AP Courses

[jimmymax]

If there is one thing I know about middle school it is that everyone in middle school should be taking the same level math as their peers.

vs.

I recall in 4th grade I was given a math book to work on my own and the teacher would grade my work afterwards. I did the work in the same class as everyone else though, but was given a different lesson plan which I appreciated. Then, we did have different classrooms for advanced math starting in 5th grade as I recall. I appreciated it at the time because I loved math and was bored if not pushed more.

The latter gets my vote. When my kids were in middle school their school started offering an advanced math class BEFORE THE SCHOOL DAY STARTED. It was initially an "invite only" situation which totally blew up in the school's face because, of course, *all* THE PARENTS wanted their kids in that class, regardless of aptitude. I'm not a teacher but there's a term (I think it's differentiation) to describe when a teacher figures out how to challenge each kid at the appropriate level -- kind of like different lesson plans but all within the same classroom: no special classes or stigma. If public education was a priority we'd have teachers talented enough to pull this off nationwide.

[BLPOG]

vs.



The latter gets my vote. When my kids were in middle school their school started offering an advanced math class BEFORE THE SCHOOL DAY STARTED. It was initially an "invite only" situation which totally blew up in the school's face because, of course, *all* THE PARENTS wanted their kids in that class, regardless of aptitude. I'm not a teacher but there's a term (I think it's differentiation) to describe when a teacher figures out how to challenge each kid at the appropriate level -- kind of like different lesson plans but all within the same classroom: no special classes or stigma. If public education was a priority we'd have teachers talented enough to pull this off nationwide.[emphasis added]

I agree with your juxtaposition of the two quoted comments, and will further state think the idea that enforcing a non-separation of middle-school-aged math students is beyond laughable, beyond outrageous in fact. I differ with you in that last bit, which I bolded in the quote. Public education being a priority has something in the vicinity of nothing to do with it; it's the principal-agent problem all the way down.

[cato]

I agree with your juxtaposition of the two quoted comments, and will further state think the idea that enforcing a non-separation of middle-school-aged math students is beyond laughable, beyond outrageous in fact. I differ with you in that last bit, which I bolded in the quote. Public education being a priority has something in the vicinity of nothing to do with it; it's the principal-agent problem all the way down.

Perhaps the first quote should be reviewed for sarcasm.

[Bostondevil]

As a non-Duke-graduate who has a couple of children who are/will be graduating from Duke, I'm curious why you say this. I don't know what Duke looked like when you graduated, but I can tell you that the Duke of today looks more diverse than the University of Washington of my era, and you can learn a hell of lot more walking around and chatting with present-day Duke faculty and students than you could at the UDub back in the day.

So that just makes me curious as to how you arrived at your conclusion.

It's the sameness. I am also basing my opinion on the Harvard students I know (and at this point, I know a lot more Harvard students than I know Duke students). I have not met a single Duke or Harvard student that I thought didn't deserve to be there, but what I have met is the same student over and over and over again. They are bright, poised, and impressive - in the same way. Yes, they don't all look alike on the outside, but it's the same kid. There is a mold, Ok, maybe there are 2 or 3 varieties of that mold, but the molds the kids fit themselves into to gain admission are not diverse. I know it sounds like I'm describing a kind of Stepford Wives version of the student bodies of a couple of our elite academic institutions, but that's what it feels like to me sometimes. Collectively, they are a boring bunch, achieving the same things, articulating their goals the same way, having the same goals much of the time. I doubt many, if any, of the future celebrated original thinkers of Gen Z will be products of our elite academic institutions. I could be wrong. I hope to live long enough to find out.

[Bostondevil]

As a non-Duke-graduate who has a couple of children who are/will be graduating from Duke, I'm curious why you say this. I don't know what Duke looked like when you graduated, but I can tell you that the Duke of today looks more diverse than the University of Washington of my era, and you can learn a hell of lot more walking around and chatting with present-day Duke faculty and students than you could at the UDub back in the day.

