Anonymous wrote:pettifogger wrote:Anonymous wrote:OP. We have been doing AOPS's Contest Math for Middle School (small paperback) after the intro series. It was a good book to practice, but DC is sick of it (we repeated the missed questions up to 4 times). Then, I randomly purchased from Amazon Learn or Review Trigonometry Essential Skills, but it is too easy.
DC is not math genius, and we are not that interested in pushing for the contest math direction. DC recently took AMC8 at school though.
I looked at the AOPS's Intermediate Algebra book, and it seems too difficult/unnecessary. Alcumus is recommended, and we will do, but I am looking for a next book to work on.
Is AOPS's precalculus book a bad idea (wondering this book may be easier than Intermediate Algebra?), or do you recommend just repeat Intro to Algebra book for a second round?
While starting to learn the beginning of AoPS Precalc would not be a bad idea, I would personally not recommend it until they have a very good grasp of algebra. Despite its smaller size, the precalc book has more difficult material than Intermediate algebra (for the most part). The book is very different from a typical K12 precalculus book. It essentially teaches three topics in great depth, connecting them all together: 1) Trigonometry in the first third of the book, 2) Complex Numbers in the second part of the book, and 3) Fundamentals of Linear algebra (vectors, matrices in both 2D and 3D) as well as a final chapter on solving tough geometry problems using vectors and other tools learned in the book. Some of the problems (not all) can be very difficult, and a few have appeared in past high school Olympiads such as the USAMO, etc.
I think the most important principle is that your DC should enjoy math (CMMS is a lovely little book, but I don't think it was a great idea to have made them repeat problems they missed 4 times, as that is not a recipe for enjoyment...) One way to do that is to solve lots of interesting problems at an untimed and relaxed pace. A few ways that could be done is by perusing the AoPS site and cherry picking problems that look interesting to them (i.e from the past AMC 8 or even AMC 10 questions) or perhaps via playing Alcumus (which itself contains a very large collection of problems, many from past contests).
Earlier in this thread I have recommended for you Anna Burago's Mathematical Circle Diaries. If your DC finished the Intro series, Year 2 (the second book in the two book series) would be more appropriate. It contains many interesting problems organized by various topics, that are excellently curated, similar to AoPS. It introduces students to some difficult ideas that most don't see until a discrete math course in college (i.e Pigeonhole Principle, Invariants, Parity, Combinatorics, Graph Theory, etc) via approachable problems aimed at advanced middle schoolers. Some of these topics are really very lovely, but sadly AoPS did not include them in their books (other than perhaps in their Intermediate Counting and Probability book, which is an amazing but challenging book, on par with their Precalculus or Calculus book).
hello, we interacted previously about DC but i couldn't find that thread. it's was about AOPS algebra 2, so it's relevant. DC is taking that class now and yesterday told me this is the best thing ever and they nowhere learned so much. when i wrote to you here several months ago i wasn't sure whether DC was ready and if they will be able to take advantage of the advanced content. DC was well behind in math (100% on all tests obviously but superficial knowledge) with little capacity to work on the same problem for extended amount of time. this class lit up the math fire in DC.
we had no idea how good it was, either. thank you.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It’s very hard to compete with Asian kids on AMCs who have been prepping since elementary school.
How many hours a week do they prep? 10? 20?
If my kid likes math I don’t want to kill it with drilling for competitions.
Some prep that much. Others are just good. My kid maybe spends 3-5 hours per week on extracurricular math. He just received his AIME score and will almost certainly qualify for JMO as a 9th grader.
My 7th grader loves math and did AMC 8 last yr and this year for fun. He has no interest in enrichment outside of school but does enjoy taking the test to challenge himself. He scored both equal to, and better than, a number of friends who prep many hours a week. So I’d say he’s “competing” just fine, although he’s really just doing it for himself and not to do better than anyone else.
The funny part for my kid is that he backed away pretty significantly from contest prep and instead focused on a much deeper understanding of the math itself. He only did maybe 2 AIME mocks and no AMC 10 mocks. But, this is the year he got a 12 on AIME.
What does that look like? Courses? Books? Videos?
The focus of AIME prep is, of course, much deeper understanding of the math itself, as that is what the AIME tests.
Each year, fewer than about 50 people in the entire USA score 12+ by 10th grade, so strategies for doing so are not very generalizable across the wider population.
Yes, but many kids prep for AIME by just grinding AIME problems. This can be somewhat helpful, because MAA sometimes recycles problems or has problems that use the same trick, but the value is pretty limited.
