Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am also curious why the PP thinks new admissions locate the kids with aptitude. No aptitude test, no teacher recs, and consideration of hardship factors that have no bearing on STEM aptitude.

Because the old system favored students who were prepped up the wazooo, whereas the new one just looks at ability.

Name how it looks at “ability.” The gpa threshold is not hard compared the readiness needed for the current TJ.

It doesn't penalize kids who aren't rich enough to live in the boundary of higher-rated schools which seem to also correspond with prep

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am also curious why the PP thinks new admissions locate the kids with aptitude. No aptitude test, no teacher recs, and consideration of hardship factors that have no bearing on STEM aptitude.

Because the old system favored students who were prepped up the wazooo, whereas the new one just looks at ability.

Name how it looks at “ability.” The gpa threshold is not hard compared the readiness needed for the current TJ.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No new one just looks at gpas from mostly crappy middle schools and race.

Translation: new system gives all kids a fair chance not just kids at the most affluent middle schools and we're angry that this new system is no longer weighted in our favor like the old one

Bad translation. More like MS grades are pretty inflated, and there will almost certainly be 50+ kids per middle school with straight As who are at least in Algebra. Many of these straight A kids are just generically bright. As soon as GPA becomes the end all and be all, wealthy parents will get tutors or browbeat the teachers to ensure that their kids have 4.0s. New system: We have no way to find the 6 best 4.0 GPA kids among the 50 kids. Old system: We had teacher recommendations, testing, lists of awards, and better essays, so there was at least some plausible data to support finding the top kids.

I think it's fine to guarantee spots for the top 1.5% from each middle school. It's great to eliminate standardized tests that are easily prepped. They certainly need more than GPA and one essay to find those top kids. They could write their own test each year. They could host science olympiad-esque events for middle school and use that to find kids with special talents for engineering. They already do host their own math contest, and that could be expanded as a way to find top kids. There are a lot of creative ways that could be used to detect high levels of talent. It's unfortunate that GPA is the only one being used.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am also curious why the PP thinks new admissions locate the kids with aptitude. No aptitude test, no teacher recs, and consideration of hardship factors that have no bearing on STEM aptitude.

Because the old system favored students who were prepped up the wazooo, whereas the new one just looks at ability.

No new one just looks at gpas from mostly crappy middle schools and race.

Translation: new system gives all kids a fair chance not just kids at the most affluent middle schools and we're angry that this new system is no longer weighted in our favor like the old one

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am also curious why the PP thinks new admissions locate the kids with aptitude. No aptitude test, no teacher recs, and consideration of hardship factors that have no bearing on STEM aptitude.

Because the old system favored students who were prepped up the wazooo, whereas the new one just looks at ability.

No new one just looks at gpas from mostly crappy middle schools and race.

Anonymous wrote:I am also curious why the PP thinks new admissions locate the kids with aptitude. No aptitude test, no teacher recs, and consideration of hardship factors that have no bearing on STEM aptitude.

Because the old system favored students who were prepped up the wazooo, whereas the new one just looks at ability.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am also curious why the PP thinks new admissions locate the kids with aptitude. No aptitude test, no teacher recs, and consideration of hardship factors that have no bearing on STEM aptitude.

Agree. If I had to guess, the admissions process would now have to count more heavily on GPA and the student's standing within their MS. The application process did not collect any extracurricular information (STEM activities) and the essays never asked what the students would bring to TJ or why they think TJ and STEM is right foe them. Looking at the admissions data from 2018 and 2019, those elements, along with the recommendation letters, seem to have been a big factor in the rejection of many 4.0 AAP students (quite a few in Alg 2 and Geom in 8tb grade were not admitted). Under the current process, I have to wonder if they will rely on the MS input for identifying the top 2-3% of students from their school

If it's objective, they won't have to rely on ms input since the ms already provided that in the form of grades.

Anonymous wrote:I am also curious why the PP thinks new admissions locate the kids with aptitude. No aptitude test, no teacher recs, and consideration of hardship factors that have no bearing on STEM aptitude.

Agree. If I had to guess, the admissions process would now have to count more heavily on GPA and the student's standing within their MS. The application process did not collect any extracurricular information (STEM activities) and the essays never asked what the students would bring to TJ or why they think TJ and STEM is right foe them. Looking at the admissions data from 2018 and 2019, those elements, along with the recommendation letters, seem to have been a big factor in the rejection of many 4.0 AAP students (quite a few in Alg 2 and Geom in 8tb grade were not admitted). Under the current process, I have to wonder if they will rely on the MS input for identifying the top 2-3% of students from their school

I am also curious why the PP thinks new admissions locate the kids with aptitude. No aptitude test, no teacher recs, and consideration of hardship factors that have no bearing on STEM aptitude.

