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

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]You can just look up the course description from a college board.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Meanwhile the crappy CC Physics has an entire first chapter dedicated to vectors.
[/quote]

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

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

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics