Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow. I am the PP who didn’t have the stats.
I guess my gut feeling and cursory review of some data was right. That’s a huge increase in students applying to application schools over time.

It is obviously an increase but it’s hard to say if it is a huge one. We can’t know if those are all discrete students or overlap.

Obviously a lot of overlap between the schools, but by following a single school’s numbers over time you can see an obvious increase in absolute application numbers. That doesn’t tell you whether the number of “good” applicants is increasing, but PP pointed to some other data (eg the NMSF).

So there are more applicants, plus more and more of the applicants are highly qualified students.

You don’t know that more and more of the applicants are highly qualified.

Out of curiosity, why would you make the assumption that with more applicants fewer are in fact highly qualified? It just seems like a weird hill to die on. And an illogical assumption.

DP.

Because the admissions requirements change every year and have altered dramatically over the past 5 years or so, because the admissions standards don’t weed out less qualified applicants, because there is more grade inflation, etc. As a result, it is easier for less qualified applicants to get in. Hence, more applicants but relatively fewer higher-quality admits.

I think the effect of dropping the exam is counteracted by the rising number of qualified students in DC.

Think about it: both TJ and Walls dropped their exam the same year. This year is the first senior class admitted without exams. The number of NMSFs at TJ went down, from like 150 to 80. But the number of NMSFs at Walls actually went up, from 5 to 6. Of course the number of NMSFs in DC went up by even more, from 28 to 47. This means that without the exam Walls isn’t capturing as high a portion of the high-scoring kids in DC, but the quality of the student body is not declining.

The TJ stats are shocking though, a 50% decline compared to like a 12% decline in VA.

Yes and not only that but the caliber of the kids who got in is definitely lower. They needed to support kids with remedial math, teachers complaining that kids are not prepared to take freshmen classes, teachers leaving, etc…

They have also dropped significantly in rankings and are no longer #1 school in the country.

It’s sad to see, because TJ is probably the only school in the DMV who could support gifted kids, challenge them, and offered courses base schools did not. Sure, smart above average kids were there but they had to work their ass off.

I hope the families win the lawsuit against FCPS.

Ironically, these equity moves does nothing to help the kids they want. Many kids can’t handle it and end up dropping out of TJ and go back to their base school. At least the courses have not been summed down yet.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow. I am the PP who didn’t have the stats.
I guess my gut feeling and cursory review of some data was right. That’s a huge increase in students applying to application schools over time.

It is obviously an increase but it’s hard to say if it is a huge one. We can’t know if those are all discrete students or overlap.

Obviously a lot of overlap between the schools, but by following a single school’s numbers over time you can see an obvious increase in absolute application numbers. That doesn’t tell you whether the number of “good” applicants is increasing, but PP pointed to some other data (eg the NMSF).

So there are more applicants, plus more and more of the applicants are highly qualified students.

You don’t know that more and more of the applicants are highly qualified.

Out of curiosity, why would you make the assumption that with more applicants fewer are in fact highly qualified? It just seems like a weird hill to die on. And an illogical assumption.

DP.

Because the admissions requirements change every year and have altered dramatically over the past 5 years or so, because the admissions standards don’t weed out less qualified applicants, because there is more grade inflation, etc. As a result, it is easier for less qualified applicants to get in. Hence, more applicants but relatively fewer higher-quality admits.

I think the effect of dropping the exam is counteracted by the rising number of qualified students in DC.

Think about it: both TJ and Walls dropped their exam the same year. This year is the first senior class admitted without exams. The number of NMSFs at TJ went down, from like 150 to 80. But the number of NMSFs at Walls actually went up, from 5 to 6. Of course the number of NMSFs in DC went up by even more, from 28 to 47. This means that without the exam Walls isn’t capturing as high a portion of the high-scoring kids in DC, but the quality of the student body is not declining.

The TJ stats are shocking though, a 50% decline compared to like a 12% decline in VA.

Anonymous wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but Walls administered their own test, so students didn't know how they did before applying.

Thus, the change in the test wouldn't, in itself make students more likely to apply.

Dropping the test made it easier to apply, because you didn’t need to show up somewhere one morning to take a test. The year my kid applied, if you were in DCPS they already had your transcript, so all you had to do to apply was add the school to your lottery list. If you were already applying or lotterying for 11 or fewer high schools, it was trivial to add Walls to the list, just to see. My kid’s GPA was way too low, but it was so easy to apply that we did it anyway. Probably would not have if we’d needed to get teacher recommendations (and I see applications went down when they added that requirement).

Anonymous wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but Walls administered their own test, so students didn't know how they did before applying.

Thus, the change in the test wouldn't, in itself make students more likely to apply.

. Yes, but Walls also used to require a standardized test score to be submitted with an application, generally the 7th grade PARCC score. Alternatively, applicants could submit a PSAT 8/9 score (my kid in private school submitted that score). With scores for both the Walls specific exam AND the standardized test score gone, the admissions bar applicants must clear can only have dropped. Ridiculous.

