[kenberg]

 mike777, on 2015-February-24, 09:30, said:

"Criticism

Faculty at a number of universities have expressed doubts about the value of a passing AP score. Highly capable students who receive scores of 3 or 4, but not the perfect 5, are being given college credit at fewer universities. Academic departments also criticise the increasing proportion of students who take and pass AP courses but are not ready for college-level work.[27]"
http://en.wikipedia....anced_Placement
-----------------

This could get into vigorous debate, but here is my view: At a typical university with a large Engineering program, the more mathematically oriented engineers will be taking Calculus I, II, and III (and other math courses as well such as Linear Algebra). Engineering is a very packed curriculum and if a student is to finish in four years s/he had better come in with some AP credit.
For those starting with Calc I:

A C in Calc I is ominous for Calc II and a C in Calc II is ominous for Calc III. This is not because we give away Cs. Math departments are not usually the departments that critics are speaking of when they decry easy grading.

Go by analogy to AP credit: If a C in Calc I is ominous for Calc II, why would anyone think the situation would be different for someone with a 3 in the AP course? I have not made a great study of AP exams, but from what I have seen I regard them as quite good. It is simply in the nature of mathematics in general and calculus in particular that you need a pretty solid foundation in the first course to do well in the next. I imagine the same is true in Drench. A C student in French I can expect to have trouble in French II.

I do admit to not having looked in great detail at all of this, but really I have no quarrel with the AP Math exams. Expecting a score of 4 rather than 3 in order to get college credit, or especially to go on to the next course up, makes sense to me.

 mike777, on 2015-February-24, 09:30, said:

I like this approach:

"if I was teaching history I would make people memorize the sequence of certain events, front to back, at the start of the class, and then go back and go over them slowly."

Students need to at least know the sequence of historical events without the need to look at their machines. But I fear many will say, why when I can just look it up.

It's a mix, but yes, facts are useful. So is the web. I have enormous gaps in my knowledge. Who doesn't? Yes the web is useful, very useful, for filling gaps. But we have to know something to use it intelligently. Earlier in this thread I used the web to help me think through something in the standards about negotiations with Spain over navigation on the Mississippi. Some items I never knew, some I had forgotten. But I had a place to start. I left up something of a chain of my thinking, but it was something like this: Spain? Why not France? The time period was from after the creation of the U.S. and before the Louisianan Purchase. Oh yes, but wait. France had grabbed it from Spain, I then vaguely recalled. And if the USA was negotiating, it had to be after 1789 or so, the "or so" meaning that 1789 was when George Washington took office but I wasn't sure when "The United States" became an official entity. There was the writing of the Constitution, the ratification of the Constitution, the election of Senators and Representatives as well as the President, the establishment of diplomatic relations. Anyway, 1789 or so sounds right. So sure, the web is helpful for getting all of this right, France grabbed it from Spain in 1800, so 1789-1800 the negotiations would be with Spain. But I need to know something to get started, or at least it made it a lot easier.

Facts are useful, and it is easier to test on facts. But of course this does lead to a difficulty. I want students to think and interpret, but if we start to test on this there is a real danger that it will effectively become "I want you to think and interpret and now I will tell you what you must think and how you must interpret in order to pass." In other words, don't think and interpret, memorize what you are to say when you are asked to think and interpret.

I think that the exams must be heavy on facts.

[akwoo]

I think you're simplifying the problem too far.

First of all, what you are calling 'facts' aren't somehow qualitatively different from what you call 'interpretations'. Your 'facts' are simply interpretations that are widely agreed upon. This is not to say that the agreement is arbitrary; there is almost always a very good reason why we have all agreed upon these interpretations, frequently to the extent we don't even notice there is interpretation going on. (Yes, I would say this is the case even for mathematics.)

Second, the ability to think and interpret is really important, and I think our schools do very poorly at it, and I also think we need a mechanism to encourage them to do better. We can't encourage them to do better without having some way (which does not have to be a test) of figuring out whether they are improving or not. It is indeed possible to test for interpretation in a neutral way; for example one can separate the instructor from the examiner(s), and form committees of graders whose biases cancel each other out. Of course, this is a good deal more expensive than running a scantron through a machine, and also more expensive, though by a smaller margin, than what the AP does to grade long response answers.

