Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If students are responsible for younger siblings, working, and don't have parental support, how will they handle the workload at TJ?

Not saying they shouldn't be given a shot but it doesn't seem like an environment in which they would be able to keep up.

That's their business, not yours. You are looking for a reason not to admit them or for them not to apply. Stop.

Besides, in many of those instances, "care" involves literally just being at home so that the party in question isn't home alone. That doesn't preclude one from doing homework. It does, however, preclude being out at an extracurricular activity.

First, I said in my post that I wasn't saying they shouldn't be given a shot
Second, if the entire process is being re-arranged to accommodate these students and then they fail because the problems they face are still there we will again hear calls for more accommodation. As a taxpayer, its actually my business since those pushing for this made it so. You can't reconfigure everything based on these factors and then say its no one's business. They've made it our business.

TJ has been working for years on decoupling rigor and workload through the Challenge Success initiative - meaning that they are working to maintain the exceptional rigor of the school while reducing the impact on students in terms of time and stress spent outside of the school day on homework and study. That initiative is in its fourth year, well pre-dating any of this business with admissions.

You will notice that at literally no point has anyone involved in this process from the FCPS level said anything about lowering the standards of the TJ education. There is no sense in which your comments about "reconfiguring everything based on these factors" and "calls for more accommodation" have any merit at all.

If they fail, they fail. Plenty of TJ kids (10-15% every year) have been failing via the previous admissions process. If the Class of 2025 loses a quarter of its class year over year, then perhaps you'll have a case to make. Until then, kindly have a seat and go the way of the "defund/eliminate TJ" sycophants.

They have just reconfigured the standards for entry based on these students. If they fail, you can guarantee the conversation about lowering standards is coming (if it hasn't already started privately).

It has already come, if you pay attention to these fora.

There is a distinct difference between "reconfiguring" the standards and "lowering" the standards.

Indeed, the new admissions process resulted in a significantly lower acceptance rate among the applicant pool and a significantly higher average GPA among those initially offered admission. One imagines that that average GPA likely increased further once some initial offers were declined and spaces were granted to students on the wait list, especially if they were offered to students in the unallocated pool.

Wait for them to fail before you bury them. Engaging in speculation about 14 year olds failing because their race, culture, or background is not your is gross.

hyperbolic nonsense.

There's nothing hyperbolic about it. It's what everyone in the regressive camp has been doing for months - presuming that there are only three options for these students: 1) they will fail because they are unprepared; 2) the school will be somehow "watered down" in an attempt to prove that they weren't unprepared; 3) both.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If students are responsible for younger siblings, working, and don't have parental support, how will they handle the workload at TJ?

Not saying they shouldn't be given a shot but it doesn't seem like an environment in which they would be able to keep up.

That's their business, not yours. You are looking for a reason not to admit them or for them not to apply. Stop.

Besides, in many of those instances, "care" involves literally just being at home so that the party in question isn't home alone. That doesn't preclude one from doing homework. It does, however, preclude being out at an extracurricular activity.

First, I said in my post that I wasn't saying they shouldn't be given a shot
Second, if the entire process is being re-arranged to accommodate these students and then they fail because the problems they face are still there we will again hear calls for more accommodation. As a taxpayer, its actually my business since those pushing for this made it so. You can't reconfigure everything based on these factors and then say its no one's business. They've made it our business.

Taxpayers have a vested interest in these kids succeeding. Would you rather later pay for their housing food and medical care or for them to create jobs for your grandchildren, pay your pension or create your elder care equipment?

I don't assume TJ is the only path to success or that they will be on the public dole if they don't go to TJ. Why would you assume that?

Why do you assume that the "elite" kids who don't get into TJ because of the change won't be just as successful elsewhere? They are brilliant, they'll rise to the top anywhere.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If students are responsible for younger siblings, working, and don't have parental support, how will they handle the workload at TJ?

Not saying they shouldn't be given a shot but it doesn't seem like an environment in which they would be able to keep up.

That's their business, not yours. You are looking for a reason not to admit them or for them not to apply. Stop.

Besides, in many of those instances, "care" involves literally just being at home so that the party in question isn't home alone. That doesn't preclude one from doing homework. It does, however, preclude being out at an extracurricular activity.

First, I said in my post that I wasn't saying they shouldn't be given a shot
Second, if the entire process is being re-arranged to accommodate these students and then they fail because the problems they face are still there we will again hear calls for more accommodation. As a taxpayer, its actually my business since those pushing for this made it so. You can't reconfigure everything based on these factors and then say its no one's business. They've made it our business.

