|
Obdicut posted:The person who is saying, based on nothing at all, that they're removing AP classes is the one who needs to take a breath. Likewise the babbling about recorders. Dude, take a loving breath and calm down. Why did you ignore everything I wrote the last time you asked about the comparison and just dismiss it out of hand with no discussion? The article clearly talks about the belief that the elimination of tracking in any form is a social justice goal - quote:Hull Barnes says exposing all students to high-quality math instruction is a social justice issue for SFUSD. District officials say the controversial practice of tracking students — or separating them based on talent and ability — is simply wrong. That separation took the form of allowing some students to take advanced math classes earlier. Many classes are offered as choices between skill level/rigor - Pre-Algebra vs. Algebra 1, English vs. Honors English, Chemistry vs. AP Chemistry. By the definition given by school officials above, all of these choices are "tracking" and are to be eliminated. In practice, maybe they'll only do it with math, or even just Algebra. Or maybe they'll decide that everyone who wants to study music gets a recorder rather than splitting folks between a beginning and advanced orchestra class. As for the alma mater, here you go. Either you take Calculus in High School, or you find the time to fit it in at extra cost elsewhere. Either way, it's a whole lot easier to do when you're allowed to start the foundational courses earlier. As for the pedagogy, you still haven't explained why it has to be either/or. Why can't you apply the same techniques to advanced math classes? Why can't you have students in those math classes tutor math to studends in the prior courses? Ytlaya posted:edit2: Come on, how can you say that when I already described the middling public high school I attended with 2/3 eligible for subsidised school lunch that still had classes full of kids a year or more ahead in math? Solkanar512 fucked around with this message at 22:45 on Sep 11, 2015 |
#
?
Sep 11, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 13:44 |
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Dude, take a loving breath and calm down. Why did you ignore everything I wrote the last time you asked about the comparison and just dismiss it out of hand with no discussion? Again, the way that this works in CC is that you separate them in the classroom, and you have the high-achieving students work with each other. And again again again, this is based on actual pedagogy. quote:That separation took the form of allowing some students to take advanced math classes earlier. Many classes are offered as choices between skill level/rigor - Pre-Algebra vs. Algebra 1, English vs. Honors English, Chemistry vs. AP Chemistry. By the definition given by school officials above, all of these choices are "tracking" and are to be eliminated. In practice, maybe they'll only do it with math, or even just Algebra. Or maybe they'll decide that everyone who wants to study music gets a recorder rather than splitting folks between a beginning and advanced orchestra class. No, that's not what tracking is. AP classes are not tracking. In fact, California approved, at the same time as adopting common core, an expansion to AP classes. And no, they're not going to give everyone a recorder. Do you know how dumb you sound when you say that? quote:As for the pedagogy, you still haven't explained why it has to be either/or. Why can't you apply the same techniques to advanced math classes? Why can't you have students in those math classes tutor math to students in the prior courses? You could, I mean, I'm not sure what you're saying. The same techniques are applied to advanced math classes. What you're saying, essentially, again is 'why don't they track students'. The reasoning in the broadest terms--but if you actually want to understand the pedagogy you're going to have to actually read up on the topic rather than just getting outraged by newspaper articles--is that advanced learning can still take place in the context of the normal classes--and in fact, according to the NAGC, this is more easily done with common core classes. quote:As for the alma mater, here you go. Either you take Calculus in High School, or you find the time to fit it in at extra cost elsewhere. Either way, it's a whole lot easier to do when you're allowed to start the foundational courses earlier. So, you were wrong, it's not actually necessary to get into the program. Thanks for admitting that, it takes guts to do that. Did finding that out and learning that you could quite easily do a math BA/BS at top programs without having taken calc in high school (which, again, is totally something that you can do under CC in california) affect your opinion at all? I think you're vastly, vastly overestimating the benefit of having calculus 1 under your belt. It's one class.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Come on, how can you say that when I already described the middling public high school I attended with 2/3 eligible for subsidised school lunch that still had classes full of kids a year or more ahead in math? Not hard depending on the size of the school.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I think you're vastly, vastly overestimating the benefit of having calculus 1 under your belt. It's one class. It's one class, it will probably be taught in a more competent fashion at the university level anyway, and, at least in my university, they offered the option to condense Calc I-III into two courses anyway if you felt like you could handle the workload, so assuming you were going to take all those courses anyway, you wouldn't be any further ahead having taken Calc I in high school (which I did, and it wouldn't have counted for university credit anyway). I am curious, though: how is having separate AP classes not an example of tracking? AP wasn't a big thing in Canada, so I'm not quite certain how it works, but it seems to fit the definition of tracking to a tee from what I've heard about it. I've also noticed, in this thread and others, that gifted, high-achieving and ambitious are used as synonyms for one another. That doesn't seem at all right from my experience in a gifted program; you better believe there were a bunch of people there that weren't high-achieving or ambitious, and many that were coded learning-disabled as well as gifted. If gifted classes are being used as a receptacle for all high-achieving students, I think it's disadvantageous to everyone involved.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
PT6A posted:
It's not a track because you can belong to some AP courses but not others. I have a friend who was big into AP Bio and Chem (and is now in med school) but had a more or less regular History and Physics class (and was in Pre-Cal her senior year).