My kid instead focused on more olympiad style proofs and understanding a bunch of theorems that appear in olympiad level problems. Geometry was a weakness, so he spent time with the Euclidean Geometry in Mathematical Olympiads book.
Anonymous wrote:Algebra I part B aligns to which FCPS class?
Anonymous wrote:It's not extra, it's the second half of Intro Algebra.
You can start synthetic Geometry (construction and similarity, not measurement and Pythagorean theorem) without Algebra B, but I wouldn't recommend doing all of Geometry before intro Algebra B.
pettifogger?
Anonymous wrote:Thank you very much. I was once quite good at math competitions, I knew a few tricks, and I was surprised I hit the wall so quickly. I was going through this with my child - he was doing the problems and I helped him when he got stuck. Until I got stuck myself. So my worry now is that he won't be able to handle AoPS class. School math is easy for him; we tried RSM this summer and it is very repetitive and a lot of kids struggle even with that. So he clearly needs something more challenging. I know RSM has more challenging classes but it sounds like it will take some time to qualify for those and he already lost a lot of time. Thus AoPS.
Anonymous wrote:Thank you. I wanted to enroll my child in AoPS but Alcumus got me worried.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Why did you take Math 3 this year after already taking Precalculus last summer?
I thought my child wouldn't be able to handle geometry over the summer, so I didn't sign him up. But he quickly learned geometry over the school year during 8th grade, and learned algebra 2 in the second semester of 8th grade year.
I'm not sure why I didn't sign him up for summer algebra 2 but I didn't, and instead enrolled him in AOPS precalculus during the summer after 8th grade.
AoPS precalculus is not as rigorous as TJ math 4 & 5. Without TJ math 4&5 or tj calc ab, taking on Tj calc bc may be challenging
On what basis do you make this claim? I have worked through a large number of problems from the AoPS precalculus book. Many are very difficult, drawing from AIME and other past contests. A select few are from USAMO and/or other olympiads.
AoPS has hard problems, but they focus on pure math puzzle problems, not engineering applications. You miss a lot if you only do AoPS.
A word problem by definition is an application of mathematical concepts. As long as it highlights the how the math is used, it doesn't matter whether it's about engineering, horses, or flying sheep. I will also dispute your claim about missing a lot. It's far more likely that the opposite is true, where there are many ideas found in AoPS which are not taught in the school classes.
AoPS doesn't have many word problems, and the ones that are are silly window dressing. Most of AoPS is abstract expressions and equations.
AoPS is aimed at students on a pure math track. It comes from a contest math pedigree of tricky puzzles and proofs.
TJ and school math in general is aimed at a more general/broad engineering track.
I've seen very high caliber AoPS students struggle with the sort of engineering type problems (modelling a real world situation mathematically like building a roof for a house) that schools emphasize.
It's a different focus.
Also, AoPS teaches about set theory, where you can learn that it's possible for for two different things to both be missing a lot from each other
Anonymous wrote:pettifogger wrote:Anonymous wrote:pettifogger wrote:Anonymous wrote:pettifogger wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Kids are doing this everywhere at their base school. Heaven help you if your TJ Kid can't handle it.
Thanks for the advice. That’s encouraging. At TJ though kids are strongly counseled not to do this normally so I’m not sure if there are differences in how the classes are taught there that make it harder to do concurrently.
TJ BC is brutal. Far far beyond the AP exam and base school class. Same for Physics C. Only recommended for the truly gifted to take simultaneously junior year. Plenty of TJ kids with Cs in these classes who breezed through pre calc. Not just this year but every year. Proceed with caution.
Why do they torture kids like this?
Blair has a Magnet Analysis class that goes beyond Calc BC, so they give it a different name.
TJ calculus or any TJ math appears overwhelming because it's compared to base school math, where homework is kept very light and lot of time is spent on first few units, whereas last units, usually the advanced topics, are rushed through in final weeks or skipped altogether. At TJ, they keep consistent pace no matter what covering all units, and never hold back on homework or test rigor, even if half of class were to get a C.
But some teachers do curve routinely.
Not in Calc. They don’t curve even if average is a D. Which happens.
Thankfully they dont curve in advanced classes, else TJ would be no different from base school. However there is curving and grade inflation in beginner courses and we all know why.
Are you trying to make a coherent point here, or just spouting white noise? Not sure whether you realize that some of the hardest math/science courses at top colleges are very often curved (sometimes significantly), and the curve varies for each exam.
