the test also covered English and science.

I am pro reform and I struggle with them dropping teacher recs. While I understand that they can and frequently are subject to bias, I think it's one of the only ways to help develop the picture of what the student is actually like in the classroom and how they contribute to the learning environment. I think a skilled admissions office would be able to contextualize each rec against the student's report cards and responses to create a realistic picture of the student even in the presence of some biases. A pair of opinions from trained teachers gives me way, WAY more information than a suite of standardized tests.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not trying to be rude, bit it astounds me that you/your child believe they are so superior to other potential applicants. You are aware that each year there were 1000 plus kids who did well enough on the standardized test to get to the semi-final round but only 400+ accepted?

Yes, probably most of those 1000+ would have been highly advanced and capable. However, the admission criteria are very different now and will produce a cohort with a much broader range of abilities. This is not about being superior.

You are implying that bright kids who might not have applied in the past are less capable/intelligent/advanced then the kids who applied and were not accepted in the past. So you are willing to not apply because there might be a small percentage of kids who might apply and be guaranteed acceptance when those kids meet all the same criteria as the past except a math test?

Because the differences this year are no math test and 1.5% of seats set aside for every MS in FCPS who meet the eligibility requirements.

I am totally fine with your kid not applying. I hope that your kid eventually understands who narrow minded that decision was and how they may very well have given up on an amazing opportunity because they were raised to think that kids from less privileged schools are lesser and could not possibly be as a smart and motivated as kids from more privileged schools who have had more access to tutoring and programs that gave them a leg up in testing and taking Algebra a year earlier then others.

No math test and 1.5% are not the only differences. There are no teacher recommendations allowed and the test also covered English and science.

I am pro reform and I struggle with them dropping teacher recs. While I understand that they can and frequently are subject to bias, I think it's one of the only ways to help develop the picture of what the student is actually like in the classroom and how they contribute to the learning environment. I think a skilled admissions office would be able to contextualize each rec against the student's report cards and responses to create a realistic picture of the student even in the presence of some biases. A pair of opinions from trained teachers gives me way, WAY more information than a suite of standardized tests.

Completely agree. It's a travesty that they aren't using them this year. I don't know how they will meaningfully distinguish between straight-A candidates at each school without either the test or the recommendations and I agree that the recs are more meaningful (and can't be gamed). Some will say the distinguishing factor will be the essay test, but that is so incredibly subjective, not to mention weird to choose students for a STEM school based in large part on their writing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not trying to be rude, bit it astounds me that you/your child believe they are so superior to other potential applicants. You are aware that each year there were 1000 plus kids who did well enough on the standardized test to get to the semi-final round but only 400+ accepted?

Yes, probably most of those 1000+ would have been highly advanced and capable. However, the admission criteria are very different now and will produce a cohort with a much broader range of abilities. This is not about being superior.

You are implying that bright kids who might not have applied in the past are less capable/intelligent/advanced then the kids who applied and were not accepted in the past. So you are willing to not apply because there might be a small percentage of kids who might apply and be guaranteed acceptance when those kids meet all the same criteria as the past except a math test?

Because the differences this year are no math test and 1.5% of seats set aside for every MS in FCPS who meet the eligibility requirements.

I am totally fine with your kid not applying. I hope that your kid eventually understands who narrow minded that decision was and how they may very well have given up on an amazing opportunity because they were raised to think that kids from less privileged schools are lesser and could not possibly be as a smart and motivated as kids from more privileged schools who have had more access to tutoring and programs that gave them a leg up in testing and taking Algebra a year earlier then others.

No math test and 1.5% are not the only differences. There are no teacher recommendations allowed and the test also covered English and science.

I am pro reform and I struggle with them dropping teacher recs. While I understand that they can and frequently are subject to bias, I think it's one of the only ways to help develop the picture of what the student is actually like in the classroom and how they contribute to the learning environment. I think a skilled admissions office would be able to contextualize each rec against the student's report cards and responses to create a realistic picture of the student even in the presence of some biases. A pair of opinions from trained teachers gives me way, WAY more information than a suite of standardized tests.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not trying to be rude, bit it astounds me that you/your child believe they are so superior to other potential applicants. You are aware that each year there were 1000 plus kids who did well enough on the standardized test to get to the semi-final round but only 400+ accepted?

Yes, probably most of those 1000+ would have been highly advanced and capable. However, the admission criteria are very different now and will produce a cohort with a much broader range of abilities. This is not about being superior.

You are implying that bright kids who might not have applied in the past are less capable/intelligent/advanced then the kids who applied and were not accepted in the past. So you are willing to not apply because there might be a small percentage of kids who might apply and be guaranteed acceptance when those kids meet all the same criteria as the past except a math test?

Because the differences this year are no math test and 1.5% of seats set aside for every MS in FCPS who meet the eligibility requirements.

I am totally fine with your kid not applying. I hope that your kid eventually understands who narrow minded that decision was and how they may very well have given up on an amazing opportunity because they were raised to think that kids from less privileged schools are lesser and could not possibly be as a smart and motivated as kids from more privileged schools who have had more access to tutoring and programs that gave them a leg up in testing and taking Algebra a year earlier then others.

