This is an interesting problem It seems as if he just does not care enough about anything.. I'm guessing though that he appreciates living at home and having freedom,even if he doesn't realize it.. Have you thought about taking a pins out on him? This might be a term specific to NY,but I assume other states have similar provisions. At the very least, it might scare him straight

I disagree , and I'll point why If the goal is to simply have a checklist of courses completed so the college application looks good, your plan sounds okay If the goal is to actually learn something and be prepared to succeed in college, then no, this is not a good idea You point out she's in 9th grade, and will require 3 or 4 years of science classes, which I agree with.. 4 years of math is usually required or heavily recommended as well,which leads to my next point. The op's daughter is taking pre algebra... That is not an hs level course, so even if she takes the year to master pre algebra, she still has 4 years of math left in my opinion... Basically, I don't view these courses as high school level, even if she is technically in the 9th grade. It's no different than taking elementary algebra in college.. These are remedial courses which do not garner credit. You disagree, which is fine.. I gave my opinion. Also, Even though I disagree that work in biology does not require algebra, I'll give that to you.. I'd like to know the several other high school level courses that don't require at the very least, algebra. I took earth science in the 5th grade, possibly 6th or 7th.. I just looked at a sample of Barron's environmental science text, and there is definitely a math/ quantitative reasoning component to it I don't know how to multi quote so I'll quickly reply others mom2s...I'm pretty sure I never accused anyone of "cheating" Regent, You stated that the op's daughter isn't ready or doesn't have the mat required for certain courses, which is fine. The girl though can not quantitatively reason at the high school level, otherwise she would not be in pre algebra.. There's no way of getting around this When a college lists courses required for admission, they'll give a certain number for history, fine arts, etc. When they list the number required for science courses, they are assuming these courses were at the high school level, and required a high school level of quantitative reasoning... This reasoning is what separates science/math courses from other subjects. If the "science" course does not require this, then it's no different than an appreciation course, or perhaps a history course with science as the main topic.. If the goal is to simply pile up credits, then what I'm saying is pointless This girl can still learn the perquisites required for high school level science/math work and proceed to trig/precalc before graduating I'm not trying to offend anyone. I don't want this topic to be hijacked, so I'll not be replying anymore in this thread. This is just how i view it. There are others that disagree Respectfully, Crimson

I had to transfer schools in the 7th grade... I wish I didn't have to change schools so late. It wasn't the worst experience, but most kids already had long time friends that they'd known since 1st grade. It can be rough... Is there a way that you can get the supplementation needed without starting in the 7th grade?

alice, a biology major requires at least calculus. I don't feel that it's good to be giving options to avoid math. We're inclined to take the path of least resistance, and it becomes a habit very easily II feel the op should have her child learn algebra, then take a math based science course.. She has 4 years to get science credits. She can use the next year to learn algebra

I'm going to try to answer this but not offend anyone A hs course without at least algebra is not a science course..You can have an appreciation course, or one on the history of a particular science.. noting particularly important discoveries, and important scientists in the field... but without a math component, it's not a science course. I would focus attention on a comprehensive pre algebra/algebra course..

I keep writing replies, and internet keeps going off I like boxers, but for a guard dog, no. German shepherds and malinois are great guard dogs, and very healthy, but don't fit your criterion of short hair Two breeds you might not have considered are the dog argentino and boerboel. Both short haired, and bred for guard work,while having stable temperaments

Old topic but definitely felt the need to reply I've now taken a look at samples of the precalculus text and have a copy of the alg 2 text The algebra with trig text is very different in style than the precalc text.. A similar discrepancy exists between the 3rd edition of jacobs geometry compared to the 2nd ed.. There seems to have been a change in philosophy by the two authors The algebra/trig text is the only self contained text out of either one. What I mean is that Foerster's precalculus text does not have many of the alg 2 topics that his earlier text goes over in detail.. I think Foerster realizes this when he recommends to students that they should complete alg 2 from his earlier text, skip the trig, then switch to the precalc text. The texts are not compatible though.. You can verify this by looking at the toc of both, or perusing samples of the 2 texts.. There is quite a bit of overlap and the presentation is also quite different. I'd say both texts are precalculus texts, but are written on opposite ends of the spectrum I see no need to complete a course using the alg/trig text then proceeding to a course using the newer precalc text. An analogy would be to use the 2nd ed of Jacobs, then do a course based on the 3rd ed .. There are additional topics in the Foerster precalc text, but there also additional topics in the 3rd ed of Jacobs. In both cases, I feel the additions are unnecessary and do not add to the text.. They could be learned better and cleaner in more advanced courses The coment about partial sums is not correct.. The earlier alg/trig text's chapter on sequences and series goes into more detail and has almost twice as many sections as the newer precalc text.. I think that's one of the main problems with the newer text, apart from the bombardment of technology options, and discovery learning. The newer precalc covers topics such as fractals, but has less instruction in core alg 2 topics.. I'm looking at the toc now of the foerster precalc and can't find even 1 section on advanced factoring, while the alg/trig text has over 80 pages covering rational functions in chapter 7. I also had a look at the teacher resources, and tm for the precalc. Many of the exercises,explorations,etc are meant to be done in groups, and supervised by a teacher in a classroom setting. I think if I had to give a quick summary, I'd give the following 2 equations foerster alg/trig text= jacobs' geometry 2nd ed foerster precalculus= jacobs 3rd ed

