TJ Falls to 14th in the Nation Per US News

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm still not sure why Geometry or higher in 8th isn't a requirement for FCPS applicants to TJ. In the 2022-2023 testing cycle, FCPS had 1453 8th graders pass the Geometry SOL and another 210 the Algebra II SOL. Among these kids, 137 URMs passed the Geo SOL and 16 URMs passed Algebra II. 98 Disadvantaged 8th graders passed the Geometry SOL, and 11 disadvantaged kids passed the Algebra II one. Almost every middle school had 10+ kids at least in geometry, with the exception of 2 or so schools that are not AAP centers or LLIVs.

They could fill the 350 or so FCPS TJ slots 4-5 times over with the kids who are at least in Geometry in 8th, while still getting adequate racial, economic, and geographic diversity.

*yes, I know there's always some exception to the rule. So, there could be some exemption form where the very rare and extreme cases could have the Geo requirement waived. But, these cases should be pretty rare.

Why create these obstacles though? There are plenty of super smart kids who may not have taken geometry by 8th who might benefit from TJ too.

Because they want to hoard opportunities for wealthier kids.

There are only around 350 TJ slots for FCPS kids. FCPS had 143 8th grade URMs pass the Geo or Algebra II SOL. They had 109 disadvantaged kids pass Geo or Algebra II. The least wealthy AAP centers still had over 40 kids on the Algebra-in-7th track. There are more than enough poor kids who would qualify for TJ even if Geometry were required.

It’s an unnecessary barrier.

Expecting kids to be good at math rather than slightly above average at math is an "unnecessary barrier?"

Kids who take Algebra in 8th can be good at math.

Yes, it’s an unnecessary barrier that limits who can apply. It makes TJ a prize for the few lucky kids instead of a learning resource for many qualified kids who are interested in STEM.

Agreed, there are a ton of barriers that people just don't recognize. I have no doubt that talented kids opt out of applying to TJ and opt out of the too math track. That will also be more common among the well adjusted ones that don't have tiger parents. I think we should make the TJ test mandatory for all kids with a 3.5GPA. Everyone gets a shot.

As an example, in a recent year, twain had 20 students meet the objective test criteria to make it into the pool but did not get past the "holistic" review. NONE of those Twain kids made it past holistic review.

If you track the percentage of kids that meet the treat score requirement to get in the pool and the kids that make it through the holistic review to get it off the pool, the highest percentage success rate of getting out of the pool went to schools in the wealthier neighborhoods.

Exactly what many of us are arguing for! We want to give our kids an edge by rigging admissions and creating obstacles that exclude the less fortunate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Teachers give lots of tests and provide recommendations in the form of grades. This is sufficient.

There is rampant grade inflation, which is increasingly making GPA meaningless. And teachers can be inspired by a student's potential, more than by their current performance, and write a positive recommendation. An objective, standardized test that is not graded by the teacher/school is the way to measure content knowledge.

There are many threads here stating otherwise. GPA is still the primary factor that colleges consider for admission and is far more reliable than a test which wealthy students buy advanced access to.

No, standardized test scores are the most reliable predictor of success, which is why some schools are starting to shift away from test optional. The Academic Senate of the University of California found that:
https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/underreview/sttf-report.pdf
"standardized test scores aid in predicting important aspects of student success, including undergraduate grade point average (UGPA), retention, and completion. At UC, test scores are currently better predictors of first-year GPA than high school grade point average (HSGPA) ... test scores are better predictors of success for students who are Underrepresented Minority students (URMs), who are first-generation, or whose families are low-income ... The STTF found that California high schools vary greatly in grading standards, and that grade inflation is part of why the predictive power of HSGPA has decreased since the last UC study."

The UC ultimately ignored the Senate findings and moved away from standardized testing, with the desire for holistic admission trumping evidence-based outcomes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Teachers give lots of tests and provide recommendations in the form of grades. This is sufficient.

There is rampant grade inflation, which is increasingly making GPA meaningless. And teachers can be inspired by a student's potential, more than by their current performance, and write a positive recommendation. An objective, standardized test that is not graded by the teacher/school is the way to measure content knowledge.

