<p>Some of our Hs's Aps are taught by the most able teachers. For some reason I don't get, AP Calc is given out like a party favor to any teacher who can say Math. I'd want to teach AP kids too, but only if I knew what I was talking about. Shouldn't it be about the kids?</p>
<p>In post #411 I said,
[quote]
If a kid is interested in math or science, I think he or she is at a serious disadvantage without AP Calculus BC and AP Physics/Chemistry. Most of the kids who end up at selective colleges will have had those classes and I would hate to face Chem 1 without the proper background.
[/quote]
I do believe that students without AP science and math are at a disadvantage -- that doesn't mean it's a requirement or that kids with traditional HS chem, physics or math are out of luck.</p>
<p>But if you look at what some of the students at schools like Harvard and MIT come in with, would you want to be the math major without AP Calc BC in your background.</p>
<p>I also never said that I thought this was a good thing -- I think I'm just describing the current reality.</p>
<p>"But if you look at what some of the students at schools like Harvard and MIT come in with, would you want to be the math major without AP Calc BC in your background."</p>
<p>Of course you would be at a huge disadvantage as a math major without calculus, but I'm quite sure plenty of other kids are still coming to Harvard without Calculus. I looked up Math Ar which was and still is a precalculus course for kids who never got past Algebra 2. It's still around as this link describing statistics courses shows: <a href="http://www.stat.harvard.edu/Academics/Undergraduate_Program_Information.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.stat.harvard.edu/Academics/Undergraduate_Program_Information.html</a></p>
<p>
[quote]
And lastly, a country whose educational "leaders" have shown such virulent and zealous opposition to any type of "school choice" is now showing little interest in questioning or acknowledging the complete abdication of the control of curriculum design and contents to a group of Swiss and Welsh administrators.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The curriculum is not abdicated to the IB administrators. </p>
<p>IB kids have to fulfill all state graduation requirements as well as the requirements for the IB diploma. </p>
<p>My daughter's school does not require (or even offer) courses in U.S. history or U.S. government as part of IB, and IB students do not necessarily take fine arts or technology education courses as part of their IB programs. IB also does not include physical education or health. The state requires courses in all of these subjects for graduation, and IB students must take them, either in 9th and 10th grades (the pre-IB years), as extra courses above and beyond the IB program in 11th or 12th grades, or in some other manner (such as summer school, evening courses, or community college). </p>
<p>In some instances, material has been added to the already-demanding IB courses so that they satisfy both the IB requirements and state graduation requirements. For example, units on the history of Africa and Asia were added to a 2-year IB european history sequence so that the sequence would satisfy both the IB curriculum requirements and the state-mandated requirement for a course in world history.</p>
<p>IB kids do not miss out on an American education. They just do other stuff in addition.</p>
<p>Marian, I wasn't talking about prospective English majors needing calculus. I suggested that if a student wanted to major in math, they should take AP Calculus in HS, if possible. I really don't understand why this has become such a point of discussion.</p>
<p>Maybe I'm missing something, but at our HS, they go from, e.g., pre-calc to AP CAlc, or from intro to chem to Advanced topics in Chem. Where is the HS level course here?? I think it's lost. Maybe that's just our school but in science courses, they seem to jump from a pre- intro-level to AP or AT. I wish they wouldn't do this.</p>
<p>SJMom, the problem is that a lot of high schools don't offer AP Calculus, or if they do it is not a real course, but an opportunity to take a course online, without the assistance of a knowledgeable teacher. The word at my daughter's h.s. was that no one who took the online course was ever able to pass the AP exam, so it simply wasn't worth doing. </p>
<p>I realize that students who want to focus on math or sciences in college would be better off if they can progress farther in high school, but students in rural schools or with financial limitations simply may not have the option. And there is something inherently wrong with a system that weeds out students before they even arrive on campus -- especially if we would like to see colleges educating more scientists. </p>
<p>I am not sure that you are right in any case, given idad's comments. I know that my son had no difficulty at all in college chemistry - it was an easy A for him -- but that was a small class at a LAC and he formed a friendship with the chem prof, who was new on campus -- so it may be that there was more support for him than would be the case at a larger university. In any case, I think that my son got a tremendously strong science foundation in his regular high school chemistry & physics courses, which were taught by a high school teacher who happened to have a Ph.D. The teacher may not have covered everything required for an AP exam, but he taught my son how to run labs and do lab reports so well that every science teacher my son had in college has complimented him on that. Sometimes getting the basics and precursor knowledge is a lot more important than the content of more advanced courses.</p>
<p>Seems as if quite a bit is lost, bethievt. So many courses can't really be grasped if they aren't taught in a proper sequence. I wonder if the GFG's d, who is expected to take AP physics as a frosh, has studied logarithms yet? She'll need them, that's for sure. Or advanced lit courses being offered before adequate history has been covered. You need the historical context to properly study lit and art. Sounds as if some districts will just jam any APs into a kid's schedule without much attention paid to the prerequisites.</p>
<p>I agree with sjmom. </p>
<p>It is possible to major in sciences in HYPS starting at an introductory (equivalent to AP) level by taking the required number of classes in the major. But these classes will start at a lower level than those taken by students who have taken APs and post-AP classes in those fields. It is possible for a student who did not take AP-Calc because it was not offered but has math aptitude to catch up to some of the better prepared students. </p>
<p>I just looked up the math website for Harvard.</p>
<p>There is Math Xa,b: Introduction to functions and calculus.
