Anonymous wrote:I am not sure how much things have changed in 2 years, but my DD who is Asian got into both global ecology and humanities (only 2 she applied for) with a MAP-M score of 260 and MAP-R score of 254... the whole thread here suggests if you get any less than 270 you are doomed! ... May be you all are talking about only SMACs program! My younger one is going to go through the process next year and her MAP scores are comparable to her sister's and she is also looking for global ecology and humanities programs... reading this thread seems to indicate she has no chance!
Another point for the selection committee when my eldest went through the process, was that if the kid was already in a magnet (she was in Clemente math sci) meant the kids already had an edge since they got into the program with a test and everything. And dont tell me the selection committee doesn't know the schools.... only magnet kids have computer science in their transcript and GT stamped on the Math and Sci courses they take... so they know...
However with my second one, they had lottery selection for middle school magnets. MY DD was in the lottery pool for both programs but her name wasn't picked and so were a bunch of her very smart friends, who all stayed back in their home middle schools... so with that I think there will be hyper focus on just the MAP scores and essays and I dont think they can use the 'Kids already in magnets are smart' argument anymore as magnets kids in this batch were really lottery picks and I know some really questionable selections who are currently struggling in their magnet schools!
Oh well...make the high schools also lottery already! its all just luck from this point on !

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure how much things have changed in 2 years, but my DD who is Asian got into both global ecology and humanities (only 2 she applied for) with a MAP-M score of 260 and MAP-R score of 254... the whole thread here suggests if you get any less than 270 you are doomed! ... May be you all are talking about only SMACs program! My younger one is going to go through the process next year and her MAP scores are comparable to her sister's and she is also looking for global ecology and humanities programs... reading this thread seems to indicate she has no chance!
Another point for the selection committee when my eldest went through the process, was that if the kid was already in a magnet (she was in Clemente math sci) meant the kids already had an edge since they got into the program with a test and everything. And dont tell me the selection committee doesn't know the schools.... only magnet kids have computer science in their transcript and GT stamped on the Math and Sci courses they take... so they know...
However with my second one, they had lottery selection for middle school magnets. MY DD was in the lottery pool for both programs but her name wasn't picked and so were a bunch of her very smart friends, who all stayed back in their home middle schools... so with that I think there will be hyper focus on just the MAP scores and essays and I dont think they can use the 'Kids already in magnets are smart' argument anymore as magnets kids in this batch were really lottery picks and I know some really questionable selections who are currently struggling in their magnet schools!
Oh well...make the high schools also lottery already! its all just luck from this point on !

1. Kids in magnets are actually at a disadvantage as there seems to be a school limit. so the bar is higher.
2. I have had other kids go through the magnets before. It was a much more structure and holistic process. Longer essay, MAP+Grades+Cogat + recommendation. So they won't have missed the really good kids. now it is just MAP (gameable), short essay (can't differentiate) and grades (again can't differentiate). More of a lottery.

don't take all this too seriously.

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure how much things have changed in 2 years, but my DD who is Asian got into both global ecology and humanities (only 2 she applied for) with a MAP-M score of 260 and MAP-R score of 254... the whole thread here suggests if you get any less than 270 you are doomed! ... May be you all are talking about only SMACs program! My younger one is going to go through the process next year and her MAP scores are comparable to her sister's and she is also looking for global ecology and humanities programs... reading this thread seems to indicate she has no chance!
Another point for the selection committee when my eldest went through the process, was that if the kid was already in a magnet (she was in Clemente math sci) meant the kids already had an edge since they got into the program with a test and everything. And dont tell me the selection committee doesn't know the schools.... only magnet kids have computer science in their transcript and GT stamped on the Math and Sci courses they take... so they know...
However with my second one, they had lottery selection for middle school magnets. MY DD was in the lottery pool for both programs but her name wasn't picked and so were a bunch of her very smart friends, who all stayed back in their home middle schools... so with that I think there will be hyper focus on just the MAP scores and essays and I dont think they can use the 'Kids already in magnets are smart' argument anymore as magnets kids in this batch were really lottery picks and I know some really questionable selections who are currently struggling in their magnet schools!
Oh well...make the high schools also lottery already! its all just luck from this point on !

