new TJ principal streamlines math courses

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of RS1 is a great loss. Nobody in math department thinks it is a good idea. But principal did not ask for input. It might be just for the ratings - getting everyone into AP Precalc increases the number of AP courses taken per student. Ratings. Why would TJ student need AP Precalc. No STEM program in any college would count it for credit. Similar changes in Science. Wonderful unique Geosystems gone to be replaced by standard AP Environmental Science. Like in any base school. These are not good changes.

You're misinformed. These changes were thoughtfully implemented by the new principal with input from TJ math teachers, upperclassmen, and alumni parents. You may be getting mixed up with the previous principal, who lacked understanding of TJ's coursework and showed little interest in enhancing academic rigor. In contrast, fortunately, the new principal is a TJ alumnus with extensive STEM teaching and leadership experience.

RS1, as a standalone semester course, lacked a clear purpose. It was a watered down intro to statistics that consumed valuable freshman time, often to their frustration. Now, the basic aspects of RS1 has been integrated into a revamped, two-semester version of the new Math 3.

Previously, students who wanted to pursue RS2 (TJ’s AP Statistics) often found RS1 redundant, noting that its topics were covered in the first few weeks of RS2 anyway. Moreover, neither RS1 nor RS2 provided adequate preparation for RS3, TJ’s advanced statistics course.

This feedback was largely ignored by the previous principal, mostly due to lack of math or stem background. The new principal, however, asked the math department to redesign the statistics sequence. Their suggestion was to convert RS1 into a rigorous, in-depth semester course, with RS2 continuing as the follow-on with ap stats. Together, these now form the revised TJ AP Statistics track.

Rather, I believe it is you who is misinformed. The principal went in with the highly focused idea of putting as many AP courses into the curriculum as he could. He jammed them in as fast as he possibly could without listening to anybody except himself.

I don't think parents or kids are happy with the math department. Show me where we signed on to have to hire teachers to teach our kids math because TJ teachers don't do so?

And before another person cries "rigor" I went to MIT and our Professor Mattuck, aka dropped-acid-with-Nash-at-Princeton, was a phenomenal lecturer. This Curie bullsh&t isn't the way MIT teaches so why would TJ teach this way?

My child is extremely happy with the math department and with each and every one of the math teachers they had a class with. When I attended the back to school night and met the teachers, I was really impressed with many of the teachers and particularly Chemistry, Physics, History and Math teachers. I cannot be more thankful for these teachers.

The teachers thoroughly cover all the concepts and teach them exceptionally well. Some teach exactly like they teach at MIT - those are the words the Physics teacher used who taught at MIT.

If a child needs tutors it is due to one of two reasons:

1. Child is not paying attention in class and/or not doing the follow up homework exercises, or

2. Child is likely not a fit at TJ for any number of reasons.

Yes only kids who have spent years in AoPS and RSM need apply.... <sarcasm>

Those programs pride themselves on teaching this type of thinking. My kid has done both, he does RSM now, and both programs are clear that they include problems that the kids will struggle with so that they learn to ask questions. They problems they work on in class and homework are intentionally multi-step problems. Whether you like it or not, many of the kids applying to TJ have been doing some sort of outside enrichment because they like math and they like science. They have been exposed to this type of thought process, and they don't find it challenging. DS joined his AoPS class halfway into the year during COVID. He didn't miss a step and was on par with the kids who had been in the class all year. This is how his brain works. Parents with kids applying to TJ should know that there are a good number of kids applying with a similar background. They do math competitions and science competitions for fun, and they win or are in the 99th percentile. Those are their peers at TJ. If you are expecting that the school is not aware of that and expecting kids to be at that level, then you are crazy. That is the point of TJ, teaching bright kids who are strong in STEM and interested in STEM. The classes are going to move faster and the expectation is that the kids will pick up the material more quickly.

It sounds like kids who are smart and have not been as focused on STEM outside of school have to work harder, but is that a surprise?

