TJ Discrimination Case

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So, you've coached middle schoolers who are AIME qualifiers and Mathcounts nationals competitors, and you think they're slightly above average kids who work hard. Oooookay.

Perhaps this person has never coached an AIME qualifier.

One of my kids was an AIME qualifier. It wasn't that big a deal. They were an average kid who made a modest effort in math.

Adults who lack the IQ to recognize when they are in the presence of the truly high IQ should not be coaching teams with gifted kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has jumped the shark. Yeah, it's totally plausible that completely average or slightly above average middle schoolers, many who are struggling with rote application of very simple mathematical algorithms, can be trained with a modicum of effort to be able to answer 16+ of these problems.

https://artofproblemsolving.com/wiki/index.php/2021_Fall_AMC_10A_Problems

I went to a very average middle and high school. A maths lesson was 45min. This is how a typical class went. Firstly we had to wait 10min into the scheduled time because classmates where always late arriving due to taking a smoking break in the toilets. A further 5min was spent waiting until everyone was quiet. Then the teacher would ask for the homework assignment that she had set to be due in that day. Only about 5 out of the 30 of us had bothered, including me. With little other choice the teacher would then tell us to spend the rest of the class time completing the questions they should have done at home. This happened constantly. I learnt nothing in that class, nothing. My good grades where only due to my own initiative outside class.

So yes, I could take able kids from education environments like I had and actually teach and challenge them for the first time in ages/ever and get them through hard material like that.

BTW I went to community college and eventually qualified as an engineer from a good state school in my thirties so the math ability was always there.

But none of that is relevant for the argument at hand. A PP argued that a completely average middle schooler could be trained to get 16+ of those problems correct with a modicum of effort. That's completely different than arguing that a kid with high math ability in a bad environment could be trained to learn higher level math. It may be reasonable to argue that math contests shouldn't be considered in TJ applications because not everyone has access or the same course rigor to make it an even playing field. It is not reasonable to argue that math contests shouldn't be considered because the 16 AIME qualifiers out of many, many kids who prepped hardcore for this test are at best slightly above average.

[Anonymous]

How do you know that they have average intrinsic ability and not just hamper by poor environment. A kid with a bad algebra foundation who fails trigonometry are not necessarily low ability, somebody just needs to teach them the fundamentals properly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: How do you know that they have average intrinsic ability and not just hamper by poor environment. A kid with a bad algebra foundation who fails trigonometry are not necessarily low ability, somebody just needs to teach them the fundamentals properly.

??? Literally no one has argued that kids in poor environments have average intrinsic ability. Which thread are you even reading?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread has jumped the shark. Yeah, it's totally plausible that completely average or slightly above average middle schoolers, many who are struggling with rote application of very simple mathematical algorithms, can be trained with a modicum of effort to be able to answer 16+ of these problems.

https://artofproblemsolving.com/wiki/index.php/2021_Fall_AMC_10A_Problems

I'm going to guess that you thought these problems were a lot harder than they actually are when you posted them.

That would explain believing that students who were taught how to solve them are somehow "gifted".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So, you've coached middle schoolers who are AIME qualifiers and Mathcounts nationals competitors, and you think they're slightly above average kids who work hard. Oooookay.

Perhaps this person has never coached an AIME qualifier.

One of my kids was an AIME qualifier. It wasn't that big a deal. They were an average kid who made a modest effort in math.

Adults who lack the IQ to recognize when they are in the presence of the truly high IQ should not be coaching teams with gifted kids.

Idiots on this forum talking about IQ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So, you've coached middle schoolers who are AIME qualifiers and Mathcounts nationals competitors, and you think they're slightly above average kids who work hard. Oooookay.

Perhaps this person has never coached an AIME qualifier.

One of my kids was an AIME qualifier. It wasn't that big a deal. They were an average kid who made a modest effort in math.

Adults who lack the IQ to recognize when they are in the presence of the truly high IQ should not be coaching teams with gifted kids.