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It's not a track because you can belong to some AP courses but not others. I have a friend who was big into AP Bio and Chem (and is now in med school) but had a more or less regular History and Physics class (and was in Pre-Cal her senior year). There's also the fact that the overwhelming majority of students, barring a very small minority, will not be taking all/most AP courses during their junior/senior years (whereas people usually do stick to nothing but standard or honors courses). While many of us might have, most students only take one or two each of those years, if any at all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
WhenI read the title of this thread my first thought was "Yep, another ed fad", and it sounds like. Public Education in the United States is incredibly fad-driven, with ideas coming in and out of vogue every couple decades. Where I teach one of the current drive is to push down Math courses so that every year the curriculum goes down a level (in other words, what was Algebra 1 last year is now on-level 8th Grade Math, and what was Algebra II last year is now Algebra 1). Meanwhile my Math Teacher colleagues tell me they have to have weekly multiplication quizzes because the majority of their students don't know their times tables, and struggle with that first before even getting to whatever new concept they're learning. I saw anti-tracking rear it's head in this thread, and just want to let folks know, that if you're against tracking, schools are still going to do it, only they're going to call it "differentiated instruction" and encourage teachers to simply act like they have 3 separate classes inside of one class, which just means more of a headache for the teacher and less time for each skill group of students. Having taught Gifted, Honors, and Inclusion, you really have to tailor your resources and even just the way you talk and present information very differently, I can't imagine trying to do it in a classroom where all three of those groups of kids are present. I will also say that research (http://educationnext.org/all-together-now/) shows that de-tracking is essentially unfavorable to all student groups involved, but most specifically to the gifted students. quote:There's also the fact that the overwhelming majority of students, barring a very small minority, will not be taking all/most AP courses during their junior/senior years (whereas people usually do stick to nothing but standard or honors courses). While many of us might have, most students only take one or two each of those years, if any at all. Coincidentally, my district read a study somewhere that showed that students who took AP classes did better in college, and so are determined to push as many kids into AP classes as possible, including kids who might not have even been in an honors class equivalent. They have then decided that AP test scores are far too low and browbeat the AP teachers (I am not one of them) for why so many of their AP students fail their exams. Crazy Joe Wilson fucked around with this message at 00:22 on Sep 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:No, that's not what tracking is. AP classes are not tracking. In fact, California approved, at the same time as adopting common core, an expansion to AP classes. I quoted the school officials, if you don't like their definition, take it up with them. quote:And no, they're not going to give everyone a recorder. Do you know how dumb you sound when you say that? It's a speculative comparison of taking their philosophy and applying it to other subject areas in school. You keep getting so upset over it but you refuse to understand the overarching point - this is what disallowing students who would otherwise be qualified to tackle advanced material would look like in subjects other than Math. Where I went, 3rd graders play recorders, 4th graders have the option for string instruments, 5th graders woodwinds/brass. quote:So, you were wrong, it's not actually necessary to get into the program. Thanks for admitting that, it takes guts to do that. Did finding that out and learning that you could quite easily do a math BA/BS at top programs without having taken calc in high school (which, again, is totally something that you can do under CC in california) affect your opinion at all? Uh, wow, ok. So you're just going to make poo poo up now? The link says "Requires four years of math including a year of Calculus" The fact that other programs don't explicitly require it doesn't change my opinion because I was talking about my personal experience. Furthermore, are you seriously going to claim that it's not beneficial to have seen the material before, or to otherwise save a little money or open up what is going to be a rigorous schedule? quote:I think you're vastly, vastly overestimating the benefit of having calculus 1 under your belt. It's one class. Telling a math major to take less math is pretty loving crazy. I thought the whole "lying about a link that anyone can click" was nuts but you've actually topped yourself.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Let's see if your claim holds true. You don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. As that link shows, Chicago requires a three-quarter honors analysis sequence for math majors; this is basically calculus on steroids. Princeton and MIT (and Harvard, and Stanford) have similar requirements; most incoming math majors have already taken or are familiar with the content of Calculus I-III, and take rigorous, proof-oriented courses instead like analysis, linear algebra, and abstract algebra in place of them. In particular, it is definitely not possible to complete a BS in Mathematics from Chicago while never going beyond Calculus II. computer parts posted:The topic is specifically about having Algebra I in 9th grade though? Yes. My point is that presenting Algebra I in 9th grade as something that is only relevant to the top echelon of students is absolutely wrong. If you are taking a math course lower than this in 9th grade, your likelihood of going to a high-quality postsecondary institution is not high (and I'm not talking about Harvard/Stanford/MIT/etc, I'm talking about University of {state name}).
