Jump to content

Menu

US high school/APs - more rigorous for humanities than science?


Recommended Posts

I came across this on the website of one of the Cambridge university colleges and wondered what people thought:

 

For US applicants, Queens' expect you to achieve 5 in at least 3 APs and our general feeling is that, while American applicants are suitably prepared for Arts courses [at our college], it's more difficult to acquire the detailed knowledge necessary for Science courses.

 

I'm just curious - I have no axe to grind.

 

Laura

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple of thoughts:

I wonder if the typical US applicant is more into the humanities than the sciences, therefore would be stronger in the humanities?

 

OTOH, I have no experience yet with any of the humanity APs, but the curves on the AP Physics and Chemisty, imo, are very generous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if the science APs are offered less widely, and/or fewer are offered at any one school?

 

Also, many schools offer APUSH as young as 10th, you could then do a history and an English the next two years, and end up with 5 humanities APs, but for science it's rarely offered until 11th, and even then your schedule would typically only have room for one (and only one may be offered to 11th graders); at the most you might be able to do 3 sciences by the end of high school and that only if your school offers that many and your schedule will fit them. Just a guess.

 

This was interesting. If your classroom distribution matches the overall distribution, you're in a very different learning environment than if you're in a prep school where most kids get 5's. Whether it's the quality of the teacher, or what the teacher can reasonably expect the students to accomplish, either way it puts you at a disadvantage over private/prep/magnet type schools where there may be a higher number of kids ready and able to do what it takes to get a 5, and a teacher who can help them get there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know nothing other than my own personal experience. I got a 5 on my AP Bio exam (more than 15 years ago now) and I remember it being fairly easy. I always considered myself more of a humanities person, but I felt the Language and Literature exams were more challenging than the Bio exam. I got a mix of scores on the humanities exams I took (from 3 to 5, iirc, on several exams including American History, European History, English Language, English Literature, and couple others I can't remember, maybe government or something like that). I also got 5's on the Micro and Macro Econ exams. I don't know that that counts as science.

 

Looking back on the selection of AP exams I took, I remember that the way my high school was structured a student could only take one AP science exam (either Chem, Physics, or Bio), unless it was done as an independent study. It was required to take a year of high school science in a certain area before being allowed to take the AP course as a second year's study in that area. So with four years of high school, that allows three years to study Chem, Bio, and Physics each for a year, then only a year left to take a second year of science at the AP level. I don't know if other schools are commonly structured this way, but it might limit science achievement if the assumption is that students will only take one science course per year, while most students have several humanities courses each year (history, some kind of language arts course, etc.).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would take the second half of their sentence separately from the first. The first said you had to have 5 on 3 AP tests. The second half said that American students tend to be stronger in humanities than science. I think that any American student who gets 5 on calclulus/physics/chem APs would be well-prepared to study science. Those are tough subjects and there just aren't going to be that many students taking those tests and scoring 5's. Humanities studies are easier in my opinion (and I always liked both math and English and did well in both; I like to think my assessment is fair). For most of the "strong student" population, it would be easier to get 5's on English and history APs than math and science APs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would take the second half of their sentence separately from the first. The first said you had to have 5 on 3 AP tests. The second half said that American students tend to be stronger in humanities than science. I think that any American student who gets 5 on calclulus/physics/chem APs would be well-prepared to study science. Those are tough subjects and there just aren't going to be that many students taking those tests and scoring 5's. Humanities studies are easier in my opinion (and I always liked both math and English and did well in both; I like to think my assessment is fair). For most of the "strong student" population, it would be easier to get 5's on English and history APs than math and science APs.

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

American students tend to do much better in international comparisons of reading test scores than on math or science.

 

I personally think that has several causes.

 

#1 is that the U.S. tends to have weak science & math curricula. Few U.S. schools use programs as strong in conceptual teaching as the typical high-scoring European or Asian country's.

 

#2 is that it is hard to attract individuals who are strong in math & science into K-12 teaching in the U.S. If someone can make double, triple, or more the typical teacher's salary as an engineer, scientist, financier, etc. how many are really going to forgo that to become a science or math teacher?

 

#3 is that the U.S. mainstream culture tends to place relatively lower value on intellectual achievements and relatively higher value on athletics and other extracurricular activities. Malcolm Gladwell talks a lot in Outliers about the 10,000 hour rule. Far more U.S. parents will have their kids put in those kind of hours in the hopes of becoming a star athlete or entertainer than in winning a math or science competition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Looking back on the selection of AP exams I took, I remember that the way my high school was structured a student could only take one AP science exam (either Chem, Physics, or Bio), unless it was done as an independent study. It was required to take a year of high school science in a certain area before being allowed to take the AP course as a second year's study in that area. So with four years of high school, that allows three years to study Chem, Bio, and Physics each for a year, then only a year left to take a second year of science at the AP level. .

 

Was the college saying that few American students have the opportunity to take three APs in sciences, or was it saying that the science APs were not rigorous enough? I don't know.

 

Simultaneous sciences in European systems have been discussed here before, and would make it much easier to get to the required level. An English student who wanted to study sciences at university would have studied (for example) physics, chemistry and biology for two years before taking the (rough) equivalent of APs in each of them.

 

This difficulty also makes sense of the number of US students who come to Scottish universities (four-year degree, more general courses) rather than English universities (three-year degree, very specialised) if high schools don't offer good opportunities.

 

Laura

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if the typical US applicant to Cambridge is more likely to be a humanities major. After all, humanities majors have more reason to study abroad than a math or science major.

 

 

I think this is it. Frankly, most people choosing to major in math, physics, biology, chemical engineering, etc. aren't choosing Cambridge. Those students are choosing MIT, U of M, Georgia Tech, Cal Tech, UC, Princeton, Rutgers (VERY strong in math), MTU, Colorado Mines, Yale, Stanford, Columbia, Northwestern, Cornell .....big list of internationally known math, science, and engineering departments.

 

I've got four STEM kids and not one of them would I steer towards Cambridge for their majors. Now, if they were going into Literature, history, archaeology, foreign languages, etc. definitely if they could come up with the funds to do so.

 

I don't know much about the AP bio exam. The AP chemistry, physics, and calc exams are nothing to sniff at!

 

Faith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is it. Frankly, most people choosing to major in math, physics, biology, chemical engineering, etc. aren't choosing Cambridge.

Faith

 

Maybe Cambridge doesn't see the strongest students. Which is a shame because US News and World Report puts it top in the world for Physics. And third in the world for biology. And fourth for chemistry.

 

Laura

Edited by Laura Corin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also wonder if part of it is that it's easier to prepare for the science/math tests. It's been decades since I took APs, but I know there was a lot that we did for English and History and music literature that simply wasn't on the test-but was on the official booklet sent out by the college board, and the questions were much more open-ended, so you had to decide whether you should go with Shakespeare or Dickens for this particular question. For Biology and Chemistry, each of the "official" experiments in the booklet had a specific set of questions or an essay question that went with it.There was less grey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cambridge or Oxford probably aren't first in our thoughts because we have many, many strong and affordable (for a well qualified students) schools in the US.

 

I think this is it. Frankly, most people choosing to major in math, physics, biology, chemical engineering, etc. aren't choosing Cambridge. Those students are choosing MIT, U of M, Georgia Tech, Cal Tech, UC, Princeton, Rutgers (VERY strong in math), MTU, Colorado Mines, Yale, Stanford, Columbia, Northwestern, Cornell .....big list of internationally known math, science, and engineering departments.

 

I've got four STEM kids and not one of them would I steer towards Cambridge for their majors. Now, if they were going into Literature, history, archaeology, foreign languages, etc. definitely if they could come up with the funds to do so.

 

I don't know much about the AP bio exam. The AP chemistry, physics, and calc exams are nothing to sniff at!

 

Faith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if the typical US applicant to Cambridge is more likely to be a humanities major. After all, humanities majors have more reason to study abroad than a math or science major.

 

:iagree: The folks I know who have gone to the UK to study have overwhelmingly been interested in literature, economics, and/or philosophy. Those are also the UK degrees that translate best back here in the US, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

is likely to get significant financial aid or scholarships from an MIT or Georgia Tech - that's probably not true of Cambridge.

 

That occurred to me too. I went to a hs that was very strong in both humanities and STEM subjects. I knew a number of people who applied to study abroad - either from the get go or through a program later. With one oddball exception, they were all humanities people.

 

One more question... do they mean that US students who apply for humanities programs may not be prepared to do the general science requirements because they've overspecialized in humanities in high school and avoiding doing more difficult science?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe Cambridge doesn't see the strongest students. Which is a shame because US News and World Report puts it top in the world for Physics. And third in the world for biology. And fourth for chemistry.

