@ucbalumnus no offense and I enjoy reading a lot of your input.
But not everyone is suitable to the advanced or competitive environments. Not every math genius is interested in STEM. He/she might become a musician. I agree with the suggestion to create more and better schools to accommodate different needs. To achieve that does not mean to target one specific selective school.
I don’t enjoy the topic of “forcing” equity. It inadvertently leads the discussion to race. (academic or math for one group, sports for another) Everyone is different, don’t like the stereotype either.
If the number of students suitable for the advanced environment (as in, can handle the advanced work and would not be adequately served educationally in the usual schools) significantly exceeds the space available, should the advanced environment be expanded, or should it be subject to competitive scarcity?
No, getting past the first round was largely based on stats (both GPA and score on standardized exam) , but half applicants got past the first round, so stats were not the main criteria in admission decisions. The final decision was based on a variety of holistic criteria. While a standardized test was required and admits had high stats , it’s not accurate to say admission was primarily based on test score.
Who said anything about accepting average GPA kids – either at TJ or top engineering schools? The most recent class at TJ had a mean GPA of 3.96/4.00… not exactly average GPA kids. Top engineering schools probably aren’t that high, but still I’d expect most students had near straight A’s in HS.
Curriculum varies depending on what is offered at the HS that the students attend. Students are generally expected to take among the most math/science rigorous courses offered at their HS and are generally not expected to take courses not offered at their HS.
Don’t think you read through my context. That is exactly what I wanted to convey. The selection happens, either the time the students enter high school or engineering programs
Yes, selective HSs and selective colleges have selective admissions that consider various criteria. TJ changed the criteria used in the selection to emphasize top 1.5% within home middle school + boost for “experience” (includes being lower SES). Top 1.5% is measured by a combination of criteria including core GPA and math/science problem solving essay. They also require being ahead of middle peers in math as you state, as measured by being on the honors version of the advanced math track in their middle school (taking AP calculus is required at TJ).
UC has long favored GPA or standardized test scores. In fact, they recently dropped the test scores.
“What if they no longer admitting their incoming classes according to the STEM-excellences (Math, Physics, Chemistry, Biology…) but considering the non-STEM factors?”
Why can’t they do both? For example, someone applying to Berkeley’s College of Engineering (COE) with a C- in pre-Calculus is probably not gonna be very successful in admissions, regardless of the non-STEM stuff. OTOH, UCB does not require that everyone have a A+ in Calc for EECS major. A B+ in Calc and other non-stem factors might be good enough.
(btw: Calc is not even required for COE admission; just using it as an example)
Those against admitting the high schoolers in Little Rock or at U of Alabama could have argued the same - “those students aren’t as prepared as US (white students) and they will bring down the level of instruction” and that would have been true in the 1950s. Black students hadn’t received the same opportunities in grades k-8 or in high school that the white students had received, and thus weren’t as prepared. When do the parents have to decide their kids have math and science aptitude higher than what their local elementary schools offer and put them in magnet schools in Fairfax county? If they don’t do it by 2nd grade, their kids may never catch up, and therefore won’t get to go to TJ even if they have high IQs, love math and science, want to go to MIT (if they’ve even heard about MIT). Would my (now) engineering daughter have done well at TJ? I think so but no teacher ever picked her out for special programs. If the teachers in ALL the middle schools were on the lookout for qualified students, she may have been sent to a school like TJ.
The school system is trying to give the same opportunities to all in the pool. They are doing what busing was doing in the 1970s --integrating schools, giving students from a poorer neighborhood a chance. Maybe Fairfax county doesn’t need another TJ but 5 or 6 middle school programs to get students an earlier start for STEM, and maybe put those programs in the less wealthy middle schools.
I can assure you that 92% of admit tees to Cal don’t have Calculus bcos a lot of low income instate high schools don’t offer it. (This is an example of where non-STEM stuff comes into play in holistic admission. Indeed, if Harvard wanted to attract more URM’s adn low-ec students, they might give less preference to Calc.)
Doing that at the middle (and elementary) school level would increase the need for more space at TJ, or adding additional programs of that nature, because it would increase the pool of qualified students who are interested in it.
But in the current environment of competitive scarcity which would remain without increasing the capacity of TJ or additional such programs, improving middle school level opportunities probably is not popular with the existing TJ hopefuls and their parents, since increasing the applicant pool without increasing the capacity of TJ will just make the admission process even more competitive.
