Is AoPS really for advanced math kids?

[Garga]

My DS11 is pretty normal about math. He's not crazy advanced but he's not slow either. He pretty easily grasps new concepts.

 

Is AoPS for kids who are really awesome at math? The website says it's designed for kids who are advanced in math. Should I believe them?

 

We use MUS and my guy understands the concepts without much effort at all. He tends to make sloppy mistakes, but he understands the concepts easily. Do we stick with a good thing and add in Jousting Armadillos, or do we leave MUS and head to AoPS which sounds like it is pretty difficult. Is it really difficult?

[Alte Veste Academy]

People may disagree, but I think that more than being for kids who are great at math specifically, AoPS is for puzzlers and problem-solvers, kids who are willing and able to persevere through the ups and downs of difficult problems, kids who gain satisfaction from the process and dislike being taught in favor of self-teaching. Aside from that, yes it helps for the kid to be naturally mathy, of course, because absolutely, it is difficult!

[abba12]

I think its less for gifted kids per se, but rather for self motivated kids who enjoy challenge. My husband is not gifted in math but likes the idea of aops for some remedial math for himself

[...................]

I think it's both.  I mean, your child would have to have a fairly high IQ just to make it a possibility.  Then, you both need the patience and desire to work through puzzles and problems on a daily basis, while not always arriving at a the answer before it's time to put the book away for the day.  I think it's also more for self-teachers. 

[Deee]

I wouldn't touch AoPS for my DS13.  He's quite capable with maths but he doesn't enjoy it.  He doesn't want maths problems to solve.  His high IQ and problem solving abilities are far better directed towards building his own PC and motorising bikes. He has a very low tolerance for problems outside his areas of interest.  So we use MEP and he does just fine.  I'm not sure AoPS would have been my thing either, yet I loved maths and was very good at it. I learn best from studying other people's models. My husband, on the other hand, went to school thinking he was very ordinary, but came into his own as a mature aged uni student.  He would have thrived with AoPS - he loves problem solving and retains lots of information that way.  

D

[Momling]

My 11 yr old DD is really bright and does great at math, but once I saw the AOPS pre-algebra book in person, I realized it wouldn't work for her. She learns math quickly, but she takes no pleasure in it. She gets annoyed by being asked to think too much. She doesn't mind problem solving, but talking or thinking about why math works is not interesting for her. We do like the videos though.

[lewelma]

AoPS is all about discovering concepts for yourself.  So if you have a more direct learner, AoPS will probably be a fail.

 

Also, although an above-average, highly motivated and interested student could do the standard course, if you included the challengers at the end of each chapter, your child would probably need to be gifted in math.  They are really really hard.

 

I will also say the the Intermediate Number Theory class is currently kicking our combined butts.  And my child is gifted in math.

 

Ruth in NZ

[....]

AoPS is all about discovering concepts for yourself.  So if you have a more direct learner, AoPS will probably be a fail.

 

 

:iagree:   My opinion (from the just using the pre algebra book) is that it's for kids who prefer discovery math and kids who are whole-to-parts learners.  I don't even feel like it's just for kids who are gifted in math.  More like kids with a certain learning style or way of thinking.  

[....]

Tress convinced me to try AoPS, even if I would skip the challenge problems, dd would get a solid foundation and UNDERSTANDING.

 

 

My son, who always seemed to have some kind of learning issue associated with math...and who tried a number of different math programs when he was little (and cried with all of them)...is actually able to solve problems from the pre algebra book (without crying).  I really think it is a whole-to-parts learning issue like I posted earlier.  I wish I would've understood this stuff a few years ago.

 

Also, about the challenge problems.  WE (as parents both with degrees in science) can't even answer some of the challenge problems.   :D

[8filltheheart]

AoPS is nothing like MUS. I would guess you couldn't get much further apart in 2 programs. Whereas in MUS everything is laid out, taught directly, and replicated, in AoPS, the student is not taught details. Students prove why the equations work by deriving them. It is essentially proof based math.

 

I have never seen the pre-alg program. But based on the upper level books (intermediate through cal), i do not agree that they are only for kids that like to puzzle through math and are determined to solve the problems. The problems are hard and the books cover concepts typically not seen in high school. It takes very strong math students to actually solve the problems and complete the series. Gifted? That I can't answer. But students that represent that rare math student? Yes.

 

And I am about the only poster who says this, so take it fwiw......I do not think AOPS is appropriate or even close to being necessary for the vast majority of students. WTM forums are a unique mix of homeschoolers who really value education and tend to have above avg kids. I have ds that thrived with AoPS. He isn't your typical student. I have a dd that is actually a much stronger student than him on the whole, but she does not wnt to commit the time to AoPS. She witnessed the amt of time and effort that it took her brother and she knows she is capable of doing it, but has weighed the time cost against her other interest and has come down against using AoPS.

 

I don't know how long it takes for pre-alg. But, ds spent probably 10-15 hrs per week on AoPS and that does not count the time he spent puzzling through problems while running or rock climbing, etc. he loves to think through complicated problems and refuses to succumb to giving in. He thrives on the challenge of being wrong and starting over until he gets it right. And trust me.....there were problems that he probably spent over 10 hrs on just that one problem alone bc his approach was wrong and he would have to keep starting over. If you have a tenacious kid that loves math like that......AoPS will be a blessing for them. They will love it. However, I think it gives a completely inaccurate representation of AoPS on the whole (as in the complete series) to think it is simply a different teaching style for typical high school math and that all math programs teach the same things about math. The challenge problems are not typical at all. Simply put.....they are hard and no, not all kids are going to be able to solve them.

 

And that is my very non-PC opinion. :)

[....]

