Anonymous wrote:On the percentages on who AOPS is for, I remember reading an interview with the founder Richard Rusczyk, and he put forward the 20% of students that the program is for. I interpret this as students that will benefit and be able to keep up with the AOPS offerings, and also keep in mind that since they are a for profit company it's their interest to broaden the customer base, for example there are normal classes but also olympiad training, obviously with different target. It is possible to expand that base to a larger fraction of the students, about 50% in my opinion, but only if the AOPS is supplemented significantly with tutoring, taken at a slower pace, or diluting the content.

DP. I think the percent of kids who can be successful with AoPS depends greatly on where the kid jumps into AoPS instruction. If a kid is going from school math for K-Algebra, and then jumping into AoPS for Geometry, that kid will likely only be successful if they're gifted in math. If a kid starts from BA2 and works through each level along the way, then any reasonably bright kid should be able to succeed in higher level AoPS courses, like the Intermediate Algebra or pre-Calc. Beast Academy has a lot of wonderful foundational material that greatly helps kids in the later classes.

I cannot believe that there are so many thoughtful posts above. Quite a number of you are really experts in this field. Thanks!

The main reason AOPS is raising some challenges for us is the volume of content per class. I use Introduction to Algebra as an example, the class is typicaly 1.5 hours meeting once a week. An illustration on the volume, it goes through quadratic equations in 4 weeks and it includes simple quadratics (e.g. x^2=9), factorizations and expansions, special factorizations (e.g. difference of cubes), completing squares, quadratic formula, and imaginary and complex numbers. This is a really fast pace and I'd think there are very few students that could keep up with this volume independently on their own since you'd also have to read through the book, do example problems, some exercises, the Alcumus database and homework problems. It is very easy for a student to fall behind early in the beginning and not be able to recover for the entirety of the class. To the preivous posters that didnt get much out of AOPS, I'd say that just signing up the student for the class and expecting it will work seamlessly is a little unrealistic, especially if it is material at first sight.

Form the class discussions there tend to be several types of students. Some take algebra early (4th-5th grade) have a lot of support from parents, and use this curriculum as a basis to build upon and ace the class when they take it in regular school. Another group was students that were taking the class in parallel with accelerated regular school classes (i.e. 6th-7th grade Algebra 1), and who wanted to compensate for poor instruction in distance learning. Last there were 8-9th grade homeschool students, whose parents could not keep up with high school math and outsourced it to another provider.

It's anecdotal, but I thought for at least a sizeable chunk of students, the online class was a review from working ahead, which does make sense considering how fast it moves.

My recommendation is that if you sign up your child for AOPS be very realistic with the level, take the diagnostic quizes, and go to a lower level if it is too challenging. The basic learing theory for zone of proximal development is essentially saying that learning is optimized when the material is challenging, but doable with some scaffolding. Make sure this is the case, and don't overload the students beyond their capabilities. Just because the student had some prealgebra in regular school, who known how rigurous and got an A along with three quarters of the classmates, doesn't mean he is ready to blast through AOPS algebra flying solo.

I only have good things to say about the actual contents of the curriculum, and if it doesn't work for your child, try to understand what the issues are and address them. The complaints that AOPS is just a bunch of tricks and that it is only for geniuses are completely off base in my view, and most likely stem from mismatching the student to the class.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand that Russian School of Mathmatics has different levels for each grade, AoPS does not have anything like that. They do conduct an evaluation for kids new to the program to make sure that they are placed in the proper level. I have seen kids asked to stay after the class ended to review concepts.

I get the feeling that AoPS is best for kids who are ahead in math and can grasp concepts quickly.

Any further comparisons to RSM? We live too far for AOPS and DC does not want to do online. RSM is also for advanced students from what I can tell. Not catch up.

RSM has three levels so there are more opportunities for kids. We did AoPS last year and are doing RSM this year because of distance. RSM feels more like an advanced math class then AoPS. AoPS tackled problems very differently then RSM is. The work that I am seeing is very traditional math just far faster then the math at school.

DS is in 4th grade Advanced Math. The math I see coming home from school is addition and subtraction. He is in the advanced RSM class. They are working on factors, prime factors, area, fractions, and balancing equations.

I get the distinct feeling that AoPS is less teaching foundational math and more math approaches/tricks while RSM is more foundational skills and a more traditional approach. I am waiting to see how things shift once they complete the review work that they are doing and to see if the type of problems they are bringing home are different.

