AoPS vs Derek Owens Pre-Algebra...please compare

[Halcyon]

Can anyone compare these two? I have looked at their scope and sequence and watched some of the videos but would love input from people who have tried both. I really like the AoPS narrator-he's funny and enjoyable to watch, and my son and I like his style. Derek Owen's seems more....straightforward? Basic?

 

Thanks for input.

[abbeyej]

Well, Derek comes from a private school teaching background. (He taught at a very well-respected school in our area for a number of years -- and I believe he still teaches some summer courses there...) Most of his classes are based on courses he taught there over the years. So... Very straightforward classes meant for a college prep-type curriculum.

 

He is, indeed, a very straightforward teacher. Sometimes deceptively so, because he does a fabulous job of breaking complex concepts down so that they seem simple. He seems to get through to kids really well.

 

I haven't used AoPS (though I keep saying I'm going to buy some of the books -- I'm just never sure where to start). But my impression is that they just take a very different approach, asking kids to puzzle through and discover concepts for themselves. I think for many kids -- kids who have natural math aptitude or simply those with the perseverance to stick with something even when the answer isn't immediately obvious -- that's fabulous. For some other kids, it might seem excessively wordy or frustrating. *shrug*

 

I like Derek a lot. But I'd also like to spend some time with the AoPS books. I haven't paid much attention to the AoPS videos.

[Halcyon]

Thank you for your insight. I can absolutely see why you say Derek is "straightforward'. That's the perception I get from watching his videos. For my son, my concern is that it's too straightforward. I think he's getting ready for some "play" with his math; I mean, he's been playing all along, but now has more of a solid base to fool around with unusual approaches.

 

The narrator in the AOPS video is very engaging and funny. DS really enjoys Alcumus Pre-A and spent an hour today doing questions from it. But the sequential, easy-to-follow approach of Derek is very appealing. Trying to decide if it's just ME that it appeals to, or my son too. My son really was thrilled today after doing his Alcumus problems. He asked "Can't we do this math everyday?" :glare:

[Halcyon]

You aren't allowed to bring up another curriculum for pre-algebra.

 

I'm not going to look.

 

Nope...not.

 

:D:tongue_smilie:

 

 

:lol: Seriously though, have you SEEN his videos? They seem more elementary than AoPS, and they certainly are clear and engaging...but AoPs...swoon....

 

ACk! DECISIONS!

[wapiti]

The narrator in the AOPS video is very engaging and funny. DS really enjoys Alcumus Pre-A and spent an hour today doing questions from it. But the sequential, easy-to-follow approach of Derek is very appealing. Trying to decide if it's just ME that it appeals to, or my son too. My son really was thrilled today after doing his Alcumus problems. He asked "Can't we do this math everyday?" :glare:

 

Yep, dd loves Alcumus, even more than the book problems. The narrator in the Prealgebra videos is Rusczyk.

 

AoPS uses the discovery approach, in the book. The videos are extra reinforcement, and dd doesn't watch them until after the lesson problems are finished. It sounds like the Owens program may be direct instruction?

[Halcyon]

Yep, dd loves Alcumus, even more than the book problems. The narrator in the Prealgebra videos is Rusczyk.

 

AoPS uses the discovery approach, in the book. The videos are extra reinforcement, and dd doesn't watch them until after the lesson problems are finished. It sounds like the Owens program may be direct instruction?

 

 

Yes, I believe they are. I think I am going to have to order the AoPS pre-a book....:tongue_smilie:

[abbeyej]

...I mean, he's been playing all along, but now has more of a solid base to fool around with unusual approaches....

 

Have you used any of the Math Olympiad practice problem books with him? They aren't teaching books, not really, but there are tons and tons of really creative, varied problems for kids who love "playing" with math.

[Spy Car]

:lurk5:

Edited October 17, 2011 by Spy Car

[Spy Car]

:lol: Seriously though, have you SEEN his videos? They seem more elementary than AoPS, and they certainly are clear and engaging...but AoPs...swoon....