Perhaps, but definitely, adults who feel intimidated by slightly above-average IQs should steer clear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of the TJ students admitted under the new admissions process are just a bad fit. Whether it is lacking intelligence, motivation, preparation, or work ethic, it doesn't matter.

Sadly, even more, admitted under the old process, struggled to keep up. All that prep made average kids appear gifted who once at TJ just couldn't hack it.

You are deeply committed to the notion that the new admissions process is leading to happier students and better results, despite the lack of evidence to support that.

One could just as easily speculate - and it is speculation at this point - that the new admissions process will lead to a reduction in TJ's academic standards and more kids who struggle to keep up even with less rigor.

At least the kids you disparage so much worked hard to keep up and please their parents. One suspects many current students applied on a lark, were admitted to fill middle school quotas, and over time will contribute to TJ's just becoming another FCPS high school, although one with better labs and stronger academics than schools like Annandale, Lewis, and Mount Vernon.

DP, agree with this. If one looks at the top TJ kids, ALL of them work very hard, it's not like "Oh, they're so gifted they don't need to strive as much as the rest". This is such a silly American misconception that one is born gifted thus they don't need to work as hard as others who are not. The PPs who keep claiming that the kids who work hard only 'appear gifted' will have to prove their silly claim by 1) defining what the heck they're talking about when using the word 'gifted' and 2) showing how they know that kids who work hard are not 'gifted' by their definition. The data at TJ is very much like the data at other base schools: the kids who work hard, are dedicated, and passionate, do very well. It's as simple as that; those qualities lead to success. It has nothing to do with the suggestion that normal kids with above qualities and no learning issues cannot somehow cut it at TJ.

It is a silly notion to not believe that some kids are indeed smarter than others, and much smarter, without actually having to try that hard. I work in an industry that attracts a lot of really bright people, but everyone knows who the really, really, smart people are. They are the ones who have photographic memories and the ability to think, reason and cut through the weeds much faster than others.

They produce massive quantities of high-quality work quickly and efficiently. They also manage to have families that they spend time with, coach their kid's soccer team, and do things like community theater or partake in juried photography exhibitions in their spare time. They aren't on anti-depressants and they don't take drugs to increase their stamina. They just have a ton of stamina because the act of living doesn't wear them out. They have energy at the end of the day because everything is just easier for them.

Some people just have a greater capacity than others, it's not about being more organized or working harder, they are just brilliant. You know it when you see it.

As an adult, I know who I want on my team, and trust me it isn't the guy who stays up all night long burning the midnight oil, night after night, after night. Because inevitably they crash and burn...when one week rolls into the next, and the next, and they are just keeping up. So they quit and decide to stay home with the kids, or they get a gov't job or teach... all things they could have done without having to go through the experience of pushing themselves past exhaustion and then burning out and flaming out.

I've seen your now adult kids in the workplace and it isn't pretty.

Churn and burn baby.

Your reasoning is flawed and your anecdotal evidence such as photographic memory is just plain silly. The gifted kids at TJ work INCREDIBLY hard. If you don't believe it, just ask the top kids at TJ. They win math and science competitions because they spend hours everyday preparing. If you want further evidence, try finding the mathematical forums that they inhabit at all hours of the day and see the types of questions they spend time solving. In fact, most of these kids were interested in learning way before TJ and did it from a younger age; you perceive them as 'gifted' but they've been training since elementary school, what you call 'prepping'. What you mistakenly perceive as effortless actually required a ton of effort behind the scenes. In fact those kids will continue to in your words "burn the midnight oil" at places such as MIT just as they did at TJ, because they love learning; it's part of who they are. Frankly I don't think you have any real understanding (or appreciation!) of how the kids you deem as 'smart' systematically train to develop their range of skills. Again, a very common American misunderstanding that results in them being called 'gifted' and 'genius' -- labels which are frankly offensive to them because they sweep aside the amount of effort they had to put in to succeed at high levels.

