Bad for students, who apply for CS or engineering, to take AP Calc AB and then BC?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can just look up the course description from a college board.

https://apcentral.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/ap-calculus-ab-and-bc-course-and-exam-description.pdf

In the prerequisites section, it’s clear they aren’t supposed to be taken in sequence. The only additional prerequisite is that students are familiar with basic series and sequences, usually covered in precalculus if not algebra 2.

It’s fine if students want to take AB+BC, just as it is fine to repeat Algebra if the foundation is not there. Obviously very strong students don’t typically repeat material because they can handle it in one pass well enough. Making AB a prerequisite goes against the College Board course description and recommendation.

And yet many high schools make AB a prerequisite to BC, and have done so for many years, and the College Board goes on certifying their courses as official AP courses.

College board audits courses, not certifies them. Why wouldn’t they, it’s about the course contents, covered material and standards. If the schools wants to have a third of the class take AP calculus then it makes sense to herd them through the AB and BC in sequence, but honestly I think the top 5-10% of the class could just go straight to BC. It’s a disservice to them to do make AB mandatory.

So far the only argument for taking AB+BC is that somebody’s kid did this and ended up a a good school. Good for them, I don’t think it’s a red flag for admissions, it’s just that repeating material to get a better “foundation” is not optimal.

For the numerous high schools that separate the AP calculus into two separate years, AB and BC, and REQUIRE AB then BC, due to the BC course being designed to start mid-curriculum for what College board lists as BC, there is NOchoice for the students. Need it or not, it is taught over two yrs by design by those (usually private) HS. Who cares? No one. Those students are following what they have to do in their HS curriculum. AOs understand that there is not unnecessary “repetition “, rather the pace is just slowed and split into two yrs, on purpose.

The PP that gets hung up on course title and repetition is missing the forest for the trees. As someone pointed out this is how math is taught throughout, on a spiral, reinforcement past concepts introduce new.

With the right cohort of kids, there is enough depth in algebra 1 to make a challenging class.Two years of calculus is not remedial if the school plans it that way. OTOH, there are ways to teach MV or linear, that are not at all engaging. Collection of techniques without motivation, no student participation or discussion. Plenty of CC classes are exactly that. Crazy, but being in a room with engaged students is more important than course title.

This! It’s not about the course title. It’s about how you reinforce the material you have already covered and go further in depth on it. I would much rather a student come in with a strong understanding of series and what an integral really is than to have been exposed to matrix algebra. The latter is a tool - an important one but is sort of rote. Deeper understanding of the operators of calculus is a lot more important and needs to be repeated/reinforced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can just look up the course description from a college board.

https://apcentral.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/ap-calculus-ab-and-bc-course-and-exam-description.pdf

In the prerequisites section, it’s clear they aren’t supposed to be taken in sequence. The only additional prerequisite is that students are familiar with basic series and sequences, usually covered in precalculus if not algebra 2.

It’s fine if students want to take AB+BC, just as it is fine to repeat Algebra if the foundation is not there. Obviously very strong students don’t typically repeat material because they can handle it in one pass well enough. Making AB a prerequisite goes against the College Board course description and recommendation.

And yet many high schools make AB a prerequisite to BC, and have done so for many years, and the College Board goes on certifying their courses as official AP courses.

College board audits courses, not certifies them. Why wouldn’t they, it’s about the course contents, covered material and standards. If the schools wants to have a third of the class take AP calculus then it makes sense to herd them through the AB and BC in sequence, but honestly I think the top 5-10% of the class could just go straight to BC. It’s a disservice to them to do make AB mandatory.

So far the only argument for taking AB+BC is that somebody’s kid did this and ended up a a good school. Good for them, I don’t think it’s a red flag for admissions, it’s just that repeating material to get a better “foundation” is not optimal.

For the numerous high schools that separate the AP calculus into two separate years, AB and BC, and REQUIRE AB then BC, due to the BC course being designed to start mid-curriculum for what College board lists as BC, there is NOchoice for the students. Need it or not, it is taught over two yrs by design by those (usually private) HS. Who cares? No one. Those students are following what they have to do in their HS curriculum. AOs understand that there is not unnecessary “repetition “, rather the pace is just slowed and split into two yrs, on purpose.

The PP that gets hung up on course title and repetition is missing the forest for the trees. As someone pointed out this is how math is taught throughout, on a spiral, reinforcement past concepts introduce new.

With the right cohort of kids, there is enough depth in algebra 1 to make a challenging class.Two years of calculus is not remedial if the school plans it that way. OTOH, there are ways to teach MV or linear, that are not at all engaging. Collection of techniques without motivation, no student participation or discussion. Plenty of CC classes are exactly that. Crazy, but being in a room with engaged students is more important than course title.

This! It’s not about the course title. It’s about how you reinforce the material you have already covered and go further in depth on it. I would much rather a student come in with a strong understanding of series and what an integral really is than to have been exposed to matrix algebra. The latter is a tool - an important one but is sort of rote. Deeper understanding of the operators of calculus is a lot more important and needs to be repeated/reinforced.

The way you talk about it, I’m willing to bet you don’t know what an “integral really is”. lol at “matrix algebra”, a sad confusion about matrix representation of vectors in linear algebra, which is a “tool, an important one but sort if rote”. Operators are in linear algebra, not calculus.