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 00:18
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It's not a track because you can belong to some AP courses but not others. I have a friend who was big into AP Bio and Chem (and is now in med school) but had a more or less regular History and Physics class (and was in Pre-Cal her senior year). So, when people express opposition to tracking, it's only an all-or-nothing system that they have a problem with? That's good to know. I haven't seen a program at the high school level that was all-or-nothing, for whatever that's worth, and I think it would probably be a bad idea. What's considered the best practice for levels below high school, where classes will typically stick together (even if they have different teachers for different classes) for most or all of their classes? That's where I typically saw the most benefits for having a gifted program, versus one where classes are more or less composed of people with similar achievement levels, because at a younger age, you don't really know anything so the more important trait would seem to be a student's ability to absorb new material quickly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
PT6A posted:So, when people express opposition to tracking, it's only an all-or-nothing system that they have a problem with? That's good to know. I haven't seen a program at the high school level that was all-or-nothing, for whatever that's worth, and I think it would probably be a bad idea. It's pretty common in Germany.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 01:52
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I think you're vastly, vastly overestimating the benefit of having calculus 1 under your belt. It's one class. America Inc. fucked around with this message at 04:25 on Sep 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 04:23
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:I quoted the school officials, if you don't like their definition, take it up with them. They aren't getting rid of AP. Tracking and AP are entirely separate issues. You're basing your belief that they're getting rid of AP by a tendentious expansion of a definition. quote:
It's really a horribly silly analogy that makes you look very foolish, but keep on with it. quote:Uh, wow, ok. So you're just going to make poo poo up now? The link says "Requires four years of math including a year of Calculus" The fact that other programs don't explicitly require it doesn't change my opinion because I was talking about my personal experience. Furthermore, are you seriously going to claim that it's not beneficial to have seen the material before, or to otherwise save a little money or open up what is going to be a rigorous schedule? No, it says that if you don't have that year, you can do it at college. Remember? quote:At least one yearlong high school course in calculus is required. Otherwise, you must take a semester-long college course. See? One semester. If you don't take it in high school, you take one semester in college. This is what you're making a big deal about. One class. quote:
One class more or less is not going to have a big effect. blah_blah posted:You don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. As that link shows, Chicago requires a three-quarter honors analysis sequence for math majors; this is basically calculus on steroids. Princeton and MIT (and Harvard, and Stanford) have similar requirements; most incoming math majors have already taken or are familiar with the content of Calculus I-III, and take rigorous, proof-oriented courses instead like analysis, linear algebra, and abstract algebra in place of them. Okay, I'm not sure you understand the argument that we're having. University of Chicago clearly says " The normal procedure is to take calculus in the first year, analysis in the second, and algebra in the third. " That's the normal procedure. Calculus the first year. Doesn't require that you did calculus in high school--which, again, is still totally possible under CC. You're absolutely right that I didn't recognize analysis as calculus. But that's not the argument we're having, that's a minor point. Anecdotally, since that seems to be a thing in this thread I got into University of Chicago with 3 years of high school math, not including calculus, and actually without graduating high school. And Cornell. LookingGodIntheEye posted:In my own personal experience as a community college CS student, I would say that being able to take Calc I and II in high school, along with the GE credit I got from my other APs, probably saved me a year in CC waiting to transfer. Or at least some unnecessary headache trying to stuff all the extra classes in. Nobody is arguing that it can't be useful. And again, AP isn't being cut, that's something he made up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 05:52
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Okay, I'm not sure you understand the argument that we're having. University of Chicago clearly says " The normal procedure is to take calculus in the first year, analysis in the second, and algebra in the third. " No, regardless of whether you attended the University of Chicago or not, you have no idea what you're talking about. It is not possible to get a math degree from any reasonably highly-ranked school without taking anything beyond Calculus II. The fact that you would assert this makes it abundantly clear that you have no relevant knowledge in this area, save for what you can Google and (apparently) misinterpret.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 07:13
|
|
|
blah_blah posted:No, regardless of whether you attended the University of Chicago or not, you have no idea what you're talking about. It is not possible to get a math degree from any reasonably highly-ranked school without taking anything beyond Calculus II. The fact that you would assert this makes it abundantly clear that you have no relevant knowledge in this area, save for what you can Google and (apparently) misinterpret. That wasn't the source of the argument. The source of the argument was that you cannot go to any top-ranked school in STEM if you do not have at least one year in Calculus in high school which is patently wrong. I don't know why people are expanding this out into degree requirements arguments when it has nothing to do with this thread at all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 07:43
|
|
|
Lotka Volterra posted:That wasn't the source of the argument. The source of the argument was that you cannot go to any top-ranked school in STEM if you do not have at least one year in Calculus in high school which is patently wrong. I don't know why people are expanding this out into degree requirements arguments when it has nothing to do with this thread at all. Well it would be awkward in the least since many science and engineering programs have calculus based chemistry or physics for freshmen majors.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 10:59
|
|
|
blah_blah posted:No, regardless of whether you attended the University of Chicago or not, you have no idea what you're talking about. It is not possible to get a math degree from any reasonably highly-ranked school without taking anything beyond Calculus II. The fact that you would assert this makes it abundantly clear that you have no relevant knowledge in this area, save for what you can Google and (apparently) misinterpret. Yeah, I don't really care about that though. It's irrelevant to what we're talking about. What Solkanar was claiming was that not having Calc I under your belt (and probably more than that) when going to college is crippling, either in getting admitted or getting the degree. This isn't true, except very arguably for Princeton, from what what I could glean from the course catalog. In many places, even to get a BA in math, doing Calc as a freshman is completely feasible. It is simply one semester of class, and it is not that big a deal. And again, in San Francisco under the new system, you can totally take calculus as a senior and arrive with it anyway, so this is a moot point. Bip Roberts posted:Well it would be awkward in the least since many science and engineering programs have calculus based chemistry or physics for freshmen majors. It's entirely possible there are some programs where it would be awkward, but if you can get actual degrees in math itself starting with freshman calculus it seems unlikely there is a vast swathe of STEM classes where taking calculus your first semester would be crippling. In addition, i'd note that less than half of students who take calculus in high school score well enough on the AP exam to actually place out of it in college. And again, you can take calculus, and AP classes, as a senior in San Francisco, so the argument is also kind of moot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 12:22
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:Well it would be awkward in the least since many science and engineering programs have calculus based chemistry or physics for freshmen majors. You can and most people do take them concurrently.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 14:07
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:What Solkanar was claiming was that not having Calc I under your belt (and probably more than that) when going to college is crippling, either in getting admitted or getting the degree. What Solkanar is actually claiming: Solkanar512 posted:Also, my alma mater required a year of Calculus for everyone as an admission requirement, and you're really downplaying how fundamentally important that material is. Being able to take it earlier than senior year is a huge benefit that you seem to be dismissing out of hand for reasons I don't fully understand. Just because they accept college transfer credits for Calculus does not, in any way, shape or form negate the requirement! HMC doesn't offer an intro Calculus course either. Look, I fully agree that this issue with this specific school district isn't as bad as it first appeared due to glaring omissions in the original reporting. The very first question I asked was in fact about that very possibility! The fact that Algebraic concepts are being introduced earlier is also really awesome, but that's only going to help the kids who are actually exposed to it. The fact remains however, that you're vastly, vastly underestimating the doors Calculus opens up in numerous fields of study. Continually saying, "it's just one class" is in not convincing in the slightest. computer parts posted:You can and most people do take them concurrently. And most school districts don't have a problem with students who take mathematics a year or two ahead if they're able to do the work.