This is just patently not true. There are a ton of parents in the freshman chat complaining about the math format. You're basically guaranteed to have a C when the quiz format is 4 points. Not everyone at TJ does competitions and that shouldn't be an expectation.

And yet they do. My kid struggled as a freshman in Algebra 2. He had to get used to the idea that math was hard. It isn't a handful of algorithms and a few disjointed concepts. He got C's early on and ended with a B+, it was a lesson learned and I am grateful he learned that lesson in 9th grade and not in college or on the job.

I think the leg up that the RSM, AoPS, Curie kids is that they are used to the concept that math is hard and that it is applied. The work that they get in those programs is more then learning the algorithms but applications and multi-step processes. They discuss the problems and realize that there are multiple approaches. At least, that is what my kid got in AoPS and now RSM. I suppose you could hope that they introduce that concept in Algebra 1 and Geometry in MS but I suspect that would cause heart burn as well. I know kids working hard for their Bs in Algebra 1, adding in another layer of difficulty would sink them. And FCPS just made it easier to take Algebra 1H in 7th grade and Algebra in 8th.

Why work hard for a B in Algebra 1, instead of getting an easy A in prealgebra and working a head to prepare for Algebra?

Being a bit behind in math leads to catastrophic cascading failure, but being a little ahead is not a problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of RS1 is a great loss. Nobody in math department thinks it is a good idea. But principal did not ask for input. It might be just for the ratings - getting everyone into AP Precalc increases the number of AP courses taken per student. Ratings. Why would TJ student need AP Precalc. No STEM program in any college would count it for credit. Similar changes in Science. Wonderful unique Geosystems gone to be replaced by standard AP Environmental Science. Like in any base school. These are not good changes.

You're misinformed. These changes were thoughtfully implemented by the new principal with input from TJ math teachers, upperclassmen, and alumni parents. You may be getting mixed up with the previous principal, who lacked understanding of TJ's coursework and showed little interest in enhancing academic rigor. In contrast, fortunately, the new principal is a TJ alumnus with extensive STEM teaching and leadership experience.

RS1, as a standalone semester course, lacked a clear purpose. It was a watered down intro to statistics that consumed valuable freshman time, often to their frustration. Now, the basic aspects of RS1 has been integrated into a revamped, two-semester version of the new Math 3.

Previously, students who wanted to pursue RS2 (TJ’s AP Statistics) often found RS1 redundant, noting that its topics were covered in the first few weeks of RS2 anyway. Moreover, neither RS1 nor RS2 provided adequate preparation for RS3, TJ’s advanced statistics course.

This feedback was largely ignored by the previous principal, mostly due to lack of math or stem background. The new principal, however, asked the math department to redesign the statistics sequence. Their suggestion was to convert RS1 into a rigorous, in-depth semester course, with RS2 continuing as the follow-on with ap stats. Together, these now form the revised TJ AP Statistics track.

Rather, I believe it is you who is misinformed. The principal went in with the highly focused idea of putting as many AP courses into the curriculum as he could. He jammed them in as fast as he possibly could without listening to anybody except himself.

I don't think parents or kids are happy with the math department. Show me where we signed on to have to hire teachers to teach our kids math because TJ teachers don't do so?

And before another person cries "rigor" I went to MIT and our Professor Mattuck, aka dropped-acid-with-Nash-at-Princeton, was a phenomenal lecturer. This Curie bullsh&t isn't the way MIT teaches so why would TJ teach this way?

My child is extremely happy with the math department and with each and every one of the math teachers they had a class with. When I attended the back to school night and met the teachers, I was really impressed with many of the teachers and particularly Chemistry, Physics, History and Math teachers. I cannot be more thankful for these teachers.

The teachers thoroughly cover all the concepts and teach them exceptionally well. Some teach exactly like they teach at MIT - those are the words the Physics teacher used who taught at MIT.

