Anonymous wrote:
NP. What types of things do you mean about the classes adding context, PP? Is there peer interaction? Do you find the peers to be supportive and is everyone at the right level? Does the class hear each other's questions in office hours? (My child is shy so hearing other questions would be helpful.) We don't live near a location so we'd need the online classes. Do you think they would have the same benefits as the in person classes?

For whatever reason, the AoPS books are visually unappealing and difficult to read. The mathematical concepts and explanations are solid, but it all just feels somewhat hard to follow on its own. They're very unlike the Beast Academy books in this way.

In the classes, the teacher will introduce the topic, lay whatever groundwork, explain things, and build up to the very hard stuff. The teacher will ask leading questions and give the kids time to reply.

You actually have two different options for online classes. You can take the ones through AoPS Online, which are all text based. You can't hear the teacher or other students say anything, but you can read it in the interactive chat. Everyone can see the full interactive chat during office hours, and the message board is very supportive.

If you want a more normal class experience, you can also take classes in the AoPS Academy- Online campus. These classes are over Zoom and will have a live teacher, live classmates, group collaboration, and so on. The classes are smaller, and your child will get a lot more personal attention. The biggest drawback to the Academy classes is that they cost more money than the text based ones.

My husband is a mathematician and has been doing Beast Academy with our kids since they came out with the second grade books. There’s a lot of stuff in there *I* can’t do without working through the material like the kids did. He thinks it’s a great curriculum.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But perhaps it is just the writing style or the cluttered appearance of the texts, or perhaps some of that narrative is present in the AoPS classes but missing in the textbooks?

This is definitely true. My kid took a class for Intro to Algebra and got high marks throughout. He then tried working through Intro to Geometry on his own, and it was a disaster. After that, he signed up for the formal class in Geometry, and it's now working fine.

I am one of the AoPS boosters, but I don't think the textbooks on their own are adequate for many kids. The classes add a lot of context, the homework problems from the classes generally support the materials better than the problems in the books, and the additional support via office hours and the message board is valuable. So my tl;dr impression is "AoPS classes are good, but independent work through AoPS textbooks is bad. This doesn't apply to Beast, which has much more engaging and better books than the higher level AoPS books.

NP. What types of things do you mean about the classes adding context, PP? Is there peer interaction? Do you find the peers to be supportive and is everyone at the right level? Does the class hear each other's questions in office hours? (My child is shy so hearing other questions would be helpful.) We don't live near a location so we'd need the online classes. Do you think they would have the same benefits as the in person classes?

Anonymous wrote:

But perhaps it is just the writing style or the cluttered appearance of the texts, or perhaps some of that narrative is present in the AoPS classes but missing in the textbooks?

This is definitely true. My kid took a class for Intro to Algebra and got high marks throughout. He then tried working through Intro to Geometry on his own, and it was a disaster. After that, he signed up for the formal class in Geometry, and it's now working fine.

I am one of the AoPS boosters, but I don't think the textbooks on their own are adequate for many kids. The classes add a lot of context, the homework problems from the classes generally support the materials better than the problems in the books, and the additional support via office hours and the message board is valuable. So my tl;dr impression is "AoPS classes are good, but independent work through AoPS textbooks is bad. This doesn't apply to Beast, which has much more engaging and better books than the higher level AoPS books.

New poster - this is directed at the math teacher (hope you'll be back to see it):

I'm also a math teacher (masters degree in pure math) and I also am not enamored with AoPS, but I can't put my finger on why exactly. I want to like it. I respect Rusczyk a great deal and agree with most of what I've heard him say. So far I've only had a good look at the AoPS PreAlgebra and Intro to Algebra books, but despite what I've heard their team say about pouring their hearts and soul into developing the topics with careful questions that develop and elucidate the key ideas, I fail to see it. I honestly wonder what I'm missing.

What I look for in a great textbook is topics developed thoughtfully in ways that reveal the big picture of higher mathematics and connect backwards and forwards to other material, while challenging with progressively harder or deeper questions. Tricky questions are not always the ones that most reveal the key idea or which point ahead to a concept that is coming.

But perhaps it is just the writing style or the cluttered appearance of the texts, or perhaps some of that narrative is present in the AoPS classes but missing in the textbooks?

I'd appreciate your thoughts on the above as well what you see as better alternatives (particularly at the pre-algebra through PreCalculus level).

Anonymous wrote:

I have a doctorate in hard math. Yes, I have seen AOPS. Not impressed. It is all quick tricks with no depth. If you're impressed then I am sure that is saying something. I don't know what, but it is saying something. Glad your kids are enjoying the experience.

There's no way you've actually looked at the non-contest books. How does deriving proofs equal a quick trick? Would you consider proving L'agrange's theorem unnecessary or just its use in problem solving?

I'm confused, too. My kid is taking their Geometry class, and he has to submit proofs every second week. The proofs are then reviewed by a person who gives a very detailed writeup on how well the proof was constructed, where your child did hit the mark, and where he or she didn't. When my kid took Algebra last year, they covered all of the usual Algebra topics, but they also worked through several proofs of the Pythagorean theorem, they worked through precisely why and how the quadratic formula works, and so on.

I have a doctorate in hard math. Yes, I have seen AOPS. Not impressed. It is all quick tricks with no depth. If you're impressed then I am sure that is saying something. I don't know what, but it is saying something. Glad your kids are enjoying the experience.

