Anonymous wrote:
Well, how is this different from the top colleges whose admission rate is even lower than TJ’s? Families also hire expensive counselors and build a specific profile: kids volunteer, start nonprofits, participate in other activities they don’t care about, take SAT prep classes - only to make a presentable college application. Furthermore, most of the top colleges value legacy - at least TJ doesn’t admit kids only because their parents attended TJ. Does it mean that the top colleges also do more harm than good and should be eliminated?

Top colleges are privately run and can do whatever they want. They're under no obligation to serve any particular groups. TJ is a public school funded by taxpayers and intended to serve FCPS students as a whole. If it's not effectively doing that, then there is a problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of TJHSST is the right thing to do. TJ attracts a really elitist, gross set of parents and we'd be better without their kids, who can't help but parrot their parents' attitudes, polluting the educational atmosphere.

I certainly understand this perspective but still believe that it's possible to boldly improve the admissions process to improve the caliber of kids and families that arrive.

If the School Board won't take these steps, though, then yes, burn it all down as it does more harm than good in its current form.

My child is a junior at TJ, takes 4 post-AP classes this year and so much enjoys studying. So much looked forward to these challenging classes that aren’t offered at any other local high school. What harm does this do to you?

First of all, it doesn't matter what harm it does to ME, it matters what harm it does to the community. That's called giving a sh!t about other people.

The harm it does to the community is deep and destructive. You have literally thousands of families that are spending thousands of dollars every year on prep courses, placing an incredible amount of pressure on students to be able to get into a school that has extremely limited seating for the amount of interest in it.

Students feel the need to give up on their legitimate passions so that they can maximize their STEM profile, and end up less happy as a result - and many of those students don't even get into TJ after doing all of that. Kids should be able to engage in whatever productive and enjoyable activities they want when they're 10, 11, 12 years old, but right now there are only a few of them that seem to grant access to TJ.

Never mind the issues of access for underrepresented groups - the way the admissions process is currently constructed incentivizes destructive parenting behavior. Parents will always engage in destructive behavior that leads to kids hating their life and resenting their parents' choices, even to the point of suicide - but if the TJ admissions process didn't reward this type of behavior, you'd see far less of it than you do right now.

Well, how is this different from the top colleges whose admission rate is even lower than TJ’s? Families also hire expensive counselors and build a specific profile: kids volunteer, start nonprofits, participate in other activities they don’t care about, take SAT prep classes - only to make a presentable college application. Furthermore, most of the top colleges value legacy - at least TJ doesn’t admit kids only because their parents attended TJ. Does it mean that the top colleges also do more harm than good and should be eliminated?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of TJHSST is the right thing to do. TJ attracts a really elitist, gross set of parents and we'd be better without their kids, who can't help but parrot their parents' attitudes, polluting the educational atmosphere.

I certainly understand this perspective but still believe that it's possible to boldly improve the admissions process to improve the caliber of kids and families that arrive.

If the School Board won't take these steps, though, then yes, burn it all down as it does more harm than good in its current form.

My child is a junior at TJ, takes 4 post-AP classes this year and so much enjoys studying. So much looked forward to these challenging classes that aren’t offered at any other local high school. What harm does this do to you?

First of all, it doesn't matter what harm it does to ME, it matters what harm it does to the community. That's called giving a sh!t about other people.

The harm it does to the community is deep and destructive. You have literally thousands of families that are spending thousands of dollars every year on prep courses, placing an incredible amount of pressure on students to be able to get into a school that has extremely limited seating for the amount of interest in it.

Students feel the need to give up on their legitimate passions so that they can maximize their STEM profile, and end up less happy as a result - and many of those students don't even get into TJ after doing all of that. Kids should be able to engage in whatever productive and enjoyable activities they want when they're 10, 11, 12 years old, but right now there are only a few of them that seem to grant access to TJ.

Never mind the issues of access for underrepresented groups - the way the admissions process is currently constructed incentivizes destructive parenting behavior. Parents will always engage in destructive behavior that leads to kids hating their life and resenting their parents' choices, even to the point of suicide - but if the TJ admissions process didn't reward this type of behavior, you'd see far less of it than you do right now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of TJHSST is the right thing to do. TJ attracts a really elitist, gross set of parents and we'd be better without their kids, who can't help but parrot their parents' attitudes, polluting the educational atmosphere.

