Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Off topic, but where is the thread where OP was saying that her neighbor's kid got in with IQ of 107 or less?

It was removed from the forum.

For obvious reasons.

Yep. It was a troll.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Off topic, but where is the thread where OP was saying that her neighbor's kid got in with IQ of 107 or less?

It was removed from the forum.

For obvious reasons.

Anonymous wrote:Off topic, but where is the thread where OP was saying that her neighbor's kid got in with IQ of 107 or less?

It was removed from the forum.

Off topic, but where is the thread where OP was saying that her neighbor's kid got in with IQ of 107 or less?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes Asian and rejected. High scores and very good GBRS. Welcome to an early reality check. Thank you, Harvard and FCPS.

I’m not trying to cause drama. I’m just trying to understand why my kid didn’t get in. I know I have read that FCPS was trying to get more URM in so that means someone is losing their spot. The Asians would get hurt by this. Just wondering if that is what happened to my kid.

It all depends on the teacher. If the teacher didn't give a good recommendation, then they wait to see if they can do better next year. Talk to the teacher about why and appeal next year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TJ > Ivy > rejected for AAP. We appealed and won. The schools want some low key obedient kids in the slow classes. They are also prejudiced against siblings and twins.

I think this is the explanation for some of the rejected kids with high scores. They want to keep some of the gifted kids in gen ed and they look for the "best" well-behaved successful ones for this (not my "bored, disruptive" gifted kid). The rest of this post is gobbledygook.

This doesn’t make any sense. Are posters just making this up or is it at least from some source?

I am sure that is pure speculation, perhaps with a bit of sour grapes. It doesn’t make sense and honestly “obedient kids” are not necessarily the ones thinking out of the box which is more what AAP is about. I kinda laugh at the idea of turning work samples into another standardized test of sorts. Exactly contrary to the whole point of work samples!

Well I've heard from a school principal that 2e kids have a huge advantage. So maybe some truth to this.

How? Having a disability is not an advantage.

Having a disability might be considered an “advantage” by some in that a 2E child’s needs are not as easily met in the regular classroom. An AAP classroom can better meet the needs of 2E children, so some schools have more 2E students in their AAP classes than in the regular classes.

So some parents might say that having a disability is an “advantage” because those kids are more likely to be accepted to AAP.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It really seems like the schools just grab any old worksheet for the files.

Op here. I’m not sure how long the teacher spends gathering these work samples. If I knew better, I would have done a few with DS over winter break. I just thought he would be in because he is a smart kid and tested well enough.

I have a third child. I will know when the time comes to submit a few work samples.

Same here. I had no idea about the level of effort that parents put into the application.

Anonymous wrote:It really seems like the schools just grab any old worksheet for the files.

Op here. I’m not sure how long the teacher spends gathering these work samples. If I knew better, I would have done a few with DS over winter break. I just thought he would be in because he is a smart kid and tested well enough.

I have a third child. I will know when the time comes to submit a few work samples.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TJ > Ivy > rejected for AAP. We appealed and won. The schools want some low key obedient kids in the slow classes. They are also prejudiced against siblings and twins.

I think this is the explanation for some of the rejected kids with high scores. They want to keep some of the gifted kids in gen ed and they look for the "best" well-behaved successful ones for this (not my "bored, disruptive" gifted kid). The rest of this post is gobbledygook.

This doesn’t make any sense. Are posters just making this up or is it at least from some source?

I am sure that is pure speculation, perhaps with a bit of sour grapes. It doesn’t make sense and honestly “obedient kids” are not necessarily the ones thinking out of the box which is more what AAP is about. I kinda laugh at the idea of turning work samples into another standardized test of sorts. Exactly contrary to the whole point of work samples!

Well I've heard from a school principal that 2e kids have a huge advantage. So maybe some truth to this.

How? Having a disability is not an advantage.