<p>OK, some may question how do I know about other people's academics... Well I created tutoring classes, classes that I teach to those so-called top students. I have a pretty idea of whose really trying and understanding the concepts and who is an equation memorizer.</p>
<p>"And many of those grade-grubbers who represent 90% of those top scorers have small intellectual interest or vitality. And sadly, many of those get into top schools, while too often, those 5 guys I'm impressed with get rejected."</p>
<p>Ramaswami, when I made a similar point, said I should stop worrying about this, given I may be alone in finding this sort of trend. I guarantee I'm not alone, and others will second this.</p>
<p>If you think that other factors better correlate with success than academic brilliance, feel free to express your view. But guess what - some of the schools the guys I'm impressed with get rejected from have terrific research facilities and star faculty, which these guys could've really done something with. Not to say the current admits are undeserving swine - my heart goes with their happiness at their accomplishments, but the question doesn't seem so simply resolved to me.</p>
<p>If proofs became taught in AP classes, there's is more opportunity to "shine" and to actually show your ingenuity.</p>
<p>I think that both you, Faraday, and Mathboy need to take into account that just because the AP tests themselves don't do such and such, this doesn't mean that the teachers who teach the course teach just enough so kids can pass the test. Some do, but not all. </p>
<p>To use your example, my calculus BC teacher, whenever introducing a new topic, shows us the proof and either explains it to us as she goes through it or tries to see if we can figure it out ourselves, usually only in part though (she even has us learn topics that aren't on the AP that she feels we should understand, such as U-sub, shell method for volume, etc). For example, when we first learned how to integrate, we started off by drawing rectangles (as well as trapezoids, etc) underneath functions and finding their areas to approximate the area under the curve. This eventually led to limit sums, which she made sure that we all understood conceptually (and how to solve them) and then she taught us integrals. So when we learned how to solve them, we weren't just mindlessly finding the answer, but we understood conceptually what was going on. Now, of course, we got lucky and got an amazing teacher and I know not all teachers do this. I feel sorry for the students whose teacher basically says "This is an integral. You take each term, raise the power by 1 and divide by the new power. Then you take the new equation, plug in the top bound, solve, plug in the bottom bound and solve and then subtract. This will give you your answer." Without explaining anything else at all. These kids will probably wind up doing just fine on the AP, but will they understand anything that they're doing? Hell no. </p>
<p>So in short, I agree with you. Proofs IMO are <em>very</em> important. I just wanted to point out that there are teachers out there who realize that the AP exams are pretty bad and actually teach, not force their students to memorize.</p>
<p>Hippo, part of faraday's and my point is actually that we need to have AP as a rule MEAN rigorous curriculum. This isn't to say that there don't exist schools whose AP Physics curriculum is harder to get by than MIT's corresponding course. It might very well be true.</p>
<p>Making the AP exam itself less flaky makes it more of a standard in schools to teach the material rigorously. </p>
<p>Now you very well could've already realized this point, but I'm writing it for the sake of clarity, i.e. that I'm aware some schools are doing great things with their curricula.</p>
<p>I would hypothesize, however, that these schools are precious few in number. =] I mean, it takes a pretty enthusiastic teacher to go above and beyond the required curriculum, and a pretty enthusiastic set of students to receive it well.</p>
<p>I think one of the biggest reasons faraday's and my "policies" will have trouble being accepted is that a large group of people probably fear that the playing field will be heavily rugged if 5's on AP's are no longer a few dollars apiece. </p>
<p>You know what, these fears are in the first place not to be assuaged so easily! I think the point is clear that we're aiming to keep multifactor admissions, but certain really smart guys should be able to shine <em>in the classroom</em> by impressing their teachers with their ability to handle the curriculum. Then, and only then, can I see a teacher's odes about a student really being taken seriously.</p>
<p>Smartkid, what don't you like about what I'm saying? Or was that just a random post, not disagreement?</p>
<p>Smartkid's posts were deleted, it seems. Anyway whatever.</p>
<p>This isn't to say that there don't exist schools whose AP Physics curriculum is harder to get by than MIT's corresponding course.</p>
<p>This is another thing I'm troubled by with your posts. APs are meant to be college courses, not necessarily top college courses. Every time you complain that they need to be tougher, you do so by comparing them to the standards of HYPSM (and Berkeley). But these are only a handful of the <em>thousands</em> of colleges in the country, a lot of which probably don't have the same rigorous standards. So at many places I'm willing to bet that an AP test/course is about the same as a freshman course (another point-don't forget that APs are only supposed to simulate freshman level courses, nothing higher). So in a way, APs are doing what they were meant to do.