They could but prioritize certain curriculum. I am not sure if TJ can do the same by dropping the standardized tests, but remain selective by emphasizing STEM aptitude (apparently they pick top students from each middle school instead but that’s not ok with parents in that district hence the law suit)
I am just curious if all the top engineering schools simply drop this priorities and take anyone whoever is interested in studying STEM fields, will it be different for overall STEM development in this country, would the society be better?
Not suggest any agenda, but wanted to hear everyone’s opinion that’s why I ask thought experiment question.
Colleges that have enough space can auto-admit anyone who meets baseline requirements that they consider an indicator for a reasonable chance of success. For example, Arizona State University admits engineering frosh on a non-competitive basis with a 3.0 HS GPA including four years of math and three years of (different) sciences. Granted, completion in engineering rates will not be as high as if they limited admission to those with 4.0 HS GPA, but they are willing to give more people a chance, instead of preventing most people from even getting to the starting line.
Of course, those “top engineering schools” are highly capacity-constrained, so they do not have much choice other than to have highly competitive admission. However, if they were able to expand, they could give more students a chance. California tried expanding by opening UC Merced, but students are still turning their noses up on it, since UCB and UCLA are highly desired status goods as well as educational goods, and UC Merced only provides the educational goods without the status good. Expanding existing UC campuses runs into substantial NIMBY opposition.
If dropping a standardized testing requirement means dropping STEM priorities, then 5 of the 6 “top engineering schools” you mentioned meet this description. 3 of 6 are test blind (Caltech and UCs) and 2 of 6 are test optional.
All of the colleges you listed are still highly selective and consider other non-score criteria among applicants who don’t submit scores. Holistic admission colleges do generally emphasize success in the field that the student plans to study, which can includes grades in related subjects, advanced classes in field, ECs/award in related field, LORs from teacher in related field, etc.
This differs from open admissions where they take anyone who is interested in studying STEM (they also offer non-STEM majors). Many other colleges do have open admissions or near open admissions, but open admission colleges are probably not ones you would consider “top engineering schools.” Open admissions does often lead to admitting some students who are not academically qualified, which can contribute to a good portion of students not graduating from the colleges. However, the selective colleges you mentioned do not have this problem and have extremely high graduation rates.
@twoinanddone you just remind me, my child(6th) has been telling me that school friends are discussing the “summer program” for skipping grades (for math)
Now I understand why. If parents aren’t aware or even push for advancing math, it is going to be the rippled effects in high school. I.e. behind in Calculus even if kids are genuinely good in math but never attempt to advance much earlier.
There seems to be some misconception of what a test like the one used to be administered by TJ is about. Here’s how some TJ students who have taken the TJ test describe the test on Quora:
From one student (who thinks the math portion is harder):
From another student (who thinks the math portion is easier):
The test seems to be more about reasoning than math knowledge beyond geometry (or its equivalent).
I hold a PhD in math. I worked hard and have some innate math abilities, but definitely not at the level of those who are superstars in my field. Those folks have high innate ability AND work hard. It’s tough to compete with that combination.
While working hard in math/science may not get always get someone to elite status, it does get them successfully into heavily quantitative fields, combined with some medium level of innate ability.
I am not sure why working hard in academics gets such a bad rap, particularly as it applies to students of Asian descent. I see that subtext here on CC a lot . I never understood it ,and frankly find it offensive. (I am of Indian descent) That trope of “try hards” never seems to be leveled at any other group.
The magnet school in our NJ county sets X number of spots from each micro-level school district in the county. Seems to yield a better distribution in terms of demographics and SES. No one seems to complain, maybe because they’ve done it this way since the beginning.
I am troubled by the fact that many of these lawsuits are funded by right wing conservative groups. The parents in Fairfax who sued were funded by such an organization, according to the article. It serves to create public education as a wedge issue to divide non-white minorities.
I am also troubled by liberal groups who are pushing a lot of the “test-free” narratives. They often label the Asian kids and parents as “gaming the system” (by studying???). I heard those exact terms by an NPR commentator while discussing Stuy admissions. BTW, the Stuy students come from less wealthy Asian families . Yes, the may be “less poor” than the overall NYPS population, but compared to Asian families overall in the larger metro NY area, I would say they are definitely not financially advantaged.
Asian Americans are not a monolithic group. Many of us who have gone through K-12 education in the US do not share this mad rush to math contests and magnet schools. While I can understand the advantage it would give for lower SES groups, I just don’t get why upper middle class folks in my Asian American community think this is a straight line to the T20’s despite data to the contrary over multiple admissions cycles.
None of the people in charge want to touch the real problem - which is K-12 school districts that rely on the wealth of the immediate surroundings.
