Anonymous
05/28/2024 10:47
Subject: TJ Admissions Roundup
Unethical test prep behaviors were not limited to Curie. They are mentioned the most because they were so blatant about it.
Anonymous
05/28/2024 10:21
Subject: Re:TJ Admissions Roundup
Anonymous wrote:
5. TJ STUDENTS ADMIT SHARING QUANT-Q QUESTIONS
TJ students admitted both on DCUM and on Facebook, anonymously and with real name, that they shared quant-q test questions with a test prep company or they saw nearly identical questions on the test.
https://www.facebook.com/tjvents/posts/pfbid0jKy4hotXF8AxKwfHm2MAVi7e2yYoCqtrTTXPYsszAdQg6uMoTmReMidqyM1mpu9Bl
I have screenshots but won’t share because they have student names on them.
https://www.tjtoday.org/23143/showcase/the-children-left-behind/
“ Families with more money can afford to give children that extra edge by signing them up for whatever prep classes they can find. They can pay money to tutoring organizations to teach their children test-taking skills, “skills learned outside of school,” and to access a cache of previous and example prompts, as I witnessed when I took TJ prep; even if prompts become outdated by test changes, even access to old prompts enables private tutoring pupils to gain an upper edge over others: pupils become accustomed to the format of the writing sections and gain an approximate idea of what to expect.”
The author didn't specifically state that she had access to Quant Q questions and is more suggesting that test prep in general is incredibly beneficial. If she did indeed have advance access to the questions, then sharing Quant Q materials was more widespread than Curie. The author has a Chinese surname, and thus almost certainly didn't attend Curie.
Anonymous
05/28/2024 09:23
Subject: uant Q pu
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It's amazing that people bought into the idea that a question and answer test for kids was uncrackable.
Ultimately the majority of the changes made to the admission process don't reflect a reaction to test prep for the QQ (1 of 3 tests in a multi-round process). This is just a distraction based on a handful of Facebook posts.
But, why crack the test? Is it to give an unfair advantage to kids whose parents can pay these businesses?
There is a market, and there will be solutions. Capitalism. Same way why people smuggle drugs or sell socks.
Some say Capitalism is immoral, that sounds like they are against capitalism. Instead, we should say Capitalism is devoid of morality. Supply and demand, like a machine.
So obtaining information by unethical means and selling it to families that can afford it so that their children will have an unfairly obtained advantage over other children from less well off and/or well educated families is okay because… capitalism.
All righty then. We now know what we need to know about the situation here.
it's unethical only because an ill-worded NDA that students have no choice but to sign. It's unethical because the company boasted the exam is un-preppable. HOLD MY BEER.
No, they didn’t “boast” that it was unpreppable. They produced an exam that was meant to be secure and took actions to make and keep it secure. It was an exam that gave the admissions office more information about the students because it showed how the students handled types of questions that they were unlikely to have seen before.
Apparently there are people in this world with no integrity who can’t stand the idea of their kids having to take a test on an even playing field with other kids so they figured out a way to “crack” the test so kids from well off families wouldn’t have to worry about competing with less well off kids who may be more intelligent than they are.
Adults should stay out of this process and let the school do its job.
This is exactly correct except for one thing - "let the school do its job". TJ doesn't have any say in either the development or the execution of the admissions process. FCPS does. And I'll repeat what I said earlier - the Quant-Q did its job for one year and we saw a significant increase in the number of Black, Hispanic, and low-income students in the first year of its implementation.
Its entire purpose what exactly what PP said - to evaluate how students would approach problems that they were unlikely to have seen before. I have seen several versions of the exam, and I can tell you that it is wonderful for achieving this purpose - but also that it would be a staggeringly easy exam for students who had been shown how to do the problems beforehand.
Most exams evaluate how well you can apply a method for solving a problem and the idea behind the QQ was to evaluate your ability to generate a method to solving a problem - that's the reason why it was intended to be secured. And Curie (and the books that are available on Amazon, and probably some other prep companies) destroyed what should have been an ideal exam for sussing out which students actually belong at TJ. I wish there were a way to go back to it - I was that impressed by it.