No math test and 1.5% are not the only differences. There are no teacher recommendations allowed and the test also covered English and science.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not trying to be rude, bit it astounds me that you/your child believe they are so superior to other potential applicants. You are aware that each year there were 1000 plus kids who did well enough on the standardized test to get to the semi-final round but only 400+ accepted?

Yes, probably most of those 1000+ would have been highly advanced and capable. However, the admission criteria are very different now and will produce a cohort with a much broader range of abilities. This is not about being superior.

You are implying that bright kids who might not have applied in the past are less capable/intelligent/advanced then the kids who applied and were not accepted in the past. So you are willing to not apply because there might be a small percentage of kids who might apply and be guaranteed acceptance when those kids meet all the same criteria as the past except a math test?

Because the differences this year are no math test and 1.5% of seats set aside for every MS in FCPS who meet the eligibility requirements.

I am totally fine with your kid not applying. I hope that your kid eventually understands who narrow minded that decision was and how they may very well have given up on an amazing opportunity because they were raised to think that kids from less privileged schools are lesser and could not possibly be as a smart and motivated as kids from more privileged schools who have had more access to tutoring and programs that gave them a leg up in testing and taking Algebra a year earlier then others.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not trying to be rude, bit it astounds me that you/your child believe they are so superior to other potential applicants. You are aware that each year there were 1000 plus kids who did well enough on the standardized test to get to the semi-final round but only 400+ accepted?

Yes, probably most of those 1000+ would have been highly advanced and capable. However, the admission criteria are very different now and will produce a cohort with a much broader range of abilities. This is not about being superior.

You are implying that bright kids who might not have applied in the past are less capable/intelligent/advanced then the kids who applied and were not accepted in the past. So you are willing to not apply because there might be a small percentage of kids who might apply and be guaranteed acceptance when those kids meet all the same criteria as the past except a math test?

Because the differences this year are no math test and 1.5% of seats set aside for every MS in FCPS who meet the eligibility requirements.

I am totally fine with your kid not applying. I hope that your kid eventually understands who narrow minded that decision was and how they may very well have given up on an amazing opportunity because they were raised to think that kids from less privileged schools are lesser and could not possibly be as a smart and motivated as kids from more privileged schools who have had more access to tutoring and programs that gave them a leg up in testing and taking Algebra a year earlier then others.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not trying to be rude, bit it astounds me that you/your child believe they are so superior to other potential applicants. You are aware that each year there were 1000 plus kids who did well enough on the standardized test to get to the semi-final round but only 400+ accepted?

Yes, probably most of those 1000+ would have been highly advanced and capable. However, the admission criteria are very different now and will produce a cohort with a much broader range of abilities. This is not about being superior.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My friend with a smart 8th grader said, while he wanted to apply before, he doesn't want to apply now because he doesn't see it as desirable as it was before the admissions changes. He said if it wasn't going to have the best of the best there, it's not worth the extra trouble it takes to go there.

Good! TJ wants kids passionate about STEM not kids looking only for prestige. Your friends DS will be much better off at base school.

Exactly!

Excellent. It says something that a kid is already so worried about prestigious school in 8th grade over the quality of learning. I would put money on the fact that any 8th grader really interested in STEM will get a more focused, more advanced STEM education at TJ then another school. But if you are not really interested in the STEM classes, don't apply. This kid sounds like one of the ones applying only for the prestige status and not the academic opportunities.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My friend with a smart 8th grader said, while he wanted to apply before, he doesn't want to apply now because he doesn't see it as desirable as it was before the admissions changes. He said if it wasn't going to have the best of the best there, it's not worth the extra trouble it takes to go there.

Good! TJ wants kids passionate about STEM not kids looking only for prestige. Your friends DS will be much better off at base school.

Exactly!

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn’t assume that the curriculum and standards will be watered down. Kids who can’t cut it will drop to base school. The teachers will teach as they always have.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My friend with a smart 8th grader said, while he wanted to apply before, he doesn't want to apply now because he doesn't see it as desirable as it was before the admissions changes. He said if it wasn't going to have the best of the best there, it's not worth the extra trouble it takes to go there.

Good! TJ wants kids passionate about STEM not kids looking only for prestige. Your friends DS will be much better off at base school.

Anonymous wrote:+1

I don't believe any of these posters with their lame "DS/DD was going to apply and is super advanced/passionate about STEM, but is not going to apply because of new admission system." My guess is they were never going to cut it at TJ and now have an excuse to say they are going to try or they are just making this up to discredit the new system before it starts.

Every *single* family I know with an 8th grader who would have applied under the old system is still applying. If your kid loves STEM and meets the qualifications, go for it - TJ presents unique opportunities for classes.

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn’t assume that the curriculum and standards will be watered down. Kids who can’t cut it will drop to base school. The teachers will teach as they always have. [/quote

It's going to be watered down. That's a given at this point.