Anonymous wrote:Not following the equity issue. iPhones are now pretty ubiquitous. Math interested kids from across demographics have access to tons of content. From khan academy onward. My math interested kid learned crazy higher level math in middle school on YouTube. Found it on their own. No adult told them to find this content. They were interested. They were ready for and seeking accelerated math. If this is so accessible then why am I at fault for creating some perceived equity problem?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Math acceleration isn’t valued at liberal arts colleges. This poster isn’t wrong.

Disagree. Any selective college values students taking the most accelerated courses available, but there are always other considerations too.

Parent myth, misunderstanding of what "rigorous courseload" checkbox means. They just want to see the honors/AP variants of whatever class the student is in.

Colleges aren't admitting kids based on whatever shenanigans their parents pulled in middle school.

Not a “parent myth” if heard from current or former AOs. There is no one strategy that works for all students or all schools, but the idea that a little acceleration generally counts the same as a lot of acceleration is false. A lot of acceleration might add less than other things, like better grades, LORs, or ECs, but that’s a different statement. If all else is truly equal, a lot of acceleration is better than a little, whether in a classroom or out. Hence “spiky” kids having advantages over the merely “well rounded.”

Wondering if you're the same person who turns around and cries when you find out that someone with "lower stats" got your kid's spot at an Ivy.

Very happy with where my kids got admitted, but then they were in accelerated math.

And preparation to perform well in non-introductory courses was as important to us as the college itself.

Anonymous wrote:Math acceleration isn’t valued at liberal arts colleges. This poster isn’t wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Math acceleration isn’t valued at liberal arts colleges. This poster isn’t wrong.

Disagree. Any selective college values students taking the most accelerated courses available, but there are always other considerations too.

Parent myth, misunderstanding of what "rigorous courseload" checkbox means. They just want to see the honors/AP variants of whatever class the student is in.

Colleges aren't admitting kids based on whatever shenanigans their parents pulled in middle school.

Not a “parent myth” if heard from current or former AOs. There is no one strategy that works for all students or all schools, but the idea that a little acceleration generally counts the same as a lot of acceleration is false. A lot of acceleration might add less than other things, like better grades, LORs, or ECs, but that’s a different statement. If all else is truly equal, a lot of acceleration is better than a little, whether in a classroom or out. Hence “spiky” kids having advantages over the merely “well rounded.”

Wondering if you're the same person who turns around and cries when you find out that someone with "lower stats" got your kid's spot at an Ivy.

Very happy with where my kids got admitted, but then they were in accelerated math.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Math acceleration isn’t valued at liberal arts colleges. This poster isn’t wrong.

Disagree. Any selective college values students taking the most accelerated courses available, but there are always other considerations too.

Parent myth, misunderstanding of what "rigorous courseload" checkbox means. They just want to see the honors/AP variants of whatever class the student is in.

Colleges aren't admitting kids based on whatever shenanigans their parents pulled in middle school.

Not a “parent myth” if heard from current or former AOs. There is no one strategy that works for all students or all schools, but the idea that a little acceleration generally counts the same as a lot of acceleration is false. A lot of acceleration might add less than other things, like better grades, LORs, or ECs, but that’s a different statement. If all else is truly equal, a lot of acceleration is better than a little, whether in a classroom or out. Hence “spiky” kids having advantages over the merely “well rounded.”

Wondering if you're the same person who turns around and cries when you find out that someone with "lower stats" got your kid's spot at an Ivy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Math acceleration isn’t valued at liberal arts colleges. This poster isn’t wrong.

Disagree. Any selective college values students taking the most accelerated courses available, but there are always other considerations too.

Parent myth, misunderstanding of what "rigorous courseload" checkbox means. They just want to see the honors/AP variants of whatever class the student is in.

Colleges aren't admitting kids based on whatever shenanigans their parents pulled in middle school.

Not a “parent myth” if heard from current or former AOs. There is no one strategy that works for all students or all schools, but the idea that a little acceleration generally counts the same as a lot of acceleration is false. A lot of acceleration might add less than other things, like better grades, LORs, or ECs, but that’s a different statement. If all else is truly equal, a lot of acceleration is better than a little, whether in a classroom or out. Hence “spiky” kids having advantages over the merely “well rounded.”

A false premise can make any "if" true. AOs don't say they want hyper acceleration. That's not what "spiky" means. Spiky means having an achievement in something besides sitting in a class.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Race to nowhere.

The counterpoint is that especially in lower grades math moves very slowly and a large fraction of the kids could would benefit from a faster pace.

Sure, some advanced topics/acceleration make sense. But we reach diminishing returns at some point. Only exception being the rare math genius who jumps ahead grades.

Also as younger and younger kids take these classes the curriculum is altered. Look at algebra text from a couple generations ago they are very difficult.

I haven't seen this difference. Main difference is the calculator stuff and stats content wasn't mixed in.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Math acceleration isn’t valued at liberal arts colleges. This poster isn’t wrong.

Disagree. Any selective college values students taking the most accelerated courses available, but there are always other considerations too.

Parent myth, misunderstanding of what "rigorous courseload" checkbox means. They just want to see the honors/AP variants of whatever class the student is in.

Colleges aren't admitting kids based on whatever shenanigans their parents pulled in middle school.

Not a “parent myth” if heard from current or former AOs. There is no one strategy that works for all students or all schools, but the idea that a little acceleration generally counts the same as a lot of acceleration is false. A lot of acceleration might add less than other things, like better grades, LORs, or ECs, but that’s a different statement. If all else is truly equal, a lot of acceleration is better than a little, whether in a classroom or out. Hence “spiky” kids having advantages over the merely “well rounded.”

Anonymous wrote:Many SLAC's favor kids who have been playing baseball or soccer or swimming or football since the age of 5.

Now when academics do the same thing, suddenly it is wrong? Definitely some subtle shade being thrown at particular communities.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Math acceleration isn’t valued at liberal arts colleges. This poster isn’t wrong.

Disagree. Any selective college values students taking the most accelerated courses available, but there are always other considerations too.

Parent myth, misunderstanding of what "rigorous courseload" checkbox means. They just want to see the honors/AP variants of whatever class the student is in.

Colleges aren't admitting kids based on whatever shenanigans their parents pulled in middle school.

Not a “parent myth” if heard from current or former AOs. There is no one strategy that works for all students or all schools, but the idea that a little acceleration generally counts the same as a lot of acceleration is false. A lot of acceleration might add less than other things, like better grades, LORs, or ECs, but that’s a different statement. If all else is truly equal, a lot of acceleration is better than a little, whether in a classroom or out. Hence “spiky” kids having advantages over the merely “well rounded.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d say the number of kids in accelerated math because the parents want them there to differentiate them is far, far greater than the number who are there because they legitimately need the acceleration.

If they had qualifying scores then they are legitimately there, parent wants are irrelevant

Just because you CAN do something, doesn’t mean it’s necessarily a good idea or that you should. It can be beneficial for someone to get a deeper understanding of grade level math than to move on.