Equity against Math acceleration

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d say the number of kids in accelerated math because the parents want them there to differentiate them is far, far greater than the number who are there because they legitimately need the acceleration.

If they had qualifying scores then they are legitimately there, parent wants are irrelevant

Just because you CAN do something, doesn’t mean it’s necessarily a good idea or that you should. It can be beneficial for someone to get a deeper understanding of grade level math than to move on.

You won't get it at school rehashing the exact material you already did. You'll like only get it at home while you use school for GPA protection

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Math acceleration isn’t valued at liberal arts colleges. This poster isn’t wrong.

Disagree. Any selective college values students taking the most accelerated courses available, but there are always other considerations too.

Parent myth, misunderstanding of what "rigorous courseload" checkbox means. They just want to see the honors/AP variants of whatever class the student is in.

Colleges aren't admitting kids based on whatever shenanigans their parents pulled in middle school.

Not a “parent myth” if heard from current or former AOs. There is no one strategy that works for all students or all schools, but the idea that a little acceleration generally counts the same as a lot of acceleration is false. A lot of acceleration might add less than other things, like better grades, LORs, or ECs, but that’s a different statement. If all else is truly equal, a lot of acceleration is better than a little, whether in a classroom or out. Hence “spiky” kids having advantages over the merely “well rounded.”

A false premise can make any "if" true. AOs don't say they want hyper acceleration. That's not what "spiky" means. Spiky means having an achievement in something besides sitting in a class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Many SLAC's favor kids who have been playing baseball or soccer or swimming or football since the age of 5.

Now when academics do the same thing, suddenly it is wrong? Definitely some subtle shade being thrown at particular communities.

Show me where on the application you put "number of swimming classes taken". Achievement and Ability is not the same as merely taking more classes.
The only shade being thrown is at parents trying to pressure their 6th grade principal into boosting their college application. Not at students who are genuinely exceptional at math, which, like swimming and football, means doing it outside the basic school curriculum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Math acceleration isn’t valued at liberal arts colleges. This poster isn’t wrong.

Disagree. Any selective college values students taking the most accelerated courses available, but there are always other considerations too.

Parent myth, misunderstanding of what "rigorous courseload" checkbox means. They just want to see the honors/AP variants of whatever class the student is in.

Colleges aren't admitting kids based on whatever shenanigans their parents pulled in middle school.

Not a “parent myth” if heard from current or former AOs. There is no one strategy that works for all students or all schools, but the idea that a little acceleration generally counts the same as a lot of acceleration is false. A lot of acceleration might add less than other things, like better grades, LORs, or ECs, but that’s a different statement. If all else is truly equal, a lot of acceleration is better than a little, whether in a classroom or out. Hence “spiky” kids having advantages over the merely “well rounded.”

Wondering if you're the same person who turns around and cries when you find out that someone with "lower stats" got your kid's spot at an Ivy.

[Anonymous]

I heard from a HS counselor that when they check the "highest level" box that could mean a variety of accelerated math courses, not just the 1-2 highest.

[Anonymous]

Our school checks the most rigorous box if you took more than 3 AP classes in junior year. Freshman & sophomore year don't count. The school profile also states that if a kids takes more than 6 APs throughout the entire four years then that is the "most rigorous." They don't have any special boxes for most advanced AP math courses. The academic rating is just one part of the application. The application gets assigned a rating and the AOs move on to the next category.

[Anonymous]

Correction - if student took 3 or. more AP classes junior year is considered most rigorous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Race to nowhere.

The counterpoint is that especially in lower grades math moves very slowly and a large fraction of the kids could would benefit from a faster pace.

Sure, some advanced topics/acceleration make sense. But we reach diminishing returns at some point. Only exception being the rare math genius who jumps ahead grades.

Also as younger and younger kids take these classes the curriculum is altered. Look at algebra text from a couple generations ago they are very difficult.

I haven't seen this difference. Main difference is the calculator stuff and stats content wasn't mixed in.

Just tells me you don’t know math. The courses called algebra today are very different from what parents took. Geometry, has basically disappeared.

Higher Algebra by Hall and Knight is what advanced HS math used to look like. It doesn’t touch calc but covers more topics than all the CC classes mentioned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Math acceleration isn’t valued at liberal arts colleges. This poster isn’t wrong.

Disagree. Any selective college values students taking the most accelerated courses available, but there are always other considerations too.

Parent myth, misunderstanding of what "rigorous courseload" checkbox means. They just want to see the honors/AP variants of whatever class the student is in.

Colleges aren't admitting kids based on whatever shenanigans their parents pulled in middle school.