TJ has been working for years on decoupling rigor and workload through the Challenge Success initiative - meaning that they are working to maintain the exceptional rigor of the school while reducing the impact on students in terms of time and stress spent outside of the school day on homework and study. That initiative is in its fourth year, well pre-dating any of this business with admissions.

You will notice that at literally no point has anyone involved in this process from the FCPS level said anything about lowering the standards of the TJ education. There is no sense in which your comments about "reconfiguring everything based on these factors" and "calls for more accommodation" have any merit at all.

If they fail, they fail. Plenty of TJ kids (10-15% every year) have been failing via the previous admissions process. If the Class of 2025 loses a quarter of its class year over year, then perhaps you'll have a case to make. Until then, kindly have a seat and go the way of the "defund/eliminate TJ" sycophants.

They have just reconfigured the standards for entry based on these students. If they fail, you can guarantee the conversation about lowering standards is coming (if it hasn't already started privately).

It has already come, if you pay attention to these fora.

There is a distinct difference between "reconfiguring" the standards and "lowering" the standards.

Indeed, the new admissions process resulted in a significantly lower acceptance rate among the applicant pool and a significantly higher average GPA among those initially offered admission. One imagines that that average GPA likely increased further once some initial offers were declined and spaces were granted to students on the wait list, especially if they were offered to students in the unallocated pool.

Wait for them to fail before you bury them. Engaging in speculation about 14 year olds failing because their race, culture, or background is not your is gross.

hyperbolic nonsense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other activities for some is catching the school bus home because their parents don’t have a car and have to budget for public transport. It’s babysitting younger siblings while parents are working. It’s cooking the family’s dinner snd other housework. It’s taking their grandparents to doctors appointments. It’s having a paying job to pay the household bills.

Get out of your privileged bubble.

They don't belong at TJ then if they have that many other commitments. TJ has a longer school day, longer bus ride, more homework . . . I agree people's situations and priorities are different out of desire or necessity. That doesn't mean you lower the bar of elite programs.

If you want elite programs, pay for it and go private. Getting a public STEM education shouldn't reunite a longer school day.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is an important piece. What a shame the cretins in charge of FCPS have never given the matter of TJ admissions a sliver of the attention this author devoted to the topic.

https://www.inquiremore.com/p/culture-not-racism-explains-asian

It is about what's in it for me NOW, not about the truth or long term. So stop with your logic.

Yes, I agree. The School Board members only think about the short-term political benefits they expect to get from sticking it to Asian kids who work harder.

There comes a point when working harder becomes destructive and counterproductive to a healthy society. FCPS has a duty not to drag all students into an unhealthy race to nowhere because some parents want to drag their kids there.

+1000000000

Research "Law of Diminishing Returns" and apply it to study habits and the relationship between schoolwork and other activities.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If students are responsible for younger siblings, working, and don't have parental support, how will they handle the workload at TJ?

Not saying they shouldn't be given a shot but it doesn't seem like an environment in which they would be able to keep up.

That's their business, not yours. You are looking for a reason not to admit them or for them not to apply. Stop.

Besides, in many of those instances, "care" involves literally just being at home so that the party in question isn't home alone. That doesn't preclude one from doing homework. It does, however, preclude being out at an extracurricular activity.

First, I said in my post that I wasn't saying they shouldn't be given a shot
Second, if the entire process is being re-arranged to accommodate these students and then they fail because the problems they face are still there we will again hear calls for more accommodation. As a taxpayer, its actually my business since those pushing for this made it so. You can't reconfigure everything based on these factors and then say its no one's business. They've made it our business.

TJ has been working for years on decoupling rigor and workload through the Challenge Success initiative - meaning that they are working to maintain the exceptional rigor of the school while reducing the impact on students in terms of time and stress spent outside of the school day on homework and study. That initiative is in its fourth year, well pre-dating any of this business with admissions.

You will notice that at literally no point has anyone involved in this process from the FCPS level said anything about lowering the standards of the TJ education. There is no sense in which your comments about "reconfiguring everything based on these factors" and "calls for more accommodation" have any merit at all.

If they fail, they fail. Plenty of TJ kids (10-15% every year) have been failing via the previous admissions process. If the Class of 2025 loses a quarter of its class year over year, then perhaps you'll have a case to make. Until then, kindly have a seat and go the way of the "defund/eliminate TJ" sycophants.

They have just reconfigured the standards for entry based on these students. If they fail, you can guarantee the conversation about lowering standards is coming (if it hasn't already started privately).

It has already come, if you pay attention to these fora.

There is a distinct difference between "reconfiguring" the standards and "lowering" the standards.