 

ACk! DECISIONS!

 

So I just watched the video on place value, and sometime after 3:28 he says that the Hindus invented the zero in the 4th Century B.C., and "that's almost two and a half thousand years ago."

 

How many years ago??? :D

 

Bill

[freerange]

Perhaps he was meaning to say 4th centuryBC? And although both Indian and Chinese mathematicians were using blank spaces at that time, the'0' symbol first appears around 500 AD, so really it depends what is meant by ' invented zero'

Edited October 17, 2011 by freerange

[Spy Car]

Perhaps he was meaning to say 4th centuryBC?

 

That's what he said, 4th Century B.C., two and a half thousand years ago :tongue_smilie:.

 

And although both Indian and Chinese mathematicians were using blank spaces at that time, the'0' symbol first appears around 500 AD

 

That's not helping :lol:

 

Bill

[freerange]

That's not helping :lol:

 

Bill

I think if we're going to try to be accurate, we should try to be consistent about it, no?:tongue_smilie:

 

And I'm not watching the video, no matter what you say. I need another maths text like Imelda Marcos needs a new pair of shoes.

Edited October 17, 2011 by freerange

[EKS]

I have not seen the AoPS classes or videos.

 

But having reviewed the books extensively and having two kids in Derek Owens' classes, I can say that Mr. Owens' courses are solid, standard math courses, and AoPS is, well, AoPS.

Edited October 17, 2011 by EKS

[Matryoshka]

P the'0' symbol first appears around 500 AD, so really it depends what is meant by ' invented zero'

 

I learned at my friend's ds' birthday party that Brahmagupta invented zero (her ds was having a Brahmagupta obsession and had a Brahmagupta cake and party theme). :tongue_smilie: He was born in 598 AD (Brahmagupta, not friend's ds ;)).

[Halcyon]

So I just watched the video on place value, and sometime after 3:28 he says that the Hindus invented the zero in the 4th Century B.C., and "that's almost two and a half thousand years ago."

 

How many years ago??? :D

 

Bill

 

 

Interesting. Anyway, besides that, what was your take on his videos?

[regentrude]

So I just watched the video on place value, and sometime after 3:28 he says that the Hindus invented the zero in the 4th Century B.C., and "that's almost two and a half thousand years ago."

 

How many years ago??? :D

 

 

:confused:

If you round to half millennia, he is correct. Especially since he said "almost".

2,300-2,400 years ago would be almost two and a half thousand years.

[Spy Car]

Interesting. Anyway, besides that, what was your take on his videos?

 

I liked it (only watched the one). I want to watch the rest with my son.

 

Bill

[KAR120C]

Can anyone compare these two? I have looked at their scope and sequence and watched some of the videos but would love input from people who have tried both. I really like the AoPS narrator-he's funny and enjoyable to watch, and my son and I like his style. Derek Owen's seems more....straightforward? Basic?

 

Thanks for input.

I don't know whether I have enough experience with Derek Owens to make a fair comparison, but I'll give it a shot...

 

I tutored one kid who took Derek Owens' Geometry class, and it was, as another poster has said, a good, solid, college-prep class. His lectures were clear and engaging, and the homework was reasonable. He used Jacobs Geometry and pretty much followed the book. It was a well-done course and he was a good teacher.

 

My own kid has done AoPS -- not Geometry, but Counting & Probability and Number Theory as classes, and he's working through the Problem Solving Volume 1 Book without a class this year. AoPS is above-and-beyond the standard math curriculum, and it's extra-challenging. The teachers that DS has had were excellent, and the class discussion was fast-paced and challenging. It's an exciting way to learn math... but not strictly necessary for a kid who doesn't enjoy that kind of thing.