I don't know how long it takes for pre-alg. But, ds spent probably 10-15 hrs per week on AoPS and that does not count the time he spent puzzling through problems while running or rock climbing, etc. he loves to think through complicated problems and refuses to succumb to giving in. 

 

We only spend about an hour a day on math (and we're in the pre algebra book).  At what point in the AOPS program did your son start spending 10-15 hrs a week on AOPS?  That is a huge time commitment (2-3 hours a day?).  We're ready to buy the Intro to Algebra book and that will definitely scare us away.    

[8filltheheart]

We only spend about an hour a day on math (and we're in the pre algebra book). At what point in the AOPS program did your son start spending 10-15 hrs a week on AOPS? That is a huge time commitment (2-3 hours a day?). We're ready to buy the Intro to Algebra book and that will definitely scare us away.

Ds didn't start AoPS until after he had already completed alg 2. He started in their intermediate alg bk when he was in 8th grade. It is why my posts focus on the upper bks. My dd did complete the alg 1 course w/o any struggles or much time commitment. Her experience is not typical, nor a fair representation of AoPS, though, bc she took the class in 7th grade after already having completed MUS's alg 1 and geo and Foerster's alg 1. So,when she has rejected AoPS, she does know first hand how it teaches. She isn't a fan and does not want to commit the time for the upper level books.

 

What I posted is an accurate representation of ds's experience. I posted it bc I think the love for AoPS is very real (it was for my ds). But I also think that that love for the kids that it is a match for should be tempered by the reality of what the program requires when sharing info about it.

 

(Eta: I just read Sparky/'s post which posted while I was typing......my dd is the same way. Not a hater of AoPS, but she wants to be taught and then prove vs deriving every proof. Honestly, for her, it is more a lazy factor than anything else.....BUT......guess what? She doesn't have to be a mathematician. She doesn't get a thrill from it like her brother. And if they don't enjoy it, math will simply be a chore to check off vs. what it is for kids who do get a thrill from it. )

[....]

I know it would have taken us 2 years to get through A1 had we stuck with it. 

 

OK, that makes sense.  This is our 2nd year in the pre algebra book, but I figured it was because my daughter is really young.  So, if we're not spending 2 hours a day on the text, then it does take twice as long.  Hmmm...  Darn its!  And here I thought I had algebra all figured out!  

[snowbeltmom]

My oldest's experience mirrors that of 8's son.  However, both our of kids took the online classes.  I don't think the online classes are a good fit for kids that do not want to devote that much time to math each day - the pace is brutal. 

 

My two younger kids also like AoPS, but they are not taking the online classes because the pace of the classes is too fast and they don't want to devote 2 -3 hours a day to math. (My daughter did take both pre-algebra classes, but that pace is much more gentle.) 

 

ETA: My younger two also work on math year round.

[Garga]

Ok then. It's not for us. My son loves his Perplexor puzzles but he hates when he has to puzzle through his math. If he can't get the word problem right away he has no desire to persevere.

 

Sounds like an awesome program for kids who love to figure out the puzzles in math. We will stick with our straighforward MUS and add in a little Jousting Armadillos and work through it together.

 

Thank you to everyone who replied.

[Kathleen.]

Do you have to start with the Pre-a by AoPS before the Intro to Alg? Are other pre-aa books suffifient? I've read differing opinions on the Pre-a book and I'm quite sure about it.

[snowbeltmom]

Do you have to start with the Pre-a by AoPS before the Intro to Alg? Are other pre-aa books suffifient? I've read differing opinions on the Pre-a book and I'm quite sure about it.

 

You do not have to start with the pre-algebra book.  The book wasn't even out when my two boys started with AoPS.

 

[Luckymama]

We only spend about an hour a day on math (and we're in the pre algebra book). At what point in the AOPS program did your son start spending 10-15 hrs a week on AOPS? That is a huge time commitment (2-3 hours a day?). We're ready to buy the Intro to Algebra book and that will definitely scare us away.

Dd has used AoPS PreAlgebra, Intro to Algebra, Intro to Counting and Probability, Geometry, and is now one-third of the way through Intermediate Algebra (she's also halfway through Intro to Number Theory but that's been set aside until after FLL and Science Olympiad season).

 

She has used the books only for all but Geometry. She spent 1.5 hours a day, including some weekend days, on that online class. For the very first time in her life she was forced to work hard. She loved it, including those class problem sets that took three hours (she did abandon some problems----we have since come across several in past AMC 12 exams!). The class time commitment is quite high as the student should be familiar with the assigned reading and corresponding book problems before the class.

 

Dd spends 45-60 minutes on math each day. She does all the boxed problems as I sit next to her, asking leading questions should she get stuck (sort of a Socratic method). She then completes the end-of-section exercises one-by-one, checking each as she goes. The review and challenge problems take her 2-3 days to get through.

 

She is a very strong math student. She prefers whole-to-parts learning in all subjects. She is usually doggedly persistent, though she does have her share of cranky, flop-on-the-table, life-is-too-difficult days like any young teenager :lol:

[Kathleen.]

I don't want to miss out on anything, but I have a few Pre-a books from when my siblings and I were in school. My kids are a few years off, but I definitely think AoPS would fit my younger one that loves to find her own ways to solve math problems - dislikes any traditional approach. My older one likes math but prefers more handholding.

[....]

She has used the books only for all but Geometry. She spent 1.5 hours a day, including some weekend days, on that online class. 

 

That sounds pretty reasonable to me.  That would be like if they took a class at school and then had some homework for the evening.  I'm trying to think back to high school and that's probably about how much time we spent on math, too.  One hour class and then 15-30 minutes of homework.  I would be ok with my kids spending 1.5 hrs per day on math, but three hours...they would burn out.  

[regentrude]

Do you have to start with the Pre-a by AoPS before the Intro to Alg? Are other pre-aa books suffifient? I've read differing opinions on the Pre-a book and I'm quite sure about it.

