The Value of AP classes

devushka
Fri, 14 Jul 2006 22:38:16 +0000

OK, I posted this on the AP board earlier in the hopes of coming up with a serious discussion, but it got kinda off topic pretty quickly (a lot of people were debating about the scoring system of the test,whereas I was focusing on class content. So I’ll post it again. What are your thoughts? It seems like there are a lot more straight discussions on this particular board than the AP one. My apologies if you’ve already seen this or think it’s a lame topic. I 've been getting a lot of enjoyment debating this with friends lately.

“Are APs overrated?”

'm sure I’ll come under a lot of fire for writing this, but I will give my honest opinion. Does anyone else on the board find the whole AP system overrated? I think that the classes are great things to have for high schools in need of accelerated classes for students in an otherwise watered down academic environment. But I have serious complaints for those who think APs are the be all and end all of a high school career. My main problem is the extremely test-driven curriculum. To me it seems that the AP classes are so geared toward getting kids prepared for the test that the intellectual material can easily be watered down. This is especially true of humanities courses, where a curriculum can be much more subjective than something like, say, calculus, which is a pretty set course as it is.
I’ll use history as an example. History is one of those subjects that is pretty subjective, as there is SO MUCH of it. For me, having taken two AP history classes last year, I came out of the experience disappointed. I had two really great history teachers last year, one who was more focused on the AP and one who was less focused. My AP US teacher was great and really knew his material, but it seemed that he worried a lot about preparing us for the test. We went through US history in great detail and I immensely enjoyed his lectures, but to me it seemed that the AP curriculum was limiting what he could teach. In an effort to get through the AP curriculum, we had to skip things like military history and also had to seriously limit discussion time. My best assignments were after the AP when I got to do legit research about topics in depth. My other teacher (Euro) was much less focused on the AP and had a more seminar styled classand I think I got a lot more out of the material in the class in all. I think to a certain extent, being able to take fewer historic events in a class and analyze them in depth is a better way to learn history (one can RELATE to it, rather than forcing down facts). As a result, in this class we were less prepared for the test and I had to memorize a lot of random stuff to prepare. While the AP teaches how to “make connections”, a lot of these seemed forced and more constrictive to discussion and free thought.

This particular topic leads me to another qualm of mine: the test format. While it is hard to come up with an intellectual standardized test, I think that the AP in particular glosses over insight for mere fact regurgitation. I was happy that the test was not 100% multiple choice, but the free response questions in the humanities really got to me. I think it is impossible to measure a student’s talent based on a 30 minute timed essay. Upon reading sample essays in class, my first reaction to the high scoring essays was “Oh goody, they want us to spit out all the facts we possibly can”. While it is possible to make some connections in 30 minutes, those are not likely to be the most thought provoking or original. How can they be in 30 minutes? I think it is more important to examine how a student can draw conclusions from historical research (one reason I like the Euro DBQ).

This leads me to another irksome topic: the AP scholars awards. It seems that so many students have caught on to the AP-craze and have opted to take as many tests as they possibly can. This seems especially driven by the prospect of college admissions and AP scholar awards (to my mind, an incentive for the CB to make extra cash by drawing in overachievers). I know ALOT of kids at my uber-competetive school who try to self-study as many courses as they can (even those that don’t relate to their interests in the least). Most of these kids seem to be merely cramming review books to study. How is a college impressed by this? This approach seems pretty anti-intellectual to me. Can’t colleges see through the kids who are glossing the AP curriculum? Might the kids be better off studying something of interest in their free time rather than just stuffing more info down their throats. (I think it’s great if a kid interested in econ self studied the class if they couldn’t take it in school, mind you; I’m talkin’ about the kids that self-study psych, for example, because it’s “easy and looks better on apps”). If I were an adcom, I think I’d prefer a kid who, while they may not have taken as many APs, is pursuing something of interest.

So here’s the question: If you had only one period and could take a non AP, non weighted course (though it can still be rigorous) in, say Russian history (or organic chem, or C++, or whatever else you love), versus an AP class in a topic of less interest to you, which would you take? Do colleges look more highly on more APs (and therefore “the most demanding curriculum available”) or on those who may opt for less APs in order to take a class of more interest? Does the AP test limit intellectuality or enhance it? How do you feel about APs in general?

this is not meant to offend anyone, I respect all opinions on the matter, but I think this is a good discussion starter (it certainly is a topic of much dispute among my super-competetive friends…)