Curving is a tool that teachers use when they realize that an exam was more difficult than the performance they expected from their students.
The base schools in FCPS have provided us with ample firsthand experience of curving and inflated grades. Given TJ's reputation, one would anticipate the maintenance of high, strict standards, which is fortunately observed in the advanced courses. Hats off to those TJ Calc BC and Physics C teachers. However, the same cannot be said of TJ's beginner courses, as you also indirectly acknowledge through the justification of curving as a commonly employed tool. We expect stricter standards, even for beginner courses, at TJ. But alas!
You're spouting a bunch of claims that hinge on "curving is bad because it is used at base schools, therefore it is always bad, even at tj". If you were to do your research before making illogical claims, you will find that curving is widely used in many schools, specifically at places such as MIT, Caltech, and many, many, others. Does that mean those courses do not have high, strict standards? Does that mean that a course that doesn't curve (of which there are very many in base schools, where an 'A' is always 93% or above) is automatically rigorous? And conversely, one where the class average might be 50% (such as the AMT elective at TJ) might be lax and watered down?
Most TJ students, (even ones in the "beginner courses" that you are disparaging without any proof of your "lack of rigor" claim) could easily tell you that you've concluded nothing, from your highly fallacious argument.
If you wish to actually succeed in making the claims you seem to really want to make, you'll have to actually provide proof that a) grades are actually curved in beginner courses, and not curved in advanced courses, and b) that the material is more watered down in beginner courses, and more rigorous in advanced courses. You are completely speculating until you have information on these things.
Have you attended MIT? How can you claim that MIT curves as a standard practice? In fact, neither MIT nor any other reputable educational institution commonly employs curving. While there may be exceptional circumstances that justify curving, such as if the entire class scores below a C, indicating an issue with the instruction or evaluation, it should not be used when only a few students have mastered the material with an A and the rest have lower grades. If TJ were to adopt curving practices like other schools with competing interests besides academic excellence, it would tarnish its reputation for adhering to strict standards.
You are completely missing the main point. You keep pointing to the arbitrary grading criteria of K12 education of 93% A, 80% B.. and assuming it holds everywhere. It's does not, far from it. I have had courses where an 80% or even 75% and above was considered an A, and this was explicitly stated in the syllabus without any kind of curving.
So again, I'll emphasize that you don't understand the principle that curving is based on, which is the fact that exams can be highly variant in difficulty, with many factors to consider, such as major subject, specific topic at hand, specific teacher, specific cohort of students, etc. You can't just simply make the claim that curving is bad, and thus a system that curves is automatically not rigorous. That is a false claim.
The beginner math courses at TJ consist of the typical FCPS middle school geometry courses, which do not involve much variability or factors to consider. Therefore, grading on a curve should not apply unless there is an intention to inflate the lower grades even for these basic courses.
How do you know that the beginner math courses at TJ are typical FCPS middle school geometry courses? Again, without data this is pure speculation. I can give a test that covers the exact same specific set of geometry topics students have just learned, but will yield an average that is < 50% vs a more normal 80%. Simply by selecting harder problems.
Unless you've taken a specific test with a specific set of problems, you can't just make the claim that an A is only 93% and above. It completely depends.
Personally I believe that curving (as someone else upthread described) is a good thing because it not only allows students a chance to be tested on harder material without huge repercussions, it also gives very strong students a chance to really shine by scoring multiple SDs above the curve. Effectively, we're letting students pick what they can solve out of a selection of challenging material, vs watering down the exam content to the point where everyone has to cross their t's and dot their i's or they don't get an A. This by the way happens all the time in base schools content, including APs, where the A is simply gained by following specific procedure down to the method of how one shows their work and mimics like a monkey. E.g if they don't always rationalize the denominator, they lose points, which is extremely silly.
By the way, if you're complaining so much about curving, you should be aware that many teachers at TJ give extra credit to students all the time. Students often have a chance to do other things and gain points to offset some of the bad portions of their grade. Again, one can't just claim that this is not rigorous; it completely depends on context.
How do you know?
Anonymous wrote:pettifogger wrote:Anonymous wrote:pettifogger wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Kids are doing this everywhere at their base school. Heaven help you if your TJ Kid can't handle it.
Thanks for the advice. That’s encouraging. At TJ though kids are strongly counseled not to do this normally so I’m not sure if there are differences in how the classes are taught there that make it harder to do concurrently.