Anonymous wrote:
Exactly! It is nonsense since the school board is only leveling the playing field in an effort to eliminate a toxic environment created by students who were pushed and prepped to the extreme by misguided parents. Their new system is so much better since it favors aptitude not prep.

You keep saying this, but what, exactly, are they doing to differentiate between kids with aptitude and kids who are prepped? In the old system, a lot of highly prepped kids got in, but the gifted kids also got in. Now, there doesn't seem to be that much left in the TJ application packet, so every somewhat above average kid will look about the same. How will they even find the kids who are especially apt?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Exactly! It is nonsense since the school board is only leveling the playing field in an effort to eliminate a toxic environment created by students who were pushed and prepped to the extreme by misguided parents. Their new system is so much better since it favors aptitude not prep.

aptitude: noun: a natural ability to do something.

preparation: noun: the action or process of making ready or being made ready for use or consideration.

The person who wrote this is so mentally confused as to not even realize how ridiculous the left's position has become. Whereas they traditionally favored the idea that your fate is in your hands, they're now arguing that it should be all based on some kind of innate ability. (They're probably too stupid to even realize this contradiction.)

LOL. What an awesome takedown of some SJWs!

Anonymous wrote:
Exactly! It is nonsense since the school board is only leveling the playing field in an effort to eliminate a toxic environment created by students who were pushed and prepped to the extreme by misguided parents. Their new system is so much better since it favors aptitude not prep.

aptitude: noun: a natural ability to do something.

preparation: noun: the action or process of making ready or being made ready for use or consideration.

The person who wrote this is so mentally confused as to not even realize how ridiculous the left's position has become. Whereas they traditionally favored the idea that your fate is in your hands, they're now arguing that it should be all based on some kind of innate ability. (They're probably too stupid to even realize this contradiction.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An exam graded on a curve as a barrier to entry is a bad idea?

Yes, if the curve is manipulated by families paying $4-5K for privileged access to secured materials.

You didn't include the manipulation with cheating in your previous post.

Did you mean the FCPS school board cheating kids out of their rightful seats by gaming the system to get the outcomes they want? Yep. We should keep bringing that up and keep it live in people's minds, at least until the next school board elections.

Except the school board isn't doing this. They're trying to do the right thing and do their best for all students.

That's nonsense. They do what's politically expedient at any point in time, whether it's making a decision to reduce the percentage of Asian kids at TJ to placate local activists, ignoring its so-called commitment to "equity" when changing the Langley/McLean boundaries, or depriving families in Fairfax/Oakton of a planned new elementary school to keep a dog park in Oakton open instead.

It would be objectionable if they had misguided principles, but they don't have any principles, so their desecration of a once-proud school system is even worse.

Exactly! It is nonsense since the school board is only leveling the playing field in an effort to eliminate a toxic environment created by students who were pushed and prepped to the extreme by misguided parents. Their new system is so much better since it favors aptitude not prep.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An exam graded on a curve as a barrier to entry is a bad idea?

Yes, if the curve is manipulated by families paying $4-5K for privileged access to secured materials.

You didn't include the manipulation with cheating in your previous post.

Did you mean the FCPS school board cheating kids out of their rightful seats by gaming the system to get the outcomes they want? Yep. We should keep bringing that up and keep it live in people's minds, at least until the next school board elections.

Except the school board isn't doing this. They're trying to do the right thing and do their best for all students.

That's nonsense. They do what's politically expedient at any point in time, whether it's making a decision to reduce the percentage of Asian kids at TJ to placate local activists, ignoring its so-called commitment to "equity" when changing the Langley/McLean boundaries, or depriving families in Fairfax/Oakton of a planned new elementary school to keep a dog park in Oakton open instead.

It would be objectionable if they had misguided principles, but they don't have any principles, so their desecration of a once-proud school system is even worse.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An exam graded on a curve as a barrier to entry is a bad idea?

Yes, if the curve is manipulated by families paying $4-5K for privileged access to secured materials.

You didn't include the manipulation with cheating in your previous post.

Did you mean the FCPS school board cheating kids out of their rightful seats by gaming the system to get the outcomes they want? Yep. We should keep bringing that up and keep it live in people's minds, at least until the next school board elections.

Except the school board isn't doing this. They're trying to do the right thing and do their best for all students.