Math 1a, b: basically Calc 1 & II
Math 19a, b: math modeling for the life sciences
Math 20a,b: intro to MVcalc and Linear Algebra
Math 21a, b: MVCalc & LA (need a 5 on the BC exam)
Math 23a,b: theoretical MVCalc & Linear Algebra
Math25a,b: honors MVCalc & Linear Algebra
Math 55a,b: Honors advanced MVCalc & Lnear Algebra.</p>
<p>All these are introductory math courses. But there's a huge difference between Math x and Math 1 on the one hand and Math 55 on the other. After the latter, many students go straight to graduate level courses.
Are the students who go into Math 1 at a disadvantage vis-</p>
<p>For some LAC comparison, at Mudd they assume that you have taken Calculus in HS. These are the core math requirements for every student to graduate:</p>
<p>Math 11: Calc of Single/Complex Variable
Math 12: Linear Algebra I/Discrete Dynamical Systems
Math 13: Differential Equations I
Math 14: MultiVariable Calculus I
Math 61: MultiVariable Calculus II
Math 62: Prob/Stat
Math 63: Linear Algebra II
Math 64: Differential Equations II</p>
<p>Just returned from Back to School Night for my 3rd grader. It was announced that there would be "differentiated" math in the classroom. I don't know if homogeneous groupings will also be formed in 2nd grade and below as well, but tracking for math will now begin at least 2 years earlier than before. Ironically, when S was this age, I would have ecstatically welcomed the needed challenge this system would have provided. But having seen how crazy parents get the minute ability groupings are initiated, I'm no longer sure it is a good idea. I can see it now: parents of third-graders will have anxiety attacks upon learning their neighbor's child has been placed in pre-calc. while their little slacker is only working on geometry.</p>
<p>My D who is now attending a highly selective LAC was placed in the "middle" reading group in first grade - she is very young for her grade and I guess it was developmental. She is an excellent reader and writer now!</p>
<p>GFG...avoid parents at all costs. My best advice:) Tracking in third grade is so stupid I just don't know where to start. I think anyone at that age who wants to do some extra math gets to do some extra math. Even if one is really good at math, I wouldn't reward them with extra math if they don't want to do it. It won't make them better in math...that's predetermined...I truly believe that math ability, like musical ability, is just inborn. You can get proficient, but you can't get talented.</p>
<p>I was very happy that my S was allowed to join advanced 2nd graders for math when he was in 1st grade (the grades were combined). No other 1st grader clamored to join, no parent had anxiety attack. When he was in 3rd grade, we asked the teacher if he could take math with the 4th graders. She refused, on the ground that she did not believe in tracking. That's when trouble started. My S had too much time on his hands, polishing off assignments in a fraction of the time it took other kids; but teachers either would not or could not give him more challenging work. So he used his geometry skills to make origami airplanes. And they got flown around the classroom. </p>
<p>I've kept one portfolio letter he wrote 5th grade in response to a question asking students to reflect on what they had learned in the previous unit and to present the best work they'd done in that unit. "I'm sorry I cannot include anything in my portfolio because I did not learn anything new in this unit. I also did not learn anything new in the previous three units."</p>
<p>Wonder why there is a math/science crisis in the US and why math/sciences departments have so many foreign born graduate students?</p>
<p>I am not sure if I agree with symphonymom about tracking for math in young grades. I think there is a much better rationale for tracking in math than in other subjects. Our school system had no tracking or enrichment for math until 8th grade when better students took a full year of Algebra 1 and weaker students took a slower-paced algebra course. Some students (like my son) know their math facts as well as adults do in third grade, and other students (like my daughter) need weeks and months of drill to learn them. It is a waste of time to do math facts over and over again when you already know them like the back of your hand.