 

No, you do not need to start with AoPS prealgebra. Mine went from Saxon 8/7 (which they hated) right into AoPS Intro to Algebra - the pre-A book was not out yet.

[regentrude]

We only spend about an hour a day on math (and we're in the pre algebra book).  At what point in the AOPS program did your son start spending 10-15 hrs a week on AOPS?  That is a huge time commitment (2-3 hours a day?).  We're ready to buy the Intro to Algebra book and that will definitely scare us away.    

 

There is no reason to spend more than an hour a day on math. My DD did math in binges, sometimes 2-3 hours one day, none the next. My DS has a  definite limit and can not focus for longer than 1 hour; if he goes longer, he begins to make stupid mistakes.

DD worked through the entire Intro to Algebra book in one year plus summer, whereas DS took two years (and an additional semester for a detour of C&P). Some kids want to spend more time on math - others don't.

Math is not a race.

 

Now, the online courses do move at breakneck speed and the student will have to work more if he chooses to take the classes.

 

Also, please keep in mind that Intro to Algebra covers much more tan a typical algebra 1 course; the alg 1 part is ch. 1-13 or 14, the rest of the material is covered in algebra 2. So, taking more than one year is quite reasonable.

We have used Intro to A, Geo, Intermediate A, Precalc, Calc and Intro to C&P.

[8filltheheart]

That sounds pretty reasonable to me. That would be like if they took a class at school and then had some homework for the evening. I'm trying to think back to high school and that's probably about how much time we spent on math, too. One hour class and then 15-30 minutes of homework. I would be ok with my kids spending 1.5 hrs per day on math, but three hours...they would burn out.

I just want to point out that the people responding to this thread that have kids that are actively using or have used AoPS and the amt of time spent are not representative of your avg math student. It is why I think it is incredibly difficult to share an honest assessment of AoPS. The avg student in the US completes alg in 9th, geometry in 10th, alg 2 in 11th, and pre-cal in 12th. The advanced path moves that down 1 yr and has calculus in 12th. That is not what you see here. Multivariable cal is cal 3 and is often not taken until the sophomore yr in college. My ds took it in 11th grade. There is no way to accurately gauge how much time it is going to take based on the responses people post. [eta: There is no way to gauge bc every student's experience is going to be different and how easily they solve or don't solve is not a simple answer. AoPS problems are just not like student taught x,y,z and student completes problems on x,y,z. They have to think through the process and prove it. What might take 1student 1 hr might take another 3. Also, none of us have used AoPS the same way. Online, self-teaching, teaching....those are just parts of the scenario.]

 

Just from the few responses that are beyond alg....

11th grade son: Multivariable calc,

DD16-Multivariable calculus

DS14. AoPS Geometry

dd13: 8th grader--Dd has used AoPS PreAlgebra, Intro to Algebra, Intro to Counting and Probability, Geometry, and is now one-third of the way through Intermediate Algebra (she's also halfway through Intro to Number Theory

ds 12th grade--has complete multivariable cal, diffEQ, and linear alg

[Luckymama]

I just want to point out that the people responding to this thread that have kids that are actively using or have used AoPS and the amt of time spent are not representative of your avg math student. It is why I think it is incredibly difficult to share an honest assessment of AoPS. The avg student in the US completes alg in 9th, geometry in 10th, alg 2 in 11th, and pre-cal in 12th. The advanced path moves that down 1 yr and has calculus in 12th. That is not what you see here. Multivariable cal is cal 3 and is often not taken until the sophomore yr in college. My ds took it in 11th grade. There is no way to accurately gauge how much time it is going to take based on the responses people post.

 

Yes, of course.

 

But if I hadn't read AoPS threads when dd was a brand-new homeschooler (we started in fifth grade and bumbled around w math that year--she started w AoPS PreAlgebra in sixth), I never would have tried it with dd. I always post dd's experience with the caveat that she is a very strong math student who moves quickly. I expect there is at least one parent out there in the exact position I was a few years ago.

[8filltheheart]

Yes, of course.

 

But if I hadn't read AoPS threads when dd was a brand-new homeschooler (we started in fifth grade and bumbled around w math that year--she started w AoPS PreAlgebra in sixth), I never would have tried it with dd. I always post dd's experience with the caveat that she is a very strong math student who moves quickly. I expect there is at least one parent out there in the exact position I was a few years ago.

Definitely. I don't want to discourage anyone from using AoPS. But latching on to time required to do the math is NOT the way I would recommend going about evaluating the program's appropriateness or fit. It is far more complicated than if it takes less than 2 hrs/day.

[wapiti]

Is it really difficult?

 

It is fairly difficult.  The lesson problems may require a different depth of thinking than a more traditional text.  The exercises often do as well.  As the PPs said, the challenge problems are clearly very difficult, as one might expect.  The on-line classes also have a problem set that includes problems on par with the challenge problems (or even harder).  With my oldest, who used the Prealgebra when it first came out, I started out assigning a few challenge problems at the end of each chapter but in later chapters I ended up waiting to do so until she had been through all the chapters, as part of a big review.  With the extra time and perspective, the (few) challenge problems I assigned from each chapter were much more doable.  She took the on-line class for the second half of Prealgebra but the rest of our experience has been only with the texts (my dd and ds used Prealgebra, that ds is now using Intro to Alg, and another ds is now using the Prealgebra).

 

Overall, I do think there is an element of thinking style involved in the "fit" question, though I also wonder how much a person who, for example, usually uses their sequential strengths for math can develop more spatial thinking through use (my kids are the opposite, great with the spatial thinking, less great with sequential, which is why the way the AoPS lessons are laid out has been helpful for them most of the time).