You just don’t understand what it’s like to be very, very intelligent. You honestly believe that it’s te “training” that makes kids smart because you simply haven’t been around kids who are naturally *extremely* intelligent.

You don’t believe it exists because it doesn’t fit into your narrative that all you have to do is “train” a child the right way and they will love solving difficult math problems.

Yes, I believe that proper training matters vastly more and intrinsic high IQ is neither necessary nor sufficient. I actually trained and taught students for math competitions in the past and I can tell you that many kids who are obviously naturally smart don't necessarily do well at all. They have to first be interested (i.e not pushed by parents who like you think their kid is naturally smart because they scored high on an IQ test and therefore are able to do anything), then on top of that they also have to be very motivated to work hard. Believe it or not, the old adage about 1% nature/99% nurture is much truer than what you seem to believe. You think the kids who do extremely well are 'genius' or whatever other word comes to your mind. Of course they're well functioning (they don't have learning issues), but really not that different from many other people. Where they really excel is in how they learn how to learn, how they self analyze when they make mistakes, how they iterate and seek help, how they ask lots of questions without being afraid or feeling dumb, how they enjoy thinking slowly and deeply about things until they feel they have a good understanding, and just how they love working very hard at this process and not give up when they don't initially succeed. Now not many kids in today's age can do this for a long time; if they did, they would become very skilled and you would be seeing 'geniuses' all over the place.

Um. Wow. I've also trained and taught students for math competitions, and my experience is exactly the opposite. Motivated, well trained kids do reasonably well, but they never rise to the top. The kids who are geniuses generally outperform the motivated, well trained kids, even without much practice. You must not have coached any particularly talented kids, and your students must not have achieved anything noteworthy for you to hold the beliefs that you hold.

All I've seen are slightly above average kids that work super hard. Haven't met many geniuses but I've only been coaching a math team since the 90s.

You mean purchased the test answers to appear gifted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of the TJ students admitted under the new admissions process are just a bad fit. Whether it is lacking intelligence, motivation, preparation, or work ethic, it doesn't matter.

Sadly, even more, admitted under the old process, struggled to keep up. All that prep made average kids appear gifted who once at TJ just couldn't hack it.

You are deeply committed to the notion that the new admissions process is leading to happier students and better results, despite the lack of evidence to support that.

One could just as easily speculate - and it is speculation at this point - that the new admissions process will lead to a reduction in TJ's academic standards and more kids who struggle to keep up even with less rigor.

At least the kids you disparage so much worked hard to keep up and please their parents. One suspects many current students applied on a lark, were admitted to fill middle school quotas, and over time will contribute to TJ's just becoming another FCPS high school, although one with better labs and stronger academics than schools like Annandale, Lewis, and Mount Vernon.

DP, agree with this. If one looks at the top TJ kids, ALL of them work very hard, it's not like "Oh, they're so gifted they don't need to strive as much as the rest". This is such a silly American misconception that one is born gifted thus they don't need to work as hard as others who are not. The PPs who keep claiming that the kids who work hard only 'appear gifted' will have to prove their silly claim by 1) defining what the heck they're talking about when using the word 'gifted' and 2) showing how they know that kids who work hard are not 'gifted' by their definition. The data at TJ is very much like the data at other base schools: the kids who work hard, are dedicated, and passionate, do very well. It's as simple as that; those qualities lead to success. It has nothing to do with the suggestion that normal kids with above qualities and no learning issues cannot somehow cut it at TJ.

It is a silly notion to not believe that some kids are indeed smarter than others, and much smarter, without actually having to try that hard. I work in an industry that attracts a lot of really bright people, but everyone knows who the really, really, smart people are. They are the ones who have photographic memories and the ability to think, reason and cut through the weeds much faster than others.