So that just makes me curious as to how you arrived at your conclusion.

Also - that is probably still true, but you won't learn about as many different things from the students. And given the every shrinking percent of students from Duke and schools like Duke that choose to go get PhDs, the faculty will increasingly not be products of our elite academic institutions. Harvard publishes such statistics but I haven't found the same for Duke, but given that the popular majors are similar at both schools, I suspect it's true for Duke too. Only 14% of the Class of 22 from Harvard went on to professional (law and med) or graduate school. Granted more may go in a couple of years, but still, that's a very sad number.

[BLPOG]

Perhaps the first quote should be reviewed for sarcasm.

Thanks for the clarification. I know people that make that sort of claim seriously (and I missed your original comment, only seeing it in the quote), so I took it on its face.

[cato]

Thanks for the clarification. I know people that make that sort of claim seriously (and I missed your original comment, only seeing it in the quote), so I took it on its face.

I’m sure I could communicate more clearly, but also am sure I should have just chosen the better part of valor.

[Phredd3]

Collectively, they are a boring bunch, achieving the same things, articulating their goals the same way, having the same goals much of the time. I doubt many, if any, of the future celebrated original thinkers of Gen Z will be products of our elite academic institutions.

Thanks for relaying that. All I can say in reply is that my experience with Duke students has apparently been quite different from your experiences at Harvard. I do not think of them as a "boring bunch" at all. It's tough about the original thinkers part. My conception of original thinker is someone who can truly shift the paradigm, and that's almost a unicorn occurrence. Since there aren't many people that meet that standard to begin with, I think what you're saying will be literally true, but I suspect the number coming from elite academic institutions will be proportionally fairly high, given that a fair amount of background is needed to make certain kind of breakthroughs.

Also - that is probably still true, but you won't learn about as many different things from the students. And given the every shrinking percent of students from Duke and schools like Duke that choose to go get PhDs, the faculty will increasingly not be products of our elite academic institutions.

If your assertion is that elite education is losing diversity, do you actually want faculty at our elite academic institutions to primarily be by-products of those same institutions? It seems to me that would only accelerate the trend (assuming arguendo that such a trend exists).

[Acymetric]

This was not the case at my high school back in the 90s. The AP teachers were passionate about their subjects and generally very demanding. My AP Western Civ (doubt they still offer that) teacher senior year scheduled an exam on “Senior Skip Day” just to make sure that he could get every instructional minute he could.

I didn’t even take the AP tests for Calc or Physics C (I already knew I wasn’t going to take math at Duke) but my in-class experience was almost the same as the kids who did.

Of course, I only took a handful of AP classes compared to what kids take today. Five if I recall correctly (US History, English, World History (?), Calc, Physics with Calc) and only three exams.

This was my experience in the mid 2000s as well, but it would not surprise me at all if everything has become much more test driven (or rather I should say that everything has become more test driven and that probably applies to AP courses too). Our physics and history teachers were outstanding, I enjoyed AP US History (required) so much that I took AP Euro senior year for fun (and I am not a history buff).

It is also probably very dependent on who your teacher is, in either time period.

[Bluedog]

Perhaps the first quote should be reviewed for sarcasm.

Thanks for the clarification. I know people that make that sort of claim seriously (and I missed your original comment, only seeing it in the quote), so I took it on its face.

I’m sure I could communicate more clearly, but also am sure I should have just chosen the better part of valor.

I took it on its face too as it's a heavily held position in my community and local school board. That was the Board Presidents' proudest accomplish of her tenure (elimination of separate accelerated math).

I will agree with the above that the label "gifted" is just weird/strange and doesn't serve anyone. Not sure why that term was the one they chose...

