Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Congratulations, FCPS board successfully proved to the GIGO concept.

The ranking was based on data from 2022 or earlier so it fell before they fixed the admission process.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Congratulations, FCPS board successfully proved to the GIGO concept.

The ranking was based on data from 2022 or earlier so it fell before they fixed the admission process.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are people making graphs suggesting essays are something other than merit?

I'm not commenting on the graphs, but regarding essays:

The essays may convey some notion of merit, but it is a far more ambiguous notion of merit. Two different evaluators may score the same essay quite differently. Furthermore, an essay-writing evaluation would also be heavily influenced the writer's ability to sway the reader with their writing, a skill which some might not consider to be of most prominent importance for admissions to a STEM school. Finally, essay scores would be influenced by native English speaking ability, which is not a metric of merit.

In other words, it is much more difficult to “crack the code” on essay writing. 😄

IMO using an essay is not in and of itself a bad thing, but using it as the main factor for admission is a bad idea. Better to have other factors (e.g. test scores) so that you have some way to know if an especially low or high scoring essay is an outlier.

On the other hand, I have no idea why some posters here are so dead-set against tests as a measure of merit. Tests are, inherently, the name you give to the tool you use to assess something. If you go to a doctor and you want to find out whether you have an illness, you take a test. Some tests are better than others at measuring what they are supposed to measure - you wouldn't give someone an arithmetic test to find out if they have the mathematical aptitude to take calculus, but it's silly to think that there is no test that can be used to figure it out. Does it make sense to use multiple tests in case someone has a "bad day" or has exam stress? Maybe. I don't know what the right formula is, but it's short-sighted to think there isn't one.

The thing I do agree with is that people shouldn't be penalized on admissions for not having money. I think the solution is to find tests that everyone can prep for, rather than ones that you have to pay a lot of money to prep for. Paying a lot of money should always be an option rather than a necessity.

Another factor is teachers’ recommendations. I really don’t see why inputs from MS teachers were removed from a holistic reviewing process.

Because it's been proven that they are racially biased.

Which studies have proved this claim? TJ has admitted a lot more White students since they dropped teachers' recommendations from their admissions process.

Yes, but they also dropped testing and tests are racially biased against white, blacks, and hispanics.

Non-Asian students don't perform as well in tests. That doesn't mean tests are racially biased.

Anonymous wrote:Anybody following the UCLA med school fiasco? It’s eye-opening and demonstrates what happens when merit is deprioritized. Google UCLA med school failing. Its ranking is down from 4 to 18 much like TJ. There are other things wrong as well. This seems to be the roadmap for TJ as well. Sadly.

Anonymous wrote:Congratulations, FCPS board successfully proved to the GIGO concept.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are people making graphs suggesting essays are something other than merit?

I'm not commenting on the graphs, but regarding essays:

The essays may convey some notion of merit, but it is a far more ambiguous notion of merit. Two different evaluators may score the same essay quite differently. Furthermore, an essay-writing evaluation would also be heavily influenced the writer's ability to sway the reader with their writing, a skill which some might not consider to be of most prominent importance for admissions to a STEM school. Finally, essay scores would be influenced by native English speaking ability, which is not a metric of merit.

In other words, it is much more difficult to “crack the code” on essay writing. 😄

IMO using an essay is not in and of itself a bad thing, but using it as the main factor for admission is a bad idea. Better to have other factors (e.g. test scores) so that you have some way to know if an especially low or high scoring essay is an outlier.

On the other hand, I have no idea why some posters here are so dead-set against tests as a measure of merit. Tests are, inherently, the name you give to the tool you use to assess something. If you go to a doctor and you want to find out whether you have an illness, you take a test. Some tests are better than others at measuring what they are supposed to measure - you wouldn't give someone an arithmetic test to find out if they have the mathematical aptitude to take calculus, but it's silly to think that there is no test that can be used to figure it out. Does it make sense to use multiple tests in case someone has a "bad day" or has exam stress? Maybe. I don't know what the right formula is, but it's short-sighted to think there isn't one.

The thing I do agree with is that people shouldn't be penalized on admissions for not having money. I think the solution is to find tests that everyone can prep for, rather than ones that you have to pay a lot of money to prep for. Paying a lot of money should always be an option rather than a necessity.