And on top of it you have the nerve to say it’s not about the title! Well duh, that’s as far as you read!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can just look up the course description from a college board.

https://apcentral.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/ap-calculus-ab-and-bc-course-and-exam-description.pdf

In the prerequisites section, it’s clear they aren’t supposed to be taken in sequence. The only additional prerequisite is that students are familiar with basic series and sequences, usually covered in precalculus if not algebra 2.

It’s fine if students want to take AB+BC, just as it is fine to repeat Algebra if the foundation is not there. Obviously very strong students don’t typically repeat material because they can handle it in one pass well enough. Making AB a prerequisite goes against the College Board course description and recommendation.

And yet many high schools make AB a prerequisite to BC, and have done so for many years, and the College Board goes on certifying their courses as official AP courses.

College board audits courses, not certifies them. Why wouldn’t they, it’s about the course contents, covered material and standards. If the schools wants to have a third of the class take AP calculus then it makes sense to herd them through the AB and BC in sequence, but honestly I think the top 5-10% of the class could just go straight to BC. It’s a disservice to them to do make AB mandatory.

So far the only argument for taking AB+BC is that somebody’s kid did this and ended up a a good school. Good for them, I don’t think it’s a red flag for admissions, it’s just that repeating material to get a better “foundation” is not optimal.

For the numerous high schools that separate the AP calculus into two separate years, AB and BC, and REQUIRE AB then BC, due to the BC course being designed to start mid-curriculum for what College board lists as BC, there is NOchoice for the students. Need it or not, it is taught over two yrs by design by those (usually private) HS. Who cares? No one. Those students are following what they have to do in their HS curriculum. AOs understand that there is not unnecessary “repetition “, rather the pace is just slowed and split into two yrs, on purpose.

The PP that gets hung up on course title and repetition is missing the forest for the trees. As someone pointed out this is how math is taught throughout, on a spiral, reinforcement past concepts introduce new.

With the right cohort of kids, there is enough depth in algebra 1 to make a challenging class.Two years of calculus is not remedial if the school plans it that way. OTOH, there are ways to teach MV or linear, that are not at all engaging. Collection of techniques without motivation, no student participation or discussion. Plenty of CC classes are exactly that. Crazy, but being in a room with engaged students is more important than course title.

This! It’s not about the course title. It’s about how you reinforce the material you have already covered and go further in depth on it. I would much rather a student come in with a strong understanding of series and what an integral really is than to have been exposed to matrix algebra. The latter is a tool - an important one but is sort of rote. Deeper understanding of the operators of calculus is a lot more important and needs to be repeated/reinforced.

The way you talk about it, I’m willing to bet you don’t know what an “integral really is”. lol at “matrix algebra”, a sad confusion about matrix representation of vectors in linear algebra, which is a “tool, an important one but sort if rote”. Operators are in linear algebra, not calculus.

And on top of it you have the nerve to say it’s not about the title! Well duh, that’s as far as you read!

I’m not that PP, but you’re the one drawing from ideals, not reality. There are always two varieties on LA courses. One in service to the engineers, etc. which simply a bag of tricks for calculating. Another for majors, sometimes upper division, with all the grandeur. The classes kids take at CCs are not what you imagine, at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You get an AB sub score when taking BC, because BC covers all AB material plus a little more.

If your kid needs to slow down and do AP+BC, that’s fine, but it’s a little silly to claim it’s because they want a strong foundation. Literally tens of thousands of strong students end up with a 5 after going straight to BC.

You have NO clue how many of the BC 5s skipped AB.

My kid got 5 on both. So did another 30+ kids at our HS. Because they require AB before taking BC. The co rent of an is covered in 2-3 week refresher at start of BC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You can just look up the course description from a college board.

https://apcentral.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/ap-calculus-ab-and-bc-course-and-exam-description.pdf

In the prerequisites section, it’s clear they aren’t supposed to be taken in sequence. The only additional prerequisite is that students are familiar with basic series and sequences, usually covered in precalculus if not algebra 2.

It’s fine if students want to take AB+BC, just as it is fine to repeat Algebra if the foundation is not there. Obviously very strong students don’t typically repeat material because they can handle it in one pass well enough. Making AB a prerequisite goes against the College Board course description and recommendation.

Colleges know which schools require an before bc

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can just look up the course description from a college board.

https://apcentral.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/ap-calculus-ab-and-bc-course-and-exam-description.pdf

In the prerequisites section, it’s clear they aren’t supposed to be taken in sequence. The only additional prerequisite is that students are familiar with basic series and sequences, usually covered in precalculus if not algebra 2.

It’s fine if students want to take AB+BC, just as it is fine to repeat Algebra if the foundation is not there. Obviously very strong students don’t typically repeat material because they can handle it in one pass well enough. Making AB a prerequisite goes against the College Board course description and recommendation.

And yet many high schools make AB a prerequisite to BC, and have done so for many years, and the College Board goes on certifying their courses as official AP courses.

College board audits courses, not certifies them. Why wouldn’t they, it’s about the course contents, covered material and standards. If the schools wants to have a third of the class take AP calculus then it makes sense to herd them through the AB and BC in sequence, but honestly I think the top 5-10% of the class could just go straight to BC. It’s a disservice to them to do make AB mandatory.

So far the only argument for taking AB+BC is that somebody’s kid did this and ended up a a good school. Good for them, I don’t think it’s a red flag for admissions, it’s just that repeating material to get a better “foundation” is not optimal.

For the numerous high schools that separate the AP calculus into two separate years, AB and BC, and REQUIRE AB then BC, due to the BC course being designed to start mid-curriculum for what College board lists as BC, there is NOchoice for the students. Need it or not, it is taught over two yrs by design by those (usually private) HS. Who cares? No one. Those students are following what they have to do in their HS curriculum. AOs understand that there is not unnecessary “repetition “, rather the pace is just slowed and split into two yrs, on purpose.

The PP that gets hung up on course title and repetition is missing the forest for the trees. As someone pointed out this is how math is taught throughout, on a spiral, reinforcement past concepts introduce new.

With the right cohort of kids, there is enough depth in algebra 1 to make a challenging class.Two years of calculus is not remedial if the school plans it that way. OTOH, there are ways to teach MV or linear, that are not at all engaging. Collection of techniques without motivation, no student participation or discussion. Plenty of CC classes are exactly that. Crazy, but being in a room with engaged students is more important than course title.

This! It’s not about the course title. It’s about how you reinforce the material you have already covered and go further in depth on it. I would much rather a student come in with a strong understanding of series and what an integral really is than to have been exposed to matrix algebra. The latter is a tool - an important one but is sort of rote. Deeper understanding of the operators of calculus is a lot more important and needs to be repeated/reinforced.

The way you talk about it, I’m willing to bet you don’t know what an “integral really is”. lol at “matrix algebra”, a sad confusion about matrix representation of vectors in linear algebra, which is a “tool, an important one but sort if rote”. Operators are in linear algebra, not calculus.

And on top of it you have the nerve to say it’s not about the title! Well duh, that’s as far as you read!

I’m not that PP, but you’re the one drawing from ideals, not reality. There are always two varieties on LA courses. One in service to the engineers, etc. which simply a bag of tricks for calculating. Another for majors, sometimes upper division, with all the grandeur. The classes kids take at CCs are not what you imagine, at all.

Trying to understand the point of your post but I can’t. Sure, courses vary greatly in contents at community college, but to tie it to the topic of the thread I’d rather my kid takes BC and community college linear algebra than the AB+BC sequence. I am actually pleasantly surprised with CC classes, linear algebra will will be very useful in university physics class because the AP physics classes completely skip vectors. Students can repeat linear algebra in college if they want to, or just take other classes they find more useful and interesting.

You looking down at engineering classes as a bag of tricks is amusing. Not everyone’s dream career is in pure mathematics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You get an AB sub score when taking BC, because BC covers all AB material plus a little more.

If your kid needs to slow down and do AP+BC, that’s fine, but it’s a little silly to claim it’s because they want a strong foundation. Literally tens of thousands of strong students end up with a 5 after going straight to BC.

You have NO clue how many of the BC 5s skipped AB.

My kid got 5 on both. So did another 30+ kids at our HS. Because they require AB before taking BC. The co rent of an is covered in 2-3 week refresher at start of BC.

The majority of schools do either AB or BC, most students getting a 5 on BC don’t also do AB.

You are lying about the AB content being covered in 2-3 weeks. Then what, they spend one year on sequences and series, ie 2 chapters out of 10?

The BC class moves faster, it’s true, but not to the extent you claim. Plenty of students can handle it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can just look up the course description from a college board.

https://apcentral.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/ap-calculus-ab-and-bc-course-and-exam-description.pdf

In the prerequisites section, it’s clear they aren’t supposed to be taken in sequence. The only additional prerequisite is that students are familiar with basic series and sequences, usually covered in precalculus if not algebra 2.

It’s fine if students want to take AB+BC, just as it is fine to repeat Algebra if the foundation is not there. Obviously very strong students don’t typically repeat material because they can handle it in one pass well enough. Making AB a prerequisite goes against the College Board course description and recommendation.

And yet many high schools make AB a prerequisite to BC, and have done so for many years, and the College Board goes on certifying their courses as official AP courses.

College board audits courses, not certifies them. Why wouldn’t they, it’s about the course contents, covered material and standards. If the schools wants to have a third of the class take AP calculus then it makes sense to herd them through the AB and BC in sequence, but honestly I think the top 5-10% of the class could just go straight to BC. It’s a disservice to them to do make AB mandatory.

So far the only argument for taking AB+BC is that somebody’s kid did this and ended up a a good school. Good for them, I don’t think it’s a red flag for admissions, it’s just that repeating material to get a better “foundation” is not optimal.

For the numerous high schools that separate the AP calculus into two separate years, AB and BC, and REQUIRE AB then BC, due to the BC course being designed to start mid-curriculum for what College board lists as BC, there is NOchoice for the students. Need it or not, it is taught over two yrs by design by those (usually private) HS. Who cares? No one. Those students are following what they have to do in their HS curriculum. AOs understand that there is not unnecessary “repetition “, rather the pace is just slowed and split into two yrs, on purpose.

The PP that gets hung up on course title and repetition is missing the forest for the trees. As someone pointed out this is how math is taught throughout, on a spiral, reinforcement past concepts introduce new.

With the right cohort of kids, there is enough depth in algebra 1 to make a challenging class.Two years of calculus is not remedial if the school plans it that way. OTOH, there are ways to teach MV or linear, that are not at all engaging. Collection of techniques without motivation, no student participation or discussion. Plenty of CC classes are exactly that. Crazy, but being in a room with engaged students is more important than course title.

This! It’s not about the course title. It’s about how you reinforce the material you have already covered and go further in depth on it. I would much rather a student come in with a strong understanding of series and what an integral really is than to have been exposed to matrix algebra. The latter is a tool - an important one but is sort of rote. Deeper understanding of the operators of calculus is a lot more important and needs to be repeated/reinforced.

The way you talk about it, I’m willing to bet you don’t know what an “integral really is”. lol at “matrix algebra”, a sad confusion about matrix representation of vectors in linear algebra, which is a “tool, an important one but sort if rote”. Operators are in linear algebra, not calculus.

And on top of it you have the nerve to say it’s not about the title! Well duh, that’s as far as you read!

I’m not that PP, but you’re the one drawing from ideals, not reality. There are always two varieties on LA courses. One in service to the engineers, etc. which simply a bag of tricks for calculating. Another for majors, sometimes upper division, with all the grandeur. The classes kids take at CCs are not what you imagine, at all.

Trying to understand the point of your post but I can’t. Sure, courses vary greatly in contents at community college, but to tie it to the topic of the thread I’d rather my kid takes BC and community college linear algebra than the AB+BC sequence. I am actually pleasantly surprised with CC classes, linear algebra will will be very useful in university physics class because the AP physics classes completely skip vectors. Students can repeat linear algebra in college if they want to, or just take other classes they find more useful and interesting.

You looking down at engineering classes as a bag of tricks is amusing. Not everyone’s dream career is in pure mathematics.

Dear heart, the integral is a linear operator. When I read the PPs post and I read your posts, I know who the blowhard is. My point is not to denigrate community colleges or intro-engineering, but there are lots of ways to spend a year picking up a math credit that are lower value than a quality HS class. The fact that someone has taken both AB and BC tells me nothing about what they've been exposed to. Taking BC and a CC linear algebra class is easily less rigorous. (Also, AP physics does not skip vectors.)

[Anonymous]

I'm relieved that our HS only has Calculus AB so I don't have to worry about this as he only has that one choice. Having more advanced options at a school creates its own new challenges based on how they read into your decisions!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You get an AB sub score when taking BC, because BC covers all AB material plus a little more.

If your kid needs to slow down and do AP+BC, that’s fine, but it’s a little silly to claim it’s because they want a strong foundation. Literally tens of thousands of strong students end up with a 5 after going straight to BC.

You have NO clue how many of the BC 5s skipped AB.

My kid got 5 on both. So did another 30+ kids at our HS. Because they require AB before taking BC. The co rent of an is covered in 2-3 week refresher at start of BC.

The majority of schools do either AB or BC, most students getting a 5 on BC don’t also do AB.

You are lying about the AB content being covered in 2-3 weeks. Then what, they spend one year on sequences and series, ie 2 chapters out of 10?

The BC class moves faster, it’s true, but not to the extent you claim. Plenty of students can handle it.

I’ve heard AB and BC are the same content for majority of the year except maybe the last few weeks. So BC goes slightly faster and more in depth, but the content overlap is the majority of the course

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can just look up the course description from a college board.

https://apcentral.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/ap-calculus-ab-and-bc-course-and-exam-description.pdf

In the prerequisites section, it’s clear they aren’t supposed to be taken in sequence. The only additional prerequisite is that students are familiar with basic series and sequences, usually covered in precalculus if not algebra 2.

It’s fine if students want to take AB+BC, just as it is fine to repeat Algebra if the foundation is not there. Obviously very strong students don’t typically repeat material because they can handle it in one pass well enough. Making AB a prerequisite goes against the College Board course description and recommendation.

And yet many high schools make AB a prerequisite to BC, and have done so for many years, and the College Board goes on certifying their courses as official AP courses.

College board audits courses, not certifies them. Why wouldn’t they, it’s about the course contents, covered material and standards. If the schools wants to have a third of the class take AP calculus then it makes sense to herd them through the AB and BC in sequence, but honestly I think the top 5-10% of the class could just go straight to BC. It’s a disservice to them to do make AB mandatory.

So far the only argument for taking AB+BC is that somebody’s kid did this and ended up a a good school. Good for them, I don’t think it’s a red flag for admissions, it’s just that repeating material to get a better “foundation” is not optimal.

For the numerous high schools that separate the AP calculus into two separate years, AB and BC, and REQUIRE AB then BC, due to the BC course being designed to start mid-curriculum for what College board lists as BC, there is NOchoice for the students. Need it or not, it is taught over two yrs by design by those (usually private) HS. Who cares? No one. Those students are following what they have to do in their HS curriculum. AOs understand that there is not unnecessary “repetition “, rather the pace is just slowed and split into two yrs, on purpose.

The PP that gets hung up on course title and repetition is missing the forest for the trees. As someone pointed out this is how math is taught throughout, on a spiral, reinforcement past concepts introduce new.

With the right cohort of kids, there is enough depth in algebra 1 to make a challenging class.Two years of calculus is not remedial if the school plans it that way. OTOH, there are ways to teach MV or linear, that are not at all engaging. Collection of techniques without motivation, no student participation or discussion. Plenty of CC classes are exactly that. Crazy, but being in a room with engaged students is more important than course title.

This! It’s not about the course title. It’s about how you reinforce the material you have already covered and go further in depth on it. I would much rather a student come in with a strong understanding of series and what an integral really is than to have been exposed to matrix algebra. The latter is a tool - an important one but is sort of rote. Deeper understanding of the operators of calculus is a lot more important and needs to be repeated/reinforced.