(Edit: I cross-posted with Marite's above. My son does not have anywhere near the truly exceptional math ability of Marite's son - I am sure there are a bunch like my son who are relatively good at math in almost any school, and who are bored stiff while others learn their basic math facts and concepts.)</p>
<p>
The little slacker should have known that booger eating and sand in your undies from playing in the sandbox was not the key to the fast track. Maybe they can catchup before high school with the generous application of the hot new "mental steroids" from Balco Labs I'm hearing so much about. I think they call it "Admissions Juice". Or maybe "Romper Roids". </p>
<p>Excuse me. I will go throw up now.</p>
<p>My objection to the AP courses in European History, US history, and Art History is that, at least in my D's experience, these are courses that pretend to be college-level when the tests, curriculum, and expectations are several notches below those of her college courses in these subjects. She attended a large public school with "star" AP history teachers: 98% "pass" rates and 50% 5's out of 70 or so students. However, when she took history courses during her first year of college, she had no clue how to write the long, sustained, scholarly research papers required in these classes. "Timed" writes were few and far between--perhaps one midterm plus a final--and timed essays that easily would have received a "9" on an AP test were B's or B+'s. The AP program simply does not encourage or require the kind of critical thinking expected in a college course, nor is there any focus on research skills: finding and gathering appropriate primary and secondary source material, careful reading and analysis, and sustained arguments of 10 to 15 pages. Yet, these types of papers were required in the basic history courses my daughter took as a freshman in college.</p>
<p>Obviously, an AP teacher could choose to use some time during the course to work on some of these skills, but there is simply too much material to be covered to allow much time for more than the curriculum demands.</p>
<p>No only do I think that the AP history courses are college pretenders, I cannot believe that we are required to shell out $80 plus dollars per test, and students receive no breakdown of their grades. What did my D's 5's on her tests mean? Did she ace the tests with a 180? Did she barely get a 5 with a 120? Were her essays good? Bad? Why can't we find out at least the breakdown and point total? Without that, the scores are practically meaningless.</p>
<p>The AP test fees are a sore point with me, too. At our school, anyone taking an AP class is REQUIRED to take the AP test (or they will be dropped a full letter grade). My son took 5 APs when he was a senior (and 9 altogether) and, from his senior courses, only needed the scores for the Calculus and Physics for college placement. He had already earned a 5 in AP English Language as a junior, and did not another English score for his senior English Literature for his college placement. Similarly for the Politics and Psychology courses he was taking. But we still had to pay 5 x $75 or whatever the fee was at the time for him to take tests which were meaningless for him.</p>
<p>Marite,
Our math education is indeed way behind that of India and China. There is no doubt of that. I wonder if they track in those countries. </p>
<p>I'm not against tracking...both my kids were tracked from early on. They sat around in grade school discussing silly problems that were sort of like treading water while everyone else caught up. We did EPGY, VSG, Math Olympiad...the usual stuff....which was much better...outside of school. If I were a teacher in grade school, I would allow anyone who wanted to try doing extra stuff the opportunity to do so...some kids are early bloomers and some late. I wouldn't want the late bloomers to get the impression too early that they were not good in math. I would base laning on both interest and ability. One of the best mathematicians that I know (not educated in Asia) really bloomed in seventh grade..odd, but true. And it was a girl.
I never solved the dilemna of whether it's better to accelerate or (as our school calls it) "go deeper." Whatever they are doing in China and India works. </p>
<p>Filo...my son's AP History class is no pretender. Oh..my...God..I took history in college..but the essay questions he has to answer just make my brain hurt. Generally, I agree with you...but I think it's taught differently in different places.</p>
<p>I am a firm believer in homogeneous educational groupings for ALL subjects for the reasons cited by marite and motheroftwo. However, schools have refused to do that, claiming that mixed classes enable the greatest number of students to learn best. (No doubt political correctness is a more important force behind that policy. How would the school justify themselves to the public if it turned out that most of the underprivileged/minority kids ended up in the lowest groupings?) With mixed ability classes, supposedly the more able children will help and inspire the less able, thereby boosting the self esteem of the smarter kids and teaching them social responsibility. In practice, that philosophy has meant my kid became an unpaid teacher's assistant and little was ever done to teach or enrich him at all. So I am not impressed with differentiated groupings WITHIN a classroom. Even the best of teachers cannot properly teach 3 different math classes simultaneously as well as they can teach just one. Usually they use "Stations" where kids work independently on different tasks at tables. IMO, that tends to result in a disjointed curriculum (based on worksheets downloaded from the internet, not a sequential text) and produces a lot of noise and distraction in the lower grades which is deleterious to many.</p>