There's no way you've actually looked at the non-contest books. How does deriving proofs equal a quick trick? Would you consider proving L'agrange's theorem unnecessary or just its use in problem solving?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Math teacher back. I never said it was for foundational skills. I said that the program is about 90% (the other poster said 75% but I think it is around 90%) quick math cheats and tricks, and 10% real, enriching mathematical and concept-building experiences. If that's what you're about then go for it.

What grade level do you teach? Are you even familiar with the higher level AoPS classes, or are you basing your view on Beast Academy? I'm a physicist, and I'm incredibly impressed by AoPS. I disagree wholeheartedly with your impression of AoPS. My kids have a very rich understanding of problem solving and mathematical principles thanks to AoPS.

I have a doctorate in hard math. Yes, I have seen AOPS. Not impressed. It is all quick tricks with no depth. If you're impressed then I am sure that is saying something. I don't know what, but it is saying something. Glad your kids are enjoying the experience.

NP. Which grades have you looked at? If all, elementary, middle, and high school, is your impression consistent across the board or more with the higher math?

In contrast to AOPS, what’s your impression with the higher level Russian school of math?

Sigh.

Anonymous wrote:
I have a doctorate in hard math. Yes, I have seen AOPS. Not impressed. It is all quick tricks with no depth. If you're impressed then I am sure that is saying something. I don't know what, but it is saying something. Glad your kids are enjoying the experience.

Yeah, this is all quick tricks and looks nothing at all like regular math.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/aops-cdn.artofproblemsolving.com/products/intro-geometry/exc1.pdf
https://s3.amazonaws.com/aops-cdn.artofproblemsolving.com/products/intro-algebra/exc2.pdf
https://s3.amazonaws.com/aops-cdn.artofproblemsolving.com/products/precalculus/exc1.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Math teacher back. I never said it was for foundational skills. I said that the program is about 90% (the other poster said 75% but I think it is around 90%) quick math cheats and tricks, and 10% real, enriching mathematical and concept-building experiences. If that's what you're about then go for it.

What grade level do you teach? Are you even familiar with the higher level AoPS classes, or are you basing your view on Beast Academy? I'm a physicist, and I'm incredibly impressed by AoPS. I disagree wholeheartedly with your impression of AoPS. My kids have a very rich understanding of problem solving and mathematical principles thanks to AoPS.

I have a doctorate in hard math. Yes, I have seen AOPS. Not impressed. It is all quick tricks with no depth. If you're impressed then I am sure that is saying something. I don't know what, but it is saying something. Glad your kids are enjoying the experience.

Anonymous wrote:
Math teacher back. I never said it was for foundational skills. I said that the program is about 90% (the other poster said 75% but I think it is around 90%) quick math cheats and tricks, and 10% real, enriching mathematical and concept-building experiences. If that's what you're about then go for it.

What grade level do you teach? Are you even familiar with the higher level AoPS classes, or are you basing your view on Beast Academy? I'm a physicist, and I'm incredibly impressed by AoPS. I disagree wholeheartedly with your impression of AoPS. My kids have a very rich understanding of problem solving and mathematical principles thanks to AoPS.

Anonymous wrote:
And 90% of the population lacks foundational skills and would be better served by another program.

AoPS doesn't even pretend to be a program that serves the 90% who need foundational skills. They're pretty upfront that they're a program for gifted math students.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AOPS isn't for most kids. They spend 75% of their time focusing on esoteric contest math tricks while skipping over basic skills.

+1 You nailed it. I'm a math teacher btw.

They are not skipping anything, they expect that kids to already know the basic skills. As many posters have said, it is not a program to build foundational skills. There is an expectation that the kids will have those skills.

Students at our location are evaluated by one of the Teachers or Administrators. DS was given a series of questions, he provided an answer and the evaluator asked him how he had solved the problem. DS would give his explanation and they would discuss different methods for solving the same problem. The problems were on grade level and meant to make sure that he had the basics down. The explanation insured that he understood the principles behind the basics.

I have been told by others that AoPS has no problem with recommending that a 3rd grader take the 2nd grade math because of where they were with their skills or holding kids back the following years because there was concern that the kid did not have a firm enough grasp of the material. We are waiting on the Teachers evaluation from this year.

There are programs that are great for kids who need to build a foundation, that is not AoPS.

Math teacher back. I never said it was for foundational skills. I said that the program is about 90% (the other poster said 75% but I think it is around 90%) quick math cheats and tricks, and 10% real, enriching mathematical and concept-building experiences. If that's what you're about then go for it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AOPS isn't for most kids. They spend 75% of their time focusing on esoteric contest math tricks while skipping over basic skills.

+1 You nailed it. I'm a math teacher btw.

They are not skipping anything, they expect that kids to already know the basic skills. As many posters have said, it is not a program to build foundational skills. There is an expectation that the kids will have those skills.

Students at our location are evaluated by one of the Teachers or Administrators. DS was given a series of questions, he provided an answer and the evaluator asked him how he had solved the problem. DS would give his explanation and they would discuss different methods for solving the same problem. The problems were on grade level and meant to make sure that he had the basics down. The explanation insured that he understood the principles behind the basics.

I have been told by others that AoPS has no problem with recommending that a 3rd grader take the 2nd grade math because of where they were with their skills or holding kids back the following years because there was concern that the kid did not have a firm enough grasp of the material. We are waiting on the Teachers evaluation from this year.

There are programs that are great for kids who need to build a foundation, that is not AoPS.

And 90% of the population lacks foundational skills and would be better served by another program.