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:What Solkanar is actually claiming: I'm sorry, I misread the Harvey Mudd page--I thought it was saying that, otherwise, you'd have to take a college course at Harvey Mudd. My apologies. However, I couldn't find any other institution with a similar requirement. Do you know of any others? U of C, UC Berkeley, MIT, Stanford, Yale, and Princeton don't have this requirement. quote:The fact remains however, that you're vastly, vastly underestimating the doors Calculus opens up in numerous fields of study. Continually saying, "it's just one class" is in not convincing in the slightest. I haven't, at any point, discussed the utility of calculus, except for loving up and implying you could get a math degree without high-level calculus, which was just a misreading. The point of 'it's just one class' literally means that, if you take and get credit for calc 1, you save simply one semester. Calculus is incredibly useful for every hard science and statistics as well. What is not a big deal is not taking calculus in high school (though, again, this is a moot point because you can take calculus in San Francisco under CC) because it is simply one extra class when you get to college. So even if the claim were true, that you were unable to take calc in high school, you just have to take one class. One class is not a big deal. There is also the argument that taking calc in high school (which, again, the fact that you can in San Francisco makes this whole argument moot anyway) contributes to doing better in calc classes in college. This is backed up by some statistics, but it is hard to disentangle the self-selection mechanism--those students taking calc in high school are going to be high-achieving, and we'd expect them to do better in general. Those who take calc and fail to get a 3 or above tend to actually not do as well as comparable students who didn't take calc during high school. San Francisco isn't getting rid of AP classes or making people play the recorder only, contrary to your claims, which are based on, rather than facts, an extension of the 'philosophy' of a statement by a school official. Calculus is a huge deal, very important, but a single class is not a giant obstacle, and entry to high-level institutions isn't predicated on having calculus in your repertoire. However, for those who do want whatever extra edge it gains in admissions, or who are looking to get that one-class advantage, it is still possible, in San Francisco, to take calculus before college. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 18:33 on Sep 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
blah_blah posted:Yes. My point is that presenting Algebra I in 9th grade as something that is only relevant to the top echelon of students is absolutely wrong. If you are taking a math course lower than this in 9th grade, your likelihood of going to a high-quality postsecondary institution is not high (and I'm not talking about Harvard/Stanford/MIT/etc, I'm talking about University of {state name}). Um, I think you might be confused about something, based on several of your posts in this thread (I don't mean this in a condescending way; it seems like you genuinely just misread the OP or something). There is no proposal to remove Algebra I from 9th grade. The OP discusses removing it from 8th grade (ignoring the fact that some/most of the material would still be covered throughout the curriculum). If they were preventing anyone from taking Algebra I until after 9th grade, then yeah, that would probably be a bad idea (it would make it more or less impossible to take Calculus during high school). Fortunately that is not the case.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:UC-Berkeley: https://math.berkeley.edu/programs/undergraduate/major/pure Completely easy to take calc 1 as a freshman and get a math major. You only even need a C average in it, too. An engineering student who had to take math 1A (calc 1) would be at a big disadvantage since the introductory physics and engineering classes absolutely require that knowledge. I'm sure it can happen, but it definitely isn't common or preferred. Math 1b (calc 2) is recommended for everyone, even though many students could AP out (5 on BC calc AP test). It is a good recommendation: my understanding is that it's the most dropped and failed class at Cal. Basically, taking calc 1 and 2 in high school sets you up to survive calc 2 at Cal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:I certainly don't buy the idea that some commenters were throwing around that the brains of these children aren't developed enough to handle "5x = 25, solve for x". Common Core math teaches that in 6th grade. CCSS.Math.Content.6.EE.B.7 posted:Solve real-world and mathematical problems by writing and solving equations of the form x + p = q and px = q for cases in which p, q and x are all nonnegative rational numbers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:An engineering student who had to take math 1A (calc 1) would be at a big disadvantage since the introductory physics and engineering classes absolutely require that knowledge. I'm sure it can happen, but it definitely isn't common or preferred. Again, it's not going to be a huge problem. it is one semester, you can get other core classes done in that first semester. There may be some very few edge cases where it really would make it difficult to take all the 300 and 400 levels you want, but that's something that'd need to be demonstrated rather than assumed. It puts you one semester behind--that's all. quote:Math 1b (calc 2) is recommended for everyone, even though many students could AP out (5 on BC calc AP test). It is a good recommendation: my understanding is that it's the most dropped and failed class at Cal. Basically, taking calc 1 and 2 in high school sets you up to survive calc 2 at Cal. An very, very small number of people get a 5 on the BC test. And again, the statistics don't reveal what influence taking the class in high school has on the chance of passing calc 2 in college vs. being the kind of person to take calc in high school. It may be that the self-selected group that takes calc in high school are the ones who would be likely to succeed at calc 2 in college even if they hadn't taken calc in high school. Edit: Just re-iterating that this is moot because you can take calc in San Francisco as a senior. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 19:36 on Sep 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Again, it's not going to be a huge problem. it is one semester, you can get other core classes done in that first semester. There aren't many core classes in the engineering curriculum that don't require some knowledge of calculus or beyond. You can't take engineering, physics or chem classes. I guess you could try and knock out some breadth requirements Obdicut posted:An very, very small number of people get a 5 on the BC test. We're talking about math and engineering students at a top university. It isn't a small proportion in that group. Obdicut posted:It may be that the self-selected group that takes calc in high school are the ones who would be likely to succeed at calc 2 in college even if they hadn't taken calc in high school. Maybe, maybe not. But even if it is, why put them behind 1 or 2 semesters?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:An engineering student who had to take math 1A (calc 1) would be at a big disadvantage since the introductory physics and engineering classes absolutely require that knowledge. I'm sure it can happen, but it definitely isn't common or preferred. There's an equal number of professors teaching 1A and 1B this year.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:An engineering student who had to take math 1A (calc 1) would be at a big disadvantage since the introductory physics and engineering classes absolutely require that knowledge. I'm sure it can happen, but it definitely isn't common or preferred. Really? I didn't find taking Math 1A and Physics 7A concurrently to be a particular problem. Oddly enough, I think starting from Math 1A as a mathematics major would be even less of a problem since your critical path is 1A -> 1B -> 53+54. So you can be taking upper division math classes by the end of your second year. And since you're L&S you've got ... what, six other electives, two English classes and an upper division elective to take anyways. So you might as well try to get as much of that finished in your first two years as possible, anyways.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
madlobster posted:Common Core math teaches that in 6th grade. They actually do similar things even earlier; like I mentioned in an earlier post, my mom was doing simple "solve for x" math with her first grade class under Common Core. It seems like the OP (and many others) just fundamentally don't understand the changes that were made and like the idea of being enraged over dumb things.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:An very, very small number of people get a 5 on the BC test. And again, the statistics don't reveal what influence taking the class in high school has on the chance of passing calc 2 in college vs. being the kind of person to take calc in high school. It may be that the self-selected group that takes calc in high school are the ones who would be likely to succeed at calc 2 in college even if they hadn't taken calc in high school. This is not super essential, but 40-50% of Calculus BC test takers get a 5 on the exam, which was true when I was in high school > 10 years ago, and is still true now. So if your real argument is that not many people take Calculus BC then you should probably say that, but getting a 5 is actually, by a wide margin, the most common score. Ytlaya posted:Um, I think you might be confused about something, based on several of your posts in this thread (I don't mean this in a condescending way; it seems like you genuinely just misread the OP or something). Yeah, I did mess that up Thanks. In retrospect I don't think that makes my posts completely irrelevant (a very large number of students at the high school I went to would still have been affected by a similar policy). Obdicut posted:Yeah, I don't really care about that though. It's irrelevant to what we're talking about. What Solkanar was claiming was that not having Calc I under your belt (and probably more than that) when going to college is crippling, either in getting admitted or getting the degree. This isn't true, except very arguably for Princeton, from what what I could glean from the course catalog. In many places, even to get a BA in math, doing Calc as a freshman is completely feasible. It is simply one semester of class, and it is not that big a deal. It will make it very difficult for you to get admitted in the first place. I know that people don't apply directly to majors in American schools, but the Common App does ask you for your intended major, and some component of your application will generally be oriented around some academic interest that you have, whether that's STEM-related, social sciences, liberal arts, etc. It will be very difficult to make a coherent argument that you are well-prepared for rigorous academic study in a STEM discipline at a top school without having taken calculus in high school, especially given how competitive admissions have become nowadays. It is very common for college students to take calculus in high school and repeat it in college, however. For many students, retaking it gives them an easy course to pad their GPA early in college. I've taught calculus at a university previously, and I happened to teach a Calculus I course that was divided between students who had taken calculus in high school and students who hadn't (so my class ostensibly had no students who had taken calculus in high school). They had slightly different grading criteria with less weight on the exams for the non-high-school-calculus students, and the non-high-school-calculus classes got additional instruction in the form of mandatory workshops. However, the exams were identical. The results were probably what you'd expect, though. Failure rates were significantly higher in the non-high-school-calculus class, and this prevented people from progressing at the expected rate in their degree program (which wasn't STEM -- this class was aimed at social sciences and business students, who had a calculus requirement in their degree programs).