There are many threads here stating otherwise. GPA is still the primary factor that colleges consider for admission and is far more reliable than a test which wealthy students buy advanced access to.

No, standardized test scores are the most reliable predictor of success, which is why some schools are starting to shift away from test optional. The Academic Senate of the University of California found that:
https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/underreview/sttf-report.pdf
"standardized test scores aid in predicting important aspects of student success, including undergraduate grade point average (UGPA), retention, and completion. At UC, test scores are currently better predictors of first-year GPA than high school grade point average (HSGPA) ... test scores are better predictors of success for students who are Underrepresented Minority students (URMs), who are first-generation, or whose families are low-income ... The STTF found that California high schools vary greatly in grading standards, and that grade inflation is part of why the predictive power of HSGPA has decreased since the last UC study."

The UC ultimately ignored the Senate findings and moved away from standardized testing, with the desire for holistic admission trumping evidence-based outcomes.

Although some like to make this claim, I think common sense by those with actual experience realize that holistic admissions is even more predictive than tests which can be easily gamed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Teachers give lots of tests and provide recommendations in the form of grades. This is sufficient.

There is rampant grade inflation, which is increasingly making GPA meaningless. And teachers can be inspired by a student's potential, more than by their current performance, and write a positive recommendation. An objective, standardized test that is not graded by the teacher/school is the way to measure content knowledge.

There are many threads here stating otherwise. GPA is still the primary factor that colleges consider for admission and is far more reliable than a test which wealthy students buy advanced access to.

No, standardized test scores are the most reliable predictor of success, which is why some schools are starting to shift away from test optional. The Academic Senate of the University of California found that:
https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/underreview/sttf-report.pdf
"standardized test scores aid in predicting important aspects of student success, including undergraduate grade point average (UGPA), retention, and completion. At UC, test scores are currently better predictors of first-year GPA than high school grade point average (HSGPA) ... test scores are better predictors of success for students who are Underrepresented Minority students (URMs), who are first-generation, or whose families are low-income ... The STTF found that California high schools vary greatly in grading standards, and that grade inflation is part of why the predictive power of HSGPA has decreased since the last UC study."

The UC ultimately ignored the Senate findings and moved away from standardized testing, with the desire for holistic admission trumping evidence-based outcomes.

And the UChicago study of the same year (2020) found the opposite, unweighted HS GPA still trumped standardized test scores as a predictor of college success. What's obvious to anyone willing to apply any critical thinking to the topic is that both of these factors (and more) are preferable than any one factor in isolation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Teachers give lots of tests and provide recommendations in the form of grades. This is sufficient.

There is rampant grade inflation, which is increasingly making GPA meaningless. And teachers can be inspired by a student's potential, more than by their current performance, and write a positive recommendation. An objective, standardized test that is not graded by the teacher/school is the way to measure content knowledge.

There are many threads here stating otherwise. GPA is still the primary factor that colleges consider for admission and is far more reliable than a test which wealthy students buy advanced access to.

No, standardized test scores are the most reliable predictor of success, which is why some schools are starting to shift away from test optional. The Academic Senate of the University of California found that:
https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/underreview/sttf-report.pdf
"standardized test scores aid in predicting important aspects of student success, including undergraduate grade point average (UGPA), retention, and completion. At UC, test scores are currently better predictors of first-year GPA than high school grade point average (HSGPA) ... test scores are better predictors of success for students who are Underrepresented Minority students (URMs), who are first-generation, or whose families are low-income ... The STTF found that California high schools vary greatly in grading standards, and that grade inflation is part of why the predictive power of HSGPA has decreased since the last UC study."

The UC ultimately ignored the Senate findings and moved away from standardized testing, with the desire for holistic admission trumping evidence-based outcomes.

And the UChicago study of the same year (2020) found the opposite, unweighted HS GPA still trumped standardized test scores as a predictor of college success. What's obvious to anyone willing to apply any critical thinking to the topic is that both of these factors (and more) are preferable than any one factor in isolation.

Of course it does. That is exactly why it is the number 1 factor for college admissions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Teachers give lots of tests and provide recommendations in the form of grades. This is sufficient.

There is rampant grade inflation, which is increasingly making GPA meaningless. And teachers can be inspired by a student's potential, more than by their current performance, and write a positive recommendation. An objective, standardized test that is not graded by the teacher/school is the way to measure content knowledge.

