Message
Anonymous wrote:
pettifogger wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Is BA a complete curriculum or supplement? Could it be used in conjunction with Khan Academy or Kumon worksheets as a complete curriculum? DC is home schooled for the time being and just wondering how thorough BA is.

It's a full curriculum and it's pretty thorough, particularly with regard to problem solving, making lots of conceptual connections, and many challenging problems. While it does of course contain basic exercises at the beginning of each chapter/topic, some parents find that their kids needed a bit more practice on the drill type questions. For that, anything such as Kumon/random worksheets can be used.

It's important to guide/support the child, especially initially when they are not used to the feeling of being stuck and want to quickly give up if they can't think of anything in a minute. Ideally work some of the problems together with them, and read the provided hints/solutions as they're very helpful. Some parents do the problems themselves ahead of time so that they can explain/help their kids effectively when they do get stuck Initially it's a big step for kids (and some adults) to switch away from thinking in a very procedural fashion, but once they get used to it, it's very much worth it for the critical thinking skills.


Thanks! I have noticed this already as we work through BA2 and am working on balancing providing support and encouraging persistence. Are the practice books useful for the extra practice over and above the online material or are you talking about a different kind of practice like memorizing basic facts and procedures? Does BA teach all the basic procedures or concepts the child would encounter on Kumon worksheets and elsewhere?

I've only used the books and not the online while working through all of BA with my son. You can use either one they both teach the same material. Online is great, but some people have mentioned that they thought the books are just a bit harder on average. I'm not sure if this is fully true since it seems AoPS tried pretty hard to have both mediums contain pretty much the same material. My son did not struggle with the basics at the beginning, though he certainly got stuck numerous times with later problems. He is quite lucky that I can teach and explain things to him though. His biggest issue so far is that while he can grasp things pretty quickly, he tends to want to do too much in his head which can trip him up in more difficult problems. I'm slowly trying to get him to write more and to convince him that it can actually be quicker to solve a problem by writing some stuff down since it unloads a lot of stuff he has to keep in his head.

There are a few things that BA doesn't teach until later on, i.e the standard multiplication and division algorithms. They do teach how to multiply and divide, but they teach it in a way that makes logical sense. For multiplication they teach partial products way (i.e the distributive property in column format) which is super useful for really understanding place value. Kids pick that up right away but when they see the standard multiplication algorithm in school, they may stick to their partial product method because they like it. With large numbers (let's say 3 digit x 3 digit numbers) partial products can become quite cumbersome in terms of the amount of writing (and if kids don't write super neat, they may put digits in a different column and get the wrong result). In school they like to make them do large number multiplications by hand and the standard algorithm is the most efficient way of doing that in terms of the amount of writing. But this of course isn't really a big deal at all; the important part is that they have a solid conceptual understanding and aren't just memorizing an algorithm. Division is the same way; instead of teaching the standard long division algorithm, they teach a similar method that actually makes sense, which is doing division by repeatedly subtracting multiples but letting kids subtract whatever multiples they're comfortable with to reduce the original number down. So again when they're forced to do long division in school, kids may prefer to do it the BA way, and again it's fine.
Anonymous wrote:
pettifogger wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I hear the math teachers are very frustrated with the math preparations of incoming students. Discussing changes to grading policies.

Yeah the SOL scores really have taken a dramatic turn. Maybe skills-based grading could be an option?


The new students are more naturally gifted than the 3rd tier peppers who were getting in under the old system. They may be less prepared but seem to pick things up more quickly, so in the long run, they're actually doing much better.


Less prepared in math and science. That was expected! Farcical essay can't evaluate preparedness in necessary math and science.


I've watched over 10,000 kids graduate from TJ in my lifetime, and I can tell you that the way they approach TJ once they're inside the building matters a hell of a lot more than how "prepared" they were when they got admitted. I've seen Alg1 kids who struggled mightily for their first year or two and turned out to be superstars when they left, and I've seen kids who entered in Calc BC and beyond flame out because they couldn't handle actually being challenged academically for the first time in their lives.

Their grades in their curricular classes tell me everything I need to know about whether or not they're "prepared enough". Testing isn't helpful beyond that point. Give me 1000 words that lend me insight into your approach and how you've handled adversity and I'll tell you whether or not you'll be a success at TJ and whether or not you'll add value to the institution.


I have watched 10,000 + 1 kids enter TJ, and unprepared students who get admitted struggle a lot, and mostly drop out mostly during freshman. Other who reluctantly hang in there, struggle with grades and do not go past the bare minimum Calc AB, even with a ton of remedial help. Whereas prepared students, most of them who attend enrichment centers outside school and participate in an array of math and science competitions in middle school, have a wholesome experience at TJ taking advanced math and science classes, and participating in clubs, sports, and having fun.


DP. That's depressing. And if that is changed by the new admissions requirements, then lower SOL PA scores are fine.

- parent of an 8th grader who is considering TJ


How many identities will you assume?


Only myself. As a resident of Northern Virginia, I'm interested in TJ. And as an 8th grader, my DC is interested in TJ. They are interested in science and math but do not do outside enrichment centers or math or science competitions. If that's really a prerequisite for success and enjoyment at TJ, then it's not the right place for them. Since the majority of posts on this thread are trolls, I don't put a lot of weight on any of the posts. But I would like to hear perspectives from experienced non-troll posters.


Yes, the majority of people on these threads are trolls. I'll try to answer your question (with full awareness that someone on this board will attempt to discredit or tear apart my position).

My daughter is a freshman at TJ. She did not do outside enrichment in STEM or math/science competitions; the later were not options at our base school nor did we seek them out. She has interests outside of math and science and we have always encouraged that. She is finding the TJ workload to be substantial but she also loves it. She routinely says how happy she is to be in an environment where (almost) everyone cares about school, learning, and doing well. We do not have expectations for her to get straight As, especially first quarter. The administration also emphasizes that most freshman get "curvy grades" and they expect it and then work from there to improve.

