If your kid seems unlikely to be math-minded in college and beyond, I wouldn't worry about middle school acceleration one way or the other. Perhaps worry about good instruction/inputs and how you can supplement, such as via engaging geometry teaching software on-line. If he's more interested in archaeology and history than math and science per se, you can steer him to math concepts related to these fields (field research techniques, the math behind building monuments in the ancient world, warfare strategy etc.).

Sounds like he's reacting to social pressure as a middle schooler, which probably won't be the case 2 or 3 years hence. If keeping up with his friends via math acceleration helps him feel good about himself now, no harm done.

I've been interviewing for my Ivy for 20 years, and my spouse interivews for MIT. What we find about kids who are admitted is that they tend to be all fired up about a subject they love and have run with via extra curriculars. Plenty of kids take advanced math, and do well, without it doing them a whit of good in highly competitive college admissions. It's kids with intellectual wattage for their age who tend to get in, often demonstrated through quirkiness (e.g. an unusual, highly focused research project).

I've seen kids who didn't have impecable high school math and science scores/grades (or so they told me) be admitted, probably because they were all excited about applying concepts. I think of one MoCo kid who was thrilled to be teaching sign language to apes at the National Zoo as an assistant to Natl Geographic researchers, and another who had worked on computer based spatial mapping of small pyramids in Upper Egypt with a U. of Chicago team. If your kid gets into archeology, he could easily volunteer on "digs" in the US and/or abroad during high school summers. I did that in Israel and the West Bank as a kid. For a kid who doesn't plan to become an engineer, singular credentials are more likely to stand out than simply taking BC calculus and not scoring a 5 (meaning not wowing a teacher potentially providing a recommendation).

Back in the early 90s I took BC Calc and then the AB test which I got a 4 on. I was not planning on entering a STEM field, so it was perfect to get my math credits taken care of for college. I just had to take stats then for my health related major in college.

Anonymous wrote:OP again,

I've heard the argument that accelerating math causes kids to gloss over stuff and move on to higher levels without being prepared. I have no idea if this is true, but I'm not sure why someone who believed it would be accused of "not believing math is important". If one believes math is important, wouldn't you want it to be taught fully and completely?

I said this, and you're right to call me out on the idea that wanting a child to move more slowly means not believing math is important. It is good if that is what fits the child. I was reacting to the overgeneralization I often hear: to move faster through the curriculum is (a) due to pushy parents and (b) results in students who are unprepared. That accusation, like mine, imputes motives that are also questionable. Just as a child should move at a slower or normal (deliberate) pace is that is appropriate, it can be appropriate for a child who gets the math more easily to move faster, and not be held back and potentially turned off of math.

Anyway, to take Geo in the summer seems perfectly reasonable. Your son will probably never encounter it again, by the way. It is not a logical part of the sequence from algebra to calculus, even though it is put in the sequence - they should take it at some point, and 8th or 9th grade is a reasonable time, but it neither builds on nor provides much foundation for the longer algebra-calc sequence. Top - and I mean really top - kids in math have different strenths, some algebra, some calculus, some geombetry, and if a child has a harder time with the more spatial stuff in geometry that may just not be a strength, rather than signalling a problem with "math."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, would you mind explaining the difference between Calc AB and Calc BC?

OP here, not the PP you're referring to but basically the AP people divide Calculus into 3 parts, the A part, the B, part, and the C part. You do them in that order. The AB Calc exam is based on just the A and the B parts, and generally gets you out of one semester's worth of Calculus. BC tests you on B and C, although you have to study the A part too in order to understand the B and the C. It gets you out of the whole first year of calculus. So AB is basically at college level class at a high school pace, like many other AP classes that are half speed (e.g. you get a semester's credit for a year), whereas BC is a college level class taught at college speed.

Someone can correct me if I've got that wrong.

Thank you! We just got results from AP Calc AB - a 5. Makes me wish DC had taken AP Calc BC, if it's true that the elite colleges are much more impressed by AP Calc BC. It's a little late now, unfortunately....

OP again,

I've heard the argument that accelerating math causes kids to gloss over stuff and move on to higher levels without being prepared. I have no idea if this is true, but I'm not sure why someone who believed it would be accused of "not believing math is important". If one believes math is important, wouldn't you want it to be taught fully and completely?

Other than that, I don't have an opinion on math acceleration the way it's been done in MCPS, that is where kids skip years in elementary school. In this case, thought it's a litttle different since he's not considering skipping a level, just taking it in summer school.

Anonymous wrote:PP, would you mind explaining the difference between Calc AB and Calc BC?

OP here, not the PP you're referring to but basically the AP people divide Calculus into 3 parts, the A part, the B, part, and the C part. You do them in that order. The AB Calc exam is based on just the A and the B parts, and generally gets you out of one semester's worth of Calculus. BC tests you on B and C, although you have to study the A part too in order to understand the B and the C. It gets you out of the whole first year of calculus. So AB is basically at college level class at a high school pace, like many other AP classes that are half speed (e.g. you get a semester's credit for a year), whereas BC is a college level class taught at college speed.

Someone can correct me if I've got that wrong.

PP, would you mind explaining the difference between Calc AB and Calc BC?

Re benefits for colleges, it depends on the college. AB Calc and BC are very different. (To the PP who said take Calc and then AB Calc, I don't think so .... Just one calc. before multivariable.) For elite schools, AB isn't very impressive; BC is moreso.

I think a more imporatnt benefit than college entry *might* be that your child becomes more comfortable with math if he is challenged, and confident. That then could open up other worlds in science, e.g., AP Physics (for which you need calculus at least as a co-requisite). Depending on his school, your son might have options of taking other stuff his senior year if he takes Calc in jr. year. If he is psyched about all this, it may open worlds he might not have had access to before.

FWIW, To me the whole "rushing" argument is used by folks who don't believe math is important.

Anonymous wrote:OP your son may really enjoy Geometry. It is a more visual and big picture type of mathmatical analysis. Students who do well with politics, economics, and comparative analysis can find geometry very appealing even if they struggle with the more abstract numerical concepts in Algebra. I loved geometry and hated algebra but my success in geometry gave me the confidence to work at Algebra and Calculas enough to do well. He may also finds that even if he can't stand chemistry that he likes physics.

I can totally see this happening, he's very much a strategist and enjoys playing chess and sports where positioning is key.

However, if he does end up loving geometry, I think that's almost a reason for him to get to take it for a whole year, and at the honors level, rather than rushing through it with others who may be there reluctantly.

i work in education research and the idea of acceleration as a strategy for at risk kids is quite controversial. what's happened is that kids are rushed into algebra without really mastering middle school math, which turns out to be the important math for many of us in life (along with data analysis and statistics which usually gets short shrift) and also quite critical for mastering algebra. then these kids fail algebra. geometry is an anomoly in the curriculum, a detour from algebra never to be returned to again. the math progression as it is currently laid out in US school is a bit odd and is definitely geared towards what kids would need would they pursue higher math/engineering. that said, your son might be fine with the challenge is he's really comfortable with the math he has learned so far.

OP your son may really enjoy Geometry. It is a more visual and big picture type of mathmatical analysis. Students who do well with politics, economics, and comparative analysis can find geometry very appealing even if they struggle with the more abstract numerical concepts in Algebra. I loved geometry and hated algebra but my success in geometry gave me the confidence to work at Algebra and Calculas enough to do well. He may also finds that even if he can't stand chemistry that he likes physics.