The way you talk about it, I’m willing to bet you don’t know what an “integral really is”. lol at “matrix algebra”, a sad confusion about matrix representation of vectors in linear algebra, which is a “tool, an important one but sort if rote”. Operators are in linear algebra, not calculus.

And on top of it you have the nerve to say it’s not about the title! Well duh, that’s as far as you read!

I’m not that PP, but you’re the one drawing from ideals, not reality. There are always two varieties on LA courses. One in service to the engineers, etc. which simply a bag of tricks for calculating. Another for majors, sometimes upper division, with all the grandeur. The classes kids take at CCs are not what you imagine, at all.

Trying to understand the point of your post but I can’t. Sure, courses vary greatly in contents at community college, but to tie it to the topic of the thread I’d rather my kid takes BC and community college linear algebra than the AB+BC sequence. I am actually pleasantly surprised with CC classes, linear algebra will will be very useful in university physics class because the AP physics classes completely skip vectors. Students can repeat linear algebra in college if they want to, or just take other classes they find more useful and interesting.

You looking down at engineering classes as a bag of tricks is amusing. Not everyone’s dream career is in pure mathematics.

Dear heart, the integral is a linear operator. When I read the PPs post and I read your posts, I know who the blowhard is. My point is not to denigrate community colleges or intro-engineering, but there are lots of ways to spend a year picking up a math credit that are lower value than a quality HS class. The fact that someone has taken both AB and BC tells me nothing about what they've been exposed to. Taking BC and a CC linear algebra class is easily less rigorous. (Also, AP physics does not skip vectors.)

So the course tile tells you nothing about what the students have been exposed to, but somehow you know BC and CC linear algebra is easily less rigorous, the contradiction being lost on you completely.

I’d like to know that quality high school class that defines integration as a linear operator, while most LA classes (even the lowly cc ones) will surely touch upon it.

I suggest you revise the AP physics curriculum, before commenting. That’s the extent of vector treatment in AP Physics C.

https://apcentral.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/chapter-8-quantitative-skills-in-ap-sciences.pdf

Meanwhile the crappy CC Physics has an entire first chapter dedicated to vectors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In another thread (and here) people said strong math students don't do that sequence. They cut out Calc AB. And colleges would look at that sequence as weak and not rigorous.

Those people were incorrect. There is nothing wrong with taking AB and then BC. Indeed, it is the only route at many, many high schools that do not organize their curriculum in a way that allows a student to go directly to BC from precalc.

No those people were not incorrect. The overlap between AB and BC is 80%, essentially it’s the same class with two more chapters in the end for BC out of 10. It’s bizarre to say they organize their curriculum for AB, but not BC.

One can take AB followed by BC but then you waste a full year, which could be used for AP Statistics or other math courses.

If you got A in honors precalculus you should be fine in BC. The problem is that kids that should not be in Calculus are pushed there nevertheless and the school needs to teach again precalculus foundations and go at a slower place.

Some high schools teach AB as Calc I and BC as Calc II.

Other high schools teach AB as Calc I and BC as accelerated Calc I-II.

You are apparently familiar with the second type of high school but not the first.

Students at the first type of high school should not skip Calc I. And no college admissions office will hold it against them, that they took the sequence in order.

Actually you don’t know what you’re talking about. Calculus I and II, and III (multivariable) are typically taught in colleges with first semester as derivatives and second for integrals.

No school teaches Calculus AB as Calculus I, they teach the curriculum set by College Board, otherwise it wouldn’t be called AP Calculus AB.

https://apstudents.collegeboard.org/courses/ap-calculus-ab
https://apstudents.collegeboard.org/courses/ap-calculus-bc

Its easy to see that the first 8 chapters in BC are the same as the entirety of the AB course.

People opine about the classes but have no idea about what is taught, and instead their only qualification is the university their kid went to.

NP. High schools in our area organize their math courses such that AB is a prerequisite to BC, hence the PP's reference to Calc I and II. Many high schools do not allow students to go straight to BC - this varies widely. College Board's curriculum does not prevent high schools from doing this.

Schools can set their own prerequisites, but can’t change what is actually being taught in the class and still call it AP. Really, stop referencing it as Calculus I and II, either you’re being confused, or you’re confusing others, as the PP who erroneously and hilariously thought there’s a direct correspondence between Calculus I and AB. However students reference it in their jargon is not an accurate description of the class, stick to how it’s called in the course catalogue.

Our school also has AB as a prerequisite for BC, because many mid tier students want to end up with calculus in high school but couldn’t really hack it in BC. If you want to go straight to BC, you just need to ask the math department head and they usually accommodate it without much fuss. Hence the claim that strong students usually go straight to BC.

"Strong students usually" is overbroad. There is too much variability.

My student took AB in 9th, BC in 10th, AP Stats in 11th, and dual enrollment Calc 3 at a CC in 12th. Headed to a top 10 university.

Sibling with straight As (different high school) took precalc in 11th, skipped the AB prereq and took BC in 12th, and crashed and burned. Lots of reasons that weren't the teacher's fault, though on top of those, the calc teacher was also terrible. It was a mistake.

Now next sibling is at first kid's high school, where calc teacher is also teaching AP precalc. Teacher suggested kid can skip AB and go right to BC. Kid is planning to take AB as far as I know.