All that said, it does seem to be a bit of a pressure cooker. I've been told that it's gotten "much better" than years past but it is a HUGE jump from middle school workloads. If they are interested in applying, I would encourage them to do so. Since all the kids there are smart, I think being successful at TJ is more about finding ways to manage the workload and high expectations vs. having previous experience with STEM. A kid needs to be willing and motivated to learn.

When a neighborhood parent asked her if everyone at TJ is "crazy smart" she said that everyone is smart but that doesn't mean everyone is doing well. She said you might have a freshman kid killing it in AP Calculus (or some other accelerated math class) but they are failing English or Bio. Her point was most people aren't "naturally smart" in all areas and its more about finding ways to learn the content. I thought that was rather insightful for a 14 year old. I certainly wasn't aware of that as a freshman in HS.

Good luck!
-A non troll

This was an excellent and informative description. Having attended a different math and science magnet in a different part of the country, this was my experience as well. Unlike many other high schools, the classes are stimulating and challenging, and the vibe is definitely academic. In order to do well, one has to be quite motivated (hopefully in a less competitive way and more towards actually enjoying the learning process). E.g I could do calculus, but I had to work harder in other areas to avoid doing poorly. In some classes all of us were struggling, it wasn't me against others, it was together we were trying to understand the material, etc. For the most part it's not about how advanced you are coming in, it is more about whether you really want to learn a lot at a challenging pace, surrounded by smart peers who love to learn. Kudos to your daughter for realizing that learning how to learn is what matters most, and not the level of "smartness" compared to other peers, whatever that means.


Well, FCPS is a public school system, and a rather large one at that.

We should be offering kids challenges at all high schools, and not promoting one school where the students and their parents are always going off about how the kids are special snowflakes in a rarefied environment. But if we really feel the need to have snowflakes, we ought to at least make sure they are special - and not just some kids from some random middle school who might not even be in the top 50% at another.

Completely agree with the part that kids should be challenged in every high school, but not sure about the rest. Keep in mind that each high school has its own vibe and culture, and not very many high schools are strongly focused on academics. You might be able to have small special programs at those schools, but you're not going to be able to change what most people who attend that school value. But it's unclear why you are complaining that special kids are not identified; if this were to be true, those kids will help raise the bar at the base schools which supports your argument for higher challenge everywhere.
Anonymous wrote:Is BA a complete curriculum or supplement? Could it be used in conjunction with Khan Academy or Kumon worksheets as a complete curriculum? DC is home schooled for the time being and just wondering how thorough BA is.

It's a full curriculum and it's pretty thorough, particularly with regard to problem solving, making lots of conceptual connections, and many challenging problems. While it does of course contain basic exercises at the beginning of each chapter/topic, some parents find that their kids needed a bit more practice on the drill type questions. For that, anything such as Kumon/random worksheets can be used.

It's important to guide/support the child, especially initially when they are not used to the feeling of being stuck and want to quickly give up if they can't think of anything in a minute. Ideally work some of the problems together with them, and read the provided hints/solutions as they're very helpful. Some parents do the problems themselves ahead of time so that they can explain/help their kids effectively when they do get stuck Initially it's a big step for kids (and some adults) to switch away from thinking in a very procedural fashion, but once they get used to it, it's very much worth it for the critical thinking skills.
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I hear the math teachers are very frustrated with the math preparations of incoming students. Discussing changes to grading policies.

Yeah the SOL scores really have taken a dramatic turn. Maybe skills-based grading could be an option?


The new students are more naturally gifted than the 3rd tier peppers who were getting in under the old system. They may be less prepared but seem to pick things up more quickly, so in the long run, they're actually doing much better.


Less prepared in math and science. That was expected! Farcical essay can't evaluate preparedness in necessary math and science.


I've watched over 10,000 kids graduate from TJ in my lifetime, and I can tell you that the way they approach TJ once they're inside the building matters a hell of a lot more than how "prepared" they were when they got admitted. I've seen Alg1 kids who struggled mightily for their first year or two and turned out to be superstars when they left, and I've seen kids who entered in Calc BC and beyond flame out because they couldn't handle actually being challenged academically for the first time in their lives.

Their grades in their curricular classes tell me everything I need to know about whether or not they're "prepared enough". Testing isn't helpful beyond that point. Give me 1000 words that lend me insight into your approach and how you've handled adversity and I'll tell you whether or not you'll be a success at TJ and whether or not you'll add value to the institution.


I have watched 10,000 + 1 kids enter TJ, and unprepared students who get admitted struggle a lot, and mostly drop out mostly during freshman. Other who reluctantly hang in there, struggle with grades and do not go past the bare minimum Calc AB, even with a ton of remedial help. Whereas prepared students, most of them who attend enrichment centers outside school and participate in an array of math and science competitions in middle school, have a wholesome experience at TJ taking advanced math and science classes, and participating in clubs, sports, and having fun.


DP. That's depressing. And if that is changed by the new admissions requirements, then lower SOL PA scores are fine.

- parent of an 8th grader who is considering TJ


How many identities will you assume?


Only myself. As a resident of Northern Virginia, I'm interested in TJ. And as an 8th grader, my DC is interested in TJ. They are interested in science and math but do not do outside enrichment centers or math or science competitions. If that's really a prerequisite for success and enjoyment at TJ, then it's not the right place for them. Since the majority of posts on this thread are trolls, I don't put a lot of weight on any of the posts. But I would like to hear perspectives from experienced non-troll posters.


Yes, the majority of people on these threads are trolls. I'll try to answer your question (with full awareness that someone on this board will attempt to discredit or tear apart my position).

My daughter is a freshman at TJ. She did not do outside enrichment in STEM or math/science competitions; the later were not options at our base school nor did we seek them out. She has interests outside of math and science and we have always encouraged that. She is finding the TJ workload to be substantial but she also loves it. She routinely says how happy she is to be in an environment where (almost) everyone cares about school, learning, and doing well. We do not have expectations for her to get straight As, especially first quarter. The administration also emphasizes that most freshman get "curvy grades" and they expect it and then work from there to improve.