But we can't, because the golden goose has been slaughtered.
A bit of advice for TJ-aspirant families: the harder you work to crack the process for your kid, the more you incentivize FCPS to increase the apparent randomness and opacity of the process.
It didn't really have the desired effect. QuantQ made an impact but probably not a big enough impact to satisfy folks that wanted more equity. Before QuantQ 3% of the entering class was URM. The first year of QuantQ pushed that number up to 7%.
What you call "cracking the process" is usually referred to as studying in most places where effort is rewarded. I do think you have to be cautious about pushing your kid into the most competitive environment you can possibly squeak them into.
“Cracking the test” so that kids could know what the questions would be like in advance is in no way the same as “studying.”
Test takers are not supposed to have access to the types of questions in advance because part of the usefulness of the test is seeing how students handle new to them problems.
Having access to the types of problems in advance when the test is meant to be a secure instrument is unethical. In no way is it the same as “studying.”
Having access to the question format and question types is absolutely the same thing as studying.
Advertising a test as non-preppable is dishonest if it relies on noone ever discussing what the format of the test is. I mean every standardized test would be unpreppable if noone ever knew what the test looked like. How effective would an SAT class be if they didn't know reading comprehension, and analogies were going to be on the test?
Believing that a test's format remaining secret is naive. The test had a mild effect the first year it was administered but that was about it. Even if they came up witgh a new format every year, FCPS would have changed the admissions process because they were not concerned about the prepping, there is prepping going on right now. They were concerned about the race of the students.
The company that offers Quant-Q intentionally does NOT release materials to the public - it’s very different than SAT, ACT, etc.
1. They want to “measure your natural ability”.
"Remember that the goal of a critical thinking assessment is to measure your natural ability to think critically"
2. Test takers agreed to not share any parts of the test.
"Non-Disclosure and Non-Compete Agreement: The user agrees not to copy, disclose, describe, imitate, replicate, or mirror this interface or this instrument(s) in whole or in part for any purpose."
3. Quant-Q was selected because FCPS was looking for ways to level the playing field - so kids who can't afford expensive test prep programs would have a chance:
https://www.washingtonian.com/2017/04/26/is-the-no-1-high-school-in-america-thomas-jefferson-fairfax-discrimination/
“The firm that markets the math portion of the test, Quant-Q, doesn’t release materials to the public, a practice that should make them harder for test-prep schools to crack.”
Anonymous
05/28/2024 09:07
Subject: uant Q pu
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It's amazing that people bought into the idea that a question and answer test for kids was uncrackable.
Ultimately the majority of the changes made to the admission process don't reflect a reaction to test prep for the QQ (1 of 3 tests in a multi-round process). This is just a distraction based on a handful of Facebook posts.
But, why crack the test? Is it to give an unfair advantage to kids whose parents can pay these businesses?
There is a market, and there will be solutions. Capitalism. Same way why people smuggle drugs or sell socks.
Some say Capitalism is immoral, that sounds like they are against capitalism. Instead, we should say Capitalism is devoid of morality. Supply and demand, like a machine.
So obtaining information by unethical means and selling it to families that can afford it so that their children will have an unfairly obtained advantage over other children from less well off and/or well educated families is okay because… capitalism.
All righty then. We now know what we need to know about the situation here.
it's unethical only because an ill-worded NDA that students have no choice but to sign. It's unethical because the company boasted the exam is un-preppable. HOLD MY BEER.
No, they didn’t “boast” that it was unpreppable. They produced an exam that was meant to be secure and took actions to make and keep it secure. It was an exam that gave the admissions office more information about the students because it showed how the students handled types of questions that they were unlikely to have seen before.