 

The kid who took Derek Owens' class (this was a few years back) is now in BC Calculus at the local public high school and is doing great. He's well-prepared, hard-working, and knows his stuff. Some of that of course is personality and native ability... but the class certainly didn't hurt him any. That said, if he were my kid I would have loved for him to have taken some AoPS -- Number Theory and C&P in particular -- just because it's such a great bit of math that the standard sequence never gets to. Some bits and pieces found their way into his Precalculus course last year, but not enough IMO.

 

So I think for a kid who is on a standard math track, doing well, enjoying it, and on track to get through a good solid college prep sequence by his or her senior year, Derek Owens is an excellent choice. But if you have a kid who really wants to wallow in the stuff, wants to know all those weird little things about numbers that the rest of us never learned, and thrives on challenge -- or similarly if you have a kid who is way ahead of schedule for the standard sequence and could use some interesting side-topics to spend some time on rather than getting to calculus very early... that's the kid I'd sign up for AoPS classes.

[Spy Car]

:confused:

If you round to half millennia, he is correct. Especially since he said "almost".

2,300-2,400 years ago would be almost two and a half thousand years.

 

If the "zero" was invented in the 4th Century B.C.

 

But it wasn't.

 

Bill

[Beth in SW WA]

:bigear:

[EKS]

If the "zero" was invented in the 4th Century B.C.

 

But it wasn't.

 

Bill

 

The Babylonians had the idea of zero on the 4th century BC, but zero as a placeholder came from India somewhere around 500 AD.

[Spy Car]

The Babylonians had the idea of zero on the 4th century BC, but zero as a placeholder came from India somewhere around 500 AD.

 

He said it was the Hindus. Anyway, what's (close to) a thousand years between friends? :D

 

Bill

[Halcyon]

I don't know whether I have enough experience with Derek Owens to make a fair comparison, but I'll give it a shot...

 

I tutored one kid who took Derek Owens' Geometry class, and it was, as another poster has said, a good, solid, college-prep class. His lectures were clear and engaging, and the homework was reasonable. He used Jacobs Geometry and pretty much followed the book. It was a well-done course and he was a good teacher.

 

My own kid has done AoPS -- not Geometry, but Counting & Probability and Number Theory as classes, and he's working through the Problem Solving Volume 1 Book without a class this year. AoPS is above-and-beyond the standard math curriculum, and it's extra-challenging. The teachers that DS has had were excellent, and the class discussion was fast-paced and challenging. It's an exciting way to learn math... but not strictly necessary for a kid who doesn't enjoy that kind of thing.

 

The kid who took Derek Owens' class (this was a few years back) is now in BC Calculus at the local public high school and is doing great. He's well-prepared, hard-working, and knows his stuff. Some of that of course is personality and native ability... but the class certainly didn't hurt him any. That said, if he were my kid I would have loved for him to have taken some AoPS -- Number Theory and C&P in particular -- just because it's such a great bit of math that the standard sequence never gets to. Some bits and pieces found their way into his Precalculus course last year, but not enough IMO.

 

So I think for a kid who is on a standard math track, doing well, enjoying it, and on track to get through a good solid college prep sequence by his or her senior year, Derek Owens is an excellent choice. But if you have a kid who really wants to wallow in the stuff, wants to know all those weird little things about numbers that the rest of us never learned, and thrives on challenge -- or similarly if you have a kid who is way ahead of schedule for the standard sequence and could use some interesting side-topics to spend some time on rather than getting to calculus very early... that's the kid I'd sign up for AoPS classes.

 

Thank you so much. My 9 yo has been playing on Alcumus, primarily Pre-A topics but some Algebra topics as well, for a while. He is only in SM 4, but we've done a lot of outside work, so he's already familiar with negative numbers, reciprocals, exponents, order of operations, and some multi-variable stuff. He adores Alcumus. He tolerates SM right now, mostly because I want to be sure we've covered all the topics and don't have gaps, but he's chomping at the bit to do more algebra-type stuff.

 

I haven't really thought about his "schedule" for math--I've always assumed there will be more to learn, and I've not been too worried about whether his maturity level will be on par with his math ability. I definitely prefer to go deeper than go faster, which is why we've done so much extra math using different resources.