I have a 4th grader in FCPS advanced math. This week they are working on factors, fact families, multiplication, division, and applying concepts to word problems. She’s in an AAP classroom so not sure it makes a difference.

On the percentages on who AOPS is for, I remember reading an interview with the founder Richard Rusczyk, and he put forward the 20% of students that the program is for. I interpret this as students that will benefit and be able to keep up with the AOPS offerings, and also keep in mind that since they are a for profit company it's their interest to broaden the customer base, for example there are normal classes but also olympiad training, obviously with different target. It is possible to expand that base to a larger fraction of the students, about 50% in my opinion, but only if the AOPS is supplemented significantly with tutoring, taken at a slower pace, or diluting the content. I say this because AOPS is quite popular in the homeschooling community, particularly in California, because of how homeschools can purchase education services (AOPS is accredited, and a homeschool can substitute their class for math so a lot of parents choose this option and in some cases get partially reimbursed for expenses). I've heard of other homeschool provider that offers AOPS Introduction to Algebra, taught by their own instructor from the textbook as covering both Algebra 1 and Algebra 2 over two years. AOPS also had a program for inner city students, so that tells me it can work outside the typical demographic of educated upper middle class. Unfortunately for kids falling ouside this socio economic status, there is nobody in their life to know about these resources and guide them through, so I suspect the bottleneck is not always the student capability, and more often the lack of opportunity and resources. Also, it would not work well for the typical school classroom with varying teacher and student skills, interest, behaviour issues etc.

If we are talking about students who would thrive in their own on AOPS, yes, I agree with the 5-10% numbers from the previous poster.

An key point about percentages, instruction matters tremendously. There is a famous study in the 80's called 'Bloom's 2 sigma problem', google it, very interesting read. The study compared typical classroom instruction (control) with one on one tutoring coupled with mastery learnign (ML is that students only move on to a next topic once the current topic is mastered, no gaps in knowledge). The results were that the average student (top 50%) in 1:1 tutoting and ML performed as well as the 2 sigma outliers in the regular class (ie. top 5%). Bloom's problem is that one on one tutoring is prohibitively expensive and can't be replicated in mass education, plus there is also a question about finding qualified tutors. previous poster, 5% in one setting can be equivalent to 50% in other, even using the same teaching materials and curriculum.

This is why tutoring is such a big bussiness, it works well, but it is expensive. This also contributes to the achievement gap between rich and poor, you can simply buy education for your child, so rich kids are actually better prepared and more knowledgeable (on average!).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand that Russian School of Mathmatics has different levels for each grade, AoPS does not have anything like that. They do conduct an evaluation for kids new to the program to make sure that they are placed in the proper level. I have seen kids asked to stay after the class ended to review concepts.

I get the feeling that AoPS is best for kids who are ahead in math and can grasp concepts quickly.

Any further comparisons to RSM? We live too far for AOPS and DC does not want to do online. RSM is also for advanced students from what I can tell. Not catch up.

RSM has three levels so there are more opportunities for kids. We did AoPS last year and are doing RSM this year because of distance. RSM feels more like an advanced math class then AoPS. AoPS tackled problems very differently then RSM is. The work that I am seeing is very traditional math just far faster then the math at school.

DS is in 4th grade Advanced Math. The math I see coming home from school is addition and subtraction. He is in the advanced RSM class. They are working on factors, prime factors, area, fractions, and balancing equations.

I get the distinct feeling that AoPS is less teaching foundational math and more math approaches/tricks while RSM is more foundational skills and a more traditional approach. I am waiting to see how things shift once they complete the review work that they are doing and to see if the type of problems they are bringing home are different.

At a second grade parent teacher conference, DS's teacher voiced concern that DS wasn't getting math. This irritated me because DS at the time was a competitive chess player and seemed very interested in math. I did a little research and we started Beast Academy from AOPS. It took us 1.5 years to complete levels 2 and 3. We're working slowly through level 4 concurrent with 4th grade public school. At the beginning of the school year for 4th grade, DS tested in the 99% on our school's standardized math placement test. I give all credit to Beast Academy.

Reasons why one might not like AOPS based on our experience with doing Beast Academy at home and through the virtual campus: (1) it is really hard; (2) in our case, it required a lot of parental assistance; (3) I had a terrible math education growing up, so I am relearning math all over again to help DS, which takes a lot of time and tests my own frustration tolerance; and (4) (this reason is a bit silly) your kid will find school math boring and easy after doing Beast!