They produce massive quantities of high-quality work quickly and efficiently. They also manage to have families that they spend time with, coach their kid's soccer team, and do things like community theater or partake in juried photography exhibitions in their spare time. They aren't on anti-depressants and they don't take drugs to increase their stamina. They just have a ton of stamina because the act of living doesn't wear them out. They have energy at the end of the day because everything is just easier for them.

Some people just have a greater capacity than others, it's not about being more organized or working harder, they are just brilliant. You know it when you see it.

As an adult, I know who I want on my team, and trust me it isn't the guy who stays up all night long burning the midnight oil, night after night, after night. Because inevitably they crash and burn...when one week rolls into the next, and the next, and they are just keeping up. So they quit and decide to stay home with the kids, or they get a gov't job or teach... all things they could have done without having to go through the experience of pushing themselves past exhaustion and then burning out and flaming out.

I've seen your now adult kids in the workplace and it isn't pretty.

Churn and burn baby.

Your reasoning is flawed and your anecdotal evidence such as photographic memory is just plain silly. The gifted kids at TJ work INCREDIBLY hard. If you don't believe it, just ask the top kids at TJ. They win math and science competitions because they spend hours everyday preparing. If you want further evidence, try finding the mathematical forums that they inhabit at all hours of the day and see the types of questions they spend time solving. In fact, most of these kids were interested in learning way before TJ and did it from a younger age; you perceive them as 'gifted' but they've been training since elementary school, what you call 'prepping'. What you mistakenly perceive as effortless actually required a ton of effort behind the scenes. In fact those kids will continue to in your words "burn the midnight oil" at places such as MIT just as they did at TJ, because they love learning; it's part of who they are. Frankly I don't think you have any real understanding (or appreciation!) of how the kids you deem as 'smart' systematically train to develop their range of skills. Again, a very common American misunderstanding that results in them being called 'gifted' and 'genius' -- labels which are frankly offensive to them because they sweep aside the amount of effort they had to put in to succeed at high levels.

You just don’t understand what it’s like to be very, very intelligent. You honestly believe that it’s te “training” that makes kids smart because you simply haven’t been around kids who are naturally *extremely* intelligent.

You don’t believe it exists because it doesn’t fit into your narrative that all you have to do is “train” a child the right way and they will love solving difficult math problems.

Yes, I believe that proper training matters vastly more and intrinsic high IQ is neither necessary nor sufficient. I actually trained and taught students for math competitions in the past and I can tell you that many kids who are obviously naturally smart don't necessarily do well at all. They have to first be interested (i.e not pushed by parents who like you think their kid is naturally smart because they scored high on an IQ test and therefore are able to do anything), then on top of that they also have to be very motivated to work hard. Believe it or not, the old adage about 1% nature/99% nurture is much truer than what you seem to believe. You think the kids who do extremely well are 'genius' or whatever other word comes to your mind. Of course they're well functioning (they don't have learning issues), but really not that different from many other people. Where they really excel is in how they learn how to learn, how they self analyze when they make mistakes, how they iterate and seek help, how they ask lots of questions without being afraid or feeling dumb, how they enjoy thinking slowly and deeply about things until they feel they have a good understanding, and just how they love working very hard at this process and not give up when they don't initially succeed. Now not many kids in today's age can do this for a long time; if they did, they would become very skilled and you would be seeing 'geniuses' all over the place.

Um. Wow. I've also trained and taught students for math competitions, and my experience is exactly the opposite. Motivated, well trained kids do reasonably well, but they never rise to the top. The kids who are geniuses generally outperform the motivated, well trained kids, even without much practice. You must not have coached any particularly talented kids, and your students must not have achieved anything noteworthy for you to hold the beliefs that you hold.

All I've seen are slightly above average kids that work super hard. Haven't met many geniuses but I've only been coaching a math team since the 90s.

You mean purchased the test answers to appear gifted.

This is referring to past math contests, probably time for you to move on to another thread since you're barely keeping up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of the TJ students admitted under the new admissions process are just a bad fit. Whether it is lacking intelligence, motivation, preparation, or work ethic, it doesn't matter.

