<p>a778999, one or both of us is limiting our impressions of the student body to a select group, I believe--and I think it's both of us. Nevertheless, I will respond to your points.</p>
<p>"1. Do you really believe that Mr. Pham's constant tantrums and insults actually did us any good in the long run? Everything I learned was from reading the textbook. "
Of course, Mr. Pham's tantrums and insults didn't do us any good--but in case you weren't listening when Mr. Bunday told our Quantum class, Pham INTENDS for you to have to learn from the book, and students who have learned to do so are very, very well prepared for anything a teacher can possibly throw at them. That is a very, very good thing. Perhaps if more teachers in more schools took that point of view, it would do us all a favor.</p>
<p>"2. We went through five chapters of the textbook in Linear Algebra for the whole semester. Enough said. "
a778999, think upon what you have said here. Were the Analysis I teachers to use the Analysis II textbook--all of their material is, after all, in there--they would probably skip the first 2 or 3 chapters and go through chapter 13, up to where Walstein expects you to know. At that rate, they would go through an average of 5 chapters in a semester. Depending on the intended audience of the textbook, you may be learning from chapters that are intended for review for students in a considerably more advanced class. Indeed, if you look back at it, the first semester of Analysis II goes through precisely five chapters--and Analysis II, despite your inexplicable distaste for it, goes through a lot of material.</p>
<p>"3. Testing us on math team problems is no way to run a course, especially if you don't even teach the problem solving skills involved. For those of us in the math team, we already know everything in the "curriculum," and for those who are not, well they have no chance of catching up with the rest of the class and succeeding. In conclusion, Advanced Geometry helps no one. "
I can't agree with any of that statement, except perhaps that the Math Team students know much of the curriculum. However, I will say that a) many people I personally know would give much to have a class where math team problems were the tests, b) much to the dismay of students seeking an easy grade on a difficult-sounding course, problem solving is impossible to teach as such; it must be learned as a result of personal experience and creativity, c) while perhaps it would be better for Walstein to accelerate past the Math Team topics, forcing non-Math Team students to either spend a few sleepless weeks bringing themselves up to speed or drop out of the course, Walstein is quite capable of putting things in the course that would be useful for the interested Math Team student--perhaps something beyond simply how to do the problems, but the theory involved.</p>
<p>"4. Analysis 2: Memorize the answers to the hw questions and you'll ace the quizzes. No learning is needed. "
This response does not even deserve a response, for it reveals your inexplicable and depressingly common attitude towards learning in general; I will only say that among the people I know, none of them have such a view of Analysis II, and work to legitimately understand and be comfortable with the material.</p>
<p>"5. Robotics: We are re-doing mission possible (10th grade project). WTH? The teacher clearly has no plans for this class. "
It is difficult to imagine a mid-level robotics project that would not be similar to Mission Possible; even contest-level robotics projects are often logical extensions of Mission Possible projects, involving not particularly more than an upscaling of the robot and a more complicated program. After Mission Possible, students are acquainted with almost the full capabilities of the Handyboard (the controller used); the class is intended to grant students more freewheeling work with robotics and provide more experience.</p>
<p>"This year, a handful of the teachers quit/retired/went to other schools, which expedites the collapse of the magnet program. For example, the new discrete math teacher plans to spend the whole semester discussing interest (and not even doing a good job at that). The average grade on the last test was a 33%."
Most of the replacement teachers have received impressively few complaints; Deckelman, Rose, and Kaluta have all been generally accepted by sophomore-and-up students who have had them. </p>
<p>I also happen to be in the discrete math class of which you speak; not only has he explicitly stated that he plans to spend only the first quarter discussing financial mathematics and move on to purer discrete math (in this case, abstract algebra), but that test was the first graded assignment in the class. He does not have experience in teaching Magnet students, and sought to gauge the level of difficulty he should put the class to. In any event, the test he gave was composed of questions directly copied from ACTUARIAL EXAMS; full actuaries, who must pass around 8+ of these exams, make $150K per year--on the low end. In this case, the corresponding exam was intended for college seniors. In any event, the Magnet Coordinator has promised to return Discrete Math to its traditional teacher, Ms. Dvorsky, next year. Dvorsky has, I believe, taught in the Magnet for at least six years.</p>
<p>"arkleseizure, please do not blame me for these posts. Although I have these opinions, these are basically a compilation of student gossip and teacher rants."
a778999, I can only say that you, and all too many of your classmates, have not been listening to the teacher rants that are actually intended to mean something. If you have the sense to pay attention, Bunday and Walstein's discussions about education are really, really valuable--and you should learn from them.</p>