TJ BC is brutal. Far far beyond the AP exam and base school class. Same for Physics C. Only recommended for the truly gifted to take simultaneously junior year. Plenty of TJ kids with Cs in these classes who breezed through pre calc. Not just this year but every year. Proceed with caution.
Why do they torture kids like this?
Blair has a Magnet Analysis class that goes beyond Calc BC, so they give it a different name.
TJ calculus or any TJ math appears overwhelming because it's compared to base school math, where homework is kept very light and lot of time is spent on first few units, whereas last units, usually the advanced topics, are rushed through in final weeks or skipped altogether. At TJ, they keep consistent pace no matter what covering all units, and never hold back on homework or test rigor, even if half of class were to get a C.
But some teachers do curve routinely.
Not in Calc. They don’t curve even if average is a D. Which happens.
Thankfully they dont curve in advanced classes, else TJ would be no different from base school. However there is curving and grade inflation in beginner courses and we all know why.
Are you trying to make a coherent point here, or just spouting white noise? Not sure whether you realize that some of the hardest math/science courses at top colleges are very often curved (sometimes significantly), and the curve varies for each exam.
Curving is a tool that teachers use when they realize that an exam was more difficult than the performance they expected from their students.
The base schools in FCPS have provided us with ample firsthand experience of curving and inflated grades. Given TJ's reputation, one would anticipate the maintenance of high, strict standards, which is fortunately observed in the advanced courses. Hats off to those TJ Calc BC and Physics C teachers. However, the same cannot be said of TJ's beginner courses, as you also indirectly acknowledge through the justification of curving as a commonly employed tool. We expect stricter standards, even for beginner courses, at TJ. But alas!
You're spouting a bunch of claims that hinge on "curving is bad because it is used at base schools, therefore it is always bad, even at tj". If you were to do your research before making illogical claims, you will find that curving is widely used in many schools, specifically at places such as MIT, Caltech, and many, many, others. Does that mean those courses do not have high, strict standards? Does that mean that a course that doesn't curve (of which there are very many in base schools, where an 'A' is always 93% or above) is automatically rigorous? And conversely, one where the class average might be 50% (such as the AMT elective at TJ) might be lax and watered down?
Most TJ students, (even ones in the "beginner courses" that you are disparaging without any proof of your "lack of rigor" claim) could easily tell you that you've concluded nothing, from your highly fallacious argument.
If you wish to actually succeed in making the claims you seem to really want to make, you'll have to actually provide proof that a) grades are actually curved in beginner courses, and not curved in advanced courses, and b) that the material is more watered down in beginner courses, and more rigorous in advanced courses. You are completely speculating until you have information on these things.
Have you attended MIT? How can you claim that MIT curves as a standard practice? In fact, neither MIT nor any other reputable educational institution commonly employs curving. While there may be exceptional circumstances that justify curving, such as if the entire class scores below a C, indicating an issue with the instruction or evaluation, it should not be used when only a few students have mastered the material with an A and the rest have lower grades. If TJ were to adopt curving practices like other schools with competing interests besides academic excellence, it would tarnish its reputation for adhering to strict standards.
You are completely missing the main point. You keep pointing to the arbitrary grading criteria of K12 education of 93% A, 80% B.. and assuming it holds everywhere. It's does not, far from it. I have had courses where an 80% or even 75% and above was considered an A, and this was explicitly stated in the syllabus without any kind of curving.
So again, I'll emphasize that you don't understand the principle that curving is based on, which is the fact that exams can be highly variant in difficulty, with many factors to consider, such as major subject, specific topic at hand, specific teacher, specific cohort of students, etc. You can't just simply make the claim that curving is bad, and thus a system that curves is automatically not rigorous. That is a false claim.
The beginner math courses at TJ consist of the typical FCPS middle school geometry courses, which do not involve much variability or factors to consider. Therefore, grading on a curve should not apply unless there is an intention to inflate the lower grades even for these basic courses.
Anonymous wrote:pettifogger wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Kids are doing this everywhere at their base school. Heaven help you if your TJ Kid can't handle it.
Thanks for the advice. That’s encouraging. At TJ though kids are strongly counseled not to do this normally so I’m not sure if there are differences in how the classes are taught there that make it harder to do concurrently.
TJ BC is brutal. Far far beyond the AP exam and base school class. Same for Physics C. Only recommended for the truly gifted to take simultaneously junior year. Plenty of TJ kids with Cs in these classes who breezed through pre calc. Not just this year but every year. Proceed with caution.
Why do they torture kids like this?