 

I just don't know. I get the sense on here that AOPS for a 5th grader is too difficult.

[EKS]

He said it was the Hindus. Anyway, what's (close to) a thousand years between friends? :D

 

Bill

 

I guess my point was that he may have confused the two when speaking on the video.

[KAR120C]

I just don't know. I get the sense on here that AOPS for a 5th grader is too difficult.

If he's enjoying it, it's not too difficult. And if it gets too difficult, you can do something else!

[Halcyon]

If he's enjoying it, it's not too difficult. And if it gets too difficult, you can do something else!

 

 

I don't have the books on hand, but would you say that if he can do many of the Pre-A problems in Alcumus now, he will likely be okay come next year to take a stab at the actual course? I don't know if the Alcumus problems are easier or harder than the course problems...or are they linked (meaning, the student is assigned Alcumus problems as part of the course...?):confused: I know I can just buy it and see what happens--I suppose the books have a good resale value if it doesn't work out......

[KAR120C]

I don't have the books on hand, but would you say that if he can do many of the Pre-A problems in Alcumus now, he will likely be okay come next year to take a stab at the actual course? I don't know if the Alcumus problems are easier or harder than the course problems...or are they linked (meaning, the student is assigned Alcumus problems as part of the course...?):confused: I know I can just buy it and see what happens--I suppose the books have a good resale value if it doesn't work out......

I've never tried reselling them, but I expect you could. Having it in your hands though, you can compare the content with the course pace. You might find that he's up for the content but not the breakneck speed their courses can run at... or that it will be fine. I believe you get three weeks to cancel after a class starts if you find yourself in over your head. For Counting & Probability the problems in Alcumus were a little easier than the book, and the book problems were a little easier than the challenge sets (longer-term homework)... and there were Alcumus sections assigned for weekly homework. I don't know if they do that for other classes though -- I don't remember Number Theory having Alcumus assignments.

 

Anyway - take a look! You know your kid better than we do, and if he's enjoying it now I'd say there's at least a reasonable chance that he will continue to enjoy it and rise to the challenge of the class. And if he isn't up to it yet, you have plenty of other good options in the meantime.

[Halcyon]

I've never tried reselling them, but I expect you could. Having it in your hands though, you can compare the content with the course pace. You might find that he's up for the content but not the breakneck speed their courses can run at... or that it will be fine. I believe you get three weeks to cancel after a class starts if you find yourself in over your head. For Counting & Probability the problems in Alcumus were a little easier than the book, and the book problems were a little easier than the challenge sets (longer-term homework)... and there were Alcumus sections assigned for weekly homework. I don't know if they do that for other classes though -- I don't remember Number Theory having Alcumus assignments.

 

Anyway - take a look! You know your kid better than we do, and if he's enjoying it now I'd say there's at least a reasonable chance that he will continue to enjoy it and rise to the challenge of the class. And if he isn't up to it yet, you have plenty of other good options in the meantime.

 

Thank you! I am thinking we would do the Pre-A independently, not in conjunction with an online course, so we could move more slowly if need be. I appreciate your taking the time to respond. :)

[Halcyon]

Okay, so I ordered AoPS Pre-A, and we're going to try and tackle it once we move into SM5, and do both simultaneously. We are also using BCM right now to fill in some holes, so hopefully my son will be ready. If not, we'll go back to just using SM and BCM.

[cloversandlions]

You aren't allowed to bring up another curriculum for pre-algebra.

 

I'm not going to look.

 

Nope...not.

 

:D:tongue_smilie:

 

Okay, well, I am! :D

 

I have the AoPS Pre-A book for my ds, who is very, very bright but not a mathy person at all. The reading in the AoPS book was frustrating to him - he likes his math straightforward, I guess. (I, OTOH, *loved* the AoPS book.) I bought a Prentice Hall Pre-A text to use instead, but it's awful. The "explanations" are not helpful - clearly, they depend on a lot of teaching time before a (non-mathy) student could tackle the problems.