All that said, it does seem to be a bit of a pressure cooker. I've been told that it's gotten "much better" than years past but it is a HUGE jump from middle school workloads. If they are interested in applying, I would encourage them to do so. Since all the kids there are smart, I think being successful at TJ is more about finding ways to manage the workload and high expectations vs. having previous experience with STEM. A kid needs to be willing and motivated to learn.

When a neighborhood parent asked her if everyone at TJ is "crazy smart" she said that everyone is smart but that doesn't mean everyone is doing well. She said you might have a freshman kid killing it in AP Calculus (or some other accelerated math class) but they are failing English or Bio. Her point was most people aren't "naturally smart" in all areas and its more about finding ways to learn the content. I thought that was rather insightful for a 14 year old. I certainly wasn't aware of that as a freshman in HS.

Good luck!
-A non troll

This was an excellent and informative description. Having attended a different math and science magnet in a different part of the country, this was my experience as well. Unlike many other high schools, the classes are stimulating and challenging, and the vibe is definitely academic. In order to do well, one has to be quite motivated (hopefully in a less competitive way and more towards actually enjoying the learning process). E.g I could do calculus, but I had to work harder in other areas to avoid doing poorly. In some classes all of us were struggling, it wasn't me against others, it was together we were trying to understand the material, etc. For the most part it's not about how advanced you are coming in, it is more about whether you really want to learn a lot at a challenging pace, surrounded by smart peers who love to learn. Kudos to your daughter for realizing that learning how to learn is what matters most, and not the level of "smartness" compared to other peers, whatever that means.
Anonymous wrote:The rich can be criminals. We had arms dealers (parents) at our high SES high school (not FCPS)

That would be an edge case. Financial crimes would be the common use case.
Anonymous wrote:
pettifogger wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
pettifogger wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Also, I'm looking at BA offerings and I'm torn about what to do about books and placement, as I've been exposing him to stuff that spans different grade levels. A lot of level 1 looks too easy but some might be good to practice/review. I think he'd place somewhere in level 2 but has tackled things covered in 3 and 4. So what books to order if any? And I'm assuming the annual membership allows one to move at their own pace?


In that case, you should do the online platform. He could start at 2, move quickly through the material that he already knows, and spend more time with the stuff he hasn't yet seen when he reaches 3 and 4.


Thanks, I'll do that. I like supporting him to keep learning, but I do wonder what then happens when he's very far ahead. What do your kids do in class? Do they get differentiated instruction?


I mean what do they do in math class at school to avoid boredom.


Since they put them on computers a lot of the time, I've taught my kid to surreptitiously work on Alcumus problems instead of ST Math.


What is ST Math? Is Alcumus another platform that you have to pay for yourself? Looks like it's linked to AOPs?

Alcumus is a large database of math problems freely accessible via the AoPS website. Note that the level of difficulty starts at a prealgebra level and up, so it would not be usable by the overwhelming majority of elementary school students.
ST math is a computer tool that FCPS bought and uses for elementary kids as part of their math screen time.

I agree that calculus isn't appropriate for most elementary school students, but the first few topics are arithmetic (addition, multiplication, subtraction, division), order of operations, multiples, divisibility, and other stuff seen in elementary school. If the user sets their difficulty to "easy" in settings, an elementary student could definitely use it productively

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Also, I'm looking at BA offerings and I'm torn about what to do about books and placement, as I've been exposing him to stuff that spans different grade levels. A lot of level 1 looks too easy but some might be good to practice/review. I think he'd place somewhere in level 2 but has tackled things covered in 3 and 4. So what books to order if any? And I'm assuming the annual membership allows one to move at their own pace?


In that case, you should do the online platform. He could start at 2, move quickly through the material that he already knows, and spend more time with the stuff he hasn't yet seen when he reaches 3 and 4.


Thanks, I'll do that. I like supporting him to keep learning, but I do wonder what then happens when he's very far ahead. What do your kids do in class? Do they get differentiated instruction?


I mean what do they do in math class at school to avoid boredom.


Since they put them on computers a lot of the time, I've taught my kid to surreptitiously work on Alcumus problems instead of ST Math.

Wouldn't the teacher notice him doing alcumus and not st math, either by looking at his screen or from reviewing the data of which ST math lessons he (hasn't) completed?

Not if the teacher realizes that ST math isn't useful for a kid who is getting almost everything correct on classwork and is not tracking ST math progress for those kids. Also, the teacher doesn't normally check on kids unless they're messing around, Alt-tabbing to the st math page is also easy. As a backup excuse, my kid can always just nicely say they're studying for a math contest since many Alcumus problems are from past contests. But for me the best part is that there is no longer a ton of complaining at home that math class is so boring, since now there is at least something productive to do for part of the time during class.


Just curious, approximately how old is your child? I'm assuming they're in an advanced math class? I wonder if this is something that is teacher dependent. Could imagine some teachers being less tolerant of this more individualized approach to learning.

6th grader. I've found that teachers are pretty tolerant assuming the kids are doing the normal work assignments and behaving well.
Did you find this by talking with your kid's teacher and getting permission to have him do alcumus instead of ST math, or did you find this out when he didn't get in trouble for doing Alcumus instead of ST math despite not having permission? When you say "teachers", is this coming from personal experience with multiple teachers or inductive reasoning from his teacher's behavior to that of others?

My personal stance here is that I don't need to ask for permission for my child to be productive. If the teacher finds out, I'm pretty sure they'll understand.
Anonymous wrote:
pettifogger wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Also, I'm looking at BA offerings and I'm torn about what to do about books and placement, as I've been exposing him to stuff that spans different grade levels. A lot of level 1 looks too easy but some might be good to practice/review. I think he'd place somewhere in level 2 but has tackled things covered in 3 and 4. So what books to order if any? And I'm assuming the annual membership allows one to move at their own pace?


In that case, you should do the online platform. He could start at 2, move quickly through the material that he already knows, and spend more time with the stuff he hasn't yet seen when he reaches 3 and 4.


Thanks, I'll do that. I like supporting him to keep learning, but I do wonder what then happens when he's very far ahead. What do your kids do in class? Do they get differentiated instruction?


I mean what do they do in math class at school to avoid boredom.


Since they put them on computers a lot of the time, I've taught my kid to surreptitiously work on Alcumus problems instead of ST Math.


What is ST Math? Is Alcumus another platform that you have to pay for yourself? Looks like it's linked to AOPs?

Alcumus is a large database of math problems freely accessible via the AoPS website. Note that the level of difficulty starts at a prealgebra level and up, so it would not be usable by the overwhelming majority of elementary school students.
ST math is a computer tool that FCPS bought and uses for elementary kids as part of their math screen time.

I agree that calculus isn't appropriate for most elementary school students, but the first few topics are arithmetic (addition, multiplication, subtraction, division), order of operations, multiples, divisibility, and other stuff seen in elementary school. If the user sets their difficulty to "easy" in settings, an elementary student could definitely use it productively

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Also, I'm looking at BA offerings and I'm torn about what to do about books and placement, as I've been exposing him to stuff that spans different grade levels. A lot of level 1 looks too easy but some might be good to practice/review. I think he'd place somewhere in level 2 but has tackled things covered in 3 and 4. So what books to order if any? And I'm assuming the annual membership allows one to move at their own pace?


In that case, you should do the online platform. He could start at 2, move quickly through the material that he already knows, and spend more time with the stuff he hasn't yet seen when he reaches 3 and 4.


Thanks, I'll do that. I like supporting him to keep learning, but I do wonder what then happens when he's very far ahead. What do your kids do in class? Do they get differentiated instruction?


I mean what do they do in math class at school to avoid boredom.


Since they put them on computers a lot of the time, I've taught my kid to surreptitiously work on Alcumus problems instead of ST Math.

Wouldn't the teacher notice him doing alcumus and not st math, either by looking at his screen or from reviewing the data of which ST math lessons he (hasn't) completed?

Not if the teacher realizes that ST math isn't useful for a kid who is getting almost everything correct on classwork and is not tracking ST math progress for those kids. Also, the teacher doesn't normally check on kids unless they're messing around, Alt-tabbing to the st math page is also easy. As a backup excuse, my kid can always just nicely say they're studying for a math contest since many Alcumus problems are from past contests. But for me the best part is that there is no longer a ton of complaining at home that math class is so boring, since now there is at least something productive to do for part of the time during class.
How would you know what your teacher's opinion of the value of ST math for your student is? Even if the teacher isn't specifically looking at your child, shouldn't the fact that 0 ST math has been completed stick out when looking at the class's progress? How would you know whether or not the teacher believes that kids should be on-task during class, and that being distracted by competition math is still being distracted? I'm confident ST math is an admin requirement, so a teacher who believes it isn't useful for the student could still require the student to complete it to avoid the professional consequences that might come with having their class appear behind in ST math.

With all these possibilities, did you meet with the teacher to see their stance on all these issues and give them a heads up, or did you choose to ask forgiveness rather than permission and just told your child to go ahead with Alcumus despite the risk of disciplinary/academic consequences?

Definitely went the forgiveness route No reason unnecessarily stir up things when the teacher clearly has a lot of other kids to worry about in terms of grade improvement. I also highly doubt that there are any professional consequences here. If there were, we would have heard about it a while ago.
Anonymous wrote:How many here are essentially teaching their kids math, reading and writing at home and then viewing school as supplementary or like "social time"? My child is not yet in FCPS but given what I hear, I don't have high expectations. I just wondering how I'll keep my child learning if they are spending so much time at school.

It is much more difficult trying to do this during the school year as they're spending 7+ hours in school and need a break at home. If schools taught things efficiently, students could come home after 4-5 hours max.

Summer is usually the best time for them to learn, as they're less distracted and stressed out with lots of activities. Sometimes they can learn a year or more of math during a summer and still have lots of fun and relax with their friends. My kid mentions that they only learn about 1, maaybe 2 hours max worth of material during a school day in elementary school. Yet because of the amount of time spent in class, they will be tired after school. It's an unfortunate dilemma to have to balance out their need for downtime while at the same time realizing that they are capable of learning so much more.
Anonymous wrote:
pettifogger wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Also, I'm looking at BA offerings and I'm torn about what to do about books and placement, as I've been exposing him to stuff that spans different grade levels. A lot of level 1 looks too easy but some might be good to practice/review. I think he'd place somewhere in level 2 but has tackled things covered in 3 and 4. So what books to order if any? And I'm assuming the annual membership allows one to move at their own pace?


In that case, you should do the online platform. He could start at 2, move quickly through the material that he already knows, and spend more time with the stuff he hasn't yet seen when he reaches 3 and 4.


Thanks, I'll do that. I like supporting him to keep learning, but I do wonder what then happens when he's very far ahead. What do your kids do in class? Do they get differentiated instruction?


I mean what do they do in math class at school to avoid boredom.


Since they put them on computers a lot of the time, I've taught my kid to surreptitiously work on Alcumus problems instead of ST Math.


What is ST Math? Is Alcumus another platform that you have to pay for yourself? Looks like it's linked to AOPs?

Alcumus is a large database of math problems freely accessible via the AoPS website. Note that the level of difficulty starts at a prealgebra level and up, so it would not be usable by the overwhelming majority of elementary school students.
ST math is a computer tool that FCPS bought and uses for elementary kids as part of their math screen time.

I agree that calculus isn't appropriate for most elementary school students, but the first few topics are arithmetic (addition, multiplication, subtraction, division), order of operations, multiples, divisibility, and other stuff seen in elementary school. If the user sets their difficulty to "easy" in settings, an elementary student could definitely use it productively

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Also, I'm looking at BA offerings and I'm torn about what to do about books and placement, as I've been exposing him to stuff that spans different grade levels. A lot of level 1 looks too easy but some might be good to practice/review. I think he'd place somewhere in level 2 but has tackled things covered in 3 and 4. So what books to order if any? And I'm assuming the annual membership allows one to move at their own pace?


In that case, you should do the online platform. He could start at 2, move quickly through the material that he already knows, and spend more time with the stuff he hasn't yet seen when he reaches 3 and 4.