Sadly, even more, admitted under the old process, struggled to keep up. All that prep made average kids appear gifted who once at TJ just couldn't hack it.

You are deeply committed to the notion that the new admissions process is leading to happier students and better results, despite the lack of evidence to support that.

One could just as easily speculate - and it is speculation at this point - that the new admissions process will lead to a reduction in TJ's academic standards and more kids who struggle to keep up even with less rigor.

At least the kids you disparage so much worked hard to keep up and please their parents. One suspects many current students applied on a lark, were admitted to fill middle school quotas, and over time will contribute to TJ's just becoming another FCPS high school, although one with better labs and stronger academics than schools like Annandale, Lewis, and Mount Vernon.

DP, agree with this. If one looks at the top TJ kids, ALL of them work very hard, it's not like "Oh, they're so gifted they don't need to strive as much as the rest". This is such a silly American misconception that one is born gifted thus they don't need to work as hard as others who are not. The PPs who keep claiming that the kids who work hard only 'appear gifted' will have to prove their silly claim by 1) defining what the heck they're talking about when using the word 'gifted' and 2) showing how they know that kids who work hard are not 'gifted' by their definition. The data at TJ is very much like the data at other base schools: the kids who work hard, are dedicated, and passionate, do very well. It's as simple as that; those qualities lead to success. It has nothing to do with the suggestion that normal kids with above qualities and no learning issues cannot somehow cut it at TJ.

It is a silly notion to not believe that some kids are indeed smarter than others, and much smarter, without actually having to try that hard. I work in an industry that attracts a lot of really bright people, but everyone knows who the really, really, smart people are. They are the ones who have photographic memories and the ability to think, reason and cut through the weeds much faster than others.

They produce massive quantities of high-quality work quickly and efficiently. They also manage to have families that they spend time with, coach their kid's soccer team, and do things like community theater or partake in juried photography exhibitions in their spare time. They aren't on anti-depressants and they don't take drugs to increase their stamina. They just have a ton of stamina because the act of living doesn't wear them out. They have energy at the end of the day because everything is just easier for them.

Some people just have a greater capacity than others, it's not about being more organized or working harder, they are just brilliant. You know it when you see it.

As an adult, I know who I want on my team, and trust me it isn't the guy who stays up all night long burning the midnight oil, night after night, after night. Because inevitably they crash and burn...when one week rolls into the next, and the next, and they are just keeping up. So they quit and decide to stay home with the kids, or they get a gov't job or teach... all things they could have done without having to go through the experience of pushing themselves past exhaustion and then burning out and flaming out.

I've seen your now adult kids in the workplace and it isn't pretty.

Churn and burn baby.

Your reasoning is flawed and your anecdotal evidence such as photographic memory is just plain silly. The gifted kids at TJ work INCREDIBLY hard. If you don't believe it, just ask the top kids at TJ. They win math and science competitions because they spend hours everyday preparing. If you want further evidence, try finding the mathematical forums that they inhabit at all hours of the day and see the types of questions they spend time solving. In fact, most of these kids were interested in learning way before TJ and did it from a younger age; you perceive them as 'gifted' but they've been training since elementary school, what you call 'prepping'. What you mistakenly perceive as effortless actually required a ton of effort behind the scenes. In fact those kids will continue to in your words "burn the midnight oil" at places such as MIT just as they did at TJ, because they love learning; it's part of who they are. Frankly I don't think you have any real understanding (or appreciation!) of how the kids you deem as 'smart' systematically train to develop their range of skills. Again, a very common American misunderstanding that results in them being called 'gifted' and 'genius' -- labels which are frankly offensive to them because they sweep aside the amount of effort they had to put in to succeed at high levels.

You just don’t understand what it’s like to be very, very intelligent. You honestly believe that it’s te “training” that makes kids smart because you simply haven’t been around kids who are naturally *extremely* intelligent.