Apparently there are people in this world with no integrity who can’t stand the idea of their kids having to take a test on an even playing field with other kids so they figured out a way to “crack” the test so kids from well off families wouldn’t have to worry about competing with less well off kids who may be more intelligent than they are.
Adults should stay out of this process and let the school do its job.
This is exactly correct except for one thing - "let the school do its job". TJ doesn't have any say in either the development or the execution of the admissions process. FCPS does. And I'll repeat what I said earlier - the Quant-Q did its job for one year and we saw a significant increase in the number of Black, Hispanic, and low-income students in the first year of its implementation.
Its entire purpose what exactly what PP said - to evaluate how students would approach problems that they were unlikely to have seen before. I have seen several versions of the exam, and I can tell you that it is wonderful for achieving this purpose - but also that it would be a staggeringly easy exam for students who had been shown how to do the problems beforehand.
Most exams evaluate how well you can apply a method for solving a problem and the idea behind the QQ was to evaluate your ability to generate a method to solving a problem - that's the reason why it was intended to be secured. And Curie (and the books that are available on Amazon, and probably some other prep companies) destroyed what should have been an ideal exam for sussing out which students actually belong at TJ. I wish there were a way to go back to it - I was that impressed by it.
But we can't, because the golden goose has been slaughtered.
A bit of advice for TJ-aspirant families: the harder you work to crack the process for your kid, the more you incentivize FCPS to increase the apparent randomness and opacity of the process.
It didn't really have the desired effect. QuantQ made an impact but probably not a big enough impact to satisfy folks that wanted more equity. Before QuantQ 3% of the entering class was URM. The first year of QuantQ pushed that number up to 7%.
What you call "cracking the process" is usually referred to as studying in most places where effort is rewarded. I do think you have to be cautious about pushing your kid into the most competitive environment you can possibly squeak them into.
“Cracking the test” so that kids could know what the questions would be like in advance is in no way the same as “studying.”
Test takers are not supposed to have access to the types of questions in advance because part of the usefulness of the test is seeing how students handle new to them problems.
Having access to the types of problems in advance when the test is meant to be a secure instrument is unethical. In no way is it the same as “studying.”
Having access to the question format and question types is absolutely the same thing as studying.
Advertising a test as non-preppable is dishonest if it relies on noone ever discussing what the format of the test is. I mean every standardized test would be unpreppable if noone ever knew what the test looked like. How effective would an SAT class be if they didn't know reading comprehension, and analogies were going to be on the test?
Believing that a test's format remaining secret is naive. The test had a mild effect the first year it was administered but that was about it. Even if they came up witgh a new format every year, FCPS would have changed the admissions process because they were not concerned about the prepping, there is prepping going on right now. They were concerned about the race of the students.
Anonymous
05/27/2024 18:44
Subject: Re:TJ Admissions Roundup
2. CONCERN ABOUT TJ PREP INDUSTRY
There was also public concern about the TJ test prep industry that led, in part, to changes in the admissions process. By reverse engineering the admissions criteria/process, prep companies offered kids an unfair advantage in admissions. In fact, back in 2017 the SB switched to quant-q, which intentionally didn’t share prep, in an effort to reduce this unfair advantage.
https://www.washingtonian.com/2017/04/26/is-the-no-1-high-school-in-america-thomas-jefferson-fairfax-discrimination/
“ “Is it gonna once again advantage those kids whose parents can pay to sign them up for special prep camps to now be prepping for science testing as well?” Megan McLaughlin asked when presented with the new plan.
Admissions director Jeremy Shughart doesn’t think so. The firm that markets the math portion of the test, Quant-Q, doesn’t release materials to the public, a practice that should make them harder for test-prep schools to crack.”
This has all been discussed countless times on DCUM. Feel free to go read old threads for more details.
It was well known in my affluent area that you could greatly improve chances of admissions by paying $$$ for prep classes.