There are many threads here stating otherwise. GPA is still the primary factor that colleges consider for admission and is far more reliable than a test which wealthy students buy advanced access to.

No, standardized test scores are the most reliable predictor of success, which is why some schools are starting to shift away from test optional. The Academic Senate of the University of California found that:
https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/underreview/sttf-report.pdf
"standardized test scores aid in predicting important aspects of student success, including undergraduate grade point average (UGPA), retention, and completion. At UC, test scores are currently better predictors of first-year GPA than high school grade point average (HSGPA) ... test scores are better predictors of success for students who are Underrepresented Minority students (URMs), who are first-generation, or whose families are low-income ... The STTF found that California high schools vary greatly in grading standards, and that grade inflation is part of why the predictive power of HSGPA has decreased since the last UC study."

The UC ultimately ignored the Senate findings and moved away from standardized testing, with the desire for holistic admission trumping evidence-based outcomes.

Although some like to make this claim, I think common sense by those with actual experience realize that holistic admissions is even more predictive than tests which can be easily gamed.

Holistics admissions are the best, but they require a lot of inputs. TJ admissions aren't truly holistic, since they are mostly based on fluff essays and experience factors. GPA isn't heavily weighted, and they aren't considering course rigor or even SOL scores from the previous year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TJ applicants all deserve a chance to grow and foster their love of STEM. Even if they weren’t lucky enough to be born into a wealthy family.

TJ exists for learning and enrichment; it’s not just a prize for lucky kids.

If a program is for the most academically gifted students then you should probably be selecting the most academically gifted students without regard to how they became academically gifted.
If you want to level the playing field so that poor kids are as likely to become academically gifted as wealthier kids, what's your plan?
But you are trying to treat all kids as if they are equally academically gifted and treat TJ admissions like a bingo prize.

If you want more poor kids then make the admissions based purely on a test.
NYC does this with its flagship magnet schools and the majority of the students at those schools are on free or reduced lunch.
Holistic admissions and subjective criteria favors kids with resources.

TJ is for qualified students who have an interest in STEM.

It's not supposed to be.

TJ is a governor's school.

"The Virginia Governor's School Program has been designed to assist divisions as they meet the needs of a small population of students whose learning levels are remarkably different from their age-level peers. The foundation of the Virginia Governor's School Program centers on best practices in the field of gifted education and the presentation of advanced content to able learners." https://www.doe.virginia.gov/teaching-learnin...n/governor-s-schools

The pool of qualified students includes about 40% of FCPS
That is how many students in FCPS have 8th grade algebra and at least a 3.5 GPA.
That includes a lot of mediocre students.

Mediocre according to who? Their teachers who are giving them A's don't seem to think so...

Medicare is relative here. I am comparing these students compared to students selected under the previous method. Using that standard, these students are mediocre according to:

PSAT scores
SOL advance pass rates
The TJ math department email to students
The return to base school rates
A metric crap ton of anecdotal evidence.

40% of FCPS 8th graders have a 3.5 GPA of higher. That's not really what I would call selective.

If there are that many qualified students then TJ needs to expand even further!

They're not qualified.
Not for TJ.

You can create another school for the mediocre kids you want to give participation trophies to but humanity needs to develop the smart kids so the mediocre kids can pretend they solved global warming by blocking traffic and throwing tomato soup on the Mona Lisa

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Teachers give lots of tests and provide recommendations in the form of grades. This is sufficient.

There is rampant grade inflation, which is increasingly making GPA meaningless. And teachers can be inspired by a student's potential, more than by their current performance, and write a positive recommendation. An objective, standardized test that is not graded by the teacher/school is the way to measure content knowledge.

There are many threads here stating otherwise. GPA is still the primary factor that colleges consider for admission and is far more reliable than a test which wealthy students buy advanced access to.

No, standardized test scores are the most reliable predictor of success, which is why some schools are starting to shift away from test optional. The Academic Senate of the University of California found that:
https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/underreview/sttf-report.pdf
"standardized test scores aid in predicting important aspects of student success, including undergraduate grade point average (UGPA), retention, and completion. At UC, test scores are currently better predictors of first-year GPA than high school grade point average (HSGPA) ... test scores are better predictors of success for students who are Underrepresented Minority students (URMs), who are first-generation, or whose families are low-income ... The STTF found that California high schools vary greatly in grading standards, and that grade inflation is part of why the predictive power of HSGPA has decreased since the last UC study."

The UC ultimately ignored the Senate findings and moved away from standardized testing, with the desire for holistic admission trumping evidence-based outcomes.

Although some like to make this claim, I think common sense by those with actual experience realize that holistic admissions is even more predictive than tests which can be easily gamed.

Right, because common sense is better than science and data. You sound like someone that injected ivermectin and bleach during COVID.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Teachers give lots of tests and provide recommendations in the form of grades. This is sufficient.

There is rampant grade inflation, which is increasingly making GPA meaningless. And teachers can be inspired by a student's potential, more than by their current performance, and write a positive recommendation. An objective, standardized test that is not graded by the teacher/school is the way to measure content knowledge.

There are many threads here stating otherwise. GPA is still the primary factor that colleges consider for admission and is far more reliable than a test which wealthy students buy advanced access to.

No, standardized test scores are the most reliable predictor of success, which is why some schools are starting to shift away from test optional. The Academic Senate of the University of California found that:
https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/underreview/sttf-report.pdf
"standardized test scores aid in predicting important aspects of student success, including undergraduate grade point average (UGPA), retention, and completion. At UC, test scores are currently better predictors of first-year GPA than high school grade point average (HSGPA) ... test scores are better predictors of success for students who are Underrepresented Minority students (URMs), who are first-generation, or whose families are low-income ... The STTF found that California high schools vary greatly in grading standards, and that grade inflation is part of why the predictive power of HSGPA has decreased since the last UC study."

The UC ultimately ignored the Senate findings and moved away from standardized testing, with the desire for holistic admission trumping evidence-based outcomes.

And the UChicago study of the same year (2020) found the opposite, unweighted HS GPA still trumped standardized test scores as a predictor of college success. What's obvious to anyone willing to apply any critical thinking to the topic is that both of these factors (and more) are preferable than any one factor in isolation.

The U. Chicago study measured one thing. Graduation rates across a very large sample of schools. Most of them non-selective

Studies measuring performance at highly selective schools fund test scores to be far better predictors.

"Across the high schools studied, students with high school GPAs under 1.5 had around a 20% chance of graduating from college. For students with GPAs of 3.75 or higher, those chances rose to around 80%."

I think anyone willing to apply critical reading to this thread would realize that noone has implied that test scores alone is better than test scores plus gpa. But of the two, test scores are FAR more productive than gpa in competitive environments. Yet somehow, we decided to eliminate test scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Teachers give lots of tests and provide recommendations in the form of grades. This is sufficient.

There is rampant grade inflation, which is increasingly making GPA meaningless. And teachers can be inspired by a student's potential, more than by their current performance, and write a positive recommendation. An objective, standardized test that is not graded by the teacher/school is the way to measure content knowledge.

There are many threads here stating otherwise. GPA is still the primary factor that colleges consider for admission and is far more reliable than a test which wealthy students buy advanced access to.

No, standardized test scores are the most reliable predictor of success, which is why some schools are starting to shift away from test optional. The Academic Senate of the University of California found that:
https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/underreview/sttf-report.pdf
"standardized test scores aid in predicting important aspects of student success, including undergraduate grade point average (UGPA), retention, and completion. At UC, test scores are currently better predictors of first-year GPA than high school grade point average (HSGPA) ... test scores are better predictors of success for students who are Underrepresented Minority students (URMs), who are first-generation, or whose families are low-income ... The STTF found that California high schools vary greatly in grading standards, and that grade inflation is part of why the predictive power of HSGPA has decreased since the last UC study."

The UC ultimately ignored the Senate findings and moved away from standardized testing, with the desire for holistic admission trumping evidence-based outcomes.

And the UChicago study of the same year (2020) found the opposite, unweighted HS GPA still trumped standardized test scores as a predictor of college success. What's obvious to anyone willing to apply any critical thinking to the topic is that both of these factors (and more) are preferable than any one factor in isolation.

Of course it does. That is exactly why it is the number 1 factor for college admissions.

Don't say such stupid things. It undermines your credibility and the credibility of everyone on your side of the argument. A 1600 sat and 3.8 gpa gets into more selective schools than a 1400 sat and 4.0 gpa. Lots of perfect gpas at mediocre schools. Not a lot of perfect sat score at mediocre schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Teachers give lots of tests and provide recommendations in the form of grades. This is sufficient.

There is rampant grade inflation, which is increasingly making GPA meaningless. And teachers can be inspired by a student's potential, more than by their current performance, and write a positive recommendation. An objective, standardized test that is not graded by the teacher/school is the way to measure content knowledge.

There are many threads here stating otherwise. GPA is still the primary factor that colleges consider for admission and is far more reliable than a test which wealthy students buy advanced access to.

No, standardized test scores are the most reliable predictor of success, which is why some schools are starting to shift away from test optional. The Academic Senate of the University of California found that:
https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/underreview/sttf-report.pdf
"standardized test scores aid in predicting important aspects of student success, including undergraduate grade point average (UGPA), retention, and completion. At UC, test scores are currently better predictors of first-year GPA than high school grade point average (HSGPA) ... test scores are better predictors of success for students who are Underrepresented Minority students (URMs), who are first-generation, or whose families are low-income ... The STTF found that California high schools vary greatly in grading standards, and that grade inflation is part of why the predictive power of HSGPA has decreased since the last UC study."

The UC ultimately ignored the Senate findings and moved away from standardized testing, with the desire for holistic admission trumping evidence-based outcomes.

Although some like to make this claim, I think common sense by those with actual experience realize that holistic admissions is even more predictive than tests which can be easily gamed.

Holistics admissions are the best, but they require a lot of inputs. TJ admissions aren't truly holistic, since they are mostly based on fluff essays and experience factors. GPA isn't heavily weighted, and they aren't considering course rigor or even SOL scores from the previous year.

Holistic admissions are the best for wealthy kids.

Stuyvesant/Bronx Science/Brooklyn Tech admissions is based on a single test and over 50% of students are free/reduced lunch.

TJ used holistic admissions and 2% were free reduced lunch. Holistic admissions measure privilege.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Teachers give lots of tests and provide recommendations in the form of grades. This is sufficient.

There is rampant grade inflation, which is increasingly making GPA meaningless. And teachers can be inspired by a student's potential, more than by their current performance, and write a positive recommendation. An objective, standardized test that is not graded by the teacher/school is the way to measure content knowledge.

There are many threads here stating otherwise. GPA is still the primary factor that colleges consider for admission and is far more reliable than a test which wealthy students buy advanced access to.

No, standardized test scores are the most reliable predictor of success, which is why some schools are starting to shift away from test optional. The Academic Senate of the University of California found that:
https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/underreview/sttf-report.pdf
"standardized test scores aid in predicting important aspects of student success, including undergraduate grade point average (UGPA), retention, and completion. At UC, test scores are currently better predictors of first-year GPA than high school grade point average (HSGPA) ... test scores are better predictors of success for students who are Underrepresented Minority students (URMs), who are first-generation, or whose families are low-income ... The STTF found that California high schools vary greatly in grading standards, and that grade inflation is part of why the predictive power of HSGPA has decreased since the last UC study."

The UC ultimately ignored the Senate findings and moved away from standardized testing, with the desire for holistic admission trumping evidence-based outcomes.

And the UChicago study of the same year (2020) found the opposite, unweighted HS GPA still trumped standardized test scores as a predictor of college success. What's obvious to anyone willing to apply any critical thinking to the topic is that both of these factors (and more) are preferable than any one factor in isolation.

Of course it does. That is exactly why it is the number 1 factor for college admissions.

Don't say such stupid things. It undermines your credibility and the credibility of everyone on your side of the argument. A 1600 sat and 3.8 gpa gets into more selective schools than a 1400 sat and 4.0 gpa. Lots of perfect gpas at mediocre schools. Not a lot of perfect sat score at mediocre schools.