You don’t believe it exists because it doesn’t fit into your narrative that all you have to do is “train” a child the right way and they will love solving difficult math problems.

Yes, I believe that proper training matters vastly more and intrinsic high IQ is neither necessary nor sufficient. I actually trained and taught students for math competitions in the past and I can tell you that many kids who are obviously naturally smart don't necessarily do well at all. They have to first be interested (i.e not pushed by parents who like you think their kid is naturally smart because they scored high on an IQ test and therefore are able to do anything), then on top of that they also have to be very motivated to work hard. Believe it or not, the old adage about 1% nature/99% nurture is much truer than what you seem to believe. You think the kids who do extremely well are 'genius' or whatever other word comes to your mind. Of course they're well functioning (they don't have learning issues), but really not that different from many other people. Where they really excel is in how they learn how to learn, how they self analyze when they make mistakes, how they iterate and seek help, how they ask lots of questions without being afraid or feeling dumb, how they enjoy thinking slowly and deeply about things until they feel they have a good understanding, and just how they love working very hard at this process and not give up when they don't initially succeed. Now not many kids in today's age can do this for a long time; if they did, they would become very skilled and you would be seeing 'geniuses' all over the place.

Um. Wow. I've also trained and taught students for math competitions, and my experience is exactly the opposite. Motivated, well trained kids do reasonably well, but they never rise to the top. The kids who are geniuses generally outperform the motivated, well trained kids, even without much practice. You must not have coached any particularly talented kids, and your students must not have achieved anything noteworthy for you to hold the beliefs that you hold.

All I've seen are slightly above average kids that work super hard. Haven't met many geniuses but I've only been coaching a math team since the 90s.

You mean purchased the test answers to appear gifted.

I read about that. A bunch of kids were buying access to the TJ admission test to improve their chances of admission and the county had to change the selection process to put an end to it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has jumped the shark. Yeah, it's totally plausible that completely average or slightly above average middle schoolers, many who are struggling with rote application of very simple mathematical algorithms, can be trained with a modicum of effort to be able to answer 16+ of these problems.

https://artofproblemsolving.com/wiki/index.php/2021_Fall_AMC_10A_Problems

I'm going to guess that you thought these problems were a lot harder than they actually are when you posted them.

That would explain believing that students who were taught how to solve them are somehow "gifted".

In NoVA, tons of kids are taking math classes through AoPS and RSM. Tons are on their school math teams and get coaching there. Tons are strivers doing Sunday math enrichment. Only 16 8th graders qualified for AIME. But sure, keep on insisting that those kids are average and anyone can easily qualify for AIME.

Also, how many middle school AIME qualifiers did you coach last year? If none or only one, why are you such a terrible coach who can't elevate your students to a rather trivial achievement? If a lot, name the school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has jumped the shark. Yeah, it's totally plausible that completely average or slightly above average middle schoolers, many who are struggling with rote application of very simple mathematical algorithms, can be trained with a modicum of effort to be able to answer 16+ of these problems.

https://artofproblemsolving.com/wiki/index.php/2021_Fall_AMC_10A_Problems

I'm going to guess that you thought these problems were a lot harder than they actually are when you posted them.

That would explain believing that students who were taught how to solve them are somehow "gifted".

In NoVA, tons of kids are taking math classes through AoPS and RSM. Tons are on their school math teams and get coaching there. Tons are strivers doing Sunday math enrichment. Only 16 8th graders qualified for AIME. But sure, keep on insisting that those kids are average and anyone can easily qualify for AIME.

Also, how many middle school AIME qualifiers did you coach last year? If none or only one, why are you such a terrible coach who can't elevate your students to a rather trivial achievement? If a lot, name the school.