Thanks, I'll do that. I like supporting him to keep learning, but I do wonder what then happens when he's very far ahead. What do your kids do in class? Do they get differentiated instruction?


I mean what do they do in math class at school to avoid boredom.


Since they put them on computers a lot of the time, I've taught my kid to surreptitiously work on Alcumus problems instead of ST Math.

Wouldn't the teacher notice him doing alcumus and not st math, either by looking at his screen or from reviewing the data of which ST math lessons he (hasn't) completed?

Not if the teacher realizes that ST math isn't useful for a kid who is getting almost everything correct on classwork and is not tracking ST math progress for those kids. Also, the teacher doesn't normally check on kids unless they're messing around, Alt-tabbing to the st math page is also easy. As a backup excuse, my kid can always just nicely say they're studying for a math contest since many Alcumus problems are from past contests. But for me the best part is that there is no longer a ton of complaining at home that math class is so boring, since now there is at least something productive to do for part of the time during class.


Just curious, approximately how old is your child? I'm assuming they're in an advanced math class? I wonder if this is something that is teacher dependent. Could imagine some teachers being less tolerant of this more individualized approach to learning.

6th grader. I've found that teachers are pretty tolerant assuming the kids are doing the normal work assignments and behaving well.
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Also, I'm looking at BA offerings and I'm torn about what to do about books and placement, as I've been exposing him to stuff that spans different grade levels. A lot of level 1 looks too easy but some might be good to practice/review. I think he'd place somewhere in level 2 but has tackled things covered in 3 and 4. So what books to order if any? And I'm assuming the annual membership allows one to move at their own pace?


In that case, you should do the online platform. He could start at 2, move quickly through the material that he already knows, and spend more time with the stuff he hasn't yet seen when he reaches 3 and 4.


Thanks, I'll do that. I like supporting him to keep learning, but I do wonder what then happens when he's very far ahead. What do your kids do in class? Do they get differentiated instruction?


I mean what do they do in math class at school to avoid boredom.


Since they put them on computers a lot of the time, I've taught my kid to surreptitiously work on Alcumus problems instead of ST Math.


What is ST Math? Is Alcumus another platform that you have to pay for yourself? Looks like it's linked to AOPs?

Alcumus is a large database of math problems freely accessible via the AoPS website. Note that the level of difficulty starts at a prealgebra level and up, so it would not be usable by the overwhelming majority of elementary school students.
ST math is a computer tool that FCPS bought and uses for elementary kids as part of their math screen time.

I agree that calculus isn't appropriate for most elementary school students, but the first few topics are arithmetic (addition, multiplication, subtraction, division), order of operations, multiples, divisibility, and other stuff seen in elementary school. If the user sets their difficulty to "easy" in settings, an elementary student could definitely use it productively

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Also, I'm looking at BA offerings and I'm torn about what to do about books and placement, as I've been exposing him to stuff that spans different grade levels. A lot of level 1 looks too easy but some might be good to practice/review. I think he'd place somewhere in level 2 but has tackled things covered in 3 and 4. So what books to order if any? And I'm assuming the annual membership allows one to move at their own pace?


In that case, you should do the online platform. He could start at 2, move quickly through the material that he already knows, and spend more time with the stuff he hasn't yet seen when he reaches 3 and 4.


Thanks, I'll do that. I like supporting him to keep learning, but I do wonder what then happens when he's very far ahead. What do your kids do in class? Do they get differentiated instruction?


I mean what do they do in math class at school to avoid boredom.


Since they put them on computers a lot of the time, I've taught my kid to surreptitiously work on Alcumus problems instead of ST Math.

Wouldn't the teacher notice him doing alcumus and not st math, either by looking at his screen or from reviewing the data of which ST math lessons he (hasn't) completed?

Not if the teacher realizes that ST math isn't useful for a kid who is getting almost everything correct on classwork and is not tracking ST math progress for those kids. Also, the teacher doesn't normally check on kids unless they're messing around, Alt-tabbing to the st math page is also easy. As a backup excuse, my kid can always just nicely say they're studying for a math contest since many Alcumus problems are from past contests. But for me the best part is that there is no longer a ton of complaining at home that math class is so boring, since now there is at least something productive to do for part of the time during class.
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Or get spanked by the voters (parents) which I highly doubt.


If it's really as bad as everyone says it is, then the School Board elections should go overwhelmingly in the conservatives' favor.

My guess is that most parents are not nearly as unhappy as the very small subsegment of folks who comment on this board alongside the very vocal superminority on Twitter.

Not to mention the folks that were nominated for the School Board on that side are so far outside the mainstream of Fairfax County education policy as to be unrecognizable - and that several are running with the express intent of financially kneecapping the public school system....

Prepare to be disappointed. Become a serious party if you intend to create change.

I don't know or really care about party affiliation, but if education is a priority, one should be taking a close look at those who actively teach. For instance, Peter Gabor (https://petergabor.org/) is a TJ teacher, majored in math from MIT, has a phD in computer science from Princeton, and taught and is still teaching at TJ for many years. This is promising to see, because we really need more actual teachers running for the school board who have deep content expertise and are actually close to the students and the learning.

WaPo posted all the candidates running here. If folks want to vote for meaningful change, they should be closely studying this.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/10/07/fairfax-county-school-board-election-guide/
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:PP, you seem to have skipped the part where they learn and remember the stuff they "already know and learned". Most humans aren't computers who memorize everything at first sight.

When someone at work has a quick question, they want a highly paid subject matter expert to recognize the core issue and then provide a quick correct answer, not think for a while to work it out.


https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2006/10/25/the-guerrilla-guide-to-interviewing-version-30/

Skip to the part about Jared the bond trader and then Serge Lange the world-class mathematician and professor.

"Serge Lang used to give his Calculus students a fairly simple algebra problem on the first day of classes, one which almost everyone could solve, but some of them solved it as quickly as they could write while others took a while, and Professor Lang claimed that all of the students who solved the problem as quickly as they could write would get an A in the Calculus course, and all the others wouldn’t.
The speed with which they solved a simple algebra problem was as good a predictor of the final grade in Calculus as a whole semester of homework, tests, midterms, and a final.