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:There aren't many core classes in the engineering curriculum that don't require some knowledge of calculus or beyond. You can't take engineering, physics or chem classes. I guess you could try and knock out some breadth requirements Exactly. Any college will easily have core classes you need to do that you can fill up that semester with. quote:We're talking about math and engineering students at a top university. It isn't a small proportion in that group. We're not just talking about math and engineering students at a top university. quote:Maybe, maybe not. But even if it is, why put them behind 1 or 2 semesters? There would be no point in putting them behind one semester, it's true, which is probably why it's not happening. But for a kid that didn't take calculus in high school, they can still do it in college and it is not a big problem in any way, shape or form. blah_blah posted:This is not super essential, but 40-50% of Calculus BC test takers get a 5 on the exam, which was true when I was in high school > 10 years ago, and is still true now. So if your real argument is that not many people take Calculus BC then you should probably say that, but getting a 5 is actually, by a wide margin, the most common score. If I'd meant proportion, I would have said proportion. quote:It will make it very difficult for you to get admitted in the first place. I know that people don't apply directly to majors in American schools, but the Common App does ask you for your intended major, and some component of your application will generally be oriented around some academic interest that you have, whether that's STEM-related, social sciences, liberal arts, etc. It will be very difficult to make a coherent argument that you are well-prepared for rigorous academic study in a STEM discipline at a top school without having taken calculus in high school, especially given how competitive admissions have become nowadays. This is a statement that needs support, it can't just be asserted. And again, this is moot because you can take calculus in San Francisco in high school. There is not actually an issue here. Ytlaya posted:They actually do similar things even earlier; like I mentioned in an earlier post, my mom was doing simple "solve for x" math with her first grade class under Common Core. It seems like the OP (and many others) just fundamentally don't understand the changes that were made and like the idea of being enraged over dumb things. This.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
Jagchosis posted:Serious question, not an ad hominem, what is the highest level of math education you completed because dear lord you do not know anything Honors/AP everything in high school and an EE degree and 10 years as an engineer doing stuff like frequency domain control loop analysis and signal processing. I don't do that stuff all the time but I've done a lot of it and I've done all of it primarily with wolfram alpha, spice, matlab, excel and a host of other specialized tools which handle the mechanics. So what mechanics are you talking about? The arduous mechanics of solving say differential equations are highly specialized, solved by computers, out of reach for the majority of people and also irrelevant for manipulating most problems that differential equations touch - which includes very simple and very intuitive situations like plotting the level of water in a leaking bucket. So don't tell me you need to understand the mechanics to grasp that problem or use the solution. That's why I said earlier that I actually want more math taught to more people but to let that happen we need to cleave off large chunks of the mechanics. Every high school student in my opinion can and should know what a differential equation is and what an integral is and how you can put them to use regardless of whether they have the skills to hack out the solutions on paper or not.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Honors/AP everything in high school and an EE degree and 10 years as an engineer doing stuff like frequency domain control loop analysis and signal processing. I don't do that stuff all the time but I've done a lot of it and I've done all of it primarily with wolfram alpha, spice, matlab, excel and a host of other specialized tools which handle the mechanics. So you're claiming you're an electrical engineer that can't do college sophomore level math on his own, and because of this, the education system should not teach kids how to math properly
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 00:23
|
|
|
Jagchosis posted:So you're claiming you're an electrical engineer that can't do college sophomore level math on his own, and because of this, the education system should not teach kids how to math properly I'm saying that whether or not I can do sophomore level math by hand on paper, possibly with no calculator in 40 minutes is irrelevant to whether I can make use of sophore and college level math in the real world using real world tools and I'd like to teach people to drive who may not have the skills to be a certified mechanic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 00:41