 

Ok then. It's not for us. My son loves his Perplexor puzzles but he hates when he has to puzzle through his math. If he can't get the word problem right away he has no desire to persevere.

 

This definitely describes at least one of my kids, who is currently in AoPS prealgebra.  My goal is to get him accustomed to having to puzzle through math and AoPS is my tool.  He has other issues going on (to make a long story short, there are sleep/irritability and anxiety/perfectionism issues in the mix and we are afterschooling so time and energy are short to begin with), so this has been very tricky.  I take a delicate approach - I don't just hand him the book and expect complete independence with the lesson problems.  We usually do them together socratically.  I do, however, make him complete the exercises independently.  I have seen some growth, and what's really fun to see is the satisfaction that he gets from solving a problem correctly after having struggled with it.  He really needs to put his brain to work in order to do that.  I try to break up the amount I ask him to do in a single sitting.  (Note, he's a very bright kid who would skate through school using only the two little cells in the back corner of his brain if he could get away with it.)

 

I have noticed that when this ds learns something more traditionally (procedurally), he can crank out the plug-and-chug problems with no difficulty, BUT he tends to forget (e.g., this happened when his teacher assigned Key to Fractions last year).  When he learns a concept via harder problems in AoPS, it's so much easier for him to remember; it is more "his."

 

When my dd was younger, she would freak out when she didn't immediately know how to solve a problem.  AoPS prealgebra was a big challenge for her but her growth was tremendous.  That issue, the wanting to know immediately how to solve a problem, has come back a little bit in school, where she is using a relatively traditional but somewhat challenging text for algebra 1 (Prentice Hall).  I am pleased that she understands the concepts that she learned in the Prealgebra text so well - recently I posted that I was afraid she had forgotten it all, but it was still in there, deep down inside, LOL - when her class got to exponents, she knew it all so well that the teacher told her to stop raising her hand to answer.  What I don't like about her class at school is that the more traditional approach starts to confuse her sometimes.  She does so much better when she just goes back to what she knows the concept to be and then works from there.

 

There are so many factors that affect our experience with these books such that it is difficult to generalize that to someone else's student.  Age is a big one - I think if my kids were older, how we use these texts might be different.  Math talent is another - my kids are pretty math-talented but not up to the same extent as some of the other posters here.  I'd be reluctant to try this with an "average" math student unless there was some other unique factor, such as a suspected hidden talent or known affinity for concepts in spite of some other weakness.  (The obvious caveat is that I can only guess what it is like to teach some other type of student because my kids are very similar to each other.)  A third factor is enthusiasm - my kids don't have as much of that as the kids of other posters here who breathe math (well, it varies).  Also, I'm very involved on a lesson-by-lesson basis - there are a few places I have brought in extra practice or more broken-down lessons from other sources or otherwise mix things up a bit with other texts.  Sometimes I have my own little freak-out and think we need to switch, and we've been known to take breaks, but we always come back.  

 

I love AoPS, though like any program, it is still just a tool.  There are other good tools out there; find the one that fits or put different ones together to get whatever best fits your student's needs. Sorry I keep editing to add on more here, but I keep seeing something I've written that I'd like to be a little more clear about.  While there are multiple benefits to using AoPS, there's more than one way to skin that cat.  For example, suppose the student's horizons could be expanded considerably with more problem solving, but they have a strong preference for more traditional instruction - in that case, maybe the student might take one of the on-line problem-solving courses or use the Problem Solving books when the time is right or try one of the "extra" discrete math texts (counting and probability or number theory) rather than use the texts for their regular math class.

 

I may be the odd one out in that so far, I think I prefer the Prealgebra text to the Intro to Algebra though I'm not quite sure why yet... it could be that I simply like those topics better.

[boscopup]

Is AoPS for kids who are really awesome at math? The website says it's designed for kids who are advanced in math. Should I believe them?

 

Yes. It goes beyond what traditional math texts teach, and it includes extensive problem solving application. Most children do not need this level of difficulty.

 

 

 

Is it really difficult?

 

 

Yes. Going through the Prealgebra book myself (I'm an Electrical Engineer, easily got a 5 on the AP BC Calculus exam, got easy A's in Calc 3, Differential Equations, and Linear Algebra in college - ie, I'm reasonably mathy), I got some problems wrong - solving them incorrectly, not just making silly errors. I could go through any other Prealgebra book and probably do everything correctly, with the exception of occasional silly errors. :)

 

[redsquirrel]

I don't know if I would consider my son gifted in math, and he wasn't much for puzzles, but he has done very well with AoPS.

 

My son did very well with SM. I was often frustrated because he breezed through. I often felt like I wasn't teaching him anything and he sometimes acted like I was just in the way. He also wanted nothing to do with the bar diagrams, preferring to work with the numerals. It came very easily to him and I felt like he hadn't been challenged. Of course there were the occasional hard day, but for the most part he didn't break a sweat. Weirdly enough, the most difficult thing for him was memorizing his multiplication tables. Getting those automatic was a total pain. But, timez attack did the trick and after about three days of that it was done.

 

We decided to try AoPS because my son liked the videos. Really, that was the entire reason, lol. We signed him up for the online class, the most we have ever paid for a school thing. It was a great decision. My dh took over math because he looooves the AoPS program. He often stated he wishes he had it when he was that age. It just works for him. The discovery method does not come naturally to my son. The Pre-A class was a huge challenge for him. But, my dh sat with him and kept him focused. He would say things like "remember when you had a problem like this in your class? What did your teacher say?" Little things like that helped my son to not get too frustrated and keep working.

