Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'll need to pull up my references regarding kids and AP courses, but more and more are taking them to pad their college resumes than anything else these days followed by the hope of exempting themselves from the particular course[s] in college. In the meantime, you can google this yourself for further reading into the subject.
So, it is more likely that high school students are not taking these courses to challenge themselves but more so to game admissions at the most, waive core requirements next, and taken for breadth the least.
Most universities (ahem, Deans and adcomms) want to see some evidence the student has stepped out of his/her comfort zone by challenging them self with tougher courses, and this is where the gaming comes in, however most faculty and departments want to see preparation for the desired major, which would effectively make most AP courses useless to the student in the grand scheme of things with and only with the one exception that the student actually took the AP course with the hopes of learning something beyond what they may have gained from a traditional high school level course. But this is the type of student that would likely do well in college anyways with or without the AP course[s].
We seem to be arguing two different things here. You stating that it is great that kids are challenging themselves (which I agree 100%) and me stating that the majority of those who sit for the AP exams are doing so largely to game admissions without any real care about mastering the material other than what they need to know for the test.
You can google this one, too, but yes, there are high schools out there, and more in number than may you think, that allow students to do AP courses whether they are prepared for them or not. It is all about the schools rankings and image.
You also need to understand how AP courses are taught. At some high schools, the AP course is taught in a separate classroom. In this situation it is most likely that only those who are prepared to take the AP course are the ones in the classroom. In other high schools the AP course is taught alongside the "regular" course in the same classroom with a mix of students. In this situation the AP students do nothing more than some extra work and then sit for the AP exam at the end of the course, typically. The high schools that do it this way are the ones that are most likely to allow, if not downright push, unprepared students into AP. As I mentioned in my previous post; the school gets their share of the exam fee (~10%) for each student who sits for the exam[s]. You may not know of any yourself but that does not mean they don't exist and do you believe that no high school would "encourage" students to sit for that exam considering that the school not only gets paid for each student who takes the exam but also will receive a boost in the rankings and image?
You also need to keep in mind that a student can take the AP course but not sit for the AP exam AND a student can sit for the exam but not take the course. Which brings me to my next point: while there is no clear and direct AP curriculum set forth by the College Board, the point of the AP course is more often to prepare to take the associated AP exam. That is, the course is taught to the test. Granted, high school teachers have the freedom to create their own syllabi and teach the course as rigorously, or not, as they choose, it seems more often the case based on my research that most teachers simply teach to the test as this is the most effective way to ensure that students do well on the exam.
And to continue to add: the numbers of students taking AP courses has gone through the roof yet the average score on all of the exams has increased. That should tell you something about the quality and value of the course and exam. If anything, the average scores should remain the same. The fact that they are increasing means that something is getting easier.
And... ...more and more selective universities are putting less stock into AP courses these days. The current trend is to only accept an AP score of 5 at most universities when in the past a score of 3 was the lowest score required to earn college credit.
Deans and adcomms aside, university faculty believe that honors courses better prepare students for college level courses, not AP.
For the SAT:
Along with AP courses, the push is bad in my opinion as it has created the artificial desire to go to college by creating the competitive culture that is the transition from high school to college we know of today. Twenty years ago this was not the case, at least not in the sense that it is today. When I graduated from high school going into the Military was still seen as a great career move. If one wanted to learn nursing, then the Navy or Army were the places to go. Computers/IT? Well, the Navy and Air Force for the best training. Engine mechanics (aircraft, diesel, etc), all branches. Engineering? The Army and Navy. And so on. Even the Navy and Air Force were great places to learn physics. Beginning in the late 90s, before Iraq and Afghanistan, the shift to college was put well in place, thanks to the College Board.
Most universities do not put as much stock in the SAT/ACT as many believe. The SAT was once thought to be the only way to level the playing field as it is the only thing that is consistent between poor schools and wealthy schools (meaning students take the exact same test regardless of what high school they attend) yet over the last decade research upon research shows a direct correlation between familial finances, familial history of higher education, and high school with SAT scores. Tutoring, test prep, and even retaking the SAT over and over again are the norm. Obviously, wealthier students who can afford to spend upwards of $Ts on SAT prep courses are clearly at an advantage here. With that, and a few tidbits I am leaving out, universities are placing less stock in both the SAT and ACT these days than ever before. I believe the current list of test optional universities has grown to near 800 and current studies are showing zero correlation between SAT/ACT score and college success.
GPA is the better predictor of college success and it is typically placed higher in terms of importance over the SAT/ACT as it shows a history, and a measure, of a the students capabilities more accurately than any one standardized test ever can (in particular because of this: being standardized means the test is predictable. Students can learn how to take the SAT or ACT without really studying the material and still do very well on it. Being standardized, the test HAS TO BE set to the lowest common denominator in order for it to be considered equal amongst all. That is what makes it standardized. So in order to make the test hard questions are worded in such a particular manner as to lead even an intelligent test taker towards the wrong answer and one of the answer choices has to be the correct answer without [ironically] no ambiguity. That is why test prep, in particular the more expensive packages, teach how to spot the nuances and traps in the question. This how you can learn to take a standardized test without knowing much about the material covered.) Going back to AP, all weighted GPAs are unweighted and then GPAs are reconfigured based on what the university knows about the high school.
