Date: Wed, 31 Dec 1997 11:27:01 -0800
Message-Id: <v01520d00b0cfd23a71a6@[205.179.255.97]>
To: pinhole@exploratorium.edu
From: mafifi@redshift.com (Marc Afifi)
Subject: Re: Advanced Integrated Science thread
My interest has been piqued. I really don't understand the negativity
toward AP courses. I look at them as the"varsity" academic endeavors as
opposed to the "intramural" courses offered to everyone. I am continually
amazed by the pundits who decry homogeneity in classes as somehow a
negative learning experience, yet they are the strongest proponents of
sports in school which, as we all know, are truly homogeneous. When was the
last time you saw a skinny kid on the wrestling team, or a fat kid on the
swimming team, or an uncoordinated kid on the baseball team, or a weakling
on the football team, or a short kid on the basketball team, or a disabled
kid on the tennis team, or a blind kid on the volleyball team, or a deaf
kid on the soccer team? The point is that sports has been tracking kids
from the beginning of their education (except in intramurals where everyone
is welcome). Why, then, do we scream out against tracking in academics?
Nobody would demand that an unqualified athlete be forced to participate on
the varsity team, yet many demand that unqualified students be mainstreamed
into academic courses. There certainly is a need for educating all
students, but not at the expense of the gifted. We should nurture the
gifted student as we nurture the gifted athlete. One way to do this is
through the AP curriculum. It seems that the students who take AP courses
are those who want to be challenged and want to gain an advantage before
entering college. Why, then, shouldn't we offer them that opportunity? I am
reminded of the student who took all the AP courses his school offered and
entered Stanford as a sophomore. That student saved $25K in college costs,
not to mention food and energy and phone bills. I was gifted in math and
took AP calcululus (BC) in high school. It was by far the best experience I
had in high school. I did not take any other AP courses because I was not
interested in any of the other offerings. If I had been forced to take some
other course my senior year I would have been even more disinterested in
school. The point is that the AP curriculum is good for students who want a
challenge and who are gifted. They should not be forced into heterogeneous
classes where they are typically bored beyond belief. We owe them the
opportunity to have their intellects stretched.
I have heard the argument that AP science courses are inadequate because of
the lack of access to advanced laboratory equipment and techniques. I think
that's a cop-out. Nothing I did in lab in any of my first year science
courses in college was so special it could not be duplicated, or at least
approximated, in a high school laboratory. Certainly, the _advanced_
science courses in college did provide a laboratory experienced which could
not be offered in a high school lab, but that was AFTER the first year
which is all the AP curriculum is designed to provide. Even if the student
does not pass the exam and gain college credit, that student will be better
prepared for first year courses in college. Isn't the mission of every high
school to provide a college preparatory program for the college bound and a
socialization experience for the non-college bound? If not, why not? We owe
it to our gifted students to challenge them academically. We owe it to our
other students to provide an interesting and valuable education. Why
shouldn't we provide access to both components?
Humbly submitted,
-mafifi
______________________________________________________________________________
Favorite Oakland Raiders motto: Marc Afifi
Pacific Grove HS
Just When Baby? 615 Sunset Dr.
Pacific Grove, CA 93950
(W) (408) 646-6585