 

What I am trying to say (and doing poorly) is that he grew into it. It wasn't like he suddenly found the right program for him, but he first had to learn some skills, like mastering his frustration, and coping when the answer doesn't come easily. It was a transition and a process with good weeks and hard weeks. But he did learn those things and he actually did really well in the pre-A class, much better than we hoped for. It took a lot of time from my DH, but he was happy to do it. I don't think ds would have managed it if I was just handing him the book. He is the sort of person who likes having someone to talk through a problem with. He likes to be able to bounce ideas off dh and dh lets him make mistakes and is able to point out what he did right and where he might have gone wrong.

 

We stuck with it for Algebra, but he only using the book, not the online class. It is still something that dh and ds do together. It is hard work, but it has been totally worth it. He does the challenge problems, he is staying on track to be done with Albegra 1 this school year. I never would have considered him to be an AoPS kid, but he has grown and learned more than I thought possible.

 

I just want to put this out there because I was really scared to let him try AoPS. I didn't (and still don't) think of my son as gifted or even one who likes math, but it has been a good fit. I would say that my son was competent at math but did not enjoy it. He certainly didn't want to work very hard at it. But with the right support he has really done well.

 

[Chrysalis Academy]

Well, as usual, this thread clears things up! NOT!  :smilielol5:

[redsquirrel]

I should add that my younger son is the textbook AoPS discovery math kid. I know what that looks like now. He's only in third grade but he is a different math animal. He is my kid who fights and pouts when I pull out SM, but brightens up and actually dances about when BA comes out. He sees where the BA lessons are going before I have. He makes connections, sees patterns all over the place. He is my strategy kid.

 

My older boy needed the challenge of AoPS and my husband has been up to making it work. DH thinks with younger boy we'll just have to get out of the way.

[lewelma]

I have asked a similar question on the accellerated board 'using AoPS with average math students'  Here was my question from the first post:

 

x-post from using AoPS with average math students:

 

Why would you even consider it?

This might be really rude (but I hope it is not). I am sure you have seen the numerous questions about AoPS, some even for kids that don't like math. I am concerned that those of us who have used it are not being forthright enough and are not discouraging its use for non-gifted math students. Too much challenge is just as harmful as too little. We all seem to step so carefully, and I am guessing that there will be a lot of seriously frustrated students and a lot of money wasted.

I don't know about the rest of AoPS users but my ds(11) is hg and **adores** math -- and he finds Intro Algebra a perfect level of challenge even moving at only 1/2 speed. How in the world will all these other students actually use the program?

Just curious. Really, really curious.
---------

 

 

I will say that I was very surprised how many people thought it was really worth fighting for.  And there was a discussion as to how to help more average students build up to the AoPS challenge.  It was a really interesting conversation.

 

Ruth in NZ

[Embassy]

I'm using it with a kid who is slightly advanced in math.  He is hg, but math is not his thing even though he plans a future STEM career.  As a perfectionist, he really needs lot of practice struggling through difficult problems. He needs to be okay with getting something wrong.  AOPS is a great tool for that.  It is a struggle and we typically do it together, but he is seeing how much he is learning.  I am very happy we went with it.  

[NASDAQ]

Depends on the kid, but I think MUS to AoPS is going to be a pretty big adjustment.

[EndOfOrdinary]

Ok then. It's not for us. My son loves his Perplexor puzzles but he hates when he has to puzzle through his math. If he can't get the word problem right away he has no desire to persevere.

 

Sounds like an awesome program for kids who love to figure out the puzzles in math. We will stick with our straighforward MUS and add in a little Jousting Armadillos and work through it together.

 

Thank you to everyone who replied.

We chose the curriculum just for the reason you mentioned above. My son tended to meltdown/panic when he didn't know the answer right away. If you didn't tell him how to do it, he didn't want to. He flat out can't do that with AoPS. It wasn't as much about math, as having to think for a bit. The math of the program isn't difficult; it is the critical thinking that is difficult.

 

Once he finally got that he had to forcibly slow down and step his way through the process, revise and go again, he took off. It has curbed his protectionism quite considerably.

[8filltheheart]

The math of the program isn't difficult; it is the critical thinking that is difficult.

 

I wish I was familiar with the pre-alg book. But my dd's experience with the alg bk does resemble this remark. As I said up thread, it is hard for me to give a fair assessment of the alg book bc she was rock solid in alg when she completed the AoPS book. But, no, she didn't find the material all that difficult.

 

But, as far as the upper level books, I am going to disagree completely. I haven't done the math (couldn't if I wanted to) but knowing my kids and watching my ds, there is no way that I would say that the math in AoPS isn't difficult. The problems are significantly more difficult than standard textbook problems.

 

From my observations, It is not just about the approach. It is not just about the problem solving. The math is just dang hard.

[regentrude]

But, as far as the upper level books, I am going to disagree completely. I haven't done the math (couldn't if I wanted to) but knowing my kids and watching my ds, there is no way that I would say that the math in AoPS isn't difficult. The problems are significantly more difficult than standard textbook problems.

 

From my observations, It is not just about the approach. It is not just about the problem solving. The math is just dang hard.

 

I think we may have a semantics issue here: how does one separate "the math is hard" from "the problems are hard"?

I do not think this is possible. What is "the math", isolated from the problems?

In the geometry text, for example, most problems could be solved by very basic principles that, in themselves, were rather straightforward. The difficulty that caused some problems to take several hours was not that there were some obscure difficult theorems one had to remember, but rather that one had to find out how exactly to use a sequence of very simple concepts to find a solution for the problem. The exact same basic principles are covered in a traditional mainstream geometry text - it's just that this text would never ask for such a complex application.

 

Same with the other texts. The trigonometric functions are the same; since and cosine are not more difficult themselves. but AoPS aks you to do a lot more with them.

 

I like the characterization of AoPS I read once on these boards (but can not recall the author):

xyz(traditiona) program gives you the nuts and bolts. AoPS gives you the nuts and bolts and then asks you to build the TajMahal with them.