I certainly understand this perspective but still believe that it's possible to boldly improve the admissions process to improve the caliber of kids and families that arrive.

If the School Board won't take these steps, though, then yes, burn it all down as it does more harm than good in its current form.

My child is a junior at TJ, takes 4 post-AP classes this year and so much enjoys studying. So much looked forward to these challenging classes that aren’t offered at any other local high school. What harm does this do to you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of TJHSST is the right thing to do. TJ attracts a really elitist, gross set of parents and we'd be better without their kids, who can't help but parrot their parents' attitudes, polluting the educational atmosphere.

I certainly understand this perspective but still believe that it's possible to boldly improve the admissions process to improve the caliber of kids and families that arrive.

If the School Board won't take these steps, though, then yes, burn it all down as it does more harm than good in its current form.

Along with AAP.

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of TJHSST is the right thing to do. TJ attracts a really elitist, gross set of parents and we'd be better without their kids, who can't help but parrot their parents' attitudes, polluting the educational atmosphere.

I certainly understand this perspective but still believe that it's possible to boldly improve the admissions process to improve the caliber of kids and families that arrive.

If the School Board won't take these steps, though, then yes, burn it all down as it does more harm than good in its current form.

Getting rid of TJHSST is the right thing to do. TJ attracts a really elitist, gross set of parents and we'd be better without their kids, who can't help but parrot their parents' attitudes, polluting the educational atmosphere.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. That's why I'd like to see the gender breakdown of the people with the highest 500 or highest 1000 scores on the TJ tests. If the gender ratio of top scorers is roughly equal, but then the subjective part of the selection process is selecting more boys, that's a problem. If the gender ratio of the top scorers is heavily boy weighted, then it is what it is.

This plan does not address:

1) Girls being either discouraged from applying by other individuals or lacking interest in TJ precisely because of either the gender disparity or the disparity in how the genders are treated once at TJ

2) The fact that the exam as currently constituted is a poor measure of STEM potential - it is merely a snapshot of where the student is currently and whether or not they've been exposed to certain materials in advance (see CurieGate)

We should have removed Michael Phelps from the Olympics, because some girls were discouraged from swimming, and the race only represented where he was. There were too many other people who had even more potential, but they weren't exposed to all the training. Let's make an Olympiad for the losers.

Let's count the ways this metaphor is horrendous:

1) There are Olympics for both men and women in essentially all sports

2) The Olympics are the absolute peak of sporting excellence and are for adults - the better comparison would to the Olympics might be, say, professorships. TJ is an educational opportunity, not an educational outcome - and too many families view it as an outcome because they're desperate for the bumper sticker and the social prestige that comes with it in their community.

3) Sports are something you choose to participate in, education is not - and many students who are exceptionally talented and invested in education are currently nudged out of the process by mediocre students masquerading as talented ones through their parents' investment in these prep companies that have privileged access to material that is supposed to be secure

Essentially, Curie is like doing steroids. It's against the rules, because they have access to material that they shouldn't, and it's bad for students because of the overwhelming pressure that the investment places on them. And there are three possible outcomes from participating in Curie:

1) They would have gotten in to TJ anyway, so it was a waste of money
2) They didn't get in to TJ anyway, so it was a waste of money
3) Curie was the reason they got in, meaning they took a spot from someone who was probably more deserving and they are less likely to be successful and have an enjoyable high school experience as a consequence.

...also there is the distinct possibility of 4) The admissions process appropriately changes to make places like Curie irrelevant to getting into TJ.

Anonymous wrote:Instead of dumbing down the merit based admission, why can't the district focus on providing high quality tutoring services to all underprivileged students from the elementary school level, to bring up kids' potential?

"Dumbing down" anything is not on the table. What is on the table is either removing or changing the emphasis on an exam that does little to identify students' potential in STEM and instead takes a snapshot of what they've already been exposed to. Based on the current admissions process, a student could get a perfect score on the math and science exams, but if they're not one of the top 25% in the country on the English exam for whatever reason, they don't make the semifinalist round because it's a hard cutoff. Is that a good way to get the best STEM kids?

There are plenty of ways to measure merit in this process that don't discriminate in favor of families with resources who are able to get their kids to expensive and time-consuming tutoring.

And yes, any changes that happen moving forward to FCPS's advanced academic profile will include improving access to and the product of the AAP environment. It's a false choice to suggest that we can or should only do one or the other.