Which district are you in? Did the first kid take algebra in 5th or what?

Yes, first kid took algebra 1 in 5th as part of a special program at a charter school, along with just a handful of other kids. Not in the DMV.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can just look up the course description from a college board.

https://apcentral.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/ap-calculus-ab-and-bc-course-and-exam-description.pdf

In the prerequisites section, it’s clear they aren’t supposed to be taken in sequence. The only additional prerequisite is that students are familiar with basic series and sequences, usually covered in precalculus if not algebra 2.

It’s fine if students want to take AB+BC, just as it is fine to repeat Algebra if the foundation is not there. Obviously very strong students don’t typically repeat material because they can handle it in one pass well enough. Making AB a prerequisite goes against the College Board course description and recommendation.

And yet many high schools make AB a prerequisite to BC, and have done so for many years, and the College Board goes on certifying their courses as official AP courses.

College board audits courses, not certifies them. Why wouldn’t they, it’s about the course contents, covered material and standards. If the schools wants to have a third of the class take AP calculus then it makes sense to herd them through the AB and BC in sequence, but honestly I think the top 5-10% of the class could just go straight to BC. It’s a disservice to them to do make AB mandatory.

So far the only argument for taking AB+BC is that somebody’s kid did this and ended up a a good school. Good for them, I don’t think it’s a red flag for admissions, it’s just that repeating material to get a better “foundation” is not optimal.

For the numerous high schools that separate the AP calculus into two separate years, AB and BC, and REQUIRE AB then BC, due to the BC course being designed to start mid-curriculum for what College board lists as BC, there is NOchoice for the students. Need it or not, it is taught over two yrs by design by those (usually private) HS. Who cares? No one. Those students are following what they have to do in their HS curriculum. AOs understand that there is not unnecessary “repetition “, rather the pace is just slowed and split into two yrs, on purpose.

The PP that gets hung up on course title and repetition is missing the forest for the trees. As someone pointed out this is how math is taught throughout, on a spiral, reinforcement past concepts introduce new.

With the right cohort of kids, there is enough depth in algebra 1 to make a challenging class.Two years of calculus is not remedial if the school plans it that way. OTOH, there are ways to teach MV or linear, that are not at all engaging. Collection of techniques without motivation, no student participation or discussion. Plenty of CC classes are exactly that. Crazy, but being in a room with engaged students is more important than course title.

This! It’s not about the course title. It’s about how you reinforce the material you have already covered and go further in depth on it. I would much rather a student come in with a strong understanding of series and what an integral really is than to have been exposed to matrix algebra. The latter is a tool - an important one but is sort of rote. Deeper understanding of the operators of calculus is a lot more important and needs to be repeated/reinforced.

The way you talk about it, I’m willing to bet you don’t know what an “integral really is”. lol at “matrix algebra”, a sad confusion about matrix representation of vectors in linear algebra, which is a “tool, an important one but sort if rote”. Operators are in linear algebra, not calculus.

And on top of it you have the nerve to say it’s not about the title! Well duh, that’s as far as you read!

I’m not that PP, but you’re the one drawing from ideals, not reality. There are always two varieties on LA courses. One in service to the engineers, etc. which simply a bag of tricks for calculating. Another for majors, sometimes upper division, with all the grandeur. The classes kids take at CCs are not what you imagine, at all.

Trying to understand the point of your post but I can’t. Sure, courses vary greatly in contents at community college, but to tie it to the topic of the thread I’d rather my kid takes BC and community college linear algebra than the AB+BC sequence. I am actually pleasantly surprised with CC classes, linear algebra will will be very useful in university physics class because the AP physics classes completely skip vectors. Students can repeat linear algebra in college if they want to, or just take other classes they find more useful and interesting.

You looking down at engineering classes as a bag of tricks is amusing. Not everyone’s dream career is in pure mathematics.

Dear heart, the integral is a linear operator. When I read the PPs post and I read your posts, I know who the blowhard is. My point is not to denigrate community colleges or intro-engineering, but there are lots of ways to spend a year picking up a math credit that are lower value than a quality HS class. The fact that someone has taken both AB and BC tells me nothing about what they've been exposed to. Taking BC and a CC linear algebra class is easily less rigorous. (Also, AP physics does not skip vectors.)

So the course tile tells you nothing about what the students have been exposed to, but somehow you know BC and CC linear algebra is easily less rigorous, the contradiction being lost on you completely.

I’d like to know that quality high school class that defines integration as a linear operator, while most LA classes (even the lowly cc ones) will surely touch upon it.

I suggest you revise the AP physics curriculum, before commenting. That’s the extent of vector treatment in AP Physics C.

https://apcentral.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/chapter-8-quantitative-skills-in-ap-sciences.pdf

Meanwhile the crappy CC Physics has an entire first chapter dedicated to vectors.

That you are certain BC and LA at a community college is a win tells me two things, (1) your kids are at mediocre HS and (2) you don't know enough about how courses are taught at other schools to offer an opinion. Regardless, AB followed by BC is never going to hurt someone's admissions chances. There's more to learning math than lapping classmates by one year.

You tried to tell the PP they don't know basic calc because they used the term operator. They were not saying HS teachers do/should use this language, and neither am I. But that PP used it correctly in a sentence, while you're typing faster than you can think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can just look up the course description from a college board.

https://apcentral.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/ap-calculus-ab-and-bc-course-and-exam-description.pdf

In the prerequisites section, it’s clear they aren’t supposed to be taken in sequence. The only additional prerequisite is that students are familiar with basic series and sequences, usually covered in precalculus if not algebra 2.