[texasmama]

From my perspective, the math in AoPS is difficult.  My boys are both strong in math, and they have struggled mostly with the pace.  This is a FAST moving curriculum.  There is not (for us) the repetition needed in order to cement the concepts in some chapters, which is why we reached a point in Chapter 5 in which the boys needed to spend several weeks in Keys to Algebra and Zaccaro.  I don't mind doing that.  Some people might not want to do that.  Some people's kids might not need to do that.  My boys have very different tolerance for struggling with the math, which also makes our situation interesting.  :)

 

Math is not my strong suit at all so this has been interesting.  :)  My experience is that AoPS teaches a new concept, then quickly combines it with several other concepts.  This is what caused the bog down in Chapter 5 for both of my boys.  Once we practiced the concepts with Keys to Algebra (very procedural with plenty of drill) and Zaccaro (very cartoon-ish and narrative with a clever approach which leads to remembering concepts), they were able to be successful with Chapter 5 in AoPS.    I can keep up with the fast pace and the combining of several concepts at once, but my boys are still learning to do this.  Order of Operations is one which still trips them up at times, for instance.  But when you have a variable, fractions, negative numbers and need to remember to apply Order of Operations and the Distributive Property all at once, they sometimes struggle.  They needed the extra practice and drill that the other programs provide.

 

We are over halfway through our school year, and we are about a third of the way through our AoPS pre-A book.  We will be working this summer heavily on math.  I have looked at this year as an experiment with this curriculum, even though I have heard on the board that the pre-A curriculum is less straight-forward than the Algebra.  I will talk to my sons and decide how to proceed next year.  I suspect that they will want to continue with AoPS.  Time will tell.

[wapiti]

 This is what caused the bog down in Chapter 5 for both of my boys.  Once we practiced the concepts with Keys to Algebra (very procedural with plenty of drill) and Zaccaro (very cartoon-ish and narrative with a clever approach which leads to remembering concepts), they were able to be successful with Chapter 5 in AoPS.    I can keep up with the fast pace and the combining of several concepts at once, but my boys are still learning to do this.  Order of Operations is one which still trips them up at times, for instance.  But when you have a variable, fractions, negative numbers and need to remember to apply Order of Operations and the Distributive Property all at once, they sometimes struggle.  They needed the extra practice and drill that the other programs provide.

 

FWIW, all three of my kids had a hard time in ch 5 of Prealgebra.  It was the usual AoPS m.o.:  combining concepts that are so new to the student.  Two of them did ch 4 of the Dolciani Prealgebra and then returned to AoPS (IIRC, Dolciani has additional chapters that would be helpful there - ch 8 maybe?).

 

However, after ch 5, it got a whole lot easier - smooth sailing - which is not to say that it was easy by any means, LOL, just that I didn't find a need for outside practice.  I did, however, find a need for a little review here and there (e.g, a little review of exponents when we got to the square root chapter) and then a big review at the end of the book.

 

Order of operations is something I think it would be well worth setting aside a day or two to work on alone (or otherwise review until it's down), as it'll be embedded in just about everything from here on out.

 

If it helps, I have found that my ds11 (just turned 11, so formerly referred to as ds10) in Intro to Alg has likewise needed extra practice in that book.  (I'm a little mad at myself for being undisciplined about doing the lesson at home and having him do the exercises at school - the lessons he did at school he did half-heartedly and now we are going backwards in the book for a review and re-do of some sections; long story.  I've been going over some other alg 1 books extensively, and have added in some practice exercises, but we keep coming back to AoPS as our spine, I guess.  I should mention that I finally found a Dolciani algebra 1 that reminds me of the Prealgebra - same publisher, same time period, cheaper at Follet than at Amazon; it is not "book 1" but a different series.)

[wapiti]

In the geometry text, for example, most problems could be solved by very basic principles that, in themselves, were rather straightforward. The difficulty that caused some problems to take several hours was not that there were some obscure difficult theorems one had to remember, but rather that one had to find out how exactly to use a sequence of very simple concepts to find a solution for the problem. The exact same basic principles are covered in a traditional mainstream geometry text - it's just that this text would never ask for such a complex application.

 

Until you put it this way, I hadn't put together the complicated problems in the actual texts with RR's philosophy that solving complex problems using simple concepts is so important (for those who haven't read this before, here at p. 7):

 

Amassing a bunch of different high-powered tools you can use to solve simple problems isn’t going to get you anywhere. It’s far more important to be able to take a smaller set of tools and be able to do a whole bunch of different things with them and to discover new tools and to build those tools yourself than it is to memorize a bunch of one-trick solutions. 

 

It's fun and encouraging to make that connection.  (Now I am saying "well, duh" to myself.)  It involves deeply understanding the tool in the larger context and sometimes I have some chicken-or-egg confusion about that.  When my kids have needed extra practice, sometimes it's just about practice and remembering but in that ch 5 of the prealgebra, it was as if the big picture was too big for them in that moment - too much too quickly, tools not sufficiently established - so I broke up the lessons with Dolciani.  (But isn't it wrestling with the hard problems which more firmly establishes the understanding of the tool?  chicken or egg.)  I still prefer to go as far as we can with the big picture first so there is some context for the parts; then when everything falls apart we'll take a more discrete look at each part (this hasn't happened everywhere, just in a few sections).

[8filltheheart]

I think we may have a semantics issue here: how does one separate "the math is hard" from "the problems are hard"?

I do not think this is possible. What is "the math", isolated from the problems?

In the geometry text, for example, most problems could be solved by very basic principles that, in themselves, were rather straightforward. The difficulty that caused some problems to take several hours was not that there were some obscure difficult theorems one had to remember, but rather that one had to find out how exactly to use a sequence of very simple concepts to find a solution for the problem. The exact same basic principles are covered in a traditional mainstream geometry text - it's just that this text would never ask for such a complex application.