The more I look at this chapter, I don't like it.. I like some of the problems though, but the presentation is very wordy I'll give another example and quote from it "Because the circumference of a circle is 2pir and because r for the unit circle is 1, the wrapped number line in Figure 6-4a divides the circle into 2pi units (a little more than six parts). So there are 2pi radians in a complete revolution. There are also 360° in a complete revolution. This is technically true, but convoluted.. It also makes it seem that this is only for the unit circle with radius 1..This whole picture of "wrapping up" a number line around a unit circle is just not my cup of tea.. He has just given the definition of a radian which is arc length/ radius... since the arc length of any circle is 2pir, just divide 2pir over r and you get 2 pi for the number of radians in any circle...... this is in general and applies to any circle of course. No need for pictures of number lines wrapping over a circle, etc... I guess I might not be the type of learner this book is aiming for... I'm really trying to like this book, and when the book starts teaching directly, it's very good...Some problems are also quite good, though hard to visualize because of the simple drawings in the text.. ​I might get lial and foerster. The foerster text gets so many good reviews, so I must be missing something. I'm going to continue to try to force myself to get used to the style of this text

Ty brad, I have very mixed feelings about the sample foerster chapter I just read IThe beginning of chapter 6 started out iffy, but then I really liked the end of the first section,and was going to post that Foerster seems like a great fit for my situation It's much different than I expected.. It seems almost like discovery math.. The section on radians was very tedious for me.. I already knew the answers, but not sure how much i'd like going through a whole text designed this way.. He takes pages to describe something I would understand better if he simply stated that a radian is the ratio of arc length to radius.. I easily deduce by this statement all the rest....such as how the angle of 1 radian always corresponds to the arc length of the radius, and that are 2 pi radians in a circle Some of the questions also threw me for a loop... this is actually a question "“Mark Twain†is a pen name used by Samuel Clemens. What is the origin of that pen name? Give the source of your information. " Maybe I just need to go over more of it.. His algebra texts are similar to this?

Ty mom2ns If anyone here an an example or 2 of these Foerster problems, it would be greatly appreciated At the same time, everyone says Lial has better instruction. I might just get Lial, as I've seen the samples. It's very uncluttered ,and gets to the point

Momto2ns, Were the problems in Foerster still intractable for them after learning from Lial?

Hello Jann, I was hoping you would see this and reply I won't be going through this for the first time, but it's been quite a while.. I like the Lial samples a lot. The Bittinger texts seem good too. I think you answered my concern though.. It seems the Lial texts are similar in depth, but the emphasis on showing problem solving techniques vs the lack of explanation in Foerster causes people to view the Foerster texts as perhaps more rigorous/difficult Thank you again

Hello, I've been reading the board for a while,even though this is my first post. I am going to back to school to get a math degree. It's been a while though, so I want to go through the HS math sequence again. I've narrowed down the algebra/precalc choices to Foerster and Lial.. I can't seem to find samples of the Foerster text, but I've seen enough of Lial to know I really like it My only concern is the difficulty... I've read varying opinions on this.. I don't mind if Lial goes more slowly, or goes out of the way to make things understandable, as long as the text also has multi step problems on a par with Foerster. Does Lial prepare one as well as Foerster, and is it as rigourous/challenging? I've pretty much decided on the 2e of Jacobs for Geometry... To give an idea of the type of learner I am, I absolutely hated the 3e of this textbook, and am not a big fan of videotext.