You see, if you can’t whiz through the easy stuff at 100 m.p.h., you’re never gonna get the advanced stuff."

My curiosity about this origin of this story was piqued , so here's the pdf of the actual article where Serge Lang discussed the test, December 1969 of the Columbia Daily Spectator (page 6 in the pdf):

[url]https://spectatorarchive.library.columbia.edu/?a=is&oid=cs19691208-02&type=staticpdf&e=-------en-20--1--txt-txIN-------
[/url]
Nowhere did Lang say that students who can solve 5 simple problems in a few minutes will pass his calculus class with flying colors. Here's what he actually said in the article:

After receiving Mr. Wyer's letter, I decided to give a short test to check Mr. Wyer's opinions. The test consisted of five problems, and was given to the 1A sections. One can draw some conclusions: a) The test is very easy and students unable to do reasonably well on such a test should not be taking a calculus course....

So your original quote is highly inaccurate. While it's more provocative and makes for a good story, it doesn't change the fact that being fast at doing very easy problems does NOT automatically predict success in math. All we can conclude here is that this is an absolute minimum of what the students are expected to know before taking the class (btw, if you're curious, in the article you can find the actual 5 questions that were asked). So no, Serge Lang did not believe that students who can do easy problems with speed will get As in his class (and why would anyone believe that? Correlation is not causation). The test was simply a low bar filter to identify students who could be at risk of failing because they don't understand fundamentals. Actually doing well requires much more than that, namely working hard and thoroughly learning the material.

Even more interesting in the article, is Lang's take on memorization:

Although a couple of students raised an objection to the time limit on the test, most students felt the time was reasonable, and in any case, part of the test amounts to verifying that students have reasonably fast responses to the type of question involved. Another point raised by some is that the question on sines of angles involves "memory." Which memory? Part of being properly acquainted with the basic facts of trigonometry is to be able to draw the proper triangle for and angle of 30 degrees, or 45 degrees, and determining the sine from that triangle, possibly using the pythagoras theorem. The type of memory involved is that of understanding, not the brute force memory...

It's not about memorization and regurgitation at high speed, it's about understanding. Speed develops naturally as a consequence of understanding. Doing homework (i.e working on stimulating problems) is by far the most important part of learning mathematics. Initially it's a slow painful process, but over time it solidifies concepts in students minds. If done well, it can lead to mastery of the material by the end of the semester/year.

I also take issue with the work analogy you make:

When someone at work has a quick question, they want a highly paid subject matter expert to recognize the core issue and then provide a quick correct answer, not think for a while to work it out.

You can't actually compare kids education with adults performing tasks at work. Under this analogy you are suggesting kids should just ask for an answer and not try to think about it first, which defeats the whole purpose of learning.



Read the part you went to the effort to copy and paste: "part of the test amounts to verifying that students have reasonably fast responses to the type of question involved."

Also:

"Under this analogy you are suggesting kids should just ask for an answer and not try to think about it first, which defeats the whole purpose of learning."


No, the analogy is that the goal of education is to be able to ANSWER a question that someone asks.

Nothing you wrote rebuts or even challenges the common sense claim that practicing basic problems helps develop valuable fluency.

Why would math be only subject where practicing fundamentals isn't helpful?
Athletes do drills and workous. Musicians do scales and etudes. Painters and sculptors make many iterations of the same project. Chefs prepare the same recipes many times.

The issue isn't that fundamentals are bad, the much bigger problem is that students don't do much more than that, they don't get to actually learn to think for themselves by solving problems. In fact, what you're calling fundamentals aren't even fundamental, they are endless rote drills. For example, from an early age kids are forced to learn long division and do endless computations with decimals, and they don't even have any idea how or why the division algorithm works. They would be hard pressed to even tell you what division means if you asked them! They don't understand fractions, and have no number sense (because of the above endless rote drills, they have not gained any intuition about fundamental things such as place value, the distributive property, simple geometric relationships between areas, and the list goes on and on). Then you race them to algebra and now they really don't understand what they're doing. The lucky ones who can follow procedural steps of how to solve for x, then get lost at the slightest adjustment (i.e putting a simple fraction in an equation, etc).

I honestly don't think you have any idea how bad it really is, since I can tell that you are not a teacher. Here's the kicker: Not only do kids not understand what they are doing, they think math is just a bunch of calculations. So it's no surprise most hate math and find it boring and stupid. And by the way, they are absolutely right, doing endless mechanical drills by hand is boring and stupid and they should use a calculator for tedious computations once they've learned how to do it by hand.. Yet teachers don't allow them to do this, in the process contributing to their disgust with math. Then in middle and high school the tables turn and teachers now force them to use calculators, in fact they're so dependent on them that they lose all basic reasoning skills. This is why kids taking AP calculus can mimic steps better than highly trained monkeys, but if asked, cannot solve basic fundamental problems that deal with whole numbers, multiples, divisibility, fractions, etc. They will instinctively pull out their calculator and stare at it, but then not know what to do next. It's a sad world.

I've tried to describe the symptoms for you, and if you've read and understood, you should be able to realize what the elephant in the room is: Kids have almost no conceptual understanding of mathematics, and even less (close to 0) ability to think and problem solve. They can neither appreciate nor enjoy math because they see it as just a bunch of disconnected rules to memorize, then perform and regurgitate back on tests. The main reason for this is because ALL they are doing is drills, nothing more. When you do that to curious early elementary kids (often all the way through middle school until high school), their brains permanently change.. They no longer ask questions, they don't wonder about things, they don't try stuff to see what happens, they only put effort if they HAVE to... i.e if it's for a grade. And nowhere is this more true than in math, because they've been conditioned to hate the subject. Of course there are lucky ones, many who learned math outside this system, perhaps at home, or at a place that teaches things in an authentic way. But the overwhelming majority of kids are mathematically stultified by the time they leave late elementary.
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:Not exactly “personalities” but there are some very obvious demographic differences between CAP (largely upper middle class, white students) and magnet (many from Indian, Chinese, Korean and other Asian backgrounds often children of immigrants including the few who are white) at Blair. Nice kids either way.