If a child needs tutors it is due to one of two reasons:

1. Child is not paying attention in class and/or not doing the follow up homework exercises, or

2. Child is likely not a fit at TJ for any number of reasons.

Yes only kids who have spent years in AoPS and RSM need apply.... <sarcasm>

Those programs pride themselves on teaching this type of thinking. My kid has done both, he does RSM now, and both programs are clear that they include problems that the kids will struggle with so that they learn to ask questions. They problems they work on in class and homework are intentionally multi-step problems. Whether you like it or not, many of the kids applying to TJ have been doing some sort of outside enrichment because they like math and they like science. They have been exposed to this type of thought process, and they don't find it challenging. DS joined his AoPS class halfway into the year during COVID. He didn't miss a step and was on par with the kids who had been in the class all year. This is how his brain works. Parents with kids applying to TJ should know that there are a good number of kids applying with a similar background. They do math competitions and science competitions for fun, and they win or are in the 99th percentile. Those are their peers at TJ. If you are expecting that the school is not aware of that and expecting kids to be at that level, then you are crazy. That is the point of TJ, teaching bright kids who are strong in STEM and interested in STEM. The classes are going to move faster and the expectation is that the kids will pick up the material more quickly.

It sounds like kids who are smart and have not been as focused on STEM outside of school have to work harder, but is that a surprise?

This is just patently not true. There are a ton of parents in the freshman chat complaining about the math format. You're basically guaranteed to have a C when the quiz format is 4 points. Not everyone at TJ does competitions and that shouldn't be an expectation.

And yet they do. My kid struggled as a freshman in Algebra 2. He had to get used to the idea that math was hard. It isn't a handful of algorithms and a few disjointed concepts. He got C's early on and ended with a B+, it was a lesson learned and I am grateful he learned that lesson in 9th grade and not in college or on the job.

I think the leg up that the RSM, AoPS, Curie kids is that they are used to the concept that math is hard and that it is applied. The work that they get in those programs is more then learning the algorithms but applications and multi-step processes. They discuss the problems and realize that there are multiple approaches. At least, that is what my kid got in AoPS and now RSM. I suppose you could hope that they introduce that concept in Algebra 1 and Geometry in MS but I suspect that would cause heart burn as well. I know kids working hard for their Bs in Algebra 1, adding in another layer of difficulty would sink them. And FCPS just made it easier to take Algebra 1H in 7th grade and Algebra in 8th.

Multi-step and multiple approaches are taught starting in elementary school. The whole insane moaning about "Common Core" is from parents who don't like the multiple approaches

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of RS1 is a great loss. Nobody in math department thinks it is a good idea. But principal did not ask for input. It might be just for the ratings - getting everyone into AP Precalc increases the number of AP courses taken per student. Ratings. Why would TJ student need AP Precalc. No STEM program in any college would count it for credit. Similar changes in Science. Wonderful unique Geosystems gone to be replaced by standard AP Environmental Science. Like in any base school. These are not good changes.

You're misinformed. These changes were thoughtfully implemented by the new principal with input from TJ math teachers, upperclassmen, and alumni parents. You may be getting mixed up with the previous principal, who lacked understanding of TJ's coursework and showed little interest in enhancing academic rigor. In contrast, fortunately, the new principal is a TJ alumnus with extensive STEM teaching and leadership experience.

RS1, as a standalone semester course, lacked a clear purpose. It was a watered down intro to statistics that consumed valuable freshman time, often to their frustration. Now, the basic aspects of RS1 has been integrated into a revamped, two-semester version of the new Math 3.

Previously, students who wanted to pursue RS2 (TJ’s AP Statistics) often found RS1 redundant, noting that its topics were covered in the first few weeks of RS2 anyway. Moreover, neither RS1 nor RS2 provided adequate preparation for RS3, TJ’s advanced statistics course.