3. QUANT-Q DOESN’T RELEASE MATERIALS
The company that offers Quant-Q intentionally does NOT release materials to the public - it’s very different than SAT, ACT, etc. They want to “measure your natural ability”. And test takers agreed to not share any parts of the test.
https://www.washingtonian.com/2017/04/26/is-the-no-1-high-school-in-america-thomas-jefferson-fairfax-discrimination/
“The firm that markets the math portion of the test, Quant-Q, doesn’t release materials to the public, a practice that should make them harder for test-prep schools to crack.”
Based on the NDAs, any test prep books or companies that obtain and share example quant-q test questions may have been unethically, or even potentially illegally, produced.
https://insightassessment.com/policies/
“Test Taker Interface User Agreement
In this agreement, each person who accesses this interface is called a “user,” and whatever a user accesses is called an “instrument.”
Copyright Protected: The user acknowledges that this online interface and everything in it are proprietary business property of the California Academic Press LLC and are protected by international copyrights. Except as permitted by purchased use licenses, the user agrees not to reproduce, distribute, hack, harm, limit, alter, or edit this interface or any part of any instrument or results report, table or analysis stored in, generated by, or delivered through this interface.
Non-Disclosure and Non-Compete Agreement: The user agrees not to copy, disclose, describe, imitate, replicate, or mirror this interface or this instrument(s) in whole or in part for any purpose. The user agrees not to create, design, develop, publish, market, or distribute any comparable or competitive instrument or instruments for a period of up to four years from the date of the user’s most recent access.
Non-Disclosure and Non-Compete Agreement
By accessing the Insight Assessment online testing interface or purchasing a preview pack or instrument use licenses, all clients acknowledge that the on-line interface and the testing instrument(s) it contains or displays include proprietary business information, such as but not limited to the structure of test questions or the presentation of those questions and other information displayed in conjunction with the use of this testing interface. In the absence of a specific written agreement between the client and Insight Assessment, the client agrees that by purchasing a preview pack or testing licenses, the client and their organization, shall not disclose, copy, or replicate this testing interface or this testing instrument(s) in whole or in part in comparable or competitive product or interface of any kind. In the absence of a specific written agreement between the client and Insight Assessment, the client agrees that by accessing the testing instrument(s) for any purpose, including but not limited to previewing the instrument(s), the client and the client’s organization shall not create, design, develop, publish, market, or distribute any comparable or competitive testing instrument(s).
By clicking the “Agree” button, the user acknowledges reading, understanding, and agreeing to abide by the statements above and by all the policies and notices posted on Insight Assessment public website(s).”
"Remember that the goal of a critical thinking assessment is to measure your natural ability to think critically, so there’s no need for extensive preparation. Just be yourself and approach the assessment with a clear mind."
4. TJ STUDENTS ACKNOWLEDGED UNFAIR ADVANTAGE
TH students and others have acknowledged the unfair advantage that money can buy.
https://www.tjtoday.org/29411/features/students-divided-on-proposed-changes-to-admissions-process/
“ “Personally, TJ admissions was not a challenge to navigate. I had a sibling who attended before me. However, a lot of resources needed to navigate admissions cost money. That is an unfair advantage given to more economically advantaged students,” junior Vivi Rao said. ”
5. TJ STUDENTS ADMIT SHARING QUANT-Q QUESTIONS
TJ students admitted both on DCUM and on Facebook, anonymously and with real name, that they shared quant-q test questions with a test prep company or they saw nearly identical questions on the test.
https://www.facebook.com/tjvents/posts/pfbid0jKy4hotXF8AxKwfHm2MAVi7e2yYoCqtrTTXPYsszAdQg6uMoTmReMidqyM1mpu9Bl
I have screenshots but won’t share because they have student names on them.
https://www.tjtoday.org/23143/showcase/the-children-left-behind/
“ Families with more money can afford to give children that extra edge by signing them up for whatever prep classes they can find. They can pay money to tutoring organizations to teach their children test-taking skills, “skills learned outside of school,” and to access a cache of previous and example prompts, as I witnessed when I took TJ prep; even if prompts become outdated by test changes, even access to old prompts enables private tutoring pupils to gain an upper edge over others: pupils become accustomed to the format of the writing sections and gain an approximate idea of what to expect.”