Not a “parent myth” if heard from current or former AOs. There is no one strategy that works for all students or all schools, but the idea that a little acceleration generally counts the same as a lot of acceleration is false. A lot of acceleration might add less than other things, like better grades, LORs, or ECs, but that’s a different statement. If all else is truly equal, a lot of acceleration is better than a little, whether in a classroom or out. Hence “spiky” kids having advantages over the merely “well rounded.”

A false premise can make any "if" true. AOs don't say they want hyper acceleration. That's not what "spiky" means. Spiky means having an achievement in something besides sitting in a class.

Um, no. By your logic every kid is spiky.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Math acceleration isn’t valued at liberal arts colleges. This poster isn’t wrong.

Disagree. Any selective college values students taking the most accelerated courses available, but there are always other considerations too.

Parent myth, misunderstanding of what "rigorous courseload" checkbox means. They just want to see the honors/AP variants of whatever class the student is in.

Colleges aren't admitting kids based on whatever shenanigans their parents pulled in middle school.

Not a “parent myth” if heard from current or former AOs. There is no one strategy that works for all students or all schools, but the idea that a little acceleration generally counts the same as a lot of acceleration is false. A lot of acceleration might add less than other things, like better grades, LORs, or ECs, but that’s a different statement. If all else is truly equal, a lot of acceleration is better than a little, whether in a classroom or out. Hence “spiky” kids having advantages over the merely “well rounded.”

Wondering if you're the same person who turns around and cries when you find out that someone with "lower stats" got your kid's spot at an Ivy.

Very happy with where my kids got admitted, but then they were in accelerated math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Math acceleration isn’t valued at liberal arts colleges. This poster isn’t wrong.

Disagree. Any selective college values students taking the most accelerated courses available, but there are always other considerations too.

Parent myth, misunderstanding of what "rigorous courseload" checkbox means. They just want to see the honors/AP variants of whatever class the student is in.

Colleges aren't admitting kids based on whatever shenanigans their parents pulled in middle school.

Not a “parent myth” if heard from current or former AOs. There is no one strategy that works for all students or all schools, but the idea that a little acceleration generally counts the same as a lot of acceleration is false. A lot of acceleration might add less than other things, like better grades, LORs, or ECs, but that’s a different statement. If all else is truly equal, a lot of acceleration is better than a little, whether in a classroom or out. Hence “spiky” kids having advantages over the merely “well rounded.”

Wondering if you're the same person who turns around and cries when you find out that someone with "lower stats" got your kid's spot at an Ivy.

Very happy with where my kids got admitted, but then they were in accelerated math.

And preparation to perform well in non-introductory courses was as important to us as the college itself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Math acceleration isn’t valued at liberal arts colleges. This poster isn’t wrong.

Right ... Harvard College, Williams, aand Pomona don't care about math acceleration Unbelievably stupid post. They are ALL looking for top students who took the most rigorous courses offered by the high school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Math acceleration isn’t valued at liberal arts colleges. This poster isn’t wrong.

Disagree. Any selective college values students taking the most accelerated courses available, but there are always other considerations too.

Parent myth, misunderstanding of what "rigorous courseload" checkbox means. They just want to see the honors/AP variants of whatever class the student is in.

Colleges aren't admitting kids based on whatever shenanigans their parents pulled in middle school.

Not a “parent myth” if heard from current or former AOs. There is no one strategy that works for all students or all schools, but the idea that a little acceleration generally counts the same as a lot of acceleration is false. A lot of acceleration might add less than other things, like better grades, LORs, or ECs, but that’s a different statement. If all else is truly equal, a lot of acceleration is better than a little, whether in a classroom or out. Hence “spiky” kids having advantages over the merely “well rounded.”

Wondering if you're the same person who turns around and cries when you find out that someone with "lower stats" got your kid's spot at an Ivy.

Very happy with where my kids got admitted, but then they were in accelerated math.

And preparation to perform well in non-introductory courses was as important to us as the college itself.

Bright kids don’t need to take math classes twice to perform well.

[Anonymous]

Not following the equity issue. iPhones are now pretty ubiquitous. Math interested kids from across demographics have access to tons of content. From khan academy onward. My math interested kid learned crazy higher level math in middle school on YouTube. Found it on their own. No adult told them to find this content. They were interested. They were ready for and seeking accelerated math. If this is so accessible then why am I at fault for creating some perceived equity problem?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not following the equity issue. iPhones are now pretty ubiquitous. Math interested kids from across demographics have access to tons of content. From khan academy onward. My math interested kid learned crazy higher level math in middle school on YouTube. Found it on their own. No adult told them to find this content. They were interested. They were ready for and seeking accelerated math. If this is so accessible then why am I at fault for creating some perceived equity problem?

Since your kids are skipping the HS diploma and college degree and applying to jobs on the strength of “I watched a lot of math videos on YouTube,” there is no equity issue.