Essays and LORs, as well as courses taken, are placed higher in terms of importance with the overall application than SAT/ACT scores any day of the week.
I'm fully aware of how AP works--we have 2 AP Scholars with Distinction and 1 National AP Scholar in our house thanks.
As for the SAT/ACT, no, alone they don't mean anything but with a comparable GPA, it does matter more than you think, the SAT not so much any more, but the ACT does. The SAT is reinventing itself to look more like the ACT too since the ACT is now the test of choice for most college bound students. What is changing is the holistic approach so all of it matters, not just an test score or GPA, but you still aren't getting past most admissions committees with a low GPA and test scores.
I personally believe "education" has been terrible since we have been a country, because we have realized formal education is overrated, especially higher education. That said, we allow the freedom of exceptionally intelligent individuals to excel and we don't put them in a box.
As an engineer I have realized that the reason we have been successful is because we are not afraid to fail, and we are just a little bit crazy when it comes to our endeavors. but... we always get it done.
I have this poster in my "office" that says "differences in engineering philosophy." It shows Germany and two German engineers are bantering back and fourth about high-level math and physics and exacting specifications and they say if everything goes to plan we will have a perfect product in 4 years costing 500 million euro and it will mostly reliable. Then it shows two Japanese engineers and they are talking about how the in-process work has to be perfect no mistakes and it has to be perfectly reliable. Then it comes to two rednecks in a garage with an American flag hanging in the background and one has a welder and a screw driver in his hand and the other has a drill in one hand and crowbar in the other and one says to the other, "Think it will work this time?" the other says "guess we'll find out, If it doesn't we should add more power."
Think if the Mythbusters were German or Japanese. Days into filming the episode they would still be drawing pictures and making calculations and while the American Mythbusters have crude but operable rigs within hours.
That's the American philosophy. It's suited us well. Who is smarter? Does it matter?
I think this country is being dumbed down but it has nothing to do with education quality, it's simply societal. The real tragedy is the amount of kids wanting finance, business, and education careers (desk jobs). The people who actually make this country work don't get any recognition and young people don't want to be an engineer, machinist, plumber, or electrician anymore.
China's students are incredible at math and academically they look like they are all geniuses. So why with all of these amazing academics has China failed to produce it's own jet aircraft without licensed or pre sourced parts? Comac 919.... whole entire design is just not working even with international input even with US made engines. ARJ-21...a DC-9. In my opinion a nations ability to create its own jet aircraft separates it from rest of the crowd. The US and the Soviet union were not the smartest countries on earth at any given time but they got things done.
Long story short. No, it was not better in the 80s/90s.
China's students are incredible at math and academically they look like they are all geniuses. So why with all of these amazing academics has China failed to produce it's own jet aircraft without licensed or pre sourced parts? Comac 919.... whole entire design is just not working even with international input even with US made engines. ARJ-21...a DC-9. In my opinion a nations ability to create its own jet aircraft separates it from rest of the crowd. The US and the Soviet union were not the smartest countries on earth at any given time but they got things done.
This.
I did my graduate work in organic chemistry and was shocked to see the difference between the US/European graduate students vs the indian/chinese students. The Asian students could run circles around the rest on theoretical stuff in the coursework, but when it came time to actually do their own original research in the lab, they were completely hopeless. If an entire procedure wasn't completely spelled out for them, they were sunk. Meanwhile, the American and European/Latin American students could usually take the initiative to innovate and "rig" something up that would work and be safe and reliable for the experiment.
Not the same as an aircraft listed above, but same general idea.
And for the record, I graduated HS in 97', and the biggest thing I have noticed these days versus when I was in school, is that the teachers these days have to teach to the standardized testing their students will take, versus teaching them "how to learn" so to speak. I have a number of former classmates that are educators and this is generally their biggest complaint....
We always hear how "dumbed down" education has gotten, but has it really? For those that graduated HS in the 80s/90s how do you think the way you were educated was? Were teachers more involved, work harder, instruction better, etc. etc.?
Pre-NCLB and all these new changes was education really better?
Math: Max was "AP" Calculus AB before AP was a registered trademark, meaning the school could call it that regardless.
Physics: One course only, algebra based if that more conceptual
Chemistry: two years, second was Honors
Biology: two years, second was AP
English: AP all four years, with the final two true AP courses.
History: AP US.
Foreign Languages: Spanish, French
Other: shop, electronics, CAD
In 35 years, the curriculum is only marginally better. Real estate around the high school now averages $1.5 million, so bang for buck is WAYY down.
Also, high school in my day offered many outlets for those not academically inclined. Now it is too academic.
Teachers were good but not great, save for a couple. It was a 6/7 out of 10. Today? Perhaps 7.5 but at great expense and stress.