Third, I think you are pointing out that grade inflation is a serious problem. A student who is likely to have serious difficulties in Calc II because of lack of mastery of previous material should not get a grade of C in Calc I. (I might add that, based on what I have seen of the curriculum and the grading standards, I don't think anyone with less than an A in 'Math for Elementary Educators' should be allowed to teach elementary school.) This is not to say that I am not guilty of grade inflation myself.

[ArtK78]

 kenberg, on 2015-February-24, 11:03, said:

This could get into vigorous debate, but here is my view: At a typical university with a large Engineering program, the more mathematically oriented engineers will be taking Calculus I, II, and III (and other math courses as well such as Linear Algebra). Engineering is a very packed curriculum and if a student is to finish in four years s/he had better come in with some AP credit.

Wow.

I graduated high school in 1974. I took Linear Algebra in 11th grade and Calculus (I guess what you call Calc I) in 12th grade. I got a 4 on my AP math test and got advanced placement in college.

 kenberg, on 2015-February-24, 11:03, said:

A C in Calc I is ominous for Calc II and a C in Calc II is ominous for Calc III. This is not because we give away Cs. Math departments are not usually the departments that critics are speaking of when they decry easy grading.

I have a funny story about grading (it didn't seem so funny at the time, but I digress). In my sophomore year at Princeton, I took what turned out to be my last math course - Differential Equations. This was a course intended for math majors, but I didn't know when to stop yet. I knew I was in trouble part way through the course, as I was having serious difficulties even understanding the point of the problems. In any event, the course was taught by two math professors - each teaching their own class of about 12 students. They gave the same final exam. When the results were given, I got a C+. Needless to say, I was not happy about the grade, so I met with the professor who taught my class. He did say that he had a problem with my grade on the final exam, as one of the students in the other class had essentially the same score that I had and his professor gave him an A-. When they got together to compare results on the final exam, they discussed our test results. Their conclusion - we both got C+.

Another funny story about math classes at Princeton. As i said, I got advanced placement, so I started out in an honors math course my first semester at Princeton. On the second day, the teaching assistant teaching our section of the course asked if anyone completed the first problem assigned after our first day. For about 10 seconds, no one responded. Then one guy got up (he turned out to be our class Valedictorian) and said he would given it a try. So he goes up to the chalkboard and starts writing. When he got halfway across the board, he looked at what he wrote and said "That doesn't seem right," and he erased it all. Then he started writing again. After taking up half the chalk board again he said, "That looks right." The TA looked at what he had written, and asked, "Any questions?" I dropped the course the next day.

[mike777]

Interesting.

I graduated a few years before you but I never heard of AP classes. I guess they have been around since at least 1955 but I never heard any students taking them or that they even existed. We were a small HS associated with the local University. I suppose we could have just taken the Univ class but I don't recall that being a big thing outside of computer stuff. Now of course this was not Princeton but a state school.

As for downgrading the fact portion of learning I understand how critical thinking is always said to be so important but it seems at least in history so many students don't know the sequence of history. I mean the basic facts such as when was the American Civil War and who fought in it, was it Japan or china? Was it Washington or Lincoln who led the fight on D-Day? Was using Dinosaurs in the battle of New Orleans animal cruelty and do you agree with using them? DO you agree with explorers Lewis and Clark and their protests of the Vietnam War?

[barmar]

 kenberg, on 2015-February-24, 11:03, said:

A C in Calc I is ominous for Calc II and a C in Calc II is ominous for Calc III. This is not because we give away Cs. Math departments are not usually the departments that critics are speaking of when they decry easy grading.

Go by analogy to AP credit: If a C in Calc I is ominous for Calc II, why would anyone think the situation would be different for someone with a 3 in the AP course? I have not made a great study of AP exams, but from what I have seen I regard them as quite good. It is simply in the nature of mathematics in general and calculus in particular that you need a pretty solid foundation in the first course to do well in the next. I imagine the same is true in Drench. A C student in French I can expect to have trouble in French II.