Another factor is teachers’ recommendations. I really don’t see why inputs from MS teachers were removed from a holistic reviewing process.

Because it's been proven that they are racially biased.

Which studies have proved this claim? TJ has admitted a lot more White students since they dropped teachers' recommendations from their admissions process.

Yes, but they also dropped testing and tests are racially biased against white, blacks, and hispanics.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are people making graphs suggesting essays are something other than merit?

I'm not commenting on the graphs, but regarding essays:

The essays may convey some notion of merit, but it is a far more ambiguous notion of merit. Two different evaluators may score the same essay quite differently. Furthermore, an essay-writing evaluation would also be heavily influenced the writer's ability to sway the reader with their writing, a skill which some might not consider to be of most prominent importance for admissions to a STEM school. Finally, essay scores would be influenced by native English speaking ability, which is not a metric of merit.

In other words, it is much more difficult to “crack the code” on essay writing. 😄

IMO using an essay is not in and of itself a bad thing, but using it as the main factor for admission is a bad idea. Better to have other factors (e.g. test scores) so that you have some way to know if an especially low or high scoring essay is an outlier.

On the other hand, I have no idea why some posters here are so dead-set against tests as a measure of merit. Tests are, inherently, the name you give to the tool you use to assess something. If you go to a doctor and you want to find out whether you have an illness, you take a test. Some tests are better than others at measuring what they are supposed to measure - you wouldn't give someone an arithmetic test to find out if they have the mathematical aptitude to take calculus, but it's silly to think that there is no test that can be used to figure it out. Does it make sense to use multiple tests in case someone has a "bad day" or has exam stress? Maybe. I don't know what the right formula is, but it's short-sighted to think there isn't one.

The thing I do agree with is that people shouldn't be penalized on admissions for not having money. I think the solution is to find tests that everyone can prep for, rather than ones that you have to pay a lot of money to prep for. Paying a lot of money should always be an option rather than a necessity.

Another factor is teachers’ recommendations. I really don’t see why inputs from MS teachers were removed from a holistic reviewing process.

Because it's been proven that they are racially biased.

Which studies have proved this claim? TJ has admitted a lot more White students since they dropped teachers' recommendations from their admissions process.

Yes, but they also dropped testing and tests are racially biased against white, blacks, and hispanics.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/08/30/thomas-jefferson-high-ranking-drops/

"Asian American enrollment dropped from about 70 percent to about 50 percent after the policy took effect in 2021."

are they trying to imply the drop in ranking has something to do with the drop in number of Asian American students admitted?

What were the percent of Asian Americans for years before and after the admissions policy change? twenty percent drop seems drastic

From another thread:


Asian count remains more or less same, but the Asian percent has gone down?
Along with the admissions change, the total number of seats were expanded by 100 seats, but Asian students were solely excluded from participating in the expanded seat assignment. There are consistently 1000+ declined Asian applicants each year, largest among all ethnicities, and none of them are allowed to receive a single seat from the expanded seat quota.
If the high-achieving cohort is suppressed and substituted with a remedial cohort, were they expecting with the ranking to improve?
how are the remedial classes run? does student continue to attend remedial until they meet certain benchmarks?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are people making graphs suggesting essays are something other than merit?

I'm not commenting on the graphs, but regarding essays:

The essays may convey some notion of merit, but it is a far more ambiguous notion of merit. Two different evaluators may score the same essay quite differently. Furthermore, an essay-writing evaluation would also be heavily influenced the writer's ability to sway the reader with their writing, a skill which some might not consider to be of most prominent importance for admissions to a STEM school. Finally, essay scores would be influenced by native English speaking ability, which is not a metric of merit.

In other words, it is much more difficult to “crack the code” on essay writing. 😄

IMO using an essay is not in and of itself a bad thing, but using it as the main factor for admission is a bad idea. Better to have other factors (e.g. test scores) so that you have some way to know if an especially low or high scoring essay is an outlier.