It’s fine if students want to take AB+BC, just as it is fine to repeat Algebra if the foundation is not there. Obviously very strong students don’t typically repeat material because they can handle it in one pass well enough. Making AB a prerequisite goes against the College Board course description and recommendation.

And yet many high schools make AB a prerequisite to BC, and have done so for many years, and the College Board goes on certifying their courses as official AP courses.

College board audits courses, not certifies them. Why wouldn’t they, it’s about the course contents, covered material and standards. If the schools wants to have a third of the class take AP calculus then it makes sense to herd them through the AB and BC in sequence, but honestly I think the top 5-10% of the class could just go straight to BC. It’s a disservice to them to do make AB mandatory.

So far the only argument for taking AB+BC is that somebody’s kid did this and ended up a a good school. Good for them, I don’t think it’s a red flag for admissions, it’s just that repeating material to get a better “foundation” is not optimal.

For the numerous high schools that separate the AP calculus into two separate years, AB and BC, and REQUIRE AB then BC, due to the BC course being designed to start mid-curriculum for what College board lists as BC, there is NOchoice for the students. Need it or not, it is taught over two yrs by design by those (usually private) HS. Who cares? No one. Those students are following what they have to do in their HS curriculum. AOs understand that there is not unnecessary “repetition “, rather the pace is just slowed and split into two yrs, on purpose.

The PP that gets hung up on course title and repetition is missing the forest for the trees. As someone pointed out this is how math is taught throughout, on a spiral, reinforcement past concepts introduce new.

With the right cohort of kids, there is enough depth in algebra 1 to make a challenging class.Two years of calculus is not remedial if the school plans it that way. OTOH, there are ways to teach MV or linear, that are not at all engaging. Collection of techniques without motivation, no student participation or discussion. Plenty of CC classes are exactly that. Crazy, but being in a room with engaged students is more important than course title.

This! It’s not about the course title. It’s about how you reinforce the material you have already covered and go further in depth on it. I would much rather a student come in with a strong understanding of series and what an integral really is than to have been exposed to matrix algebra. The latter is a tool - an important one but is sort of rote. Deeper understanding of the operators of calculus is a lot more important and needs to be repeated/reinforced.

The way you talk about it, I’m willing to bet you don’t know what an “integral really is”. lol at “matrix algebra”, a sad confusion about matrix representation of vectors in linear algebra, which is a “tool, an important one but sort if rote”. Operators are in linear algebra, not calculus.

And on top of it you have the nerve to say it’s not about the title! Well duh, that’s as far as you read!

I’m not that PP, but you’re the one drawing from ideals, not reality. There are always two varieties on LA courses. One in service to the engineers, etc. which simply a bag of tricks for calculating. Another for majors, sometimes upper division, with all the grandeur. The classes kids take at CCs are not what you imagine, at all.

Trying to understand the point of your post but I can’t. Sure, courses vary greatly in contents at community college, but to tie it to the topic of the thread I’d rather my kid takes BC and community college linear algebra than the AB+BC sequence. I am actually pleasantly surprised with CC classes, linear algebra will will be very useful in university physics class because the AP physics classes completely skip vectors. Students can repeat linear algebra in college if they want to, or just take other classes they find more useful and interesting.

You looking down at engineering classes as a bag of tricks is amusing. Not everyone’s dream career is in pure mathematics.

Dear heart, the integral is a linear operator. When I read the PPs post and I read your posts, I know who the blowhard is. My point is not to denigrate community colleges or intro-engineering, but there are lots of ways to spend a year picking up a math credit that are lower value than a quality HS class. The fact that someone has taken both AB and BC tells me nothing about what they've been exposed to. Taking BC and a CC linear algebra class is easily less rigorous. (Also, AP physics does not skip vectors.)

So the course tile tells you nothing about what the students have been exposed to, but somehow you know BC and CC linear algebra is easily less rigorous, the contradiction being lost on you completely.

I’d like to know that quality high school class that defines integration as a linear operator, while most LA classes (even the lowly cc ones) will surely touch upon it.

I suggest you revise the AP physics curriculum, before commenting. That’s the extent of vector treatment in AP Physics C.

https://apcentral.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/chapter-8-quantitative-skills-in-ap-sciences.pdf

Meanwhile the crappy CC Physics has an entire first chapter dedicated to vectors.

That you are certain BC and LA at a community college is a win tells me two things, (1) your kids are at mediocre HS and (2) you don't know enough about how courses are taught at other schools to offer an opinion. Regardless, AB followed by BC is never going to hurt someone's admissions chances. There's more to learning math than lapping classmates by one year.

You tried to tell the PP they don't know basic calc because they used the term operator. They were not saying HS teachers do/should use this language, and neither am I. But that PP used it correctly in a sentence, while you're typing faster than you can think.

You speculating on other people’s children shows just how despicable you are. I’m savvy enough to read a Calculus syllabus and understand what’s in it.

You’re free to have your students repeat calculus, it’s true that it wont hurt their college admissions if they need it. I’ll be happy if mine takes the advanced classes at the community college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can just look up the course description from a college board.

https://apcentral.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/ap-calculus-ab-and-bc-course-and-exam-description.pdf

In the prerequisites section, it’s clear they aren’t supposed to be taken in sequence. The only additional prerequisite is that students are familiar with basic series and sequences, usually covered in precalculus if not algebra 2.