Also, APs can't be that defective because top schools still accept credit for a high score on them! I mean, most of the ivies and their peers have some sort of award system for doing well on APs (either getting credit or skipping intro classes) so they must have some merit to them (ie they're still flawed tests, but not OMG failure). </p>
<p>I'm aware that some schools are doing great things with their curricula</p>
<p>Colleges take into account the rigor of your high school, so they'll know if your teachers go above and beyond the AP. They'll also know if your school is a ****hole. So while the standardized tests themselves may not be the most reliable factor, colleges can still figure out if your perfect straight A average is due to grade inflation and a weak curriculum or if you really are a gifted student.</p>
<p>EDIT:</p>
<p>I mean, it takes a pretty enthusiastic teacher to go above and beyond the required curriculum, and a pretty enthusiastic set of students to receive it well.</p>
<p>This is true, and I don't disagree at all. This was just one personal example I had. My math teacher may be amazing for instance, but my AP psych teacher fails miserably. Our entire class she literally just reads straight up off the textbook, word for word. I wouldn't bother to show up if it weren't for the damn attendance policy. </p>
<p>Unfortunately I do in fact realize that at a lot of other schools, teachers like my AP psych teacher are much more common, and those like my AP Calc teacher are very few in number.</p>
<p>Hippo - these are actually good points, and believe it or not I have considered them =] lemme get to them in a sec.</p>
<p>And sure, I'm sure admissions officers know the names of certain schools which do a great job. </p>
<p>Here is my proposal regarding your points. Agreed, not everyone WANTS to go through MIT's physics material! To clarify what I think faraday (I think) and I would both say -- I don't think there's a harm at all in making the AP exam more rigorous no matter what! </p>
<p>I believe that if we're standardizing the AP curriculum, it should have the potential to give a very clear picture of where the given individual stands. A harder curriculum just will increase the spectrum of grade forms, I'd say. So, if we grade the AP out of 10, someone who scores a 6 or so may be eligible for some decent schools, someone who scores a 10 is REALLY good. </p>
<p>This goes down to faraday's and my point about grade inflation. We're not talking about flunking everyone who isn't HYP....material, we're saying the national standards have to be somewhere significant, so our standardized curriculum actually means something, and isn't just a little bar to cross before other factors in a student's profile are considered.</p>
<hr>
<p>Now -- you want my honest view? It's that today, the "smart kids" take AP Calculus, and the rest don't. Well, really the way they separate the "smart kids" from the "average kids" in a school like Berkeley or Stanford or MIT is by having for many of the standard courses an HONORS section. </p>
<p>Ideally, there is such a thing as an honors section in high school, which is NOT accessible to everyone, and is a standard part of the curriculum. This is for the real "smart kids." Even at top schools, the honors classes are exceptionally feared by most students, and there's not a chance EVERYONE will become an honors student.</p>
<p>I really really like the idea of the honors section system. Why? This lets the people who just FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE want some college calculus credit get it!!!!!! See, right now AP is too attractive for even non-"Smart kids" to avoid most of the time. It's free college credit at the right schools, and gets you a GPA boost.</p>
<p>And the guys who really CARE about math and physics can have a ball game, really have some fun! These don't have to be graded harder, just teach material that isn't watered down.</p>
<p>While I am confident many top high schools are recognized by admissions officers, I'd like the prevalence of rigorous curricula to widen, so a standard student's efforts mean something definitive.</p>