This feedback was largely ignored by the previous principal, mostly due to lack of math or stem background. The new principal, however, asked the math department to redesign the statistics sequence. Their suggestion was to convert RS1 into a rigorous, in-depth semester course, with RS2 continuing as the follow-on with ap stats. Together, these now form the revised TJ AP Statistics track.

Rather, I believe it is you who is misinformed. The principal went in with the highly focused idea of putting as many AP courses into the curriculum as he could. He jammed them in as fast as he possibly could without listening to anybody except himself.

I don't think parents or kids are happy with the math department. Show me where we signed on to have to hire teachers to teach our kids math because TJ teachers don't do so?

And before another person cries "rigor" I went to MIT and our Professor Mattuck, aka dropped-acid-with-Nash-at-Princeton, was a phenomenal lecturer. This Curie bullsh&t isn't the way MIT teaches so why would TJ teach this way?

My child is extremely happy with the math department and with each and every one of the math teachers they had a class with. When I attended the back to school night and met the teachers, I was really impressed with many of the teachers and particularly Chemistry, Physics, History and Math teachers. I cannot be more thankful for these teachers.

The teachers thoroughly cover all the concepts and teach them exceptionally well. Some teach exactly like they teach at MIT - those are the words the Physics teacher used who taught at MIT.

If a child needs tutors it is due to one of two reasons:

1. Child is not paying attention in class and/or not doing the follow up homework exercises, or

2. Child is likely not a fit at TJ for any number of reasons.

Yes only kids who have spent years in AoPS and RSM need apply.... <sarcasm>

Those programs pride themselves on teaching this type of thinking. My kid has done both, he does RSM now, and both programs are clear that they include problems that the kids will struggle with so that they learn to ask questions. They problems they work on in class and homework are intentionally multi-step problems. Whether you like it or not, many of the kids applying to TJ have been doing some sort of outside enrichment because they like math and they like science. They have been exposed to this type of thought process, and they don't find it challenging. DS joined his AoPS class halfway into the year during COVID. He didn't miss a step and was on par with the kids who had been in the class all year. This is how his brain works. Parents with kids applying to TJ should know that there are a good number of kids applying with a similar background. They do math competitions and science competitions for fun, and they win or are in the 99th percentile. Those are their peers at TJ. If you are expecting that the school is not aware of that and expecting kids to be at that level, then you are crazy. That is the point of TJ, teaching bright kids who are strong in STEM and interested in STEM. The classes are going to move faster and the expectation is that the kids will pick up the material more quickly.

It sounds like kids who are smart and have not been as focused on STEM outside of school have to work harder, but is that a surprise?

This is just patently not true. There are a ton of parents in the freshman chat complaining about the math format. You're basically guaranteed to have a C when the quiz format is 4 points. Not everyone at TJ does competitions and that shouldn't be an expectation.

What do you mean you are guaranteed to have a C? Stop with the false statements. In most (not all but most) classes , those 4 point quizzes also get +1 point up to a total of 4 points, basically forgiving one mistake. So you get 100% if you get 3/4 and a C if you get 2/4. This, combined with the fact that there are frequent 4 question quizzes, in fact, is more generous than having one larger quiz with, say 12 questions. If you get 6/12 on large quiz your grade stays. If you get 2/4 three times on these small quizzes, your cumulative grade (after a bump on each 4 point quiz) is 9/12. Get your facts right before complaining.

They definitely are not graded that way...

They definitely are.

Is it possible that some teachers in some years grade differently on some quizzes?

Anybody want to share photographs of their quizz grades on the top of original quiz paper?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me give you one example. The way they teach at TJ, they explain concept 1 and do some examples. They explain concept 2 and do some examples. Then the homework has a problem that needs both concept 1 and concept 2 to be applied to solve the problem. If you skip on the assignment, which also requires spending some time thinking through the concepts in more detail, you do not really understand the concepts in a deep way.

In exams and quizzes, you have 20% of the test that requires this type of questions where you need to apply multiple concepts for the solution.

That's not how my child's class works at TJ. Every class starts with a quiz or exam. So you need to know the material prior to starting the class.

