<p>I'm debating which kind of Honors Calculus to take next year (assuming, of course, that I am able to place into the 160s, but I am fairly confident that I'll be able to/will be allowed by asking). I am also still a bit confused on what differentiates IBL and non IBL, and the difference between someone who takes one or the other.</p>
<p>Just a bit about me: I am an entering first year who is considering majoring in Political Science, Economics, or Public Policy. I took calculus BC in high school and scored a 5 on the exam. Not sure how many math classes I might take in college. </p>
<p>Also, opinions on jumping to 153 and keeping high school credit vs honors calc? I’m leaning towards honors calc but can be swayed in either direction, really.</p>
<p>Honestly, a five on calc BC is very solid in its own right and means you have good mathematical aptitude as well as a strong, working knowledge of calculus concepts. Even if you are toying with the idea of an economics PhD, I would say skip calc altogether and go directly to the multivariable / linear algebra sequence for social science majors. If you like that and ace it, you can always take real analysis later on. 160’s calc is only justifiable if you want to be a actual math or physics major and are not inherently gifted (and I mean <em>really</em> gifted). Otherwise it is a time / gpa trap.</p>
<p>uchicagoalum certainly knows more about this than I do. But I know that 160s calculus is something the Chicago math department is intensely proud of, and represents what they think every intelligent person ought to do/know. My kids’ friends who took it tended to like it; the ones who took 160 IBL thought it was the highlight of their first year, but tended to be pretty obsessed with it. (I think that with a 5 on the BC Calc AP, if you want to take IBL you can. As for placing into 160s, I think anyone with any kind of prior calculus background can takes 160s if he or she asks nicely. Because, really, they only offer 130s and 150s because the university makes them.)</p>
<p>You don’t save that much time by going direct to 153, because then you will have to take 199 to qualify for upper-level math courses. Taking 160s means you spend three quarters rather than two to get to that point.</p>
<p>S1 was a '12 math major. Placed into Analysis and chose IBL Analysis instead of Honors Analysis and loved it. Econ at UChicago is pretty quant-based; if you think you may go that direction, 160s may help you down the road (and as JHS noted, gets you out of 199, which is intro to proofs). </p>
<p>S’s friends who took 160s found the Lin Alg part of the course the toughest (not many schools offer LinAlg to high schoolers) and spent time helping folks through that. He attended a summer math program that uses IBL and loved the method. That is usually the biggest hurdle to the 160s – it’s a whole different way of thinking.</p>
<p>I took 160’s IBL. I loved it and would say it was my favorite sequence I took at Chicago.</p>
<p>I would recommend it to anyone with an interest in majoring in math (which is what I did). While I would argue that the sequence gives the best preparation out of all the possible ones for someone wanting to major in math, I wouldn’t say the same thing for other majors (possible exceptions would be computer science and physics which can also be quite theoretical). The 160’s sequence (both IBL and regular) assumes you already have a strong background in calculus and goes through it all again but with proofs.</p>
<p>So unless you think you may have a change of heart with your major (quite possible), want to get a PhD in econ, or simply love math but don’t want to major in it; I would recommend against the 160’s. If you do decide to take the 160’s though, do yourself a favor and take IBL.</p>