Anonymous wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but Walls administered their own test, so students didn't know how they did before applying.

Thus, the change in the test wouldn't, in itself make students more likely to apply.

It used to be anyone with a 3.0 could select Walls. Anyone meeting the criteria was then invited to take the test.

I don’t know how many kids turn down admission, but my kid was the last class to take the test and turned down admission… they took 50+ kids off the waitlist.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Walls administered their own test, so students didn't know how they did before applying.

Thus, the change in the test wouldn't, in itself make students more likely to apply.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow. I am the PP who didn’t have the stats.
I guess my gut feeling and cursory review of some data was right. That’s a huge increase in students applying to application schools over time.

It is obviously an increase but it’s hard to say if it is a huge one. We can’t know if those are all discrete students or overlap.

Obviously a lot of overlap between the schools, but by following a single school’s numbers over time you can see an obvious increase in absolute application numbers. That doesn’t tell you whether the number of “good” applicants is increasing, but PP pointed to some other data (eg the NMSF).

So there are more applicants, plus more and more of the applicants are highly qualified students.

You don’t know that more and more of the applicants are highly qualified.

Out of curiosity, why would you make the assumption that with more applicants fewer are in fact highly qualified? It just seems like a weird hill to die on. And an illogical assumption.

DP.

Because the admissions requirements change every year and have altered dramatically over the past 5 years or so, because the admissions standards don’t weed out less qualified applicants, because there is more grade inflation, etc. As a result, it is easier for less qualified applicants to get in. Hence, more applicants but relatively fewer higher-quality admits.

+1

Without the test more kids think they have a chance of getting in. Same issue with college admissions after the pandemic. I think assuming the pool of highly qualified applicants is that much larger without taking into account the changes to admissions is an oversimplification.

Also no one said this is the hill to die on. But total numbers don’t equal higher quality. Plus DCPS grading was so inflated the past few years.

+100.

Increasing number of applicants doesn’t necessarily mean increasing numbers of highly qualified applicants if admission standards have changed.

But decreasing admission standards and an objective test for consideration definitely will increase your applicant pool because more kids think they have a chance since to get in.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow. I am the PP who didn’t have the stats.
I guess my gut feeling and cursory review of some data was right. That’s a huge increase in students applying to application schools over time.

It is obviously an increase but it’s hard to say if it is a huge one. We can’t know if those are all discrete students or overlap.

Obviously a lot of overlap between the schools, but by following a single school’s numbers over time you can see an obvious increase in absolute application numbers. That doesn’t tell you whether the number of “good” applicants is increasing, but PP pointed to some other data (eg the NMSF).

So there are more applicants, plus more and more of the applicants are highly qualified students.

You don’t know that more and more of the applicants are highly qualified.

Out of curiosity, why would you make the assumption that with more applicants fewer are in fact highly qualified? It just seems like a weird hill to die on. And an illogical assumption.

DP.

Because the admissions requirements change every year and have altered dramatically over the past 5 years or so, because the admissions standards don’t weed out less qualified applicants, because there is more grade inflation, etc. As a result, it is easier for less qualified applicants to get in. Hence, more applicants but relatively fewer higher-quality admits.

+1

Without the test more kids think they have a chance of getting in. Same issue with college admissions after the pandemic. I think assuming the pool of highly qualified applicants is that much larger without taking into account the changes to admissions is an oversimplification.

Also no one said this is the hill to die on. But total numbers don’t equal higher quality. Plus DCPS grading was so inflated the past few years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow. I am the PP who didn’t have the stats.
I guess my gut feeling and cursory review of some data was right. That’s a huge increase in students applying to application schools over time.

It is obviously an increase but it’s hard to say if it is a huge one. We can’t know if those are all discrete students or overlap.

Obviously a lot of overlap between the schools, but by following a single school’s numbers over time you can see an obvious increase in absolute application numbers. That doesn’t tell you whether the number of “good” applicants is increasing, but PP pointed to some other data (eg the NMSF).

So there are more applicants, plus more and more of the applicants are highly qualified students.

You don’t know that more and more of the applicants are highly qualified.

Out of curiosity, why would you make the assumption that with more applicants fewer are in fact highly qualified? It just seems like a weird hill to die on. And an illogical assumption.

DP.

Because the admissions requirements change every year and have altered dramatically over the past 5 years or so, because the admissions standards don’t weed out less qualified applicants, because there is more grade inflation, etc. As a result, it is easier for less qualified applicants to get in. Hence, more applicants but relatively fewer higher-quality admits.

I think the effect of dropping the exam is counteracted by the rising number of qualified students in DC.

Think about it: both TJ and Walls dropped their exam the same year. This year is the first senior class admitted without exams. The number of NMSFs at TJ went down, from like 150 to 80. But the number of NMSFs at Walls actually went up, from 5 to 6. Of course the number of NMSFs in DC went up by even more, from 28 to 47. This means that without the exam Walls isn’t capturing as high a portion of the high-scoring kids in DC, but the quality of the student body is not declining.

You are grasping for straws.