Know WHICH material?

There is a GPA-impacting graded quiz on the assigned reading, before the teacher discussed that material? I don't believe you. Why would the teacher teach the material after grading is done? Are there two quizzes on each material?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of RS1 is a great loss. Nobody in math department thinks it is a good idea. But principal did not ask for input. It might be just for the ratings - getting everyone into AP Precalc increases the number of AP courses taken per student. Ratings. Why would TJ student need AP Precalc. No STEM program in any college would count it for credit. Similar changes in Science. Wonderful unique Geosystems gone to be replaced by standard AP Environmental Science. Like in any base school. These are not good changes.

You're misinformed. These changes were thoughtfully implemented by the new principal with input from TJ math teachers, upperclassmen, and alumni parents. You may be getting mixed up with the previous principal, who lacked understanding of TJ's coursework and showed little interest in enhancing academic rigor. In contrast, fortunately, the new principal is a TJ alumnus with extensive STEM teaching and leadership experience.

RS1, as a standalone semester course, lacked a clear purpose. It was a watered down intro to statistics that consumed valuable freshman time, often to their frustration. Now, the basic aspects of RS1 has been integrated into a revamped, two-semester version of the new Math 3.

Previously, students who wanted to pursue RS2 (TJ’s AP Statistics) often found RS1 redundant, noting that its topics were covered in the first few weeks of RS2 anyway. Moreover, neither RS1 nor RS2 provided adequate preparation for RS3, TJ’s advanced statistics course.

This feedback was largely ignored by the previous principal, mostly due to lack of math or stem background. The new principal, however, asked the math department to redesign the statistics sequence. Their suggestion was to convert RS1 into a rigorous, in-depth semester course, with RS2 continuing as the follow-on with ap stats. Together, these now form the revised TJ AP Statistics track.

Rather, I believe it is you who is misinformed. The principal went in with the highly focused idea of putting as many AP courses into the curriculum as he could. He jammed them in as fast as he possibly could without listening to anybody except himself.

I don't think parents or kids are happy with the math department. Show me where we signed on to have to hire teachers to teach our kids math because TJ teachers don't do so?

And before another person cries "rigor" I went to MIT and our Professor Mattuck, aka dropped-acid-with-Nash-at-Princeton, was a phenomenal lecturer. This Curie bullsh&t isn't the way MIT teaches so why would TJ teach this way?

My child is extremely happy with the math department and with each and every one of the math teachers they had a class with. When I attended the back to school night and met the teachers, I was really impressed with many of the teachers and particularly Chemistry, Physics, History and Math teachers. I cannot be more thankful for these teachers.

The teachers thoroughly cover all the concepts and teach them exceptionally well. Some teach exactly like they teach at MIT - those are the words the Physics teacher used who taught at MIT.

If a child needs tutors it is due to one of two reasons:

1. Child is not paying attention in class and/or not doing the follow up homework exercises, or

2. Child is likely not a fit at TJ for any number of reasons.

Yes only kids who have spent years in AoPS and RSM need apply.... <sarcasm>

Those programs pride themselves on teaching this type of thinking. My kid has done both, he does RSM now, and both programs are clear that they include problems that the kids will struggle with so that they learn to ask questions. They problems they work on in class and homework are intentionally multi-step problems. Whether you like it or not, many of the kids applying to TJ have been doing some sort of outside enrichment because they like math and they like science. They have been exposed to this type of thought process, and they don't find it challenging. DS joined his AoPS class halfway into the year during COVID. He didn't miss a step and was on par with the kids who had been in the class all year. This is how his brain works. Parents with kids applying to TJ should know that there are a good number of kids applying with a similar background. They do math competitions and science competitions for fun, and they win or are in the 99th percentile. Those are their peers at TJ. If you are expecting that the school is not aware of that and expecting kids to be at that level, then you are crazy. That is the point of TJ, teaching bright kids who are strong in STEM and interested in STEM. The classes are going to move faster and the expectation is that the kids will pick up the material more quickly.

