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

In MCPS acceleration in ES and MS is primarily based on parent advocacy not on test scores.

If kids don’t have the required test scores and demonstrate ability, they aren’t getting in. So the parent has to fill out forms, big deal. That could be solved with a teacher recommendation. Besides, the likelihood of a 5th grader who is capable and ready to move on to Alg I having totally uninvolved and checked-out parents is slim to none.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think you are referring to several people and conjuring up a "troll" because you don't like what we are saying. I was one who said Calc in 9th wouldn't really do anything, certainly not make a difference with Calc in 10th. I had one kid who did Calc in 10th and one who did it in 11th. Both in at Ivies. Another kid did AB in 11th and BC 12th, also in at Ivy. Another kid did not accelerate math, not sure what they ended with but probably not more than AB. Also in at Ivy. Rigor is important, but it can be demonstrated in different ways, and you just can't make a measuring scale to these things and come up with rigid protocols.

ya the story sounds plausible the world isn't always how we imagine

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you are referring to several people and conjuring up a "troll" because you don't like what we are saying. I was one who said Calc in 9th wouldn't really do anything, certainly not make a difference with Calc in 10th. I had one kid who did Calc in 10th and one who did it in 11th. Both in at Ivies. Another kid did AB in 11th and BC 12th, also in at Ivy. Another kid did not accelerate math, not sure what they ended with but probably not more than AB. Also in at Ivy. Rigor is important, but it can be demonstrated in different ways, and you just can't make a measuring scale to these things and come up with rigid protocols.

ya the story sounds plausible the world isn't always how we imagine

Yep, I piled on, too. My DC did BC in 10th, I'm not anti-acceleration, but eight-grade mom who thinks an extra year of CC is a golden ticket needs a talking to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:hyper accelerated math doesnt move the needle much, now amc, usamo and aime do.

Those two things go hand in hand. The kid who going to represent his university at the Putnam competition was most likely both accelerated in math and did well on the AIME, etc.

most hyper accelerated kids aren't actually doing math competitions

But you can't do very well in math competitions without being hyper accelerated. The kids qualifying for MOP usually qualify for USAJMO in middle school, which is 5+ years of acceleration before you even consider the many extra years' worth of competition-specific math prep.

Competition math is a backwater.

All ECs are backwaters.

Sure, but people here seem to have more fantasy around stem talent. Everyone's happy for the spelling bee kids, but we know they're unlikely to become literary giants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Being placed into more advanced college classes doesn’t mean anything was taken twice. Although schools that don’t allow placement out of their intro courses are sometimes the ones with the most advanced students; their “intro courses” just go deeper, covering more complex problems and/or proofs, at a pace not possible if seeing the material for the very first time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Being placed into more advanced college classes doesn’t mean anything was taken twice. Although schools that don’t allow placement out of their intro courses are sometimes the ones with the most advanced students; their “intro courses” just go deeper, covering more complex problems and/or proofs, at a pace not possible if seeing the material for the very first time.

Wrong, more mature students can handle that pace the first time round. It's exactly the accelerated HS students who are more suited to grinding out problem sets than proofs.

[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.

Top colleges do say they want advanced and rigorous coursework. In STEM that means taking AP Calculus and Statistics, plus APs in sciences. Regardless of what colleges say that’s a good foundation for those intended majors. You can probably be fine with BC only in 12th, but doing it in 11th helps, because you can take concurrent Physics C and submit scores part of the application. That means Algebra in 7th, if you don’t want to take summer/compacted which are not ideal. In the end it’s a 2 year acceleration. More acceleration than this and it’s diminishing returns, better focus on other areas like extracurriculars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Being placed into more advanced college classes doesn’t mean anything was taken twice. Although schools that don’t allow placement out of their intro courses are sometimes the ones with the most advanced students; their “intro courses” just go deeper, covering more complex problems and/or proofs, at a pace not possible if seeing the material for the very first time.

Is that valuable for the students’ learning? Perhaps develops their critical thinking skills?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Being placed into more advanced college classes doesn’t mean anything was taken twice. Although schools that don’t allow placement out of their intro courses are sometimes the ones with the most advanced students; their “intro courses” just go deeper, covering more complex problems and/or proofs, at a pace not possible if seeing the material for the very first time.

Wrong, more mature students can handle that pace the first time round. It's exactly the accelerated HS students who are more suited to grinding out problem sets than proofs.

It’s certainly not wrong that certain prestigious tech schools require every incoming student to have taken a full year of calculus in high school to even be eligible for admission, but still start everyone off in single variable calculus because their introductory calculus goes deeper than what’s expected in an AP curriculum. It’s also not wrong that other prestigious schools allow students to place into more advanced courses. In both cases there’s benefit to the student that’s taken an accelerated math track in high school.

[Anonymous]

Did anyone’s school max out at AB or BC and take multivariable elsewhere, maybe during the Summer? DC’s school is smaller, and I think they just don’t have enough students to support a course. Thank you for any information.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Being placed into more advanced college classes doesn’t mean anything was taken twice. Although schools that don’t allow placement out of their intro courses are sometimes the ones with the most advanced students; their “intro courses” just go deeper, covering more complex problems and/or proofs, at a pace not possible if seeing the material for the very first time.

Is that valuable for the students’ learning? Perhaps develops their critical thinking skills?

Yes, but also those schools just consider the baseline AP Calc BC curriculum an inadequate treatment of the topics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone’s school max out at AB or BC and take multivariable elsewhere, maybe during the Summer? DC’s school is smaller, and I think they just don’t have enough students to support a course. Thank you for any information.

It doesn’t directly answer your question, but even if your school’s last calculus class is BC, they might offer additional math courses of value. AP Stats is a good example. Or maybe a course on mathematical reasoning that focuses on proofs. More calculus beyond BC isn’t the only attractive strategy, in other words.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone’s school max out at AB or BC and take multivariable elsewhere, maybe during the Summer? DC’s school is smaller, and I think they just don’t have enough students to support a course. Thank you for any information.

It doesn’t directly answer your question, but even if your school’s last calculus class is BC, they might offer additional math courses of value. AP Stats is a good example. Or maybe a course on mathematical reasoning that focuses on proofs. More calculus beyond BC isn’t the only attractive strategy, in other words.

DP with a similar question. DC is taking BC in 11th grade at a private school next year. DC has a nearly perfect grade in advanced precalculus, so I'm hoping that BC will be a healthy/successful challenge.

The school offers linear algebra as the only post-calculus "track" class. Also AP Stats is an option. While linear would probably be considered the highest available math for AO box checking, I suspect that AP Stats would be more practical.

I don't think there would be room for both classes in DC's schedule and summer isn't an available option. DC really likes math and has intermediate python skills.

What am I missing? What are the practical applications of linear algebra? Thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Being placed into more advanced college classes doesn’t mean anything was taken twice. Although schools that don’t allow placement out of their intro courses are sometimes the ones with the most advanced students; their “intro courses” just go deeper, covering more complex problems and/or proofs, at a pace not possible if seeing the material for the very first time.

Wrong, more mature students can handle that pace the first time round. It's exactly the accelerated HS students who are more suited to grinding out problem sets than proofs.

The students who do best in these proof-based courses are accelerated to the point that they did real proofs in highschool. The ones in the middle were only moderately accelerated, so they know some of the material and can focus on the new material, the abstractions, and proofs. The ones who do the worst are those who were not accelerated - those who got a 5 in AP precalc or AB or, in some contexts, BC and told by their schools that it's enough for college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone’s school max out at AB or BC and take multivariable elsewhere, maybe during the Summer? DC’s school is smaller, and I think they just don’t have enough students to support a course. Thank you for any information.

It doesn’t directly answer your question, but even if your school’s last calculus class is BC, they might offer additional math courses of value. AP Stats is a good example. Or maybe a course on mathematical reasoning that focuses on proofs. More calculus beyond BC isn’t the only attractive strategy, in other words.

DP with a similar question. DC is taking BC in 11th grade at a private school next year. DC has a nearly perfect grade in advanced precalculus, so I'm hoping that BC will be a healthy/successful challenge.

The school offers linear algebra as the only post-calculus "track" class. Also AP Stats is an option. While linear would probably be considered the highest available math for AO box checking, I suspect that AP Stats would be more practical.

I don't think there would be room for both classes in DC's schedule and summer isn't an available option. DC really likes math and has intermediate python skills.

What am I missing? What are the practical applications of linear algebra? Thanks.

Read the book "When Life is Linear":

"From simulating complex phenomenon on supercomputers to storing the coordinates needed in modern 3D printing, data is a huge and growing part of our world. A major tool to manipulate and study this data is linear algebra. This book introduces concepts of matrix algebra with an emphasis on application, particularly in the fields of computer graphics and data mining. Readers will learn to make an image transparent, compress an image and rotate a 3D wireframe model. In data mining, readers will use linear algebra to read zip codes on envelopes and encrypt sensitive information.

The books details methods behind web search, utilized by such companies as Google, and algorithms for sports ranking which have been applied to creating brackets for March Madness and predict outcomes in FIFA World Cup soccer. The book can serve as its own resource or to supplement a course on linear algebra"