Why is this? Why are there so few wealthy white families in SMCS relative to CAP, and why so many in CAP? Are the upper middle class white kids not as good in STEM or are their families less interested?


Both Blair magnet and CAP are predominantly UMC. This is not NYC, where the test-in magnets are dominated by working class first-generation kids whose parents work in restaurants and dry cleaners. The parents of both sets of kids tend to be feds, or journalists, or attorneys, or scientists, or college professors.

I have an upperclassman in CAP who attended the TPMS STEM magnet, so some visibility on both groups and while Blair magnet does have more first and second generation immigrant kids, they are just as wealthy or wealthier than the CAP kids.


Agree only the wealthiest families can afford to prep their kids sufficiently to get into these programs. I'm told it takes years of AoPS or RM to get to where one might have a shot at SMCS.


You were told wrong. Stop trying to create a myth.

Parent of a kid in SMCS who doesn’t even know what AOPS or RM are.


Another Blair magnet parent here. It's not totally a myth. Many kids have done these, and some don't. I think magnet leans Asian because Chinese, Korean and Indian cultures place more value on academic advancement in STEM than Humanities. MC, UMC and immigrant families often sacrifice for additional stem enrichment like aops, A++, Dr. Li, Hopkins cty, etc. I know one mom who did those things while on a postdoc salary here on h1 visa from China. There are communal support networks too. Humanities were not an option for many of my kid's cohort in magnet. Not all of course. And, this is a few years ago.
I also see a lot of white umc lawyers in my neighborhood who will drop lots of money for Humanities enrichment.
My magnet kids had significant enrichment in arts because I am a professional in the arts. I also used to tutor math, so I helped them with that (to a point). Stem magnets liked the arts kids who could hold their own at math.
I do wish there wasn't an emphasis on pre program enrichment. I don't know how we really get around that though.


PP whose kid doesn’t know what those programs are, I’m an NP who also has a kid in the Blair magnet who not only didn’t prep but doesn’t know what those programs are. I guess we should be very proud that our kids got in based only on their hard work and not parental pressure and outside tutoring?


Do you really think the kids who went to those programs did not do hard work? Many of the kids we know who did not do outside tutoring have parents who have STEM jobs and taught them themselves. I'm not sure why it makes such a difference to you and why you would be more "proud" if a child did not go to the programs. My child did not attend these programs but her friends who went to them are the hardest working in the magnet and the most successful over the two years she has been there.


I think that it’s a much bigger achievement for a kid without all that extra help through tutoring and outside programs to get in to a magnet than a kid who got in due to considerable extra help. Surely that’s obvious?

So help me understand.. why does this type of comparison matter so much to you (and many others on these threads)? Both types of kids worked hard and should be commended for their efforts.. Or are you suggesting that it's a much bigger achievement NOT to work hard at something?


It matters only because some posters here claim that all kids in these programs are there because they gamed the system. It’s not true. And yes it is a bigger achievement to have been selected without additional help and privileges.

Well that's news! So what you're saying is, a kid who didn't need to work to figure stuff out and got in on talent is "higher achieving" than one who had to work at it? Are you sure it's not the other way around?


No I’m saying that a kid who got there because their family has resources has significantly more privilege than a kid who didn’t have access to those resources but excelled anyway. That kid has to work harder, not the one who has a bunch of math programs thrown at them.

How do you know who had to work harder? How can you compare? Maybe the kids who made use of the programs they had access to, had to work really hard to get in. Why compare and single them out as privileged? The same argument can be made about other kids who had other resources such as parents, great teachers, good peer group, etc. Were they not privileged? Or the kids who are bright enough to be able to grasp ideas and didn't need to put much effort in, are they not also privileged to be smart? And what about other kids who also worked hard but didn't get in because there are only x number of spots, are they privileged? Or shall we label them as suckers? What is the point of comparing like this??


Look, access to tutors and “enrichment” programs is a privilege that advantages some kids over others. That’s a fact. I’m not continuing this argument beyond that.

Some kids succeed without that kind of parental or special help - that’s impressive. Not the kid who has been hothoused since birth.

But why the fixation on comparing who was more privileged? Shouldn't it be celebrated that both kids have put in a lot of effort and accomplished something, irrespective of how they learned? I would say both are impressive and have great potential. Think about most of the world's leaders in various domains; most were certainly privileged in many ways. The main thing that matters is what they can accomplish and how they can use their knowledge to benefit humanity. Comparing their privilege is pretty irrelevant.
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:Not exactly “personalities” but there are some very obvious demographic differences between CAP (largely upper middle class, white students) and magnet (many from Indian, Chinese, Korean and other Asian backgrounds often children of immigrants including the few who are white) at Blair. Nice kids either way.


Why is this? Why are there so few wealthy white families in SMCS relative to CAP, and why so many in CAP? Are the upper middle class white kids not as good in STEM or are their families less interested?


Both Blair magnet and CAP are predominantly UMC. This is not NYC, where the test-in magnets are dominated by working class first-generation kids whose parents work in restaurants and dry cleaners. The parents of both sets of kids tend to be feds, or journalists, or attorneys, or scientists, or college professors.

I have an upperclassman in CAP who attended the TPMS STEM magnet, so some visibility on both groups and while Blair magnet does have more first and second generation immigrant kids, they are just as wealthy or wealthier than the CAP kids.


Agree only the wealthiest families can afford to prep their kids sufficiently to get into these programs. I'm told it takes years of AoPS or RM to get to where one might have a shot at SMCS.


You were told wrong. Stop trying to create a myth.

Parent of a kid in SMCS who doesn’t even know what AOPS or RM are.