It sounds like kids who are smart and have not been as focused on STEM outside of school have to work harder, but is that a surprise?

This is just patently not true. There are a ton of parents in the freshman chat complaining about the math format. You're basically guaranteed to have a C when the quiz format is 4 points. Not everyone at TJ does competitions and that shouldn't be an expectation.

Parents aren't credible unless they post evidence. They don't know what's happening in the classroom.

[Anonymous]

My kid is still in middle school but does get a pre assessment in some classes before starting the material. The score isn’t included in the grade. Or maybe it’s a completion grade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many Indian parents send their kids to Curie because they want to get the coursework completed ahead of time. The idea is that if you already know the material then TJ becomes manageable. Curie's owner scared and convinced a lot of these parents that without taking classes at them their child would find TJ difficult.

What Curie does is "teach" as in spoon feed the material without making the students think. They do example after example and learn by rote and repetition.

When these kids come to TJ and find any class that they did not take or encounter new material for the first time, they are frozen.

Repetition is a very important part if learning. You ever hear of muscle memory? There is a similar thing simply called memory. Familiarity with techniques and concepts through repetition are often the difference between knowledge and mastery.

The kid that can handle TJ without this training world do even better with it. But it's a trade off. Do you spend time on those reps or on other parts of the high school experience.

Ultimately, that deep understanding requires reps. But all that time drilling might preclude your ability to do that science project or volunteer activity.

Repetition is important, which is an entirely different concept.

Deep understanding does not require repetition! Ever see how they practice in Indian coaching centers back in India? They are not learning concepts deeply, and I do not think you can comprehend this difference if you have not seen it.

But many aspects of your daily life depend on the technology they produce. Indian math-educated CEOs are being sought to lead companies like Google and Microsoft. wonder why?

[Anonymous]

Some teachers write raw score on paper and enter the bumped up score in SIS, others write the bumped up score on paper. That’s the difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many Indian parents send their kids to Curie because they want to get the coursework completed ahead of time. The idea is that if you already know the material then TJ becomes manageable. Curie's owner scared and convinced a lot of these parents that without taking classes at them their child would find TJ difficult.

What Curie does is "teach" as in spoon feed the material without making the students think. They do example after example and learn by rote and repetition.

When these kids come to TJ and find any class that they did not take or encounter new material for the first time, they are frozen.

Repetition is a very important part if learning. You ever hear of muscle memory? There is a similar thing simply called memory. Familiarity with techniques and concepts through repetition are often the difference between knowledge and mastery.

The kid that can handle TJ without this training world do even better with it. But it's a trade off. Do you spend time on those reps or on other parts of the high school experience.

Ultimately, that deep understanding requires reps. But all that time drilling might preclude your ability to do that science project or volunteer activity.

Repetition is important, which is an entirely different concept.

Deep understanding does not require repetition! Ever see how they practice in Indian coaching centers back in India? They are not learning concepts deeply, and I do not think you can comprehend this difference if you have not seen it.

But many aspects of your daily life depend on the technology they produce. Indian math-educated CEOs are being sought to lead companies like Google and Microsoft. wonder why?

There is a your of parent that is almost unique to America that thinks that academic ability should spring from natural talent and ability as if academic effort cannot... SHOULD NOT.... affect academic results.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many Indian parents send their kids to Curie because they want to get the coursework completed ahead of time. The idea is that if you already know the material then TJ becomes manageable. Curie's owner scared and convinced a lot of these parents that without taking classes at them their child would find TJ difficult.

What Curie does is "teach" as in spoon feed the material without making the students think. They do example after example and learn by rote and repetition.

When these kids come to TJ and find any class that they did not take or encounter new material for the first time, they are frozen.

Repetition is a very important part if learning. You ever hear of muscle memory? There is a similar thing simply called memory. Familiarity with techniques and concepts through repetition are often the difference between knowledge and mastery.