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, please stop. This is not helpful. It's not a lottery so your "chance" of getting in does not work that way. You can't tell if it looks fair or biased by race/ethnicity unless you have the scores and we do not.
This type of fake analysis is just divisive for no reason.

The PP said more or less the same thing, but it doesn't change the facts.

And it’s just a reaction to the ludicrous claims earlier in this thread that Asian kids were discriminated against in the admissions.

Pointing out that the program is 60% Asian and that Asian applicants have the highest chances of admission based on the data is hardly indicative of anti-Asian discrimination. I'd imagine it reflects the level of interest in these programs more than anything since admission is race blind.

Applicant pool around 40% Asian, admitted kids 60-80% Asian. And yet claims here that the (few) white and black students were admitted with allegedly lower scores and were less deserving based on nothing but bitterness. Everyone who got in is equally deserving. The process is race blind.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, please stop. This is not helpful. It's not a lottery so your "chance" of getting in does not work that way. You can't tell if it looks fair or biased by race/ethnicity unless you have the scores and we do not.
This type of fake analysis is just divisive for no reason.

The PP said more or less the same thing, but it doesn't change the facts.

And it’s just a reaction to the ludicrous claims earlier in this thread that Asian kids were discriminated against in the admissions.

Pointing out that the program is 60% Asian and that Asian applicants have the highest chances of admission based on the data is hardly indicative of anti-Asian discrimination. I'd imagine it reflects the level of interest in these programs more than anything since admission is race blind.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, please stop. This is not helpful. It's not a lottery so your "chance" of getting in does not work that way. You can't tell if it looks fair or biased by race/ethnicity unless you have the scores and we do not.
This type of fake analysis is just divisive for no reason.

The PP said more or less the same thing, but it doesn't change the facts.

And it’s just a reaction to the ludicrous claims earlier in this thread that Asian kids were discriminated against in the admissions.

Anonymous wrote:From what I can tell there was one poster who was upset and said something she probably didn't mean and if she did mean it I think she is wrong to think that way.

However, I do think there are biases against Asians in the MCPS admissions system as there are in many aspects of American society just as there are biases against students who are Black or Latinx. Are there more against Asians than students who are Black or Latinx? Maybe not but I don't know the answer to that and neither do you. It's ignorant of you to characterize the idea of any discrimination as ludicrous and then cite fake misleading statistics.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, please stop. This is not helpful. It's not a lottery so your "chance" of getting in does not work that way. You can't tell if it looks fair or biased by race/ethnicity unless you have the scores and we do not.
This type of fake analysis is just divisive for no reason.

The PP said more or less the same thing, but it doesn't change the facts.

Anonymous wrote:Again, please stop. This is not helpful. It's not a lottery so your "chance" of getting in does not work that way. You can't tell if it looks fair or biased by race/ethnicity unless you have the scores and we do not.
This type of fake analysis is just divisive for no reason.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please stop. There are systemic biases for sure against all students of color for different reasons, but no one really knows anything without getting in the minds of the admissions committee and getting more data. We don't know the racial breakdown of the applicant pool, the test scores or anything else. The problem with the magnet process being the way it is and lacking transparency is that it creates this kind of horrible racial tension and us v. them mentality that is really hurtful to our students and schools.

The racial breakdown of the applicant pool is public and has been posted here recently. Further, the criteria used by the committee have always been outlined on the county's website and discussed extensively at various open house meetings.

I remember looking at this a few weeks ago there were around 300 Asian applicants of 800 and maybe 180 white. This stuff isn't secret. There was a google sheet even.

If that’s correct then there is a much MUCH higher chance of getting in if you are Asian vs White even taking account of the applicant pool. Something like 1:5 or even 1:4 Asian applicants and 1:15 white kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please stop. There are systemic biases for sure against all students of color for different reasons, but no one really knows anything without getting in the minds of the admissions committee and getting more data. We don't know the racial breakdown of the applicant pool, the test scores or anything else. The problem with the magnet process being the way it is and lacking transparency is that it creates this kind of horrible racial tension and us v. them mentality that is really hurtful to our students and schools.

The racial breakdown of the applicant pool is public and has been posted here recently. Further, the criteria used by the committee have always been outlined on the county's website and discussed extensively at various open house meetings.

I remember looking at this a few weeks ago there were around 300 Asian applicants of 800 and maybe 180 white. This stuff isn't secret. There was a google sheet even.