Instead of dumbing down the merit based admission, why can't the district focus on providing high quality tutoring services to all underprivileged students from the elementary school level, to bring up kids' potential?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. That's why I'd like to see the gender breakdown of the people with the highest 500 or highest 1000 scores on the TJ tests. If the gender ratio of top scorers is roughly equal, but then the subjective part of the selection process is selecting more boys, that's a problem. If the gender ratio of the top scorers is heavily boy weighted, then it is what it is.

This plan does not address:

1) Girls being either discouraged from applying by other individuals or lacking interest in TJ precisely because of either the gender disparity or the disparity in how the genders are treated once at TJ

2) The fact that the exam as currently constituted is a poor measure of STEM potential - it is merely a snapshot of where the student is currently and whether or not they've been exposed to certain materials in advance (see CurieGate)

We should have removed Michael Phelps from the Olympics, because some girls were discouraged from swimming, and the race only represented where he was. There were too many other people who had even more potential, but they weren't exposed to all the training. Let's make an Olympiad for the losers.

Anonymous wrote:Yes. That's why I'd like to see the gender breakdown of the people with the highest 500 or highest 1000 scores on the TJ tests. If the gender ratio of top scorers is roughly equal, but then the subjective part of the selection process is selecting more boys, that's a problem. If the gender ratio of the top scorers is heavily boy weighted, then it is what it is.

This plan does not address:

1) Girls being either discouraged from applying by other individuals or lacking interest in TJ precisely because of either the gender disparity or the disparity in how the genders are treated once at TJ

2) The fact that the exam as currently constituted is a poor measure of STEM potential - it is merely a snapshot of where the student is currently and whether or not they've been exposed to certain materials in advance (see CurieGate)

Yes. That's why I'd like to see the gender breakdown of the people with the highest 500 or highest 1000 scores on the TJ tests. If the gender ratio of top scorers is roughly equal, but then the subjective part of the selection process is selecting more boys, that's a problem. If the gender ratio of the top scorers is heavily boy weighted, then it is what it is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It is only a problem if there's something about the admissions process that discriminates against girls. You know how, in the past, there were questions on IQ tests about items like gems, farming, authors, conductors, etc... that the average disadvantaged black person was never exposed to in their lifetime, so it was discriminatory. It was not testing reasoning ability, it was testing cultural knowledge based on exposure. Culturally-biased questions like that have since been removed from these tests. So the question should be "are there any admissions components that discriminate against girls? " If not, then there is nothing wrong with the male-female ratio at TJ. I say this as a female.

People on this forum have said that their girls were actively discouraged from applying to TJ by sexist middle school teachers. Also, if the math or science teachers are biased, the girls get much more lackluster recommendation letters than the boys. I'd love to see how the test scores compare for boys vs. girls.

The male-female ratio at TJ is a problem for the same reason that lopsided male-female ratios are a problem at any college. Weird social dynamics happen when kids are dating aged, and there's a gender imbalance.

An investigation is needed to confirm this. I'm not saying let's have one just because some people claim it. What I'm saying is that it doesn't make it true just because they're saying it.

Maybe those girls weren't good enough, and the teachers were politely advising them not to put all their eggs in one basket. Most teachers are females. Also, most teachers are progressive. You are claiming that teachers are going against themselves to be bigoted towards some girls, who may really suck, but just have high hopes.

Anonymous wrote:
It is only a problem if there's something about the admissions process that discriminates against girls. You know how, in the past, there were questions on IQ tests about items like gems, farming, authors, conductors, etc... that the average disadvantaged black person was never exposed to in their lifetime, so it was discriminatory. It was not testing reasoning ability, it was testing cultural knowledge based on exposure. Culturally-biased questions like that have since been removed from these tests. So the question should be "are there any admissions components that discriminate against girls? " If not, then there is nothing wrong with the male-female ratio at TJ. I say this as a female.

People on this forum have said that their girls were actively discouraged from applying to TJ by sexist middle school teachers. Also, if the math or science teachers are biased, the girls get much more lackluster recommendation letters than the boys. I'd love to see how the test scores compare for boys vs. girls.

The male-female ratio at TJ is a problem for the same reason that lopsided male-female ratios are a problem at any college. Weird social dynamics happen when kids are dating aged, and there's a gender imbalance.