[CrazyNotCrazie]

It's the sameness. I am also basing my opinion on the Harvard students I know (and at this point, I know a lot more Harvard students than I know Duke students). I have not met a single Duke or Harvard student that I thought didn't deserve to be there, but what I have met is the same student over and over and over again. They are bright, poised, and impressive - in the same way. Yes, they don't all look alike on the outside, but it's the same kid. There is a mold, Ok, maybe there are 2 or 3 varieties of that mold, but the molds the kids fit themselves into to gain admission are not diverse. I know it sounds like I'm describing a kind of Stepford Wives version of the student bodies of a couple of our elite academic institutions, but that's what it feels like to me sometimes. Collectively, they are a boring bunch, achieving the same things, articulating their goals the same way, having the same goals much of the time. I doubt many, if any, of the future celebrated original thinkers of Gen Z will be products of our elite academic institutions. I could be wrong. I hope to live long enough to find out.

I feel very differently than you do, I was recently at Duke and interacted with a lot of students. I also do alumni interviews in NYC and most of my friends have kids approaching college age (mine are a bit younger) so I feel like I have a pretty good sense of things, though less than others here who are on campus or have kids there.

Has Duke become more pre-professional? Definitely. Is it more homogeneous? No way. Look at the stats. Like most of its peer schools, Duke has gone all in on DEI. Yes, there are still a lot of white prep school kids, but much less than in the past.

In NY I encounter plenty of kids who are pre-programmed for college and think they put together the perfect package. I recently saw parent message board posts asking which summer academic program is best for 3 year olds and if it wasn’t a public forum I would have ripped the person a new one. That being said, I think Duke does a better job than similar schools of avoiding these types of kids. They are definitely present on campus and there are probably more than in the past but what I have always loved about Duke is that its students and alums are more “casually brilliant” - they are incredible students and intellects but don’t wear their IQs on their sleeves. That reflects on DBR.

You seem to want Duke to be Brown or Swarthmore or Chicago. That isn’t what Duke is and I hope it never will be. I have sensed it moving in that direction but hopefully it will stick to its core competency. I think admissions is doing the best it can given the changing landscape.

[cato]

I took it on its face too as it's a heavily held position in my community and local school board. That was the Board Presidents' proudest accomplish of her tenure (elimination of separate accelerated math).

I will agree with the above that the label "gifted" is just weird/strange and doesn't serve anyone. Not sure why that term was the one they chose...

I really should have held my peace. To change the subject, for anyone with elementary school kids whose math class is not challenging enough, have you checked out AoPS (Art of Problem Solving)? I think the full curriculum starts in 5th grade, but they have a Beast Academy curriculum for younger kids.

The program was started by someone who discovered a love of math competitions and wanted to introduce that world to kids who otherwise wouldn’t have the opportunity. We are lucky to have in person classes nearby, but I believe they have online classes available for anyone (and my oldest started fully online anyway, as they started in fall 2021).

[cato]

I have not met a single Duke or Harvard student that I thought didn't deserve to be there, but what I have met is the same student over and over and over again. They are bright, poised, and impressive - in the same way.

I went to HLS. The largest feeder school at the time was Harvard, followed by Duke and Yale. I would say there was a lot more similarity among my fellow Dukies than the Harvard grads.

After practicing law for a while, I went back and interviewed on campus for my law firm. After two days of back to back interviews and a dinner with candidates most interested in our firm, I was blown away by the varied and impressive accomplishments and goals of the students.

I suppose you could say that they shared certain similarities — they were all smart and very good at school. But beyond that I would never try to reduce them to some sort of clone army.

I haven’t been back for over a decade and don’t really interact with recent grads, so things may well have changed. But that could be a result of students learning to speak in similar ways in order to navigate the pressures of higher education and all of its modern pitfalls.

[Tooold]

It's the sameness. I am also basing my opinion on the Harvard students I know (and at this point, I know a lot more Harvard students than I know Duke students). I have not met a single Duke or Harvard student that I thought didn't deserve to be there, but what I have met is the same student over and over and over again. They are bright, poised, and impressive - in the same way. Yes, they don't all look alike on the outside, but it's the same kid. .