The kid that can handle TJ without this training world do even better with it. But it's a trade off. Do you spend time on those reps or on other parts of the high school experience.

Ultimately, that deep understanding requires reps. But all that time drilling might preclude your ability to do that science project or volunteer activity.

Repetition is important, which is an entirely different concept.

Deep understanding does not require repetition! Ever see how they practice in Indian coaching centers back in India? They are not learning concepts deeply, and I do not think you can comprehend this difference if you have not seen it.

But many aspects of your daily life depend on the technology they produce. Indian math-educated CEOs are being sought to lead companies like Google and Microsoft. wonder why?

There is a your of parent that is almost unique to America that thinks that academic ability should spring from natural talent and ability as if academic effort cannot... SHOULD NOT.... affect academic results.

DP. You're correct that other cultures think that all students should excel with hard work, and if they don't excel, they are losers. Whereas Americans are exposed to heterogeneity and know that innate ability is real. Hard work, and smart work, are essential. But they cannot create innate ability where it does not exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many Indian parents send their kids to Curie because they want to get the coursework completed ahead of time. The idea is that if you already know the material then TJ becomes manageable. Curie's owner scared and convinced a lot of these parents that without taking classes at them their child would find TJ difficult.

What Curie does is "teach" as in spoon feed the material without making the students think. They do example after example and learn by rote and repetition.

When these kids come to TJ and find any class that they did not take or encounter new material for the first time, they are frozen.

Repetition is a very important part if learning. You ever hear of muscle memory? There is a similar thing simply called memory. Familiarity with techniques and concepts through repetition are often the difference between knowledge and mastery.

The kid that can handle TJ without this training world do even better with it. But it's a trade off. Do you spend time on those reps or on other parts of the high school experience.

Ultimately, that deep understanding requires reps. But all that time drilling might preclude your ability to do that science project or volunteer activity.

Repetition is important, which is an entirely different concept.

Deep understanding does not require repetition! Ever see how they practice in Indian coaching centers back in India? They are not learning concepts deeply, and I do not think you can comprehend this difference if you have not seen it.

But many aspects of your daily life depend on the technology they produce. Indian math-educated CEOs are being sought to lead companies like Google and Microsoft. wonder why?

There is a your of parent that is almost unique to America that thinks that academic ability should spring from natural talent and ability as if academic effort cannot... SHOULD NOT.... affect academic results.

DP. You're correct that other cultures think that all students should excel with hard work, and if they don't excel, they are losers. Whereas Americans are exposed to heterogeneity and know that innate ability is real. Hard work, and smart work, are essential. But they cannot create innate ability where it does not exist.

That is not true and speak for yourself. That describes some parents who are just selfish and lazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many Indian parents send their kids to Curie because they want to get the coursework completed ahead of time. The idea is that if you already know the material then TJ becomes manageable. Curie's owner scared and convinced a lot of these parents that without taking classes at them their child would find TJ difficult.

What Curie does is "teach" as in spoon feed the material without making the students think. They do example after example and learn by rote and repetition.

When these kids come to TJ and find any class that they did not take or encounter new material for the first time, they are frozen.

Repetition is a very important part if learning. You ever hear of muscle memory? There is a similar thing simply called memory. Familiarity with techniques and concepts through repetition are often the difference between knowledge and mastery.

The kid that can handle TJ without this training world do even better with it. But it's a trade off. Do you spend time on those reps or on other parts of the high school experience.

Ultimately, that deep understanding requires reps. But all that time drilling might preclude your ability to do that science project or volunteer activity.

Repetition is important, which is an entirely different concept.

Deep understanding does not require repetition! Ever see how they practice in Indian coaching centers back in India? They are not learning concepts deeply, and I do not think you can comprehend this difference if you have not seen it.

But many aspects of your daily life depend on the technology they produce. Indian math-educated CEOs are being sought to lead companies like Google and Microsoft. wonder why?