It seems to me that if you did so poorly in a class that you'd be unprepared for the next class in the sequence, you should have gotten a failing grade, since passing the class is generally considered the prerequisite for taking the next one. You might have to work harder to keep up, and you could take a C or D as suggesting that you might go in a different direction (if you were considering a major that requires proficiency in math, rethink that).

If a student at an actual college receives full credit for getting a C or D in a class, why shouldn't an AP student get the same credit for a 3 on the test?

One issue is whether the college considers the AP class to be comparable to their analogous class. I went to MIT, and their classses tend to be much more advanced than most other schools, so they're very limited in which AP credits they'll grant. http://web.mit.edu/f...credit/ap.html.

[kenberg]

exactly what a C should mean can be tricky. Princeton, MIT and The University of Maryland are different schools. At UMD there are students who take Calc I because their major requires it, and do not take Calc II because their major does not require it. We have three main Calculus sequences because of the wide diversity of needs, but in amy of thewse versions there are students who only need one semester.

In addition, a student might simply decide on his/her own that s/he would like a semester of Calc but no more. Since much of the world is math phobic this might seem impossible so let's turn again to French, The first time I was in Paris I was travellling by myself and I would ask someone if s/he spoke English. The answer was always No, or perhaps Non. After a particularly frustrating experience with an attractive woman who seemed more than willing to talk if we could get past the language barrier (I was not married at the time) I decided that I had passed the written exam in French so what the hell, I should be able to do this. At least I set out to try. My high point was a conversation at a pier for boat rides on the Seine where I came to understand that the boats were not going out because the water was too high but they might be re-opening in a couple of days. The point here is that French I with a C would have been useful, although I had no intention of taking French II.

I explored many avenues while I was in college. I took Philosophy of Religion from Paul Holmer, I took Roman Humanities from John Berryman. Both were fine courses, I planned to pursue neither. I got an A in Holmer's course, a C in Berryman's. Berryman lived in his own space. For example on the first day of class he announced that he teaches Roman Humanities as a course in the Origins of Christianity. So we read Dante and St. Thomas, and all the Letters of Paul, instead of Cicero and Caesar. It's ok, and so was the C. Berryman was a difficult but extremely worthwhile experience.

Imo, the grade of C means: You passed, but we don't recommend this as a career choice.


Art recalls some stories, i could give several from my past.
Example: I switched from Physics to Math. While a Physiocs major I had taken a substantial course in Dynamics and I had done well in it. The Math Dept. also required a course in dynamics but for reasons that are beyond understanding they wanted me to take the course that was offered by the Department of Mechanics and Materials. I argued with both Math and with M&M but no dice.
I quote the great Hank Williams, albeit on a different subject

She warned me once, she warned me twice
But I don't take no one's advice.

I figured they can make me enroll, but they can't make me attend. I will have to show up for exams, I supposed.

On the first exam one of the questions totally stumped me. On my way to lunch I was giving this problem to a friend, saying that I really didn't see how to do it. The Prof., whom I had not recognized, was standing nearby and remarked "You should come to class once in a while and you would learn how to solve problems like that". He had a point.

Anyway, I am fine with a C as an announcement that the student has passed but if s/he expects to go on them more effort will be required. Probably considerably more since the next course builds on the previous.

[blackshoe]

 kenberg, on 2015-February-24, 11:03, said:

And if the USA was negotiating, it had to be after 1789 or so, the "or so" meaning that 1789 was when George Washington took office but I wasn't sure when "The United States" became an official entity. There was the writing of the Constitution, the ratification of the Constitution, the election of Senators and Representatives as well as the President, the establishment of diplomatic relations. Anyway, 1789 or so sounds right. So sure, the web is helpful for getting all of this right, France grabbed it from Spain in 1800, so 1789-1800 the negotiations would be with Spain. But I need to know something to get started, or at least it made it a lot easier.

Don't forget the original Confederacy, founded in November, 1777 with the Articles of Confederation.

