Placement Results Are Up!

My S, regardless of the fact he didn’t take either the Physics, or Chem. placement tests, was still placed

I think this is a correction of the above but quoted from the same link: “Additionally, students who have placement into MATH 15300 but do not intend to take any further calculus courses (e.g., humanities majors, pre-health students) may earn examination credit for MATH 15100 and MATH 15200 by receiving a sufficiently high score on the Higher-Level Mathematics Exam.”

^ Ah - so that means if you place into 153 but you don’t want to take 153, you can place out of 151/152 (ie the Math Core) by taking and receiving a sufficiently high score on the Higher-Level Math Exam? Is that a new exam, @Lea111 or is this what your DD did?

Yes, that’s what she did. I think that’s what she did, and it’s the same exam. She had a 5 on AP Calc BC exam, so she didn’t have to take the placement exam (thank goodness, she’s a careless-error-maker and who knows how she would have done on an “easy” test that requires near perfection). She could have gotten credit for 151 with the 5 on Calc exam (or 5 on Calc AB exam, for that matter), but then she would have had to take Calc 152, not to get credit for Calc 151, but to get the core finished (you can’t get core credit for Calc 151 alone). She also got an invitation to 161. Her other option was to take the accreditation exam, and she placed into Calc 153 with the accreditation exam, and THAT gave her actual credit for both Calc 151 and 152. Which gave her credit for the core math. Which made her very happy. I guess she’s the rare kid who is not majoring in anything that requires Calc 153 who did well enough on the accreditation exam (plus maybe they considered the 5 in AP Calc BC and/or her grades in high school??) to get credit for Calc 152. The only thing I"m not 100% sure of is if the “Higher-Level Mathematics exam” they refer to is the same accreditation exam she took. There’s no way for me to know if they’ve revamped the exam she took. It is definitely not the same things as the placement exam. Her exam included no precalculus, only calculus and proofy kind of questions, including many things she didn’t know how to do; she took the same test that is required to place into all of the higher classes, like right out of 153 and into Honors Analysis and all that junk. No wonder she thought she failed when she got out of it! The year before she started a 5 on the Calc BC exam would have gotten you credit for Calc 152 as well, so it was a big change just making her take the accreditation exam for the same credit in the first place.

"She had a 5 on AP Calc BC exam, so she didn’t have to take the placement exam (thank goodness, she’s a careless-error-maker and who knows how she would have done on an “easy” test that requires near perfection). "

  • I think they may have majorly tweaked these various exams since Class of '21. The catalog now says everyone is required to take the Math Placement test and that test sounded different from a couple years ago based on what my son told me: he found it hard and made more errors than my D. He ended up in 152 while she - with her 90% - ended up in 131. He had a lot of calculus on his - she claims hers was mostly pre-calc. Maybe the test customizes your progress based on your answers? If not, they've made it more in-depth since Class of '21.

“The only thing I"m not 100% sure of is if the “Higher-Level Mathematics exam” they refer to is the same accreditation exam she took. There’s no way for me to know if they’ve revamped the exam she took.”

Can’t recall from a couple years ago but they seem to have thrown in a third test somewhere along the way? Right now they have the placement test - required for everyone and a potential gateway to higher level examination - then the optional Higher Level Exam, and then also the Acceditation exam which now seems to be reserved only for those who have already had college-level math courses. It’s confusing. My best guess is that the current Placement Test includes some of that higher level stuff from yesteryear because you can conceivably place into 153 just on Placement test and AP scores alone. No need for a higher-level test. That would explain my son’s experience being so totally different from his sister’s.

Edit to add: the current higher-level exam might also be NEW and IMPROVED over a couple years ago since that seems to be for kids trying to waive Calc. altogether. Wouldn’t be surprised if UChicago had to update their placement tests to properly assess the increasingly sophisticated level of Math-ability coming in with these students!

So, @Lea111 - did your D actually take 153? I had the impression she tested out of calc altogether but may be misremembering? EDIT: OK I get it - and what you said earlier - the higher level exam placed her out of Core Math. She placed into 153 but then she also scored well on the Higher Level exam.

We were told by a student who took both AP Calc BC and 152 at Chicago that they weren’t much different. The student had started in 153, but felt like it was too much work with the other 3 classes he was taking first quarter, so he dropped down to 152 and felt like he didn’t learn anything new compared with Calc BC. I have also heard people say that your experience in Calc 152 may depend on your instructor - maybe some are more proofy than others? Idk as DD bypassed the whole thing. Had she not taken the accreditation exam, she would have been placed in 152, and would have had an easy A and wasted a $7000 course slot.

^ Glad to hear that 152 is like BC because that would have been the natural next class for my son, who did very well in AB and ended up with a 4 on the AP test (so respectable). He tells me that his instructor has changed out the curriculum and the text book; he’s giving them a good foundation for proofs but not making the course overly proofy. My son loves the guy - he’s a very good instructor and really cares about whether you are learning the material.