All that said, I'd do it all over again, starting at Level 2 of Beast Academy and moving up through AOPS from there. DS enjoys it too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a PhD in Physics from MIT, and I used to tutor my son both AOPS (pre-algebra) with taking their online classes, and Eureka, which is a program many public schools use all over the country, so this would be an accurate comparison with typical classroom instruction.
Eureka is designed to be led by a teacher that walks the student through an example and is more like a script that even goes into what cues to use. Then it dumps a lot of similar exercises on the student to help develop muscle memory and automation. AOPS starts from working on problems and relies more on a discovery mindset, although the student still needs a teacher. Another key difference, AOPS aims to present math in a unified way with topics being derived from previous sections. There are no worksheet exercises and most of the questions are not cookie cutter type, no two problems are alike. Maybe some of the posters refer to this when they say it’s 90% tricks, but that would be a gross misunderstanding. It is expected the student gets the idea fast without endless drills, and most of the problems are designed to give a deeper insight compared to just regular formula plug in worksheet.
Overall for a faster but more shallow understanding of basic facts is probably better to stick to a classroom type curriculum like Eureka. If you have the desire to go deeper, put more effort for a more nuanced understanding, AOPS is better, so in the end it really depends on the student.
FWIW we quit Eureka and are sticking with AOPS as it serves our needs much better. Another plus for AOPS, the have a broad offering, so you have books videos, adaptive computer problem database, online and in person classes, forum and much more so you can take whatever part you like. Difficulty wise the questions are harder than the typical curriculum, but that’s the point, it’s is supposed to be more challenging.

On why it might not work. I believe it would require quite a bit of support for the student with some knowledgeable teacher available for guidance and bouncing off ideas. Also, it depends how much time there is available for math alone, other extra curriculars etc get into it only if you can dedicate at least 10 hours a week besides the class. Another reason, the kid might not be sufficiently inclined for math (don’t want to use the word smart, but think of the distribution of aptitude in this respect). I think AOPS is for the top 20% of the students and with enough support maybe for the top 50%, but in no way for everyone.

This is by far the best review of AOPS compared to traditional math classes.

I might quibble only with the percentages. I think AOPS is more suited to the top 5% of students - in terms of aptitude. Top 10% can hack it, but it would be a chore for the rest of the 90%.

- Parent of one kid who just loves AOPS - begging us to allow him to do AOPS problems on a long drive and another kid who is not a good fit.

I'm not sure about the percentiles at all. My DD is fine at math, but wouldn't be a "top" student in it at all (is in AAP, but not taking algebra in 7th) But she loves both Beast Academy and AoPS and gets those problems easier. So I think some kids are just more aligned with the approach to math. She does have ADHD and great spatial skills so I think the drill/repetition of school math vs the deeper thinking aspect of AoPS works better for her.

Anonymous wrote:I have a PhD in Physics from MIT, and I used to tutor my son both AOPS (pre-algebra) with taking their online classes, and Eureka, which is a program many public schools use all over the country, so this would be an accurate comparison with typical classroom instruction.
Eureka is designed to be led by a teacher that walks the student through an example and is more like a script that even goes into what cues to use. Then it dumps a lot of similar exercises on the student to help develop muscle memory and automation. AOPS starts from working on problems and relies more on a discovery mindset, although the student still needs a teacher. Another key difference, AOPS aims to present math in a unified way with topics being derived from previous sections. There are no worksheet exercises and most of the questions are not cookie cutter type, no two problems are alike. Maybe some of the posters refer to this when they say it’s 90% tricks, but that would be a gross misunderstanding. It is expected the student gets the idea fast without endless drills, and most of the problems are designed to give a deeper insight compared to just regular formula plug in worksheet.
Overall for a faster but more shallow understanding of basic facts is probably better to stick to a classroom type curriculum like Eureka. If you have the desire to go deeper, put more effort for a more nuanced understanding, AOPS is better, so in the end it really depends on the student.
FWIW we quit Eureka and are sticking with AOPS as it serves our needs much better. Another plus for AOPS, the have a broad offering, so you have books videos, adaptive computer problem database, online and in person classes, forum and much more so you can take whatever part you like. Difficulty wise the questions are harder than the typical curriculum, but that’s the point, it’s is supposed to be more challenging.