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:I'm saying that whether or not I can do sophomore level math by hand on paper, possibly with no calculator in 40 minutes is irrelevant to whether I can make use of sophore and college level math in the real world using real world tools and I'd like to teach people to drive who may not have the skills to be a certified mechanic. You keep invoking real world math but it's been thoroughly demonstrated in other threads you don't understand basic statistics, which is probably the most important real world math application beyond basic arithmetic, so I do not understand why you keep invoking that. Also have you ever considered that being able to math by hand may have applications in other fields, and that people who want to go into those fields should have ample opportunity to learn it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 00:44
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:I'm saying that whether or not I can do sophomore level math by hand on paper, possibly with no calculator in 40 minutes is irrelevant to whether I can make use of sophore and college level math in the real world using real world tools and I'd like to teach people to drive who may not have the skills to be a certified mechanic. Really working that red text today, huh? Teaching mathematics as a kind of magic ("I don't need to know how it works, I just need the relevant MATLAB commands") is likely both to increase the number of shoddy engineers in the world, and disadvantage those who, in learning the mechanics, are preparing to go on to do work in fundamental fields, i.e., the ones that permit you to be so intellectually lazy and disinterested. Where would you be, exactly, without decades of mathematical research into numerical analysis?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 00:58
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:Really working that red text today, huh? This might be insulting if it could be taken seriously but here's why it can't: Society is built by specialists who produce tools which other people put to use. A painter isn't intellectually lazy for not studying the chemistry of their paints or the metallurgy of their sculpture and the world wouldn't function if they had too. We all rely on the work of people in countless critical fields but that doesn't mean the mechanics of those fields need to be in high school curriculums. The fact that math is so important and so widely applicable is why we need to teach the right aspects so as to maximize what people come away understanding. And this changes. The math that people needed in the past is different today when everyone literally has a computer in their pocket. Today, mechanics that have only specialized use are being taught at the expense of higher level concepts with much broader applicability.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 01:54
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:This might be insulting if it could be taken seriously but here's why it can't: Society is built by specialists who produce tools which other people put to use. A painter isn't intellectually lazy for not studying the chemistry of their paints or the metallurgy of their sculpture and the world wouldn't function if they had too. Alright, I'll bite. Exactly what topics would you cut from math curriculum in favor of giving high schoolers an extremely naive and non-technical understanding of differential equations and integral calculus?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 02:01
|
|
|
I think it would be very useful if trig was shortened to make room for more vector math and linear algebra. You can start on calculus after they understand the area of a rectangle and the concept of a series.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 02:43
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:Alright, I'll bite. Exactly what topics would you cut from math curriculum in favor of giving high schoolers an extremely naive and non-technical understanding of differential equations and integral calculus? I mean, if you want to go down this path, there's way too much material on trigonometry (especially needlessly convoluted identities) and conic sections, and two column proofs in geometry are mostly a waste of time. I wouldn't say that calculus should be the sole recipient of the instructional time that this would free up -- additional material on probability and statistics would also be good here, as would a few other discrete math topics like e.g. modular arithmetic, and you could probably get a little bit of linear algebra in as well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 02:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 13:44 |
|
|
blah_blah posted:I mean, if you want to go down this path, there's way too much material on trigonometry (especially needlessly convoluted identities) and conic sections, and two column proofs in geometry are mostly a waste of time. I totally agree about trigonometry and said so up-thread. More broadly, there's a lot of fat that could be cut, in the sense that algebra homework along the lines of "apply the quadratic formula twenty times in a row" is not a productive use of students' time, and contributes to popular perception of math as tedious and uninteresting. I'm partial to the proofs in geometry, but only because that's the only place in most high school curricula where that sort of logical formalism shows up, i.e., it's the only place where the student can be asked "how do you know this" and not respond "because the formula says."
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 03:15
|
|