<p>Yes, I did say I am going to stop but permit me one post. To Faraday's comment about "common fallacy" regarding the many measures used (which I mentioned) let me factually prove you wrong: in the top colleges, over 90% of admits are in top 10% of student body based on GPA and you can also see the interquartile SAT ranges and the frequency count is also available.</p>
<p>To mathboy's statement about the mysterious academic index, now I will be accused of ad hominem attack but what does one say to someone who says Hitler never lived, you say you are ignorant. Similarly, please do some checking, the academic index is a composite score calculated by each and every Ivy.</p>
<p>Going back to Faraday's comment that only 5 to 10% of students in his top school qualified based on my many measures and although many of those got in he found only a few intellectually smart and a few who were did not get in.</p>
<p>He proves my points:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The top colleges do use these measures and admit most (not all) who measure up on these measures.</p></li>
<li><p>Faraday thinks some of these are not qualified and others who were not admitted qualified.</p></li>
<li><p>That is, Faraday says we should take his opinion over that of the roughly 4 or 5 adcoms who read every single application in an Ivy.</p></li>
<li><p>Faraday does not admit the possibility that there could be other information in the files of ostensibly smart kids which prevented an admit decision. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>Kindly, read some admission books to get some knowledge of how the reading is done, then argue. Thanks.</p>
<p>"90% of admits are in top 10% of student body based on GPA and you can also see the interquartile SAT ranges and the frequency count is also available"</p>
<p>The problem is that most top school applicants are top 10% and have high SAT's already. Secondly, less than 1/3 of the academically "qualified" (through the ridiculous measures available) are accepted. A second thing I want to point out is that even the fact you use GPA and SAT to prove academic eligibility is ridiculous: you don't really prove anything by being top 10% of your high school class or gettin 2300 SAT. So colleges are making a mistake if they truly (and I doubt they seriously use it) use SAT/GPA/SATII as strong evidence of academic strength.</p>
<p>"The top colleges do use these measures and admit most (not all) who measure up on these measures." Yes, but they do not use those measures to an extent that truly gives justice to the importance of the academics of a person. Either way, colleges will be stuck:</p>
<ol>
<li>If they really do use those measures to a large extent to determine academic strength, they are making a mistake because those measures (SAT, SATII's) demonstrate superficial strength only.</li>
<li>If they don't use enough those measures of academic strength (SAT/classrank/SATII), then academics are downplayed to a point that is not appropriate. So by avoiding the mistake of using SAT's/SATII's as academic strength measures, schools are avoiding a mistake but also leaving a gap in admission information. So either way, top schools remain ambiguously stuck in their evaluation of academic strength (Remember, we are talking academics right now, and secondly, olympiads are not taken in account because they are not "required" tests)</li>
</ol>
<p>"the academic index is a composite score calculated by each and every Ivy."</p>
<p>I know about that index. IF it uses SAT/SATII/GPA/class rank, it will be erroneous. IF it doesn't, it will be subjective. Either way, it will be very difficult with the current system to create an accurate academic index, considering the frivolity of SAT's, SATII's/GPA.</p>
<p>Hippo pts out sth that is alarming IMO.</p>
<p>"Colleges take into account the rigor of your high school, so they'll know if your teachers go above and beyond the AP. They'll also know if your school is a ****hole. So while the standardized tests themselves may not be the most reliable factor, colleges can still figure out if your perfect straight A average is due to grade inflation and a weak curriculum or if you really are a gifted student."</p>
<p>So if you're not from a top school, and a math/science whiz, you are basically stuck because you can't show your academic strength?</p>