This is not what I have seen at all. I have had the opportunity to meet a lot of Duke students, mostly engineers because I have stayed involved at Pratt. I have been lucky enough to have had lunch with groups of students, attend the awards/scholarship dinners with them, and attend sessions in which they present their research projects. I have been tremendously impressed not only by their intelligence and initiative, but also by their diverse backgrounds and interests.

I am not sure what you would like to see that would qualify as not being “the same kid”.

[Bostondevil]

Thanks for relaying that. All I can say in reply is that my experience with Duke students has apparently been quite different from your experiences at Harvard. I do not think of them as a "boring bunch" at all. It's tough about the original thinkers part. My conception of original thinker is someone who can truly shift the paradigm, and that's almost a unicorn occurrence. Since there aren't many people that meet that standard to begin with, I think what you're saying will be literally true, but I suspect the number coming from elite academic institutions will be proportionally fairly high, given that a fair amount of background is needed to make certain kind of breakthroughs.



If your assertion is that elite education is losing diversity, do you actually want faculty at our elite academic institutions to primarily be by-products of those same institutions? It seems to me that would only accelerate the trend (assuming arguendo that such a trend exists).

Good point. If the positions were reversed, I would be less concerned. My fix isn't to try to deny admission to the types of students that are getting in now, it's to let in more students overall and to look at more kinds of diversity than we currently do. There are more types of diversity than skin color. The college admissions process as it currently stands favors extroverts over introverts, generalists over specialists, athletics over other extracurricular interests. We should try to change some of that.

Assuming the trend exists? Yeah, c'mon, how long have you been reading my posts around here. Duke publishes the majors of their graduating students. I've been looking at the trends of majors for awhile now. Harvard publishes what their graduates do after graduation - I've been looking at those trends for awhile now too. So - the trends that I believe I see happening are backed up by data. I thought, wow, I don't meet many undergrads interested in med school anymore before I found the data that said yep, fewer students are applying to med school. I actually went looking expecting to be wrong so I don't think I was guilty of confirmation bias and numbers don't lie. If fewer kids apply to medical school, you can tell by looking at the numbers, you don't need any analysis to tell you that. Duke is not different from Harvard is this respect. Just check out how many students major in biology compared to economics or computer science.

Do I think that only a few institutions should train our top academics? Probably not. But then they can't also lay claim to being elite academic institutions. Either they are significant presence in educating the top academic talent of the next generation or they aren't the elite academic institutions they claim to be, at least not for undergraduates, and the term elite takes on a whole different meaning.

As for the boring bunch comment - there are differences in individual observations and general trends. Like I said before, I have never met either a Duke or a Harvard undergrad that didn't deserve to be there. When meeting them as individuals, they are impressive. It's the trends that are boring, not the individuals.

[Phredd3]

Assuming the trend exists? Yeah, c'mon, how long have you been reading my posts around here. Duke publishes the majors of their graduating students. I've been looking at the trends of majors for awhile now. Harvard publishes what their graduates do after graduation - I've been looking at those trends for awhile now too. So - the trends that I believe I see happening are backed up by data. I thought, wow, I don't meet many undergrads interested in med school anymore before I found the data that said yep, fewer students are applying to med school. I actually went looking expecting to be wrong so I don't think I was guilty of confirmation bias and numbers don't lie. If fewer kids apply to medical school, you can tell by looking at the numbers, you don't need any analysis to tell you that. Duke is not different from Harvard is this respect. Just check out how many students major in biology compared to economics or computer science.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point. As I understood it, your point was that Duke undergrads are "less diverse", which you defined as tending to all look the same, not in appearance, but in ambition. The "cookie cutter" or "Little Boxes" theory. But I'm not seeing how you get from "fewer Duke grads are applying to med school" to "Duke is getting less diverse". I'm just don't see how a tend away from Duke graduates going to med school gets you to that result - at least not without a whole lot more data than you've shown. And yes, I'm well aware of the fact that you're a data maven. I just haven't yet seen the connection from the data you've pointed to back to the conclusion you've drawn. Help me out.