 

Same with the other texts. The trigonometric functions are the same; since and cosine are not more difficult themselves. but AoPS aks you to do a lot more with them.

 

I like the characterization of AoPS I read once on these boards (but can not recall the author):

xyz(traditiona) program gives you the nuts and bolts. AoPS gives you the nuts and bolts and then asks you to build the TajMahal with them.

 

I guess it could be semantics, but I have a hard time reconciling the idea that the math is not difficult, but the critical thinking is, without the problems being hard.  ;)

 

Do you think there is a direct correlation between the math in the lower level books and what is in the upper level books?   Since so many of the reviews are written by people in pre-alg and alg, is that fair representation of the program as a whole?   I know my dd did not find the problems in the alg book difficult (but may not be a fair representation since she had already taken alg) and it makes me wonder if there is a shift at some pt since ds did (find the texts far more challenging than what he had been doing, but jumped in at alg 3)  Do the upper books contain more complex problems in comparison to traditional texts vs.  the alg and traditional alg texts?   What are your thoughts since your kids have completed the alg book up?   My perception could be totally wrong!  :)

 

[texasmama]

FWIW, all three of my kids had a hard time in ch 5 of Prealgebra.  It was the usual AoPS m.o.:  combining concepts that are so new to the student.  Two of them did ch 4 of the Dolciani Prealgebra and then returned to AoPS (IIRC, Dolciani has additional chapters that would be helpful there - ch 8 maybe?).

 

However, after ch 5, it got a whole lot easier - smooth sailing - which is not to say that it was easy by any means, LOL, just that I didn't find a need for outside practice.  I did, however, find a need for a little review here and there (e.g, a little review of exponents when we got to the square root chapter) and then a big review at the end of the book.

 

Order of operations is something I think it would be well worth setting aside a day or two to work on alone (or otherwise review until it's down), as it'll be embedded in just about everything from here on out.

 

If it helps, I have found that my ds11 (just turned 11, so formerly referred to as ds10) in Intro to Alg has likewise needed extra practice in that book.  (I'm a little mad at myself for being undisciplined about doing the lesson at home and having him do the exercises at school - the lessons he did at school he did half-heartedly and now we are going backwards in the book for a review and re-do of some sections; long story.  I've been going over some other alg 1 books extensively, and have added in some practice exercises, but we keep coming back to AoPS as our spine, I guess.  I should mention that I finally found a Dolciani algebra 1 that reminds me of the Prealgebra - same publisher, same time period, cheaper at Follet than at Amazon; it is not "book 1" but a different series.)

Thank you for this.  All of it.  :) 

 

I feel my way along this path often due to my unmathiness.  lol  It is affirming to hear that others have had a similar experience. I am a humanities girl in a math world.

 

I do have a Dociani text, and we have spent a bit of time in it, though I have not pulled it off the shelf in a while.  I was given Saxon Algebra recently so I also have that.  It is so incremental that I think it might be a good resource for cementing concepts, though I have always had a strong negative reaction to Saxon.  When I paged through this particular text, I was not completely turned off.  :)

[regentrude]

I guess it could be semantics, but I have a hard time reconciling the idea that the math is not difficult, but the critical thinking is, without the problems being hard.  ;)

 

Do you think there is a direct correlation between the math in the lower level books and what is in the upper level books?   Since so many of the reviews are written by people in pre-alg and alg, is that fair representation of the program as a whole?   I know my dd did not find the problems in the alg book difficult (but may not be a fair representation since she had already taken alg) and it makes me wonder if there is a shift at some pt since ds did (find the texts far more challenging than what he had been doing, but jumped in at alg 3)  Do the upper books contain more complex problems in comparison to traditional texts vs.  the alg and traditional alg texts?   What are your thoughts since your kids have completed the alg book up?   My perception could be totally wrong!  :)

 

 

I have not used any traditional texts, so I can not really compare. From all I have seen, traditional texts seem to assign large numbers of virtually identical, or very similar, problems, and teach the students to jump through a particular hoop really well - but often the student is at a loss what to do when the hoop is not exactly in the place it always was.

 

I definitely found many problems in the Intro to Algebra text hard for a student just learning the material. They might not be hard for a student who already knows much of the material, and they are certainly not hard for me - but even I have to think how to set up many of the problems as opposed to just doing math by rote.

For a beginning learner, the exponent problems in chapter 2 of intro to A, for example, are difficult, because they require combination of several concepts that have just been discovered. My (very mathy) kids needed extra practice for simplifying complicated expressions and factoring- because this was the first time they encountered the concepts. Definitely hard, but the underlying math concepts of distributive property and laws of exponents are exactly the same as in any other math curriculum.

 

Now, sometimes even prior exposure does not make the problems "easy". The geometry book has straightforward problems and devilishly hard ones. I might have mentioned that I spent three hours on a proof problem this fall - I had solved this same problem with DD three years ago, so this was the second time through. the concepts involved were dead simple, any basic geometry text would have taught the theorems required - but applying them in the right way was hard. Just a few weeks ago, there was another geo problem that I vividly remembered from three years ago, a challenge problem with one star and three hints,  and again it took me more than an hour to figure out (DS took 2 hours).

 

So, my assessment from using the entire sequence through calculus would be that the problems are just a different class, but the mathematical concepts themselves are the same taught in other curricula (except for additional topics that are included in AoPS that are not usually covered).

I have not seen a qualitative difference between the Intro to Algebra text and the higher math texts.

[8filltheheart]

I have not used any traditional texts, so I can not really compare. From all I have seen, traditional texts seem to assign large numbers of virtually identical, or very similar, problems, and teach the students to jump through a particular hoop really well - but often the student is at a loss what to do when the hoop is not exactly in the place it always was.