There is a your of parent that is almost unique to America that thinks that academic ability should spring from natural talent and ability as if academic effort cannot... SHOULD NOT.... affect academic results.

DP. You're correct that other cultures think that all students should excel with hard work, and if they don't excel, they are losers. Whereas Americans are exposed to heterogeneity and know that innate ability is real. Hard work, and smart work, are essential. But they cannot create innate ability where it does not exist.

+1
You can help a kid live up to their talents but some kids are simply smarter than others. They just are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many Indian parents send their kids to Curie because they want to get the coursework completed ahead of time. The idea is that if you already know the material then TJ becomes manageable. Curie's owner scared and convinced a lot of these parents that without taking classes at them their child would find TJ difficult.

What Curie does is "teach" as in spoon feed the material without making the students think. They do example after example and learn by rote and repetition.

When these kids come to TJ and find any class that they did not take or encounter new material for the first time, they are frozen.

Repetition is a very important part if learning. You ever hear of muscle memory? There is a similar thing simply called memory. Familiarity with techniques and concepts through repetition are often the difference between knowledge and mastery.

The kid that can handle TJ without this training world do even better with it. But it's a trade off. Do you spend time on those reps or on other parts of the high school experience.

Ultimately, that deep understanding requires reps. But all that time drilling might preclude your ability to do that science project or volunteer activity.

Repetition is important, which is an entirely different concept.

Deep understanding does not require repetition! Ever see how they practice in Indian coaching centers back in India? They are not learning concepts deeply, and I do not think you can comprehend this difference if you have not seen it.

But many aspects of your daily life depend on the technology they produce. Indian math-educated CEOs are being sought to lead companies like Google and Microsoft. wonder why?

I am from India!!! I am not talking about all Indians.

No they did not become CEO's because they went to Curie style coaching centers! My comments are specifically about the FOMO attitude that is prevalent among those who came here straight for a job.

All the CEO's you are referencing did their MS here.

[Anonymous]

I am all for hard work. There is a difference between rote learning and learning by thinking deeply!

I did my BS in India. Any engineering text book you read has 30 pages of examples and 2 pages of theory, followed by 200 exercise problems.

That is not a good way to learn. This is the same method Curie follows.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many Indian parents send their kids to Curie because they want to get the coursework completed ahead of time. The idea is that if you already know the material then TJ becomes manageable. Curie's owner scared and convinced a lot of these parents that without taking classes at them their child would find TJ difficult.

What Curie does is "teach" as in spoon feed the material without making the students think. They do example after example and learn by rote and repetition.

When these kids come to TJ and find any class that they did not take or encounter new material for the first time, they are frozen.

Repetition is a very important part if learning. You ever hear of muscle memory? There is a similar thing simply called memory. Familiarity with techniques and concepts through repetition are often the difference between knowledge and mastery.

The kid that can handle TJ without this training world do even better with it. But it's a trade off. Do you spend time on those reps or on other parts of the high school experience.

Ultimately, that deep understanding requires reps. But all that time drilling might preclude your ability to do that science project or volunteer activity.

Repetition is important, which is an entirely different concept.

Deep understanding does not require repetition! Ever see how they practice in Indian coaching centers back in India? They are not learning concepts deeply, and I do not think you can comprehend this difference if you have not seen it.

But many aspects of your daily life depend on the technology they produce. Indian math-educated CEOs are being sought to lead companies like Google and Microsoft. wonder why?

There is a your of parent that is almost unique to America that thinks that academic ability should spring from natural talent and ability as if academic effort cannot... SHOULD NOT.... affect academic results.

DP. You're correct that other cultures think that all students should excel with hard work, and if they don't excel, they are losers. Whereas Americans are exposed to heterogeneity and know that innate ability is real. Hard work, and smart work, are essential. But they cannot create innate ability where it does not exist.

That is not true and speak for yourself. That describes some parents who are just selfish and lazy.

+1000