Blair has a Magnet Analysis class that goes beyond Calc BC, so they give it a different name.
TJ calculus or any TJ math appears overwhelming because it's compared to base school math, where homework is kept very light and lot of time is spent on first few units, whereas last units, usually the advanced topics, are rushed through in final weeks or skipped altogether. At TJ, they keep consistent pace no matter what covering all units, and never hold back on homework or test rigor, even if half of class were to get a C.
But some teachers do curve routinely.
Not in Calc. They don’t curve even if average is a D. Which happens.
Thankfully they dont curve in advanced classes, else TJ would be no different from base school. However there is curving and grade inflation in beginner courses and we all know why.
Are you trying to make a coherent point here, or just spouting white noise? Not sure whether you realize that some of the hardest math/science courses at top colleges are very often curved (sometimes significantly), and the curve varies for each exam.
Curving is a tool that teachers use when they realize that an exam was more difficult than the performance they expected from their students.
The base schools in FCPS have provided us with ample firsthand experience of curving and inflated grades. Given TJ's reputation, one would anticipate the maintenance of high, strict standards, which is fortunately observed in the advanced courses. Hats off to those TJ Calc BC and Physics C teachers. However, the same cannot be said of TJ's beginner courses, as you also indirectly acknowledge through the justification of curving as a commonly employed tool. We expect stricter standards, even for beginner courses, at TJ. But alas!
You're spouting a bunch of claims that hinge on "curving is bad because it is used at base schools, therefore it is always bad, even at tj". If you were to do your research before making illogical claims, you will find that curving is widely used in many schools, specifically at places such as MIT, Caltech, and many, many, others. Does that mean those courses do not have high, strict standards? Does that mean that a course that doesn't curve (of which there are very many in base schools, where an 'A' is always 93% or above) is automatically rigorous? And conversely, one where the class average might be 50% (such as the AMT elective at TJ) might be lax and watered down?
Most TJ students, (even ones in the "beginner courses" that you are disparaging without any proof of your "lack of rigor" claim) could easily tell you that you've concluded nothing, from your highly fallacious argument.
If you wish to actually succeed in making the claims you seem to really want to make, you'll have to actually provide proof that a) grades are actually curved in beginner courses, and not curved in advanced courses, and b) that the material is more watered down in beginner courses, and more rigorous in advanced courses. You are completely speculating until you have information on these things.
You're just saying this because 50% is an A on AoPS![]()
Anonymous wrote:pettifogger wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Kids are doing this everywhere at their base school. Heaven help you if your TJ Kid can't handle it.
Thanks for the advice. That’s encouraging. At TJ though kids are strongly counseled not to do this normally so I’m not sure if there are differences in how the classes are taught there that make it harder to do concurrently.
TJ BC is brutal. Far far beyond the AP exam and base school class. Same for Physics C. Only recommended for the truly gifted to take simultaneously junior year. Plenty of TJ kids with Cs in these classes who breezed through pre calc. Not just this year but every year. Proceed with caution.
Why do they torture kids like this?
Blair has a Magnet Analysis class that goes beyond Calc BC, so they give it a different name.
TJ calculus or any TJ math appears overwhelming because it's compared to base school math, where homework is kept very light and lot of time is spent on first few units, whereas last units, usually the advanced topics, are rushed through in final weeks or skipped altogether. At TJ, they keep consistent pace no matter what covering all units, and never hold back on homework or test rigor, even if half of class were to get a C.
But some teachers do curve routinely.
Not in Calc. They don’t curve even if average is a D. Which happens.
Thankfully they dont curve in advanced classes, else TJ would be no different from base school. However there is curving and grade inflation in beginner courses and we all know why.
Are you trying to make a coherent point here, or just spouting white noise? Not sure whether you realize that some of the hardest math/science courses at top colleges are very often curved (sometimes significantly), and the curve varies for each exam.
Curving is a tool that teachers use when they realize that an exam was more difficult than the performance they expected from their students.
The base schools in FCPS have provided us with ample firsthand experience of curving and inflated grades. Given TJ's reputation, one would anticipate the maintenance of high, strict standards, which is fortunately observed in the advanced courses. Hats off to those TJ Calc BC and Physics C teachers. However, the same cannot be said of TJ's beginner courses, as you also indirectly acknowledge through the justification of curving as a commonly employed tool. We expect stricter standards, even for beginner courses, at TJ. But alas!