Hammering on that specific data point just a bit, I don't think it is the least bit surprising that fewer Duke students are majoring in biology, versus computer science, engineering, and economics. Educational costs have skyrocketed. The latter majors tend to lead to higher paying job outcomes as compared to biology, which you appear to be using as a loose stand-in for "pre-med". Setting aside the usefulness of that stand-in, biology certainly doesn't guarantee that one will be accepted to medical school, and if you aren't going to med school, the income you can expect to derive from that degree is pretty limited. On the other hand, graduating with an undergraduate degree in computer science (or engineering or economics) gives you a relatively solid floor for an income stream that can handle educational debt, even without the extra three years of schooling and two years of residency at below-market salary that med school would entail if our biology major got that far. That's just economic reality. If I were entering school today, I would have to think hard about majoring in biology, simply because it's economically risky. I don't think that's a problem that can be solved by simply broadening admissions.

In short, I think your lament breaks down to economic pressures that simply didn't exist, or at least were less extreme, than those pressures are today. I know that when I went to college, a public school four-year undergraduate degree was the economic equivalent of a compact car. Today, four years of in-state tuition at that exact some public school is nearly the economic equivalent of a (very) small house. Or, if you prefer to stick to wheeled vehicles, it's the equivalent of a 24' motor home. Or it's a compact car every year, rather than over the course of the whole degree. That's a quantum leap in economic risk for a young adult.

And if you think that need-based financial aid solves the problem, think again. I can assure you that the FAFSA calculation for how much the parents "should" be able to contribute to college was well above my economic comfort level, and we didn't even qualify for need-based aid. Thank goodness we have other sources we can access.

Do I think that only a few institutions should train our top academics? Probably not. But then they can't also lay claim to being elite academic institutions. Either they are significant presence in educating the top academic talent of the next generation or they aren't the elite academic institutions they claim to be, at least not for undergraduates, and the term elite takes on a whole different meaning.

So if I understand you correctly, you prefer not to have "elite" institutions? At least, that's the syllogism I'm working out here. To paraphrase, "Elite institutions must have top academic talent that primarily derives from elite institutions, or they must redefine what it means to be 'elite'. I prefer that elite institutions do not have top academic talent that primarily derives from elite institutions. Therefore, I prefer not having 'elite' institutions as that term is currently defined."

Is that correct? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I'm just trying to understand what you're trying to say, and if my syllogism is correct, what your solution would be.

[YmoBeThere]

all look the same

As an Asian-American, I'm just going to say, "Hey, this is our thing."

https://alllooksame.com/

[Bostondevil]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point. As I understood it, your point was that Duke undergrads are "less diverse", which you defined as tending to all look the same, not in appearance, but in ambition. The "cookie cutter" or "Little Boxes" theory. But I'm not seeing how you get from "fewer Duke grads are applying to med school" to "Duke is getting less diverse". I'm just don't see how a tend away from Duke graduates going to med school gets you to that result - at least not without a whole lot more data than you've shown. And yes, I'm well aware of the fact that you're a data maven. I just haven't yet seen the connection from the data you've pointed to back to the conclusion you've drawn. Help me out.

Hammering on that specific data point just a bit, I don't think it is the least bit surprising that fewer Duke students are majoring in biology, versus computer science, engineering, and economics. Educational costs have skyrocketed. The latter majors tend to lead to higher paying job outcomes as compared to biology, which you appear to be using as a loose stand-in for "pre-med". Setting aside the usefulness of that stand-in, biology certainly doesn't guarantee that one will be accepted to medical school, and if you aren't going to med school, the income you can expect to derive from that degree is pretty limited. On the other hand, graduating with an undergraduate degree in computer science (or engineering or economics) gives you a relatively solid floor for an income stream that can handle educational debt, even without the extra three years of schooling and two years of residency at below-market salary that med school would entail if our biology major got that far. That's just economic reality. If I were entering school today, I would have to think hard about majoring in biology, simply because it's economically risky. I don't think that's a problem that can be solved by simply broadening admissions.