 

I didn't know about the videos on AoPS, though. I'll have ds watch a sample or two from both the AoPS vids and the Derek Owens vids, and see what he thinks.

[Halcyon]

Okay, well, I am! :D

 

I have the AoPS Pre-A book for my ds, who is very, very bright but not a mathy person at all. The reading in the AoPS book was frustrating to him - he likes his math straightforward, I guess. (I, OTOH, *loved* the AoPS book.) I bought a Prentice Hall Pre-A text to use instead, but it's awful. The "explanations" are not helpful - clearly, they depend on a lot of teaching time before a (non-mathy) student could tackle the problems.

 

I didn't know about the videos on AoPS, though. I'll have ds watch a sample or two from both the AoPS vids and the Derek Owens vids, and see what he thinks.

 

What you wrote about the "straightforwardness", or lack thereof,of the AoPS text may be a negative for my son, too. Then again, he likes finding solutions on his own, so who knows. I expect the book to arrive this week-can't wait. I'll post my thoughts when I get it.

[cloversandlions]

What you wrote about the "straightforwardness", or lack thereof,of the AoPS text may be a negative for my son, too. Then again, he likes finding solutions on his own, so who knows. I expect the book to arrive this week-can't wait. I'll post my thoughts when I get it.

 

I suppose what I meant was that the AoPS book is bit like reading a lecture - it can be conversational in that way, which I don't think is a negative, but I think we were both expecting to it to be (read: look) more like a traditional math textbook, complete with different colored words (in ds's other Pre-A book, the words "Example 1" might be red, and in a larger font. The explanation, which would likely be brief, is in regular black text, but other parts of the explanation will be off-set, with arrows pointing to something specific and the font will be yet another color, and smaller. The text in the AoPS is all the same size (with few exceptions), color and font, and only some things are highlighted by enclosing something (an explanation, rule, or problem, for example) in a gray or purple-shaded box. It's visually ...boring, I suppose. There is less white space than in the other Pre-A book, too, or at least it seems that way.

 

I do think that the explanations were great in the AoPS book, but I don't think ds appreciated them. Then again, he's not fond of math, so I think the only math book that would really rock his world would be a closed one. :lol:

[Halcyon]

Just got AoPS Pre-A today-that was FAST!! I am thrilled. I am going to be up late tonight playing. I will post my thoughts tomorrow, if anyone's interested ;)

[Spy Car]

Just got AoPS Pre-A today-that was FAST!! I am thrilled. I am going to be up late tonight playing. I will post my thoughts tomorrow, if anyone's interested ;)

 

I am :001_smile:

 

Bill

[Just Another Jen]

Well? :bigear:

[Tress]

:bigear:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:D

[jennynd]

 

 

I just don't know. I get the sense on here that AOPS for a 5th grader is too difficult.

 

 

I think depends on how you plan to use it. I finally break down and bought it. Went through few chapters. the chaper one has question adding 1+2+3..._99 which is in SM IP 5A. and then DS was working on percent/rate/ratio so I review the AOPS percent/rate/ratio and I didn't get the feeling that it is harder than SM 6 IP or even IP 5. so, My guess, if use as it supposed to, let the kid work on himself without instruction, yes, it might be hard, But if you plan to use as you working with the kids. I think u will be fine

[Halcyon]

Okay, so I have been absolutely in HEAVEN. Heaven, I tell you. Yes, I'm a dork. DH woke up at about 1 am last night, turned over, and said "What ARE you doing?" "Um....reading a book?" "But it's 1am!!" "Um, I know but it's really good...." "Wait, is that a MATH BOOK?" "Um........"

:tongue_smilie:

 

Anyway, here are my thoughts (YMMV: my kid loves math, and will happily do 1-2 hours a day from various sources-we use SM as our spine, but also Olympiad questions, BCM, Alcumus, various living math books, LoF etc).