It’s fine if students want to take AB+BC, just as it is fine to repeat Algebra if the foundation is not there. Obviously very strong students don’t typically repeat material because they can handle it in one pass well enough. Making AB a prerequisite goes against the College Board course description and recommendation.

And yet many high schools make AB a prerequisite to BC, and have done so for many years, and the College Board goes on certifying their courses as official AP courses.

College board audits courses, not certifies them. Why wouldn’t they, it’s about the course contents, covered material and standards. If the schools wants to have a third of the class take AP calculus then it makes sense to herd them through the AB and BC in sequence, but honestly I think the top 5-10% of the class could just go straight to BC. It’s a disservice to them to do make AB mandatory.

So far the only argument for taking AB+BC is that somebody’s kid did this and ended up a a good school. Good for them, I don’t think it’s a red flag for admissions, it’s just that repeating material to get a better “foundation” is not optimal.

For the numerous high schools that separate the AP calculus into two separate years, AB and BC, and REQUIRE AB then BC, due to the BC course being designed to start mid-curriculum for what College board lists as BC, there is NOchoice for the students. Need it or not, it is taught over two yrs by design by those (usually private) HS. Who cares? No one. Those students are following what they have to do in their HS curriculum. AOs understand that there is not unnecessary “repetition “, rather the pace is just slowed and split into two yrs, on purpose.

The PP that gets hung up on course title and repetition is missing the forest for the trees. As someone pointed out this is how math is taught throughout, on a spiral, reinforcement past concepts introduce new.

With the right cohort of kids, there is enough depth in algebra 1 to make a challenging class.Two years of calculus is not remedial if the school plans it that way. OTOH, there are ways to teach MV or linear, that are not at all engaging. Collection of techniques without motivation, no student participation or discussion. Plenty of CC classes are exactly that. Crazy, but being in a room with engaged students is more important than course title.

This! It’s not about the course title. It’s about how you reinforce the material you have already covered and go further in depth on it. I would much rather a student come in with a strong understanding of series and what an integral really is than to have been exposed to matrix algebra. The latter is a tool - an important one but is sort of rote. Deeper understanding of the operators of calculus is a lot more important and needs to be repeated/reinforced.

The way you talk about it, I’m willing to bet you don’t know what an “integral really is”. lol at “matrix algebra”, a sad confusion about matrix representation of vectors in linear algebra, which is a “tool, an important one but sort if rote”. Operators are in linear algebra, not calculus.

And on top of it you have the nerve to say it’s not about the title! Well duh, that’s as far as you read!

I’m not that PP, but you’re the one drawing from ideals, not reality. There are always two varieties on LA courses. One in service to the engineers, etc. which simply a bag of tricks for calculating. Another for majors, sometimes upper division, with all the grandeur. The classes kids take at CCs are not what you imagine, at all.

Trying to understand the point of your post but I can’t. Sure, courses vary greatly in contents at community college, but to tie it to the topic of the thread I’d rather my kid takes BC and community college linear algebra than the AB+BC sequence. I am actually pleasantly surprised with CC classes, linear algebra will will be very useful in university physics class because the AP physics classes completely skip vectors. Students can repeat linear algebra in college if they want to, or just take other classes they find more useful and interesting.

You looking down at engineering classes as a bag of tricks is amusing. Not everyone’s dream career is in pure mathematics.

Dear heart, the integral is a linear operator. When I read the PPs post and I read your posts, I know who the blowhard is. My point is not to denigrate community colleges or intro-engineering, but there are lots of ways to spend a year picking up a math credit that are lower value than a quality HS class. The fact that someone has taken both AB and BC tells me nothing about what they've been exposed to. Taking BC and a CC linear algebra class is easily less rigorous. (Also, AP physics does not skip vectors.)

So the course tile tells you nothing about what the students have been exposed to, but somehow you know BC and CC linear algebra is easily less rigorous, the contradiction being lost on you completely.

I’d like to know that quality high school class that defines integration as a linear operator, while most LA classes (even the lowly cc ones) will surely touch upon it.

I suggest you revise the AP physics curriculum, before commenting. That’s the extent of vector treatment in AP Physics C.

https://apcentral.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/chapter-8-quantitative-skills-in-ap-sciences.pdf

Meanwhile the crappy CC Physics has an entire first chapter dedicated to vectors.

That you are certain BC and LA at a community college is a win tells me two things, (1) your kids are at mediocre HS and (2) you don't know enough about how courses are taught at other schools to offer an opinion. Regardless, AB followed by BC is never going to hurt someone's admissions chances. There's more to learning math than lapping classmates by one year.

You tried to tell the PP they don't know basic calc because they used the term operator. They were not saying HS teachers do/should use this language, and neither am I. But that PP used it correctly in a sentence, while you're typing faster than you can think.

Going into semantics here, but I wouldn’t say “operators of calculus” is ever a part of a correct gramatical sentence. Or “integral is a linear operator” for that matter. Reading the first Wikipedia page from your Google search won’t make you an expert in this topic.

The point is clueless people chime in, but they have no idea about what’s being taught in AB or BC, offer half truths or straight up lies about their child’s experience with the classes, and are essentially just proud of the path their kid followed.