There was also public concern about the TJ test prep industry that led, in part, to changes in the admissions process. By reverse engineering the admissions criteria/process, prep companies offered kids an unfair advantage in admissions. In fact, back in 2017 the SB switched to quant-q, which intentionally didn’t share prep, in an effort to reduce this unfair advantage.
https://www.washingtonian.com/2017/04/26/is-the-no-1-high-school-in-america-thomas-jefferson-fairfax-discrimination/
“ “Is it gonna once again advantage those kids whose parents can pay to sign them up for special prep camps to now be prepping for science testing as well?” Megan McLaughlin asked when presented with the new plan.
Admissions director Jeremy Shughart doesn’t think so. The firm that markets the math portion of the test, Quant-Q, doesn’t release materials to the public, a practice that should make them harder for test-prep schools to crack.”
This has all been discussed countless times on DCUM. Feel free to go read old threads for more details.
It was well known in my affluent area that you could greatly improve chances of admissions by paying $$$ for prep classes.
3. QUANT-Q DOESN’T RELEASE MATERIALS
The company that offers Quant-Q intentionally does NOT release materials to the public - it’s very different than SAT, ACT, etc. They want to “measure your natural ability”. And test takers agreed to not share any parts of the test.
https://www.washingtonian.com/2017/04/26/is-the-no-1-high-school-in-america-thomas-jefferson-fairfax-discrimination/
“The firm that markets the math portion of the test, Quant-Q, doesn’t release materials to the public, a practice that should make them harder for test-prep schools to crack.”
Based on the NDAs, any test prep books or companies that obtain and share example quant-q test questions may have been unethically, or even potentially illegally, produced.
https://insightassessment.com/policies/
“Test Taker Interface User Agreement
In this agreement, each person who accesses this interface is called a “user,” and whatever a user accesses is called an “instrument.”
Copyright Protected: The user acknowledges that this online interface and everything in it are proprietary business property of the California Academic Press LLC and are protected by international copyrights. Except as permitted by purchased use licenses, the user agrees not to reproduce, distribute, hack, harm, limit, alter, or edit this interface or any part of any instrument or results report, table or analysis stored in, generated by, or delivered through this interface.
Non-Disclosure and Non-Compete Agreement: The user agrees not to copy, disclose, describe, imitate, replicate, or mirror this interface or this instrument(s) in whole or in part for any purpose. The user agrees not to create, design, develop, publish, market, or distribute any comparable or competitive instrument or instruments for a period of up to four years from the date of the user’s most recent access.
Non-Disclosure and Non-Compete Agreement
By accessing the Insight Assessment online testing interface or purchasing a preview pack or instrument use licenses, all clients acknowledge that the on-line interface and the testing instrument(s) it contains or displays include proprietary business information, such as but not limited to the structure of test questions or the presentation of those questions and other information displayed in conjunction with the use of this testing interface. In the absence of a specific written agreement between the client and Insight Assessment, the client agrees that by purchasing a preview pack or testing licenses, the client and their organization, shall not disclose, copy, or replicate this testing interface or this testing instrument(s) in whole or in part in comparable or competitive product or interface of any kind. In the absence of a specific written agreement between the client and Insight Assessment, the client agrees that by accessing the testing instrument(s) for any purpose, including but not limited to previewing the instrument(s), the client and the client’s organization shall not create, design, develop, publish, market, or distribute any comparable or competitive testing instrument(s).
By clicking the “Agree” button, the user acknowledges reading, understanding, and agreeing to abide by the statements above and by all the policies and notices posted on Insight Assessment public website(s).”
"Remember that the goal of a critical thinking assessment is to measure your natural ability to think critically, so there’s no need for extensive preparation. Just be yourself and approach the assessment with a clear mind."