First Impressions

The book has a great cover, although I wish it was in hardback, just a personal preference. The first section covers Addition, using what seem at first blush to be easy examples. For example, explain why 2+3=3+2 using a model, and other examples demonstrating the commutative and associative properties. There are only a few pages on this, and the book quickly moves to multiplication, where it covers the associative property and using the distributive property to make hard questions easier.

 

Then on to negation, with questions such as "prove that -(-x)=x for all numbers x and explain why (-2)(-3)=(2)(3). Then onto subtraction, reciprocals, division, LCM and other topics typical of a Pre-A program.

 

I think what strikes me as different about AoPS Pre-A is that it's absolutely not about learning formulas, and simply "being able to do" the problems. It's about being able to explain how and why certain things in arithmetic and math are true. So it's deeper and more wordy, but neccesarily: they're not just applying formulas here.

 

By Chapter 2, the book is already deep into exponents, asking such questions as "Is exponentiation associative? commutative?" and Explain why 9^7 / 9^3 = 9^4 and Express 5^17+5^17+5^17+5^17+5^17 as a power of 5. The book moves onto some Challenge Problems which include:

 

1. What is the smallest prime factor of 11^7 + 7^5?

2. If (2^x)(3^y)(7^x)=392, then what is xyz?

3. What is the difference between the greates positive factor of 121 and the least positive factor of 6?

 

They ask these on p. 147 of a 580 page book, just to get a sense of difficulty as you progress. Then on to Fractions, Raising Fractions to Powers and Inequalities. Some of the Inequalities questions are:

 

1. Suppose a and b are positive and a>b. Which is greater 1/a or 1/b?

2. Half of my favorite number is greater thatn the sum of 6 and my favorite number. What are the possible values of my number?

 

Then onto Decimals, Repeating Decimals, Ratios, Proportions, Speed....

 

One Ratio question is: 1) The ratio of losses to wins for Kyle's team is 3 to 2. If the team had played the same number of games but had won twice as many of its games, then what would the ratio of losses to wins have been.

 

Then Squares, Roots, Angles. Area, Parallel Lines and Basic Statistics.

 

_____________________________________

 

Overall, I would say that the material covered (let's say you're looking at the TOC) is similar to other PRe-A programs I've looked at. But the depth of the coverage is very different. AoP Pre-A really forces the student to ask "why is this so?" every step of the way, and seemingly straightforward problems actually reveal themselves to be surprisingly challenging. I think for the right type of student, the type who enjoys math, brain teasers, puzzling things out, trying out new methods, finding "shortcuts", new approaches etc. this will be great. For a student who is more of a "get 'er done" kind of math student, who doesn't plan to go on to high level math classes or a career that requires such math, it may not be necessary. Of course, "necessary" isn't why we'd use it. We'd use it because it's a BLAST. :D There will be no "rushing through" this book, just to say "Done!" It's a book to be savored :)

[Spy Car]

Okay, so I have been absolutely in HEAVEN. Heaven, I tell you. Yes, I'm a dork. DH woke up at about 1 am last night, turned over, and said "What ARE you doing?" "Um....reading a book?" "But it's 1am!!" "Um, I know but it's really good...." "Wait, is that a MATH BOOK?" "Um........"

:tongue_smilie:

 

Anyway, here are my thoughts (YMMV: my kid loves math, and will happily do 1-2 hours a day from various sources-we use SM as our spine, but also Olympiad questions, BCM, Alcumus, various living math books, LoF etc).

First Impressions

The book has a great cover, although I wish it was in hardback, just a personal preference. The first section covers Addition, using what seem at first blush to be easy examples. For example, explain why 2+3=3+2 using a model, and other examples demonstrating the commutative and associative properties. There are only a few pages on this, and the book quickly moves to multiplication, where it covers the associative property and using the distributive property to make hard questions easier.

