<p>^^^: You need to provide an example.
Do you want to say that human mind evaluate quantitative logic different from conceptual logic?
In that case what you define as quantitative and what as conceptual logic.</p>
<p>What you consider finding a way thru a maze as quantitative logic or conceptual?</p>
<p>Also do you consider Newton as quantitative or conceptual genius?</p>
<p>Well let's put it this way:</p>
<p>I don't about you, but I'm fine with mazes, and like them because they're visual.
However, I have met people who take longer to unravel a visual/spatial puzzle, yet are extremely adept at navigating through complex textual mazes, and I have met the reverse.</p>
<p>The fact is, there is not a hierarchy of quantitative being "better" than conceptual. And those who are fond of believing that, just because they themselves or their families are quantitatively oriented, need to get over their superiority complexes. It's a subjective bias not founded in cognitive reality.</p>
<p>POIH,</p>
<p>If she is interested in UG CS, is she taking any more CS courses in HS? Is she doing USACO or TopCoder? I agree that Physics is a good science match for a CS major. When is she going to have time to do calculus if she's not taking in a class in it and she's taking 6 APs?</p>
<p>If her school offers Lin Alg or Discrete Math, those are fine math electives for a potential CS major.</p>
<p>Epiphany,
Thanks -- Usually I can just back up a screen when I sign in again and get the message, but my mouse is acting up today and I hit back too many times. Most of the time I take the long messages and copy before I send so I have a backup just in case.</p>
<p>epiphany: "By the way, I see plenty of this on this board, on other threads, by people failing to understand constitutional legal principles. Yet these same students are "math wizards.""</p>
<p>Top-level excellence in math and/or science requires the highest levels of both computational (what you term "quantitative) <em>and</em> conceptual cognitive abilities. </p>
<p>I don't know who you are referring to as the "math wizards"...I assume your talking about the USAMO qualifiers. My experience with them is that they have an extremely high degree of both. You also have not stated what you are referring to by "constitutional legal principles." If you are referring to AA, remember that even the Supreme Court is divided on this. I assume that you are not so arrogant as to suggest that the Supreme Court justices who disagree with you don't have the brainpower to understand constitutional legal principles. Besides, the USAMO guys seem to do pretty well on the critical reading SAT, so it appears that they don't have a tough time comprehending textual passages...</p>
<p>^^ no, I am hardly just talking about AA. </p>
<p>And I hope that you are "not so arrogant" as to believe that your "experience" with USAMO qualifiers constitutes the universe of people with superior quanititative adeptness, and thus somehow indicative that they also have superior conceptual mastery. (Wrong)</p>
<p>There are those who can argue from legal principles and those who cannot. I'm not talking about agreement and disagreement from a political or emotional viewpoint. I'm talking about legal <em>comprehension</em>. Either the principle is understood or is not. If it is poorly understood, then it is incorrectly applied.</p>
<p>Your "experience" vastly differs from mine, but then again, those who believe that math is a "higher" skill or subject area than anything else always show their true colors on this board. It is neither superior nor inferior. Some of you people flatter yourselves way too much.</p>
<p>I'll add that what I consider real mathematical/scientific ability is the ability to <em>reason</em> abstractly. The people who can do this excel at both mathematics and the humanities. </p>
<p>I have seen people who are computationally good but not great conceptual thinkers, but these people rarely are stars in math/science at the level of a USAMO qualifier. In any case, I question whether someone who finds calculus tough can really reason that well in other areas. I guess it's possible, but I personally am disinclined to believe it.</p>
<p>My D had all AP and IB courses last year (junior) and did fine. She says it's all time management, which I wish I would have realized at that age!</p>
<p>CountingDown:"If she is interested in UG CS, is she taking any more CS courses in HS? Is she doing USACO or TopCoder?"
She says she would like to do "Compiler Construction" in her senior year.
She is aware of TopCoder and USACO but I'm not sure if she does anything for those.</p>
<p>"stars in math/science at the level of a USAMO qualifier"</p>
<p>I don't think you need to be a start at USAMO level to excel both in quantitative and conceptual logical analysis.</p>
<p>A human brain if capable of comprehending complex problem whether quantitative or conceptual should be able to adapt the other seamlessly.</p>
<p>So the point is if your brain is capable of deciphering a written language constitutional code then it will be able to resolve a complex quantitative issue too.
I don't say one’s ability is stronger than other. My point is both abilities stem from the same brain functions and if one human is able to do legal job properly than with some practice will be able to do the quantitative job too and vice versa.</p>
<p>If you look at the GRE Analytical test then you will see it encompass both logical reasoning and quantitative questions.</p>
<h2>Your "experience" vastly differs from mine, but then again, those who believe that math is a "higher" skill or subject area than anything else always show their true colors on this board. It is neither superior nor inferior. Some of you people flatter yourselves way too much.</h2>
<p>Your assuming here that I am better quantitatively than verbally/conceptually, which is not true at all.</p>
<p>"I don't think you need to be a start at USAMO level to excel both in quantitative and conceptual logical analysis."</p>
<p>I agree. I just thought he was referring to USAMO qualifiers when epiphany was talking about "math wizards."</p>
<p>I understand the reasoning about the 3 science APs, but IMHO, 3 science APs are completely unnecessary. As long as your guidance counselor checks the "most rigorous courseload available" box on the rec letter, the extra science AP won't matter. An extra AP won't be the make-it-or-break-it factor for a top Ivy.. And anyway, getting the state Siemens AP award in CA is ridiculously difficult; your d would have to take almost every science and math AP and score a 5 before the beginning of senior year. If she can breeze through that courseload, than great, but otherwise, the time spent is not worth the time lost in SAT prep, strengthening ECs, etc.</p>
<p>And, your d is right, getting a 5 on an AP is generally much easier than an 800 on a SAT II. But, she's not self-studying and just taking the exam in May.. At some schools, AP classes can consume a good deal of time for the whole year; it's not just cramming in a prep book for a couple weeks in April. Is the time spent studying for the AP class in school worth the time reduced for other activities?</p>
<p>POIH,
So you are saying your D wants to attend an Ivy and major in CS but has no ECs or classes above Comp Sci AB? Are these things available at your D's school? USACO and TopCoder are available for individual work and competitions -- they are not a team or school-sponsored activity.</p>
<p>It's been my understanding, based on my talks with admissions people and especially CS profs/advisors, that things like USACO would be considerably more important than a third science AP.</p>
<p>Question -- did your daughter take AP Compsci AB or simply A?</p>