 

I definitely found many problems in the Intro to Algebra text hard for a student just learning the material. They might not be hard for a student who already knows much of the material, and they are certainly not hard for me - but even I have to think how to set up many of the problems as opposed to just doing math by rote.

For a beginning learner, the exponent problems in chapter 2 of intro to A, for example, are difficult, because they require combination of several concepts that have just been discovered. My (very mathy) kids needed extra practice for simplifying complicated expressions and factoring- because this was the first time they encountered the concepts. Definitely hard, but the underlying math concepts of distributive property and laws of exponents are exactly the same as in any other math curriculum.

 

Now, sometimes even prior exposure does not make the problems "easy". The geometry book has straightforward problems and devilishly hard ones. I might have mentioned that I spent three hours on a proof problem this fall - I had solved this same problem with DD three years ago, so this was the second time through. the concepts involved were dead simple, any basic geometry text would have taught the theorems required - but applying them in the right way was hard. Just a few weeks ago, there was another geo problem that I vividly remembered from three years ago, a challenge problem with one star and three hints,  and again it took me more than an hour to figure out (DS took 2 hours).

 

So, my assessment from using the entire sequence through calculus would be that the problems are just a different class, but the mathematical concepts themselves are the same taught in other curricula (except for additional topics that are included in AoPS that are not usually covered).

I have not seen a qualitative difference between the Intro to Algebra text and the higher math texts.

 

I don't think that your assessment of traditional textbooks in the first paragraph is an accurate assessment of all textbooks.  It may be a good generalization for a large %, but definitely not all.   I don't believe Foerster falls into that characterization and I would suspect that Dolciani probably doesn't as well.   The fact that dd could do the alg 1 course w/o difficulty (she didn't do the complete book; she took their online class and only covered what is in the alg 1 portion of that class) and that ds jumped into alg 3 successfully from Foerster's alg 2 means that they did understand what they were doing.    If they only knew within the context of what they were being taught, they wouldn't have been able to apply the concepts to the unique presentation in AoPS.   They would have floundered, or at minimum really struggled.

 

As far as the rest goes, I think your description is far more than the math concepts being simple and the application difficult.  The description of someone with your educational background taking that much time to solve a geometry proof seems to me to be evidence that it is not just about any student picking up the book and mastering the concepts and working through the books.   The problems are in a different class and it is going to take that type of student to do the math.  

 

Basically, I think it is misleading to say that the math is not difficult, only the critical thinking.  (even if that is a good descriptor, when someone unfamiliar reads that, it seems to suggest it really isn't that the texts aren't that difficult to work through......which I don't think is an apt description b/c most people aren't going to separate "the math" from "the critical thinking" and think in terms of solving the problems in general)  When someone with your background has to spend a significant amt of time solving a problem, that is an indication that it is probably not going to be a good match for students with avg math ability since solving the problems can be a difficult task even for people who understand the math concepts going into the problems.

 

 

[regentrude]

As far as the rest goes, I think your description is far more than the math concepts being simple and the application difficult.  The description of someone with your educational background taking that much time to solve a geometry proof seems to me to be evidence that it is not just about any student picking up the book and mastering the concepts and working through the books.   The problems are in a different class and it is going to take that type of student to do the math.  

 

Basically, I think it is misleading to say that the math is not difficult, only the critical thinking.    When someone with your background has to spend a significant amt of time solving a problem, that is an indication that it is probably not going to be a good match for students with avg math ability since solving the problems can be a difficult task even for people who understand the math concepts going into the problems.

 

I think it is meaningless to say "the math is not difficult, only the critical thinking".   

 I do not think it is possible to separate "the math" and "the problems".

 

I do, however, stand by my statement that the mathematical concepts that are presented in and of themselves are not more or less difficult than the ones in another curriculum - but rather that the application to problem solving is where the difficulties lie.

There is nothing inherently more difficult about triangle congruency theorems in AoPS compared to any basic high school math text  - they are exactly the same theorems: SAS, ASA etc. The laws of exponents are exactly the same, irrespective of what text is used. The distributive property is one and the same.

But what the student is expected to do with them, that is different. It would, however, be nonsensical to say here is "the math" and there are "the problems".

 

I completely agree that AoPS is not for every student.

ETA: I find it actually interesting and fabulous that even a strong math background like mine does not absolve me from thinking about the problems when I attempt to solve them. Because it means that there is no "trick", no obscure theorem that some people know and others don't - it's just simple tools and lots of thinking. These are the best problems. It would be easy to make a curriculum "hard" by including "secret weapons" - i.e. stuff some students know and others don't. That mainly does not seem to be the case with AoPS (except for some additional material). Creating difficult problems that can be solved by simple means is an art.

 

[8filltheheart]

I think it is meaningless to say "the math is not difficult, only the critical thinking".   

What is "the math" if not in context with critical thinking? I do not think it is possible to separate "the math" and "the problems".

But I stand by my statement that the mathematical concepts that are presented in and of themselves are not more or less difficult than the ones in another curriculum - but rather that the application to problem solving is where the difficulties lie.

There is nothing inherently more difficult about triangle congruency theorems in any basic high school math text or in AoPS - they are exactly the same theorems: SAS, ASA etc. But what the student is expected to do with them, that is different. It would, however, be nonsensical to say here is "the math" and there are "the problems".

 

I completely agree that AoPS is not for every student.

 

 

Gotcha.   I thought you were agreeing with the post I quoted as disagreeing with that was stating that the math was not difficult, only the critical thinking.   I disagreed with her b/c I thought it was misleading.  I think I was talking past you in the last couple of posts b/c I was reading them in that context.