The fledgling United States was first recognized as a nation — by Morocco — in April 1778, but France had apparently "decided" to recognize the country earlier, in December 1777, after our victory in the Battle of Saratoga (October 1777). In 1789, the Jay-Gardoqui Treaty would have given Spain exclusive right to navigate the Mississippi River for 30 years, but the US did not ratify it due to opposition from Western US citizens.

Our war of 1812 actually started (between England and France) in 1793. Until 1812 we were neutral, and did business with both sides.

[kenberg]

Yes, but the Standards particularly mentioned negotiations of the United States with Spain, and as far as I know the Confederated States were called the Confederation, or some such, and not the United States. So if the United States negotiated with Spain, it was 1789 or later.

[blackshoe]

 kenberg, on 2015-February-25, 20:58, said:

Yes, but the Standards particularly mentioned negotiations of the United States with Spain, and as far as I know the Confederated States were called the Confederation, or some such, and not the United States. So if the United States negotiated with Spain, it was 1789 or later.

From wikipedia: In 1777 the Articles of Confederation announced, "The Stile of this Confederacy shall be 'The United States of America'".

[kenberg]

 blackshoe, on 2015-February-26, 16:42, said:

From wikipedia: In 1777 the Articles of Confederation announced, "The Stile of this Confederacy shall be 'The United States of America'".

Ah ha. OK, I learn.

[blackshoe]

If I'm not mistaken, the Jay-Gardoqui treaty I mentioned above was the result of the first negotiations between Spain and the US regarding access to the Mississippi, and that was in (or at least ended in) 1789, so you're right that it was the "new" US, under the Constitution. IIRC, while this treaty was not ratified, it wasn't too many years later that Spain got a similar treaty giving them the rights they wanted.

[barmar]

Perhaps relevant commentary from Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal

[kenberg]

Old joke: A psychologist administers a Rorschach test and diagnoses that the client has unresolved sexual problems. The client responds "Doc, there is nothing the matter with me. You are the one putting all of these dirty pictures on the table".

I was reminded of this while reading another article about the History AP. The author asserts:

Quote

More hawkish U.S. foreign policy is typically described as the subject of vigorous debate, while developments such as the student counterculture of the 1960s are presented as uncontroversial progress..

Here is what I found in the Standards about the " student counterculture of the 1960s":

Quote

Young people who participated in the counterculture of the 1960s rejected many of the social, economic, and political values of their parents' generation, initiated a sexual revolution, and introduced greater informality into U.S. culture.

This appears to me to be factually correct and value neutral. It is not said to be progress, it is said to be change. It was.


Still, I have problems of my own with the document. Here is a sample question:

Quote

Some historians have argued that the American Revolution was not revolutionary in nature. Support, modify, or refute this interpretation, providing specific evidence to justify your answer

Really? Probably I flunk. "revolutionary in nature" means what? The King of England was King because his father was King. The President was to be chosen differently. But this is apparently too simple-minded for these folks. They provide a sample of what they have in mind:

Quote

Another analysis supporting the assertion made in the exam question might draw upon the work of historian Charles Beard, who famously argued that the creation of the Constitution in the late 1780s was a counterrevolution. Beard contended that the Constitution was created to maintain commercial and landowning elites' power, influence, and standing in the face of events such as Shays's Rebellion and other attempts at revolutionary change. Note that since the question does not confine the response to a particular time period, it would be appropriate to cite events and other evidence from the 1780s in the essay

Now I could argue: If the creation of the Constitution was a counter revolution is that not conceding that the revolution was, well, a revolution? Can you have a counter-revolution without first having a revolution? Anyway, I flunk.

[mike777]

If I follow the argument the "American Revolution" was not a revolution. It was simply a transfer of power between rich people. Call it a war not a revolution I guess is the thinking here. It was not a "revolution in nature".

Shays rebellion was a true revolution I guess because it was a revolution of the poor and common working man. It was a "revolution in nature".

The Constitution, federal govt actions and Washington coming out of retirement was the counterrevolution to keep power in the hands of the rich.


Washington was the richest man in America.
-----------------


I know I repeat myself here but again it comes back to basic science, how you define your terms and use some standard of measurement.


In history and social sciences in general they don't seem to have standard definitions and standard measurements to compare and contrast.