The AIME qualifiers are above average but not really special; they just trained hard. Also, most of the kids that go to AoPS don't go there with the express purpose of raising their AMC 10 score. They go there to learn more math, and learn it in a much better way than what they do in school. Many more kids have the capacity to pass the AMC 10, but most kids are just not into that; they have many other competing interests. Unfortunately, one of the main factors on the AMC 10 is time, you have to solve enough questions correctly in 75 minutes, which requires a lot of systematic practice and training. Most middle school kids are not going to spend hours a day practicing for the AMC 10, unless they deeply love math and math contests specifically. It's a very niche skill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has jumped the shark. Yeah, it's totally plausible that completely average or slightly above average middle schoolers, many who are struggling with rote application of very simple mathematical algorithms, can be trained with a modicum of effort to be able to answer 16+ of these problems.

https://artofproblemsolving.com/wiki/index.php/2021_Fall_AMC_10A_Problems

I'm going to guess that you thought these problems were a lot harder than they actually are when you posted them.

That would explain believing that students who were taught how to solve them are somehow "gifted".

In NoVA, tons of kids are taking math classes through AoPS and RSM. Tons are on their school math teams and get coaching there. Tons are strivers doing Sunday math enrichment. Only 16 8th graders qualified for AIME. But sure, keep on insisting that those kids are average and anyone can easily qualify for AIME.

Also, how many middle school AIME qualifiers did you coach last year? If none or only one, why are you such a terrible coach who can't elevate your students to a rather trivial achievement? If a lot, name the school.

The AIME qualifiers are above average but not really special; they just trained hard. Also, most of the kids that go to AoPS don't go there with the express purpose of raising their AMC 10 score. They go there to learn more math, and learn it in a much better way than what they do in school. Many more kids have the capacity to pass the AMC 10, but most kids are just not into that; they have many other competing interests. Unfortunately, one of the main factors on the AMC 10 is time, you have to solve enough questions correctly in 75 minutes, which requires a lot of systematic practice and training. Most middle school kids are not going to spend hours a day practicing for the AMC 10, unless they deeply love math and math contests specifically. It's a very niche skill.

Except for Asians who have been going to Chinese school for math since they were in diapers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has jumped the shark. Yeah, it's totally plausible that completely average or slightly above average middle schoolers, many who are struggling with rote application of very simple mathematical algorithms, can be trained with a modicum of effort to be able to answer 16+ of these problems.

https://artofproblemsolving.com/wiki/index.php/2021_Fall_AMC_10A_Problems

I'm going to guess that you thought these problems were a lot harder than they actually are when you posted them.

That would explain believing that students who were taught how to solve them are somehow "gifted".

In NoVA, tons of kids are taking math classes through AoPS and RSM. Tons are on their school math teams and get coaching there. Tons are strivers doing Sunday math enrichment. Only 16 8th graders qualified for AIME. But sure, keep on insisting that those kids are average and anyone can easily qualify for AIME.

Also, how many middle school AIME qualifiers did you coach last year? If none or only one, why are you such a terrible coach who can't elevate your students to a rather trivial achievement? If a lot, name the school.

The AIME qualifiers are above average but not really special; they just trained hard. Also, most of the kids that go to AoPS don't go there with the express purpose of raising their AMC 10 score. They go there to learn more math, and learn it in a much better way than what they do in school. Many more kids have the capacity to pass the AMC 10, but most kids are just not into that; they have many other competing interests. Unfortunately, one of the main factors on the AMC 10 is time, you have to solve enough questions correctly in 75 minutes, which requires a lot of systematic practice and training. Most middle school kids are not going to spend hours a day practicing for the AMC 10, unless they deeply love math and math contests specifically. It's a very niche skill.

Hours a day? I'll have to tell my AIME qualifier that he's massively slacking.

MIT, Caltech, Stanford, and a lot of other top notch schools ask for AMC scores in their application packets. It's a shame that their admissions officers haven't received your expertise on math contests, since they're clearly under the impression that AMC scores indicate math talent.

[Anonymous]

But the absence of AMC scores doesn’t mean the absence of math talent.