On why it might not work. I believe it would require quite a bit of support for the student with some knowledgeable teacher available for guidance and bouncing off ideas. Also, it depends how much time there is available for math alone, other extra curriculars etc get into it only if you can dedicate at least 10 hours a week besides the class. Another reason, the kid might not be sufficiently inclined for math (don’t want to use the word smart, but think of the distribution of aptitude in this respect). I think AOPS is for the top 20% of the students and with enough support maybe for the top 50%, but in no way for everyone.

This is by far the best review of AOPS compared to traditional math classes.

I might quibble only with the percentages. I think AOPS is more suited to the top 5% of students - in terms of aptitude. Top 10% can hack it, but it would be a chore for the rest of the 90%.

- Parent of one kid who just loves AOPS - begging us to allow him to do AOPS problems on a long drive and another kid who is not a good fit.

Anonymous wrote:I have a PhD in Physics from MIT, and I used to tutor my son both AOPS (pre-algebra) with taking their online classes, and Eureka, which is a program many public schools use all over the country, so this would be an accurate comparison with typical classroom instruction.
Eureka is designed to be led by a teacher that walks the student through an example and is more like a script that even goes into what cues to use. Then it dumps a lot of similar exercises on the student to help develop muscle memory and automation. AOPS starts from working on problems and relies more on a discovery mindset, although the student still needs a teacher. Another key difference, AOPS aims to present math in a unified way with topics being derived from previous sections. There are no worksheet exercises and most of the questions are not cookie cutter type, no two problems are alike. Maybe some of the posters refer to this when they say it’s 90% tricks, but that would be a gross misunderstanding. It is expected the student gets the idea fast without endless drills, and most of the problems are designed to give a deeper insight compared to just regular formula plug in worksheet.
Overall for a faster but more shallow understanding of basic facts is probably better to stick to a classroom type curriculum like Eureka. If you have the desire to go deeper, put more effort for a more nuanced understanding, AOPS is better, so in the end it really depends on the student.
FWIW we quit Eureka and are sticking with AOPS as it serves our needs much better. Another plus for AOPS, the have a broad offering, so you have books videos, adaptive computer problem database, online and in person classes, forum and much more so you can take whatever part you like. Difficulty wise the questions are harder than the typical curriculum, but that’s the point, it’s is supposed to be more challenging.

On why it might not work. I believe it would require quite a bit of support for the student with some knowledgeable teacher available for guidance and bouncing off ideas. Also, it depends how much time there is available for math alone, other extra curriculars etc get into it only if you can dedicate at least 10 hours a week besides the class. Another reason, the kid might not be sufficiently inclined for math (don’t want to use the word smart, but think of the distribution of aptitude in this respect). I think AOPS is for the top 20% of the students and with enough support maybe for the top 50%, but in no way for everyone.

NP here but I thought this was a great overview. My son is advanced in math and LOVES his in person aops class. We love that it isn’t just a series of drills to reinforce basic concepts, but involves deeper thinking. In a way, it seems like a program in which kids who love math can “play” with numbers and concepts.

DS did AoPS last year and only spent 3 hours a week on it, 2 hours was in the actual class. Maybe the later classes require more time but the third grade curriculum was not that intensive. It was enjoyable though.

I have a PhD in Physics from MIT, and I used to tutor my son both AOPS (pre-algebra) with taking their online classes, and Eureka, which is a program many public schools use all over the country, so this would be an accurate comparison with typical classroom instruction.
Eureka is designed to be led by a teacher that walks the student through an example and is more like a script that even goes into what cues to use. Then it dumps a lot of similar exercises on the student to help develop muscle memory and automation. AOPS starts from working on problems and relies more on a discovery mindset, although the student still needs a teacher. Another key difference, AOPS aims to present math in a unified way with topics being derived from previous sections. There are no worksheet exercises and most of the questions are not cookie cutter type, no two problems are alike. Maybe some of the posters refer to this when they say it’s 90% tricks, but that would be a gross misunderstanding. It is expected the student gets the idea fast without endless drills, and most of the problems are designed to give a deeper insight compared to just regular formula plug in worksheet.
Overall for a faster but more shallow understanding of basic facts is probably better to stick to a classroom type curriculum like Eureka. If you have the desire to go deeper, put more effort for a more nuanced understanding, AOPS is better, so in the end it really depends on the student.
FWIW we quit Eureka and are sticking with AOPS as it serves our needs much better. Another plus for AOPS, the have a broad offering, so you have books videos, adaptive computer problem database, online and in person classes, forum and much more so you can take whatever part you like. Difficulty wise the questions are harder than the typical curriculum, but that’s the point, it’s is supposed to be more challenging.