4. TJ STUDENTS ACKNOWLEDGED UNFAIR ADVANTAGE
TH students and others have acknowledged the unfair advantage that money can buy.
https://www.tjtoday.org/29411/features/students-divided-on-proposed-changes-to-admissions-process/
“ “Personally, TJ admissions was not a challenge to navigate. I had a sibling who attended before me. However, a lot of resources needed to navigate admissions cost money. That is an unfair advantage given to more economically advantaged students,” junior Vivi Rao said. ”
5. TJ STUDENTS ADMIT SHARING QUANT-Q QUESTIONS
TJ students admitted both on DCUM and on Facebook, anonymously and with real name, that they shared quant-q test questions with a test prep company or they saw nearly identical questions on the test.
https://www.facebook.com/tjvents/posts/pfbid0jKy4hotXF8AxKwfHm2MAVi7e2yYoCqtrTTXPYsszAdQg6uMoTmReMidqyM1mpu9Bl
I have screenshots but won’t share because they have student names on them.
https://www.tjtoday.org/23143/showcase/the-children-left-behind/
“ Families with more money can afford to give children that extra edge by signing them up for whatever prep classes they can find. They can pay money to tutoring organizations to teach their children test-taking skills, “skills learned outside of school,” and to access a cache of previous and example prompts, as I witnessed when I took TJ prep; even if prompts become outdated by test changes, even access to old prompts enables private tutoring pupils to gain an upper edge over others: pupils become accustomed to the format of the writing sections and gain an approximate idea of what to expect.”
Anonymous
05/27/2024 18:32
Subject: uant Q pu
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It's amazing that people bought into the idea that a question and answer test for kids was uncrackable.
Ultimately the majority of the changes made to the admission process don't reflect a reaction to test prep for the QQ (1 of 3 tests in a multi-round process). This is just a distraction based on a handful of Facebook posts.
But, why crack the test? Is it to give an unfair advantage to kids whose parents can pay these businesses?
There is a market, and there will be solutions. Capitalism. Same way why people smuggle drugs or sell socks.
Some say Capitalism is immoral, that sounds like they are against capitalism. Instead, we should say Capitalism is devoid of morality. Supply and demand, like a machine.
So obtaining information by unethical means and selling it to families that can afford it so that their children will have an unfairly obtained advantage over other children from less well off and/or well educated families is okay because… capitalism.
All righty then. We now know what we need to know about the situation here.
it's unethical only because an ill-worded NDA that students have no choice but to sign. It's unethical because the company boasted the exam is un-preppable. HOLD MY BEER.
No, they didn’t “boast” that it was unpreppable. They produced an exam that was meant to be secure and took actions to make and keep it secure. It was an exam that gave the admissions office more information about the students because it showed how the students handled types of questions that they were unlikely to have seen before.
Apparently there are people in this world with no integrity who can’t stand the idea of their kids having to take a test on an even playing field with other kids so they figured out a way to “crack” the test so kids from well off families wouldn’t have to worry about competing with less well off kids who may be more intelligent than they are.
Adults should stay out of this process and let the school do its job.
This is exactly correct except for one thing - "let the school do its job". TJ doesn't have any say in either the development or the execution of the admissions process. FCPS does. And I'll repeat what I said earlier - the Quant-Q did its job for one year and we saw a significant increase in the number of Black, Hispanic, and low-income students in the first year of its implementation.
Its entire purpose what exactly what PP said - to evaluate how students would approach problems that they were unlikely to have seen before. I have seen several versions of the exam, and I can tell you that it is wonderful for achieving this purpose - but also that it would be a staggeringly easy exam for students who had been shown how to do the problems beforehand.
Most exams evaluate how well you can apply a method for solving a problem and the idea behind the QQ was to evaluate your ability to generate a method to solving a problem - that's the reason why it was intended to be secured. And Curie (and the books that are available on Amazon, and probably some other prep companies) destroyed what should have been an ideal exam for sussing out which students actually belong at TJ. I wish there were a way to go back to it - I was that impressed by it.