 

Laura

 

 

Yes, I think that you are onto something. The reality is studying physics or other STEM disciplines at Cambridge would be an AMAZING experience for U.S. kids, but they have so many world class math and science departments on home turf that they qualify for scholarships and financial aid for, that I would really doubt that Cambridge is being exposed to our best and brightest in these subject areas. U of M is number 14 out of the top 400 uni's internationally and it's a very reasonably priced uni to attend. Add to that mix places such as MIT and engineering schools such as Georgia Tech, Cal Tech, and the like and well, the options for depth in the sciences without the expense and hoop jumping it takes to study internationally are very broad.

 

The U.S. as a general rule, is really falling off in math and science. However, that's a general rule. The STEM majors currently are the ones coming from those top high schools, Thomas Jefferson Academy of Math and Science, Krueger, Seabrook, Cranbrook, West Bloomfield IB, Fountain Valley in Colorado Springs, etc. even Frankenmuth high school 45 minutes from my home is churning out serious science students, etc....we do have schools that are getting the job done. It's just that they aren't widespread...the bulk of the children in the U.S. do not have access to this level of teaching and quality of curriculum.

 

We see America's best when we attend the Team America Rocketry Challenge. These are seriously impressive young minds in math and science. We've witnessed college scouts handing out full ride scholarships to the top performers...MIT, U of Al Honors College, U of M, Embry Riddle, etc. SMART scholarship scouts hang out at the event. We have an N.S.A. executive courting our youngest and he's only 12! So, I can say from experience that our top choice math and science schools, as well as research organizations and Departmemt of Defense associated industries, are actively courting these kids and keeping them "in house", so to speak!

 

Faith

Edited by FaithManor
spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What it actually looks like to me is:

 

A clever and motivated student who can read and understand what they read can make up for a fair amount of missing background knowledge in the humanities courses, by adding some extra reading. Although they'll miss some important allusions, a student who's never read Shakespeare could (hypothetically) move forward through a literature course while adding in reading on the side to make up those gaps. They won't be just stone-cold stopped from reading most other works of literature due to lacking prerequisites.

 

It is extraordinarily difficult, however, for a student who is lacking knowledge in, hypothetically, calculus and physics, to be able to move directly onto a degree which requires a solid knowledge of those subjects. Cambridge's mathematics degree, for example, goes as follows (courses converted to US names):

 

Quarter I -- Linear Algebra, Group Theory, Differential Equations, Intro to Proof (via Number Theory/Set Theory), Mechanics (remedial, if student didn't have those modules at A level)

 

Quarter II -- Analysis I (calculus with proofs), Multivariable Calculus, Probability, Dynamics and Relativity

 

There is NO way someone who was at ALL shaky on any part of high school mathematics through calculus BC could keep up. It couldn't even be fixed by doing a massive quantity of subject reading during the first quarter, as you'd be completely lost in differential equations without calculus knowledge (it'd be like trying to do algebra 2 without understanding algebra 1) and just wouldn't be able to cram it in fast enough. It'd just get worse when you tried to get to analysis and calc 3 in the second quarter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps it's a matter of an international comparison?

 

I imagine that Cambridge sees many students from around the Commonwealth, so the question might be: How do American high school science courses compare to what Indian or Singaporean high schools are doing?

 

The documentary 2 Million Minutes made me think that the work being done by academic-minded kids in some quarters overseas is extremely demanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps it's a matter of an international comparison?

 

I imagine that Cambridge sees many students from around the Commonwealth, so the question might be: How do American high school science courses compare to what Indian or Singaporean high schools are doing?

 

The documentary 2 Million Minutes made me think that the work being done by academic-minded kids in some quarters overseas is extremely demanding.

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

I studied biology (was pre-med for the first 2 years) and my DH studied electrical engineering at Stanford, and the classmates we knew who had attended high school in Asia by and large felt that the STEM classes at Stanford were easier than their high school STEM classes had been. Whereas most of the American kids found them incredibly challenging compared to their high school classes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I think that you are onto something. The reality is studying physics or other STEM disciplines at Cambridge would be an AMAZING experience for U.S. kids, but they have so many world class math and science departments on home turf that they qualify for scholarships and financial aid for, that I would really doubt that Cambridge is being exposed to our best and brightest in these subject areas.

Faith

 

I do think that the structure of science teaching in standard high schools has something to do with it too.

 

Laura

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...