On why it might not work. I believe it would require quite a bit of support for the student with some knowledgeable teacher available for guidance and bouncing off ideas. Also, it depends how much time there is available for math alone, other extra curriculars etc get into it only if you can dedicate at least 10 hours a week besides the class. Another reason, the kid might not be sufficiently inclined for math (don’t want to use the word smart, but think of the distribution of aptitude in this respect). I think AOPS is for the top 20% of the students and with enough support maybe for the top 50%, but in no way for everyone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DS enjoyed his 3rd grade AoPS class. He didn't seem to struggle with anything as it was presented and did well on the quarterly assessments. He enjoyed the homework assignments and the games that they had on the site. He enjoys math and does well in math class at school, although he finds it boring.

I have no idea if he is gifted in math or not. I do know that he like AoPS and never seemed lost with the material. He had classmates who the Teacher asked to stay online when the rest of the class logged off because the child said they were still confused. They covered topics that were not covered in his class at school.

We are moving to Russia School of Math this year because it is closer to our house by a lot. The RSM assessment seemed to be pretty similar to the AoPS assessment except that RSM has three different levels to place kids into based on its assessment. The Teacher handling the assessment said most kids are placed in one of the first two levels when they are starting out because the assessment shows that the kids need to firm up some foundational skills. The Teacher displayed problems, DS answered them and explained his solution to the Teacher. At the end of the assessment the Teacher presented a few new concepts to DS. The Teacher explained the solution and then DS answered a bunch of questions based on what the Teacher had just taught. I like the idea that there are different levels because that means that if DS gets to a point where he is struggling with some concepts, there is a place for him to move that will help him build those skills. Mainly we like that we will have a much shorter commute.

This is helpful, thank you!! My Dc also actually enjoyed the RSM assessment and came away with a new skill. Hoping it is a good fit.

We are two lessons in. DS says he preferred AoPS to RSM. RSM is more math skills and foundational then AoPS, as least so far. The homework is totally different, so far. RSM is math practice with work shown in a more traditional manner. The AoPS problems that I saw were more using various tricks and concepts to solve problems more quickly. So far, RSM feels more like a standard math class teaching advanced concepts while AoPS was more puzzle and problem solving. I told DS to stick with it for a quarter and we will see how he feels as they move out of the review section that they have been doing.

In 4th they have been working on factors, the use of parentheses, and area.

I’m one of the PP whose kids did really well with AoPS last year when it was virtual. We are feeling so so the is year not because of the material or teachers but bc according to both my kids, some of the students are disruptive. Per one kid, lots of the other kids blurt out answers and talk over the teacher, are on their phones…..which makes it hard to understand material.

Anonymous wrote:DS enjoyed his 3rd grade AoPS class. He didn't seem to struggle with anything as it was presented and did well on the quarterly assessments. He enjoyed the homework assignments and the games that they had on the site. He enjoys math and does well in math class at school, although he finds it boring.

I have no idea if he is gifted in math or not. I do know that he like AoPS and never seemed lost with the material. He had classmates who the Teacher asked to stay online when the rest of the class logged off because the child said they were still confused. They covered topics that were not covered in his class at school.

We are moving to Russia School of Math this year because it is closer to our house by a lot. The RSM assessment seemed to be pretty similar to the AoPS assessment except that RSM has three different levels to place kids into based on its assessment. The Teacher handling the assessment said most kids are placed in one of the first two levels when they are starting out because the assessment shows that the kids need to firm up some foundational skills. The Teacher displayed problems, DS answered them and explained his solution to the Teacher. At the end of the assessment the Teacher presented a few new concepts to DS. The Teacher explained the solution and then DS answered a bunch of questions based on what the Teacher had just taught. I like the idea that there are different levels because that means that if DS gets to a point where he is struggling with some concepts, there is a place for him to move that will help him build those skills. Mainly we like that we will have a much shorter commute.

This is helpful, thank you!! My Dc also actually enjoyed the RSM assessment and came away with a new skill. Hoping it is a good fit.