In short, I think your lament breaks down to economic pressures that simply didn't exist, or at least were less extreme, than those pressures are today. I know that when I went to college, a public school four-year undergraduate degree was the economic equivalent of a compact car. Today, four years of in-state tuition at that exact some public school is nearly the economic equivalent of a (very) small house. Or, if you prefer to stick to wheeled vehicles, it's the equivalent of a 24' motor home. Or it's a compact car every year, rather than over the course of the whole degree. That's a quantum leap in economic risk for a young adult.

And if you think that need-based financial aid solves the problem, think again. I can assure you that the FAFSA calculation for how much the parents "should" be able to contribute to college was well above my economic comfort level, and we didn't even qualify for need-based aid. Thank goodness we have other sources we can access.



So if I understand you correctly, you prefer not to have "elite" institutions? At least, that's the syllogism I'm working out here. To paraphrase, "Elite institutions must have top academic talent that primarily derives from elite institutions, or they must redefine what it means to be 'elite'. I prefer that elite institutions do not have top academic talent that primarily derives from elite institutions. Therefore, I prefer not having 'elite' institutions as that term is currently defined."

Is that correct? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I'm just trying to understand what you're trying to say, and if my syllogism is correct, what your solution would be.

I've been trying to make my point without hurting feelings which I will agree has lead to me being unclear. I mostly can't make my point without disparaging perfectly nice people, so I won't go any further except to say this - American society is mostly anti-intellectual and that is reflected rather than contradicted by who we designate as the "best and the brightest" among the nation's college students. OK, I'll try to say it one more way. When Larry Summers was president of Harvard, he famously said, "Our A students go on to become professors, our C students become wealthy donors." Duke, like Harvard, prefers the C students.

[luvdahops]

I've been trying to make my point without hurting feelings which I will agree has lead to me being unclear. I mostly can't make my point without disparaging perfectly nice people, so I won't go any further except to say this - American society is mostly anti-intellectual and that is reflected rather than contradicted by who we designate as the "best and the brightest" among the nation's college students. OK, I'll try to say it one more way. When Larry Summers was president of Harvard, he famously said, "Our A students go on to become professors, our C students become wealthy donors." Duke, like Harvard, prefers the C students.

Now I'm even more confused. Are professors inherently more honorable than wealthy donors? Are there a lot of open teaching positions at prominent colleges and universities these days? Aren't many of those wealthy donors in fact doctors, engineers or computer science majors that happen to have an entrepreneurial bent?

[Tooold]

I've been trying to make my point without hurting feelings which I will agree has lead to me being unclear. I mostly can't make my point without disparaging perfectly nice people, so I won't go any further except to say this - American society is mostly anti-intellectual and that is reflected rather than contradicted by who we designate as the "best and the brightest" among the nation's college students. OK, I'll try to say it one more way. When Larry Summers was president of Harvard, he famously said, "Our A students go on to become professors, our C students become wealthy donors." Duke, like Harvard, prefers the C students.

I don’t think you have been unclear. I think you have made your point very well.

I, however, disagree with you about what Duke prefers and the characteristics of the typical Duke student. Your description of the
Duke student does not describe the Duke students I have met, and I have met quite a few. The students I have met are doing fascinating research. They are working with talented professors to, among other things, diagnose and develop treatments for women in African countries and to diagnose autism at an early age using an iPhone. They are working on climate change and water problems. Many of these students are able to attend Duke only because of scholarship endowments from wealthy donors (many of whom were very good students who became successful entrepreneurs or leaders in business).