On the other hand, I have no idea why some posters here are so dead-set against tests as a measure of merit. Tests are, inherently, the name you give to the tool you use to assess something. If you go to a doctor and you want to find out whether you have an illness, you take a test. Some tests are better than others at measuring what they are supposed to measure - you wouldn't give someone an arithmetic test to find out if they have the mathematical aptitude to take calculus, but it's silly to think that there is no test that can be used to figure it out. Does it make sense to use multiple tests in case someone has a "bad day" or has exam stress? Maybe. I don't know what the right formula is, but it's short-sighted to think there isn't one.

The thing I do agree with is that people shouldn't be penalized on admissions for not having money. I think the solution is to find tests that everyone can prep for, rather than ones that you have to pay a lot of money to prep for. Paying a lot of money should always be an option rather than a necessity.

Another factor is teachers’ recommendations. I really don’t see why inputs from MS teachers were removed from a holistic reviewing process.

Because it's been proven that they are racially biased.

Which studies have proved this claim? TJ has admitted a lot more White students since they dropped teachers' recommendations from their admissions process.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/08/30/thomas-jefferson-high-ranking-drops/

"Asian American enrollment dropped from about 70 percent to about 50 percent after the policy took effect in 2021."

are they trying to imply the drop in ranking has something to do with the drop in number of Asian American students admitted?

What were the percent of Asian Americans for years before and after the admissions policy change? twenty percent drop seems drastic

From another thread:


Asian count remains more or less same, but the Asian percent has gone down?
Along with the admissions change, the total number of seats were expanded by 100 seats, but Asian students were solely excluded from participating in the expanded seat assignment. There are consistently 1000+ declined Asian applicants each year, largest among all ethnicities, and none of them are allowed to receive a single seat from the expanded seat quota.

If the high-achieving cohort is suppressed and substituted with a remedial cohort, were they expecting with the ranking to improve?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are people making graphs suggesting essays are something other than merit?

I'm not commenting on the graphs, but regarding essays:

The essays may convey some notion of merit, but it is a far more ambiguous notion of merit. Two different evaluators may score the same essay quite differently. Furthermore, an essay-writing evaluation would also be heavily influenced the writer's ability to sway the reader with their writing, a skill which some might not consider to be of most prominent importance for admissions to a STEM school. Finally, essay scores would be influenced by native English speaking ability, which is not a metric of merit.

In other words, it is much more difficult to “crack the code” on essay writing. 😄

IMO using an essay is not in and of itself a bad thing, but using it as the main factor for admission is a bad idea. Better to have other factors (e.g. test scores) so that you have some way to know if an especially low or high scoring essay is an outlier.

On the other hand, I have no idea why some posters here are so dead-set against tests as a measure of merit. Tests are, inherently, the name you give to the tool you use to assess something. If you go to a doctor and you want to find out whether you have an illness, you take a test. Some tests are better than others at measuring what they are supposed to measure - you wouldn't give someone an arithmetic test to find out if they have the mathematical aptitude to take calculus, but it's silly to think that there is no test that can be used to figure it out. Does it make sense to use multiple tests in case someone has a "bad day" or has exam stress? Maybe. I don't know what the right formula is, but it's short-sighted to think there isn't one.

The thing I do agree with is that people shouldn't be penalized on admissions for not having money. I think the solution is to find tests that everyone can prep for, rather than ones that you have to pay a lot of money to prep for. Paying a lot of money should always be an option rather than a necessity.

Another factor is teachers’ recommendations. I really don’t see why inputs from MS teachers were removed from a holistic reviewing process.

Because it's been proven that they are racially biased.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/08/30/thomas-jefferson-high-ranking-drops/

"Asian American enrollment dropped from about 70 percent to about 50 percent after the policy took effect in 2021."

are they trying to imply the drop in ranking has something to do with the drop in number of Asian American students admitted?

What were the percent of Asian Americans for years before and after the admissions policy change? twenty percent drop seems drastic

From another thread:


Asian count remains more or less same, but the Asian percent has gone down?
Along with the admissions change, the total number of seats were expanded by 100 seats, but Asian students were solely excluded from participating in the expanded seat assignment. There are consistently 1000+ declined Asian applicants each year, largest among all ethnicities, and none of them are allowed to receive a single seat from the expanded seat quota.
If the high-achieving cohort is suppressed and substituted with a remedial cohort, were they expecting with the ranking to improve?