You're spouting a bunch of claims that hinge on "curving is bad because it is used at base schools, therefore it is always bad, even at tj". If you were to do your research before making illogical claims, you will find that curving is widely used in many schools, specifically at places such as MIT, Caltech, and many, many, others. Does that mean those courses do not have high, strict standards? Does that mean that a course that doesn't curve (of which there are very many in base schools, where an 'A' is always 93% or above) is automatically rigorous? And conversely, one where the class average might be 50% (such as the AMT elective at TJ) might be lax and watered down?
Most TJ students, (even ones in the "beginner courses" that you are disparaging without any proof of your "lack of rigor" claim) could easily tell you that you've concluded nothing, from your highly fallacious argument.
If you wish to actually succeed in making the claims you seem to really want to make, you'll have to actually provide proof that a) grades are actually curved in beginner courses, and not curved in advanced courses, and b) that the material is more watered down in beginner courses, and more rigorous in advanced courses. You are completely speculating until you have information on these things.
Have you attended MIT? How can you claim that MIT curves as a standard practice? In fact, neither MIT nor any other reputable educational institution commonly employs curving. While there may be exceptional circumstances that justify curving, such as if the entire class scores below a C, indicating an issue with the instruction or evaluation, it should not be used when only a few students have mastered the material with an A and the rest have lower grades. If TJ were to adopt curving practices like other schools with competing interests besides academic excellence, it would tarnish its reputation for adhering to strict standards.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Kids are doing this everywhere at their base school. Heaven help you if your TJ Kid can't handle it.
Thanks for the advice. That’s encouraging. At TJ though kids are strongly counseled not to do this normally so I’m not sure if there are differences in how the classes are taught there that make it harder to do concurrently.
TJ BC is brutal. Far far beyond the AP exam and base school class. Same for Physics C. Only recommended for the truly gifted to take simultaneously junior year. Plenty of TJ kids with Cs in these classes who breezed through pre calc. Not just this year but every year. Proceed with caution.
Why do they torture kids like this?
Blair has a Magnet Analysis class that goes beyond Calc BC, so they give it a different name.
TJ calculus or any TJ math appears overwhelming because it's compared to base school math, where homework is kept very light and lot of time is spent on first few units, whereas last units, usually the advanced topics, are rushed through in final weeks or skipped altogether. At TJ, they keep consistent pace no matter what covering all units, and never hold back on homework or test rigor, even if half of class were to get a C.
But some teachers do curve routinely.
Not in Calc. They don’t curve even if average is a D. Which happens.
Thankfully they dont curve in advanced classes, else TJ would be no different from base school. However there is curving and grade inflation in beginner courses and we all know why.
Are you trying to make a coherent point here, or just spouting white noise? Not sure whether you realize that some of the hardest math/science courses at top colleges are very often curved (sometimes significantly), and the curve varies for each exam.
Curving is a tool that teachers use when they realize that an exam was more difficult than the performance they expected from their students.
The base schools in FCPS have provided us with ample firsthand experience of curving and inflated grades. Given TJ's reputation, one would anticipate the maintenance of high, strict standards, which is fortunately observed in the advanced courses. Hats off to those TJ Calc BC and Physics C teachers. However, the same cannot be said of TJ's beginner courses, as you also indirectly acknowledge through the justification of curving as a commonly employed tool. We expect stricter standards, even for beginner courses, at TJ. But alas!
Anonymous wrote:If you want a more "normal" path through the books:
Intermediate algebra textbook:
Ch 1 - 4: review
Ch 5 - 6: all
Ch 7.1 - 7.5
Ch 9.1 - 9.2
Ch 10.1 - 10.5
Ch 11.3 -11.4
Ch 13.1 -13.3, 13.5-6
Ch 14.1
Ch 15.1 - 15.3
Ch 16.1 - 16.3
Precalculus textbook:
Ch 1 - 2
Ch 3.1 - 3.4
Ch 4 - 7
Ch 9 - 11
Anonymous wrote:pettifogger wrote:Anonymous wrote:It's true thay AOPS Intermediate Algebra has a lot of more abstract math (like factoring and solving polynomials, conic sections, and functional equations), that isn't relevant to the STE part of STEM.
If you aren't focused on math for math's sake, you can skip a lot of the AOPS material and problems, and stick with Khan and Brilliant type stuff which focuses more on the math for engineering and technology.
Polynomials are not relevant in science and engineering?? I beg to differ.
"Polynomials" are covered in Intro Algebra. Professionals use calculators and computers for numerical methods, not Vieta's Formulas and rational roots.