But we can't, because the golden goose has been slaughtered.
A bit of advice for TJ-aspirant families: the harder you work to crack the process for your kid, the more you incentivize FCPS to increase the apparent randomness and opacity of the process.
It didn't really have the desired effect. QuantQ made an impact but probably not a big enough impact to satisfy folks that wanted more equity. Before QuantQ 3% of the entering class was URM. The first year of QuantQ pushed that number up to 7%.
What you call "cracking the process" is usually referred to as studying in most places where effort is rewarded. I do think you have to be cautious about pushing your kid into the most competitive environment you can possibly squeak them into.
“Cracking the test” so that kids could know what the questions would be like in advance is in no way the same as “studying.”
Test takers are not supposed to have access to the types of questions in advance because part of the usefulness of the test is seeing how students handle new to them problems.
Having access to the types of problems in advance when the test is meant to be a secure instrument is unethical. In no way is it the same as “studying.”
Anonymous
05/27/2024 16:22
Subject: uant Q pu
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It's amazing that people bought into the idea that a question and answer test for kids was uncrackable.
Ultimately the majority of the changes made to the admission process don't reflect a reaction to test prep for the QQ (1 of 3 tests in a multi-round process). This is just a distraction based on a handful of Facebook posts.
But, why crack the test? Is it to give an unfair advantage to kids whose parents can pay these businesses?
There is a market, and there will be solutions. Capitalism. Same way why people smuggle drugs or sell socks.
Some say Capitalism is immoral, that sounds like they are against capitalism. Instead, we should say Capitalism is devoid of morality. Supply and demand, like a machine.
So obtaining information by unethical means and selling it to families that can afford it so that their children will have an unfairly obtained advantage over other children from less well off and/or well educated families is okay because… capitalism.
All righty then. We now know what we need to know about the situation here.
it's unethical only because an ill-worded NDA that students have no choice but to sign. It's unethical because the company boasted the exam is un-preppable. HOLD MY BEER.
No, they didn’t “boast” that it was unpreppable. They produced an exam that was meant to be secure and took actions to make and keep it secure. It was an exam that gave the admissions office more information about the students because it showed how the students handled types of questions that they were unlikely to have seen before.
Apparently there are people in this world with no integrity who can’t stand the idea of their kids having to take a test on an even playing field with other kids so they figured out a way to “crack” the test so kids from well off families wouldn’t have to worry about competing with less well off kids who may be more intelligent than they are.
Adults should stay out of this process and let the school do its job.
This is exactly correct except for one thing - "let the school do its job". TJ doesn't have any say in either the development or the execution of the admissions process. FCPS does. And I'll repeat what I said earlier - the Quant-Q did its job for one year and we saw a significant increase in the number of Black, Hispanic, and low-income students in the first year of its implementation.
Its entire purpose what exactly what PP said - to evaluate how students would approach problems that they were unlikely to have seen before. I have seen several versions of the exam, and I can tell you that it is wonderful for achieving this purpose - but also that it would be a staggeringly easy exam for students who had been shown how to do the problems beforehand.
Most exams evaluate how well you can apply a method for solving a problem and the idea behind the QQ was to evaluate your ability to generate a method to solving a problem - that's the reason why it was intended to be secured. And Curie (and the books that are available on Amazon, and probably some other prep companies) destroyed what should have been an ideal exam for sussing out which students actually belong at TJ. I wish there were a way to go back to it - I was that impressed by it.
But we can't, because the golden goose has been slaughtered.
A bit of advice for TJ-aspirant families: the harder you work to crack the process for your kid, the more you incentivize FCPS to increase the apparent randomness and opacity of the process.
It didn't really have the desired effect. QuantQ made an impact but probably not a big enough impact to satisfy folks that wanted more equity. Before QuantQ 3% of the entering class was URM. The first year of QuantQ pushed that number up to 7%.