<p>faraday, a blanket condemnation of the measures I cited is an ad hominem attack but I don't mind at all.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>According to you the SAT of 2300 means nothing. I know of 2350 and above, so taking that for example, only 1600 got that 2 years ago. Not more than seven or eight thousand got 2300 or above, I could be off these nos but not by much. Sakky has shown elsewhere on CC that by going on SAT high scores alone there are not enough to fill the ivies.</p></li>
<li><p>It seems to me you are new to CC, the academic index has been used for over 20 years, and you contemptuously dismiss it as erroneous. Elite colleges use that as one more sifting device, nothing more, nothing less. A mistake you and mathboy make is perhaps this: many on CC are high achieving, it is a self-select group, mostly on the coasts or near major cities, mostly children of successful professionals, and therefore you and I will only know of such people and it will seem that everyone is getting 5s on APs, it will seem that the APs etc are ridiculously easy, etc. Well, there were only 11700 AP National Scholars in 2008; granted other subjects were involved but 11700 among 2.2 high school students shows you what fraction gets 4 on 8 AP tests. I will wager that if you expect 5s on 5 math/sci/com sci APs you won't find 10,000 and among these, if you throw in SAT 1 above 2250 you will reduce the no to maybe 8000 and then if you look at GPA and recalculate it based on weights no more than 4 or 5000 really high achieving students in the country.</p></li>
<li><p>Please follow my logic: I am not commenting on the rigor of the AP or the SAT (not yet, see below), I am not commenting on whether these in fact are the only measures or right measures for college admission. I am saying that if you count AP, SAT and GPA you can whittle down the top students BY THESE MEASURES DOWN TO A MANAGEABLE number for admission purposes. All of you seem to be arguing based on knowing someone who has a poor GPA but high SAT or AP or poor AP but high GPA, or poor in both but terrific in college courses of rigor. Please examine in your minds the no of students you know who are high scorers on all these measures. Do you have the proof? That is, have you seen their scores and grades?</p></li>
<li><p>My point is this, put another way: we all hear the phrase, there are thousands of students who score 800. Yes, if you take individual tests, for example, over 12000 with 800 on SAT math, and 11000 with SAT CR R but when you combine, the no falls to 300 or so. There are not too many top students even by current tests, no need to invent some super test.</p></li>
<li><p>Now to the rigor of AP etc. If they are so easy why only 11700 National Scholars when the minimum needed is only 4? If you abandon your assumption that these tests are too easy and don't mean anything, just for a moment, then everything falls into place. These tests are not easy, except for some. Yes, the colleges rely on them but not only on them. From Cal to the ivies, the academic index is used.</p></li>
<li><p>There will always be some, perhaps you and mathboy, who find math/physics APs ridiculously easy but people like you are few. One anecdote: in one admission book, Fred Hargedon of Princeton is said to have raised his eyebrows when he saw latin SAT of 760, saying, "one doesn't see that but rarely". My son got exactly that score, and said it was easy. So, should there be a new super Latin test designed for the rare student who finds it easy? The raw data is out there, most students do not find these tests easy. My son got 5s on 10 APs, 4 on Fr Lit, he is no slouch, but he said AP Physics was not easy, not too difficult either.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Permit me one comment: you make sweeping comments about the admissions process and I can see you are ignorant about critical aspects of how it is done.</p>
<p>You are making the wrong assumption that by "sifting" down a large number of people to few people, those tests/academic factors are good measurements.</p>
<p>IIT-JEE also sifts 200 000 of the smartest kids to about 8000. Is it a good way to select? No.</p>
<p>"That is, have you seen their scores and grades?"<br>
Yes, and I have taught them in several subjects.</p>
<p>"There are not too many top students even by current tests, no need to invent some super test."