Indeed, the new admissions process resulted in a significantly lower acceptance rate among the applicant pool and a significantly higher average GPA among those initially offered admission. One imagines that that average GPA likely increased further once some initial offers were declined and spaces were granted to students on the wait list, especially if they were offered to students in the unallocated pool.

Wait for them to fail before you bury them. Engaging in speculation about 14 year olds failing because their race, culture, or background is not your is gross.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is an important piece. What a shame the cretins in charge of FCPS have never given the matter of TJ admissions a sliver of the attention this author devoted to the topic.

https://www.inquiremore.com/p/culture-not-racism-explains-asian

It is about what's in it for me NOW, not about the truth or long term. So stop with your logic.

Yes, I agree. The School Board members only think about the short-term political benefits they expect to get from sticking it to Asian kids who work harder.

There comes a point when working harder becomes destructive and counterproductive to a healthy society. FCPS has a duty not to drag all students into an unhealthy race to nowhere because some parents want to drag their kids there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other activities for some is catching the school bus home because their parents don’t have a car and have to budget for public transport. It’s babysitting younger siblings while parents are working. It’s cooking the family’s dinner snd other housework. It’s taking their grandparents to doctors appointments. It’s having a paying job to pay the household bills.

Get out of your privileged bubble.

They don't belong at TJ then if they have that many other commitments. TJ has a longer school day, longer bus ride, more homework . . . I agree people's situations and priorities are different out of desire or necessity. That doesn't mean you lower the bar of elite programs.

This is a garbage take in so many ways.

For one, yes, TJ has a longer school day - because of its 8th period program, which can be used for academic help or additional homework time if needed.

For two, no one is lowering the bar or elite programs. A TJ education will remain a TJ education - and it will indeed be enhanced greatly by the inclusion of more students from differing socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds.

For three, I NEVER agree with the "defund/eliminate TJ" nonsense, but if we have created a secondary-level PUBLIC educational environment where students who have family members to take care of at home literally cannot participate, we have created an educational caste system. And that's not something our taxpayers should EVER support.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If students are responsible for younger siblings, working, and don't have parental support, how will they handle the workload at TJ?

Not saying they shouldn't be given a shot but it doesn't seem like an environment in which they would be able to keep up.

That's their business, not yours. You are looking for a reason not to admit them or for them not to apply. Stop.

Besides, in many of those instances, "care" involves literally just being at home so that the party in question isn't home alone. That doesn't preclude one from doing homework. It does, however, preclude being out at an extracurricular activity.

First, I said in my post that I wasn't saying they shouldn't be given a shot
Second, if the entire process is being re-arranged to accommodate these students and then they fail because the problems they face are still there we will again hear calls for more accommodation. As a taxpayer, its actually my business since those pushing for this made it so. You can't reconfigure everything based on these factors and then say its no one's business. They've made it our business.

Taxpayers have a vested interest in these kids succeeding. Would you rather later pay for their housing food and medical care or for them to create jobs for your grandchildren, pay your pension or create your elder care equipment?

I don't assume TJ is the only path to success or that they will be on the public dole if they don't go to TJ. Why would you assume that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If students are responsible for younger siblings, working, and don't have parental support, how will they handle the workload at TJ?

Not saying they shouldn't be given a shot but it doesn't seem like an environment in which they would be able to keep up.

That's their business, not yours. You are looking for a reason not to admit them or for them not to apply. Stop.

Besides, in many of those instances, "care" involves literally just being at home so that the party in question isn't home alone. That doesn't preclude one from doing homework. It does, however, preclude being out at an extracurricular activity.

First, I said in my post that I wasn't saying they shouldn't be given a shot
Second, if the entire process is being re-arranged to accommodate these students and then they fail because the problems they face are still there we will again hear calls for more accommodation. As a taxpayer, its actually my business since those pushing for this made it so. You can't reconfigure everything based on these factors and then say its no one's business. They've made it our business.

TJ has been working for years on decoupling rigor and workload through the Challenge Success initiative - meaning that they are working to maintain the exceptional rigor of the school while reducing the impact on students in terms of time and stress spent outside of the school day on homework and study. That initiative is in its fourth year, well pre-dating any of this business with admissions.

You will notice that at literally no point has anyone involved in this process from the FCPS level said anything about lowering the standards of the TJ education. There is no sense in which your comments about "reconfiguring everything based on these factors" and "calls for more accommodation" have any merit at all.

If they fail, they fail. Plenty of TJ kids (10-15% every year) have been failing via the previous admissions process. If the Class of 2025 loses a quarter of its class year over year, then perhaps you'll have a case to make. Until then, kindly have a seat and go the way of the "defund/eliminate TJ" sycophants.

They have just reconfigured the standards for entry based on these students. If they fail, you can guarantee the conversation about lowering standards is coming (if it hasn't already started privately).