-The admissions standards at TJ are totally different than Walls. Even without an admissions exam, TJ's criteria at least have a semblance of sense. Not so with Walls.

-NMSFs went down generally in VA so that affected TJ. TJ still had far more NMSFs than any other school in VA--and is still one of the top public schools in the US. Plus, TJ has a court case to deal with, arguing that they were discriminating against Asian-Americans.

-Using NMSF as a standard for general admissions quality is just dumb. For example, NMSFs at GDS were 700% higher than last year. Is this senior class at GDS 700% better than last year's senior class? Of course not. And as you admit the number of NMSFs in DC this year is way up from the last few years.

-Every school has some top students from year to year. That doesn't mean that the school as a whole is admitting the best students and doesn't mean that the quality of the student body is not declining. And as a data point, going from 5 to 6 NMSF is meaningless, especially given that the general numbers of NMSF in DC increased significantly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow. I am the PP who didn’t have the stats.
I guess my gut feeling and cursory review of some data was right. That’s a huge increase in students applying to application schools over time.

It is obviously an increase but it’s hard to say if it is a huge one. We can’t know if those are all discrete students or overlap.

Obviously a lot of overlap between the schools, but by following a single school’s numbers over time you can see an obvious increase in absolute application numbers. That doesn’t tell you whether the number of “good” applicants is increasing, but PP pointed to some other data (eg the NMSF).

So there are more applicants, plus more and more of the applicants are highly qualified students.

You don’t know that more and more of the applicants are highly qualified.

Out of curiosity, why would you make the assumption that with more applicants fewer are in fact highly qualified? It just seems like a weird hill to die on. And an illogical assumption.

DP.

Because the admissions requirements change every year and have altered dramatically over the past 5 years or so, because the admissions standards don’t weed out less qualified applicants, because there is more grade inflation, etc. As a result, it is easier for less qualified applicants to get in. Hence, more applicants but relatively fewer higher-quality admits.

I think the effect of dropping the exam is counteracted by the rising number of qualified students in DC.

Think about it: both TJ and Walls dropped their exam the same year. This year is the first senior class admitted without exams. The number of NMSFs at TJ went down, from like 150 to 80. But the number of NMSFs at Walls actually went up, from 5 to 6. Of course the number of NMSFs in DC went up by even more, from 28 to 47. This means that without the exam Walls isn’t capturing as high a portion of the high-scoring kids in DC, but the quality of the student body is not declining.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow. I am the PP who didn’t have the stats.
I guess my gut feeling and cursory review of some data was right. That’s a huge increase in students applying to application schools over time.

It is obviously an increase but it’s hard to say if it is a huge one. We can’t know if those are all discrete students or overlap.

Obviously a lot of overlap between the schools, but by following a single school’s numbers over time you can see an obvious increase in absolute application numbers. That doesn’t tell you whether the number of “good” applicants is increasing, but PP pointed to some other data (eg the NMSF).

So there are more applicants, plus more and more of the applicants are highly qualified students.

You don’t know that more and more of the applicants are highly qualified.

Out of curiosity, why would you make the assumption that with more applicants fewer are in fact highly qualified? It just seems like a weird hill to die on. And an illogical assumption.

DP.

Because the admissions requirements change every year and have altered dramatically over the past 5 years or so, because the admissions standards don’t weed out less qualified applicants, because there is more grade inflation, etc. As a result, it is easier for less qualified applicants to get in. Hence, more applicants but relatively fewer higher-quality admits.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow. I am the PP who didn’t have the stats.
I guess my gut feeling and cursory review of some data was right. That’s a huge increase in students applying to application schools over time.

It is obviously an increase but it’s hard to say if it is a huge one. We can’t know if those are all discrete students or overlap.

Obviously a lot of overlap between the schools, but by following a single school’s numbers over time you can see an obvious increase in absolute application numbers. That doesn’t tell you whether the number of “good” applicants is increasing, but PP pointed to some other data (eg the NMSF).

So there are more applicants, plus more and more of the applicants are highly qualified students.

You don’t know that more and more of the applicants are highly qualified.

Out of curiosity, why would you make the assumption that with more applicants fewer are in fact highly qualified? It just seems like a weird hill to die on. And an illogical assumption.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Average SAT score at Walls for the class of—
2017-18, 1272
2018-19, 1277
2019-20, 1283
2020-21, 1300
2021-22, 1317
2022-23, 1326

All taken by classes admitted by the Walls entrance exam, which is now eliminated.

Yes. That’s why it shows that the applicant pool was getting stronger over the same period that application numbers were rising.

Anonymous wrote:Average SAT score at Walls for the class of—
2017-18, 1272
2018-19, 1277
2019-20, 1283
2020-21, 1300
2021-22, 1317
2022-23, 1326

All taken by classes admitted by the Walls entrance exam, which is now eliminated.

Average SAT score at Walls for the class of—
2017-18, 1272
2018-19, 1277
2019-20, 1283
2020-21, 1300
2021-22, 1317
2022-23, 1326