What you call "cracking the process" is usually referred to as studying in most places where effort is rewarded. I do think you have to be cautious about pushing your kid into the most competitive environment you can possibly squeak them into.
Anonymous
05/27/2024 12:52
Subject: TJ Admissions Roundup
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Someone is definitely pushing Curie.
Inadvertently benefiting from a fictitious story 😀
Sure, except that the story rings true. There have been links to both articles and dozens of first-hand accounts that corroborate it. There's really no doubt that this went on.
Although there are a few C4TJ deniers, it's been well-established and not even up for debate.
Anonymous
05/27/2024 12:50
Subject: TJ Admissions Roundup
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:You can tell from this thread that there are people who are really, really bothered that an advantage has been taken away from people in the know, no matter whether that advantage was obtained ethically or unethically.
I don't think people would have been bothered by the removal of the QuantQ test alone, compared to removing almost everything that differentiates students. This test was only used for a few years.
Many of us liked being able to buy access to TJ. It was simpler and reliable before these changes.
It's actually easier now. Simply attend a low-SES middle school and if the kid is as bright as parents believe, they should have no problem making the top 1.5% for a guaranteed spot. They should be able to outshine ELL and poverty kids so drastically that they would be shoo-ins.
Not true since you have to be in the top 1.5% to make the cut. In the old days, you only had to memorize the test questions.
Anonymous
05/27/2024 12:44
Subject: TJ Admissions Roundup
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:You can tell from this thread that there are people who are really, really bothered that an advantage has been taken away from people in the know, no matter whether that advantage was obtained ethically or unethically.
I don't think people would have been bothered by the removal of the QuantQ test alone, compared to removing almost everything that differentiates students. This test was only used for a few years.
Many of us liked being able to buy access to TJ. It was simpler and reliable before these changes.
It's actually easier now. Simply attend a low-SES middle school and if the kid is as bright as parents believe, they should have no problem making the top 1.5% for a guaranteed spot. They should be able to outshine ELL and poverty kids so drastically that they would be shoo-ins.
Anonymous
05/27/2024 12:26
Subject: TJ Admissions Roundup
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Someone is definitely pushing Curie.
Inadvertently benefiting from a fictitious story 😀
Sure, except that the story rings true. There have been links to both articles and dozens of first-hand accounts that corroborate it. There's really no doubt that this went on.
Rings true != true.
Anonymous
05/27/2024 12:08
Subject: TJ Admissions Roundup
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Someone is definitely pushing Curie.
Inadvertently benefiting from a fictitious story 😀
Sure, except that the story rings true. There have been links to both articles and dozens of first-hand accounts that corroborate it. There's really no doubt that this went on.
Never raised by the FCPS Board or in either of the lawsuits. If there was any truth to test buying access to the questions it would have come up.
Anonymous
05/27/2024 12:03
Subject: TJ Admissions Roundup
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Someone is definitely pushing Curie.
Inadvertently benefiting from a fictitious story 😀
Sure, except that the story rings true. There have been links to both articles and dozens of first-hand accounts that corroborate it. There's really no doubt that this went on.
#fakenews
Anonymous
05/27/2024 12:02
Subject: TJ Admissions Roundup
Anonymous wrote:You can tell from this thread that there are people who are really, really bothered that an advantage has been taken away from people in the know, no matter whether that advantage was obtained ethically or unethically.
They added “experience factors” to tip the scales in the direction they wanted. I wasn’t aware they had done away with that advantage this cycle.
Anonymous
05/26/2024 12:29
Subject: TJ Admissions Roundup
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:You can tell from this thread that there are people who are really, really bothered that an advantage has been taken away from people in the know, no matter whether that advantage was obtained ethically or unethically.
I don't think people would have been bothered by the removal of the QuantQ test alone, compared to removing almost everything that differentiates students. This test was only used for a few years.
Many of us liked being able to buy access to TJ. It was simpler and reliable before these changes.
Haha!