 

Then on to negation, with questions such as "prove that -(-x)=x for all numbers x and explain why (-2)(-3)=(2)(3). Then onto subtraction, reciprocals, division, LCM and other topics typical of a Pre-A program.

 

I think what strikes me as different about AoPS Pre-A is that it's absolutely not about learning formulas, and simply "being able to do" the problems. It's about being able to explain how and why certain things in arithmetic and math are true. So it's deeper and more wordy, but neccesarily: they're not just applying formulas here.

 

By Chapter 2, the book is already deep into exponents, asking such questions as "Is exponentiation associative? commutative?" and Explain why 9^7 / 9^3 = 9^4 and Express 5^17+5^17+5^17+5^17+5^17 as a power of 5. The book moves onto some Challenge Problems which include:

 

1. What is the smallest prime factor of 11^7 + 7^5?

2. If (2^x)(3^y)(7^x)=392, then what is xyz?

3. What is the difference between the greates positive factor of 121 and the least positive factor of 6?

 

They ask these on p. 147 of a 580 page book, just to get a sense of difficulty as you progress. Then on to Fractions, Raising Fractions to Powers and Inequalities. Some of the Inequalities questions are:

 

1. Suppose a and b are positive and a>b. Which is greater 1/a or 1/b?

2. Half of my favorite number is greater thatn the sum of 6 and my favorite number. What are the possible values of my number?

 

Then onto Decimals, Repeating Decimals, Ratios, Proportions, Speed....

 

One Ratio question is: 1) The ratio of losses to wins for Kyle's team is 3 to 2. If the team had played the same number of games but had won twice as many of its games, then what would the ratio of losses to wins have been.

 

Then Squares, Roots, Angles. Area, Parallel Lines and Basic Statistics.

 

_____________________________________

 

Overall, I would say that the material covered (let's say you're looking at the TOC) is similar to other PRe-A programs I've looked at. But the depth of the coverage is very different. AoP Pre-A really forces the student to ask "why is this so?" every step of the way, and seemingly straightforward problems actually reveal themselves to be surprisingly challenging. I think for the right type of student, the type who enjoys math, brain teasers, puzzling things out, trying out new methods, finding "shortcuts", new approaches etc. this will be great. For a student who is more of a "get 'er done" kind of math student, who doesn't plan to go on to high level math classes or a career that requires such math, it may not be necessary. Of course, "necessary" isn't why we'd use it. We'd use it because it's a BLAST. :D There will be no "rushing through" this book, just to say "Done!" It's a book to be savored :)

 

Guess what I'm getting for Christmas?! :D

 

I would have ordered it months ago, but I'm holding out for a "role-model" moment. My excitement continues to build.

 

Thank you.

 

Bill

[boscopup]

Halcyon, that is an excellent review! Thank you! :D

 

I have it on my curriculum list for things to buy next year, not for DS, but for ME. ;) DS still has another year before prealgebra, most likely, and this book may not fit him (though we'll give it a try), but I figure it will at least be good teacher training, if nothing else. If I go through the book and fully understand WHY, then I can better teach my kid. And if he ends up needing a get 'er done program, I can add a bit more why into it. Of course, hopefully he'll enjoy the book. I can't tell now what he'll be like in 2 years. My biggest concern is that he tends to be a lot like me, and I didn't like geometry because of the proofs. I could do them (aced the tests, despite not doing my homework), but I didn't enjoy the class. I loved algebra and calculus and differential equations and linear algebra. Just hated geometry. But perhaps that was because I'd never been made to work at a challenge, and so I didn't enjoy it as much when it did come up? I don't know. And of course, while DS learns a lot like me in some respects, he also still has his father in him too, and his father would have been all over AoPS if he'd had the opportunity. So perhaps DS will like it and do well with it anyway. He does enjoy PCM and Singapore IP/CWP. I look forward to getting this book in the spring and working through it. I plan to have DS go all the way through MM6B before starting it. He's young enough as it is, and stamina will be an issue if I start it any earlier, I think!