I was a student in the 80s and 90s and a teacher in the 2000s.
Teachers are teachers. There will always be motivated ones and not-so-motivated ones. I was taught by both kinds, and have worked with both kinds. Just like any field. There are those who are on fire for what they do and those who are paycheck players.
Teaching looks different, yes. It looks different now than when I was first certified to teach (1999). It looks different now than it did ten years ago. "Better" is subjective. Trends come and go in educational practices, always have and always will. Most teachers don't even have consensus on which methods they think are best or most effective, within the field, and what is widely considered "best" changes over time.
Focus on standardized testing results as a measure of eligibility for determining school funding has obviously had serious ramifications. Common core curriculum's effects will become revealed over time. Teachers' time is quite differently allotted now than when I was first certified. In special education, my official, written-out job description went from spelling out that 80% of my time would be dedicated to direct instruction and duties related to that, and 20% of my time would be spent on IEP case management duties - the conferring with IEP team members, compiling data to write and revise IEPs, convening meetings annually and as needed to review and revise IEPs, maintaining contact with parents and other team members, conducting alternate assessments, assuring that all state and federal paperwork was in compliance per student, etc. By the time I left my position in 2013, that ratio was reversed. I was by then expected to be focusing on the compliance paperwork end of IEP case management 80% of the time, with 20% of the time to be devoted to actively teaching children. The hiring of a process coordinator to oversee the bureaucratic end of the job would have freed up the time allowing me to do what I was trained to do and the reason I joined the profession - actually teach kids. I would say my instruction was at its best when I was actually allowed to do it, versus handle paperwork most of the day. Special ed is a very specific instance, in terms of mountainous paperwork, but I didn't always teach special ed, and paperwork requirements have gone up across the board. A large percentage of teachers' time is spent collecting and managing increasingly exhaustive data.
Students look more different than teachers look, I think. They are growing up in a different world, are accustomed to different expectations, in terms of workload, attending to activities, even maintaining engagement for a specified length of time in class. They have been raised in a high-speed, information society, and this has created different skill sets, while other skill sets have atrophied. Parenting looks different than it did, as well, which results in different environmental factors that shape students' motivation, skills, abilities, how they respond to schooling, and how they individually value their own education.
Sounds horrible. Thanks for sharing your experience.
I'll add my two cents, even though I'm a millennial and graduated in the early 2000s, not the late nineties. I still had to endure some of the strange teaching practices of yesteryear, so I think I will try to share my perspective. Back then, teachers had a sense of "normal" and they felt like they should only be expected to teach those students if they were in regular classrooms. We didn't have nearly the number of accommodations for IEP students as we do today. Students with mild learning disabilities, like ADHD and ASD were often overlooked and subject to emotional torture, because the teachers thought we were just trying to "get to them." My odd behaviors were often interpreted as malicious, and I developed a strong fear of my teachers. There was no regular counseling or early intervention programs for troubled kids back then. Bullying and emotional abuse ran rampant, and people often committed suicide in adolescence from not being able to cope with the pressure. It took a lot of convincing to get people to see that the old "kids will be kids" philosophy was perhaps not the best approach after all. We were ignored by teachers, bullied by peers, and generally treated unfairly. The abuse we endured kind of sticks with us to this day. I think that we are mostly a very sensitive and cautious generation.
Academically, behavior and academic performance were lumped together, so students with behavior "problems" like ticking and stimming, were often not allowed to participate in higher level activities. Most of us were very bored, which, understandably, led to more behavior problems.
I think parents can choose which school they want to send their kids in order to meet their specific needs. Nowadays many online courses are available and lots of changes are happening in the education field.
That's really tough to assess, at least objectively. I went to a public high school in the 90s and was really happy with the education I got. I think a lot of the issues are that we are teaching to tests now a lot more, as opposed to figuring out how to learn.
Students look more different than teachers look, I think. They are growing up in a different world, are accustomed to different expectations, in terms of workload, attending to activities, even maintaining engagement for a specified length of time in class. They have been raised in a high-speed, information society, and this has created different skill sets, while other skill sets have atrophied. Parenting looks different than it did, as well, which results in different environmental factors that shape students' motivation, skills, abilities, how they respond to schooling, and how they individually value their own education.
This statement hits the nail on the head. Teachers are working differently because of how their clientele has changed.
In answer to the original question, teaching strategies at the high school level have changed or evolved in that the classroom is no longer a teacher led, students listen format. It is now a teacher directed, student discovery format. The teacher is now required to entertain, engage, encourage, accommodate, inspire, motivate the student learner. Orchestrating the minds of 20+ different learners is quite the challenge~it's no longer about what (material) the teacher will cover in a class period, it's about what the students will be doing, what standard it meets, how it will be evaluated, how the learning will link to the next concept, and how they will apply this to prove that they have mastered it. Times 20+ for each student in the classroom. If you teach 125 students or more in a day (high school level) your brain is a jumbled mess at the end of the day. Yet, because you are dedicated and passionate about your field, your students, your commitment to education~you get up and do it again the next day.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