The fact that there are few "top" students (by the erroneous anc current measures) does not mean those measures are good. Those measures are testing for the wrong thing:
1. speed over rigorosity
2. grade-grubbingness over creativity
3. conformity over creativity</p>
<p>Finally, when you use those 800's scores as cut-off, you have to remember most scores above 750 mean the same thing. So the cut-off is more in the 750 range (20% of the people who take Physics SATII's or Math II's get 750+). And the guy who gets 800 vs the guy who gets 750 cannot really be differentiated in intellectual strength.</p>
<p>"who find math/physics APs ridiculously easy but people like you are few"</p>
<p>That is exactly the problem. If few people are able and willing to handle REAL college coursework in High school (in math/physics) why so many people are taking the AP? Because AP classes/exam lack rigor.</p>
<p>"The raw data is out there, most students do not find these tests easy"</p>
<p>Maybe, most students should not boast their abilities in latin by taking those tests, because they are just good, not talented. And I don't mind reinforcing the latin test also.</p>
<p>OK honestly, I see one very central point to Ramaswami's posts. Which is this whole aspect of "whittling down the numbers" of good students. I am keeping this post deliberately a bit concise, so to oppose it would involve having read it carefully. </p>
<p>So look, the central issue here is that when we "whittle" numbers, we need to "whittle them well." OK, even if we FORGET that we're talking of an admissions process, and just look at the very idea of a curriculum which doesn't well reflect the rigors of going into the respective subjects in college...I think we're making a good point to say that curricula need to be really good if we're standardizing this exam across the board, and basing high school curricula aiming to reflect a college course in a high school setting. </p>
<p>Can I know of a single argument AGAINST better curricula? Even forgetting admissions processes exist. Even if every single decision made by the admissions committees is many times as informed as faraday's and my judgements. </p>
<p>Look, my friend who's an equation-memorizing polisci major got a 5 on AP Physics Mechanics. OK, like the guy, having talked to him, admits himself that he knows no physics and no math worth speaking of.</p>
<p>"Elite colleges use that as one more sifting device, nothing more, nothing less"</p>
<p>Ramaswani, I believe academics should be more than a "sifting" device.</p>
<p>I have decided to stop those posts, for they are repetitive of pts I have mentioned earlier, and thus may be unproductive, and because I have better things to do right now (study the "Irodov Problems in Physics" for example :D)</p>
<p>I hope that what mathboy and I wrote will illuminate another approach to learning than the lacking system currently used. Ramaswani's stubbornness renders the thread rather unproductive, and his/her flawed use of statistics drives the discussion to a quagmire.</p>
<p>Better curricula, for instance, might teach math more rigorously. Include proofs to theorems consistently. I mean like REALLY TEACH calculus and physics.</p>
<p>I don't think Stanford is unique.</p>
<p>mathboy, in post 136 when you use word, curriculum, there are at least two curriculums, high school curriculums and AP curriculum. I get confused when you use this word as you please.
Regarding whittling down, I meant increasing reliability and validity. For example, in all sorts of testing, and I am a tester (all kinds of psych and employment tests) we look for increasing validity, and validity increases as the no of measures correlated with g increase. With 4 or 5 readers, the colleges increase reliability also. </p>
<p>Faraday, your attack on my stubbornness and flawed use of statistics; can you consider that you and mathboy lack precise use of terminology and do not know test methodology? Where is the flawed use of statistics? Elite colleges use every measure there is: send in your scores, send in essays, send in music samples, send in Olympiad results, all they are saying is we will gladly engage in a labor intensive effort to use multiple measures, however imperfect, to find the right people. You guys keep saying the measures are flawed. Please offer some better measure that exists. It is not all that easy to come up with new tests that measure up to psychometric considerations. And faraday, I may be insignificant to you, but it is really rude to say you are wasting time talking to me when you could be attacking some name dropping problem in physics.</p>
<p>I am irritated enough to tell you that just because you guys may have had some good results in math and physics you talk as if every elite college admissions dept knows nothing and you are god's gift to the world. Try humility.</p>