Anonymous wrote:Other activities for some is catching the school bus home because their parents don’t have a car and have to budget for public transport. It’s babysitting younger siblings while parents are working. It’s cooking the family’s dinner snd other housework. It’s taking their grandparents to doctors appointments. It’s having a paying job to pay the household bills.

Get out of your privileged bubble.

They don't belong at TJ then if they have that many other commitments. TJ has a longer school day, longer bus ride, more homework . . . I agree people's situations and priorities are different out of desire or necessity. That doesn't mean you lower the bar of elite programs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If students are responsible for younger siblings, working, and don't have parental support, how will they handle the workload at TJ?

Not saying they shouldn't be given a shot but it doesn't seem like an environment in which they would be able to keep up.

That's their business, not yours. You are looking for a reason not to admit them or for them not to apply. Stop.

Besides, in many of those instances, "care" involves literally just being at home so that the party in question isn't home alone. That doesn't preclude one from doing homework. It does, however, preclude being out at an extracurricular activity.

First, I said in my post that I wasn't saying they shouldn't be given a shot
Second, if the entire process is being re-arranged to accommodate these students and then they fail because the problems they face are still there we will again hear calls for more accommodation. As a taxpayer, its actually my business since those pushing for this made it so. You can't reconfigure everything based on these factors and then say its no one's business. They've made it our business.

Taxpayers have a vested interest in these kids succeeding. Would you rather later pay for their housing food and medical care or for them to create jobs for your grandchildren, pay your pension or create your elder care equipment?

This is a great point.

The overwhelming majority of the kids who have a lesser chance of being admitted to TJ as a result of this new process are extremely likely to be very successful no matter where they go to high school.

The overwhelming majority of the kids who end up at TJ because of this process are likely to have a much greater chance at success by going to TJ because of the unique opportunities that it provides.

But if you believe that success is a zero-sum game because you narrowly define it as "elite college acceptance", then I understand your fear. It's deeply misguided, but at least I understand it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If students are responsible for younger siblings, working, and don't have parental support, how will they handle the workload at TJ?

Not saying they shouldn't be given a shot but it doesn't seem like an environment in which they would be able to keep up.

That's their business, not yours. You are looking for a reason not to admit them or for them not to apply. Stop.

Besides, in many of those instances, "care" involves literally just being at home so that the party in question isn't home alone. That doesn't preclude one from doing homework. It does, however, preclude being out at an extracurricular activity.

First, I said in my post that I wasn't saying they shouldn't be given a shot
Second, if the entire process is being re-arranged to accommodate these students and then they fail because the problems they face are still there we will again hear calls for more accommodation. As a taxpayer, its actually my business since those pushing for this made it so. You can't reconfigure everything based on these factors and then say its no one's business. They've made it our business.

TJ has been working for years on decoupling rigor and workload through the Challenge Success initiative - meaning that they are working to maintain the exceptional rigor of the school while reducing the impact on students in terms of time and stress spent outside of the school day on homework and study. That initiative is in its fourth year, well pre-dating any of this business with admissions.

You will notice that at literally no point has anyone involved in this process from the FCPS level said anything about lowering the standards of the TJ education. There is no sense in which your comments about "reconfiguring everything based on these factors" and "calls for more accommodation" have any merit at all.

If they fail, they fail. Plenty of TJ kids (10-15% every year) have been failing via the previous admissions process. If the Class of 2025 loses a quarter of its class year over year, then perhaps you'll have a case to make. Until then, kindly have a seat and go the way of the "defund/eliminate TJ" sycophants.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If students are responsible for younger siblings, working, and don't have parental support, how will they handle the workload at TJ?

Not saying they shouldn't be given a shot but it doesn't seem like an environment in which they would be able to keep up.

That's their business, not yours. You are looking for a reason not to admit them or for them not to apply. Stop.

Besides, in many of those instances, "care" involves literally just being at home so that the party in question isn't home alone. That doesn't preclude one from doing homework. It does, however, preclude being out at an extracurricular activity.

First, I said in my post that I wasn't saying they shouldn't be given a shot
Second, if the entire process is being re-arranged to accommodate these students and then they fail because the problems they face are still there we will again hear calls for more accommodation. As a taxpayer, its actually my business since those pushing for this made it so. You can't reconfigure everything based on these factors and then say its no one's business. They've made it our business.

Taxpayers have a vested interest in these kids succeeding. Would you rather later pay for their housing food and medical care or for them to create jobs for your grandchildren, pay your pension or create your elder care equipment?

At this point it is given that the "eliminate TJ and/or AAP" poster should be ignored.