DP, but 1600 is an edge case (~500 per year nationwide). A more reasonable comparison might be to compare a 1500/3.8 profile to a 1400/4.0 profile. Obviously schools look at lot more than just these two things, but on this basis alone I'd like a student's chances for admission better with the 1400/4.0 profile.

[Anonymous]

Progressive education reform and criminal justice reform policies showing themselves not to work. Who knew? It’s almost like allowing a permissive attitude toward crime and a lax environment for admission at rigorous schools doesn’t create a utopian society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Teachers give lots of tests and provide recommendations in the form of grades. This is sufficient.

There is rampant grade inflation, which is increasingly making GPA meaningless. And teachers can be inspired by a student's potential, more than by their current performance, and write a positive recommendation. An objective, standardized test that is not graded by the teacher/school is the way to measure content knowledge.

There are many threads here stating otherwise. GPA is still the primary factor that colleges consider for admission and is far more reliable than a test which wealthy students buy advanced access to.

No, standardized test scores are the most reliable predictor of success, which is why some schools are starting to shift away from test optional. The Academic Senate of the University of California found that:
https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/underreview/sttf-report.pdf
"standardized test scores aid in predicting important aspects of student success, including undergraduate grade point average (UGPA), retention, and completion. At UC, test scores are currently better predictors of first-year GPA than high school grade point average (HSGPA) ... test scores are better predictors of success for students who are Underrepresented Minority students (URMs), who are first-generation, or whose families are low-income ... The STTF found that California high schools vary greatly in grading standards, and that grade inflation is part of why the predictive power of HSGPA has decreased since the last UC study."

The UC ultimately ignored the Senate findings and moved away from standardized testing, with the desire for holistic admission trumping evidence-based outcomes.

And the UChicago study of the same year (2020) found the opposite, unweighted HS GPA still trumped standardized test scores as a predictor of college success. What's obvious to anyone willing to apply any critical thinking to the topic is that both of these factors (and more) are preferable than any one factor in isolation.

Of course it does. That is exactly why it is the number 1 factor for college admissions.

So true! Hard to argue with that!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TJ applicants all deserve a chance to grow and foster their love of STEM. Even if they weren’t lucky enough to be born into a wealthy family.

TJ exists for learning and enrichment; it’s not just a prize for lucky kids.

If a program is for the most academically gifted students then you should probably be selecting the most academically gifted students without regard to how they became academically gifted.
If you want to level the playing field so that poor kids are as likely to become academically gifted as wealthier kids, what's your plan?
But you are trying to treat all kids as if they are equally academically gifted and treat TJ admissions like a bingo prize.

If you want more poor kids then make the admissions based purely on a test.
NYC does this with its flagship magnet schools and the majority of the students at those schools are on free or reduced lunch.
Holistic admissions and subjective criteria favors kids with resources.

TJ is for qualified students who have an interest in STEM.

It's not supposed to be.

TJ is a governor's school.

"The Virginia Governor's School Program has been designed to assist divisions as they meet the needs of a small population of students whose learning levels are remarkably different from their age-level peers. The foundation of the Virginia Governor's School Program centers on best practices in the field of gifted education and the presentation of advanced content to able learners." https://www.doe.virginia.gov/teaching-learnin...n/governor-s-schools

The pool of qualified students includes about 40% of FCPS
That is how many students in FCPS have 8th grade algebra and at least a 3.5 GPA.
That includes a lot of mediocre students.

Mediocre according to who? Their teachers who are giving them A's don't seem to think so...

Medicare is relative here. I am comparing these students compared to students selected under the previous method. Using that standard, these students are mediocre according to:

PSAT scores
SOL advance pass rates
The TJ math department email to students
The return to base school rates
A metric crap ton of anecdotal evidence.

40% of FCPS 8th graders have a 3.5 GPA of higher. That's not really what I would call selective.

If there are that many qualified students then TJ needs to expand even further!

They're not qualified.
Not for TJ.

You can create another school for the mediocre kids you want to give participation trophies to but humanity needs to develop the smart kids so the mediocre kids can pretend they solved global warming by blocking traffic and throwing tomato soup on the Mona Lisa

I get that you hate the reforms but you really need to stop lying. Sure, the kids getting in now may not have had years of expensive prep but seem to have much greater potential than the third rate preppers that were being admitted in the past.