Another Blair magnet parent here. It's not totally a myth. Many kids have done these, and some don't. I think magnet leans Asian because Chinese, Korean and Indian cultures place more value on academic advancement in STEM than Humanities. MC, UMC and immigrant families often sacrifice for additional stem enrichment like aops, A++, Dr. Li, Hopkins cty, etc. I know one mom who did those things while on a postdoc salary here on h1 visa from China. There are communal support networks too. Humanities were not an option for many of my kid's cohort in magnet. Not all of course. And, this is a few years ago.
I also see a lot of white umc lawyers in my neighborhood who will drop lots of money for Humanities enrichment.
My magnet kids had significant enrichment in arts because I am a professional in the arts. I also used to tutor math, so I helped them with that (to a point). Stem magnets liked the arts kids who could hold their own at math.
I do wish there wasn't an emphasis on pre program enrichment. I don't know how we really get around that though.


PP whose kid doesn’t know what those programs are, I’m an NP who also has a kid in the Blair magnet who not only didn’t prep but doesn’t know what those programs are. I guess we should be very proud that our kids got in based only on their hard work and not parental pressure and outside tutoring?


Do you really think the kids who went to those programs did not do hard work? Many of the kids we know who did not do outside tutoring have parents who have STEM jobs and taught them themselves. I'm not sure why it makes such a difference to you and why you would be more "proud" if a child did not go to the programs. My child did not attend these programs but her friends who went to them are the hardest working in the magnet and the most successful over the two years she has been there.


I think that it’s a much bigger achievement for a kid without all that extra help through tutoring and outside programs to get in to a magnet than a kid who got in due to considerable extra help. Surely that’s obvious?

So help me understand.. why does this type of comparison matter so much to you (and many others on these threads)? Both types of kids worked hard and should be commended for their efforts.. Or are you suggesting that it's a much bigger achievement NOT to work hard at something?


It matters only because some posters here claim that all kids in these programs are there because they gamed the system. It’s not true. And yes it is a bigger achievement to have been selected without additional help and privileges.

Well that's news! So what you're saying is, a kid who didn't need to work to figure stuff out and got in on talent is "higher achieving" than one who had to work at it? Are you sure it's not the other way around?


No I’m saying that a kid who got there because their family has resources has significantly more privilege than a kid who didn’t have access to those resources but excelled anyway. That kid has to work harder, not the one who has a bunch of math programs thrown at them.

How do you know who had to work harder? How can you compare? Maybe the kids who made use of the programs they had access to, had to work really hard to get in. Why compare and single them out as privileged? The same argument can be made about other kids who had other resources such as parents, great teachers, good peer group, etc. Were they not privileged? Or the kids who are bright enough to be able to grasp ideas and didn't need to put much effort in, are they not also privileged to be smart? And what about other kids who also worked hard but didn't get in because there are only x number of spots, are they privileged? Or shall we label them as suckers? What is the point of comparing like this??
Anonymous wrote:
pettifogger wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Not exactly “personalities” but there are some very obvious demographic differences between CAP (largely upper middle class, white students) and magnet (many from Indian, Chinese, Korean and other Asian backgrounds often children of immigrants including the few who are white) at Blair. Nice kids either way.


Why is this? Why are there so few wealthy white families in SMCS relative to CAP, and why so many in CAP? Are the upper middle class white kids not as good in STEM or are their families less interested?


Both Blair magnet and CAP are predominantly UMC. This is not NYC, where the test-in magnets are dominated by working class first-generation kids whose parents work in restaurants and dry cleaners. The parents of both sets of kids tend to be feds, or journalists, or attorneys, or scientists, or college professors.

I have an upperclassman in CAP who attended the TPMS STEM magnet, so some visibility on both groups and while Blair magnet does have more first and second generation immigrant kids, they are just as wealthy or wealthier than the CAP kids.


Agree only the wealthiest families can afford to prep their kids sufficiently to get into these programs. I'm told it takes years of AoPS or RM to get to where one might have a shot at SMCS.


You were told wrong. Stop trying to create a myth.

Parent of a kid in SMCS who doesn’t even know what AOPS or RM are.


Another Blair magnet parent here. It's not totally a myth. Many kids have done these, and some don't. I think magnet leans Asian because Chinese, Korean and Indian cultures place more value on academic advancement in STEM than Humanities. MC, UMC and immigrant families often sacrifice for additional stem enrichment like aops, A++, Dr. Li, Hopkins cty, etc. I know one mom who did those things while on a postdoc salary here on h1 visa from China. There are communal support networks too. Humanities were not an option for many of my kid's cohort in magnet. Not all of course. And, this is a few years ago.
I also see a lot of white umc lawyers in my neighborhood who will drop lots of money for Humanities enrichment.
My magnet kids had significant enrichment in arts because I am a professional in the arts. I also used to tutor math, so I helped them with that (to a point). Stem magnets liked the arts kids who could hold their own at math.
I do wish there wasn't an emphasis on pre program enrichment. I don't know how we really get around that though.


PP whose kid doesn’t know what those programs are, I’m an NP who also has a kid in the Blair magnet who not only didn’t prep but doesn’t know what those programs are. I guess we should be very proud that our kids got in based only on their hard work and not parental pressure and outside tutoring?


Do you really think the kids who went to those programs did not do hard work? Many of the kids we know who did not do outside tutoring have parents who have STEM jobs and taught them themselves. I'm not sure why it makes such a difference to you and why you would be more "proud" if a child did not go to the programs. My child did not attend these programs but her friends who went to them are the hardest working in the magnet and the most successful over the two years she has been there.


I think that it’s a much bigger achievement for a kid without all that extra help through tutoring and outside programs to get in to a magnet than a kid who got in due to considerable extra help. Surely that’s obvious?

So help me understand.. why does this type of comparison matter so much to you (and many others on these threads)? Both types of kids worked hard and should be commended for their efforts.. Or are you suggesting that it's a much bigger achievement NOT to work hard at something?


It matters only because some posters here claim that all kids in these programs are there because they gamed the system. It’s not true. And yes it is a bigger achievement to have been selected without additional help and privileges.

Well that's news! So what you're saying is, a kid who didn't need to work to figure stuff out and got in on talent is "higher achieving" than one who had to work at it? Are you sure it's not the other way around?
Go to: