<p>the same thing happens with me in econ. I ask SO many questions to which we don’t actually need the answers to do well on the tests, so my teacher brushes them off, and my class gets annoyed. I, however, just get extremely frustrated.</p>
<p>That’s Calc for me.</p>
<p>This might be an interesting read for those wondering about the academics at Chicago: <a href=“http://community.livejournal.com/uchicago/269916.html[/url]”>http://community.livejournal.com/uchicago/269916.html</a></p>
<p>I’m doing macroecon on my own this semester, its interesting. I’m still reviewing the basics (done 3 chapters in a week of the new semester), but the world is going to be my resource when I want it to be. Plus it always helps having good friends at wharton, who are willing to help a high school kid out when teachers aren’t.</p>
<p>My calc teacher is completely different than your’s andi, and i honestly LOVE her for it. Her method of teaching is very different from anything I’ve EVER experienced. She teaches her class in a very conceptual way, and she’s always talking about the Chicago high school math series, which she adores.</p>
<p>Hope you guys love doing proofs :-)</p>
<p>I wish my teacher did more proofs! She always says that we don’t have time for them…sigh.</p>
<p>I just hate the usual “you don’t have to worry about that for the test.” Especially now, since we’re all second semester seniors and just about the last thing that most of us are caring about are our grades. What I really want is to actually have learned something before the demanding experience that Chicago will be, but that concept seems to be lost in many of my teachers this year.</p>
<p>Coming from a premier high school in Singapore, I must agree that the level of thinking demanded from students is far higher than in the US, as far as the humanities are concerned. There was a lot of “Chicago style” stuff being done - heavy emphasis on critical thinking, supporting one’s statements etc. We would argue over the validity of varied interpretations on literary texts OUTSIDE of class, just for the fun of it. It seems to me that the American high school tests how well one remembers what has been read, as opposed to testing analytical/evaluative skills. I must confess, however, that science/math classes are more fun in US, where we can apply our theoretical knowledge in actual practical situations. If only there was a way to have the best of both worlds. Please note that my experience with the US HS system has been confined to AP Calc and Physics B, which naturally does not require the same level of critical thinking as social studies courses. I’m hoping that APs like English, Econs, Govt will prove me wrong.</p>
<p>As much as the UofC board touts this “Chicago style”, I simply find it difficult to believe that such simple argumentative/critical thinking is not prevalent in places like Harvard and Yale. I’m definitely looking forward to these college visits.</p>
<p>I think AP tests do not force you to apply any critical thinking at all. Even with English and history if you can memorize the facts and apply them, then you’ll do very well. The tests require no creativity or anything besides rote memorization, since they are made by the same company that makes the SAT, I’m not really that suprised.</p>
<p>English definitly requires critical thinking- how can you memorize an analysis of an essay/poem/etc. you’ve never seen before?</p>
<p>That’s because it’s frequently not analysis. For example, on the SATs, you are never asked to analyze, you are either asked to repeat information from the text or describe. Describing in excrutiating detail is not the same as analyzing.</p>
<p>oh, I’m talking about the AP test</p>
<p>Well, to be honest, even the APs don’t require very developed anaytical or critical skills. More so than the SATs (because there are more essays), but the multiple choice is all the same. When you have to dumb down to take a test, you know that it’s not measuring anything worthwhile. An AP test should challenge and make you think until you’re tired.</p>
<p>And I’m talking about daily classwork. </p>
<p>To gambadent: I’m particularly peeved that in English classes, the teacher goes through, say a selection of poems, explains/analyses the poem for the class, then has a test on the ‘interpretation’, which is basically a regurgitation. Especially since I’m sure some of my classmates could not think of anything worthwhile to say if the teacher had not previously spoonfed them. I apologize for sounding conceited - just my $0.02</p>
<p>oh no, you don’t sound conceited at all- that does sound pretty awful. My classes just aren’t that bad.</p>
<p>My English teacher is a short Australian woman who fails us if we regurgitate information back to her during analysis. She is amazing.</p>
<p>My teachers pretty darn neat too. As I walked out of class the first day, I turned to my friend and said “she’s brilliant!”</p>
<p>prett darn neat are they?</p>
<p>Sorry buddy, please keep it in your pants…</p>
<p>My calc teacher’s like that, on our first day of class she related all of math to calculus. She loves calculus, and infact when our parents were in school for a ‘back to school night’ she started teaching them calc. My mom came home remembering her college days and calc she learned for econ haha.</p>
<p>My AP lang teacher was like your english teacher, Andi. Yet, the best way to get an A in my AP Lit teacher’s class was to vomit back the info he read out to us from the random notes he Downloaded from the internet. I had a really hard time in the class, but i managed to lead class discussions a lot. I ended up building upon what i had said during discussions and since he had heard snippets before, I started doing well. I’m glad that’s over. BC calc is awesomeeeeeee, so is AP bio.</p>
<p>I <3 my second semester haha.</p>
<p>I thought those interested in the Chicago style of discussion would be interested in this passage from James J. Heckman’s autobiography (Nobel prize in economics).</p>
<p>"I was recruited by the University of Chicago in 1973. I have been there ever since except for an occasional leave and a two year appointment at Yale, 1988-1990. Chicago is an exciting place which renews itself. The workshop system encourages close reading and frank discussions of papers and ideas. When I first arrived, Milton Friedman was the most prominent economist there and set the standard for open in-depth discussions on almost any topic. Others filled his shoes after he retired.</p>
<p>Throughout the years, I have benefited greatly from many colleagues and from many first rate students at Chicago. There is a very rigorous intellectual standard in the Chicago environment. Discussions are conducted at a high level on all aspects of economics. Gary Becker, William Brock, Lars Hansen and Jose Scheinkman have been especially stimulating and helpful. I also enjoyed the cross disciplinary stimulation of my 20 year interaction with the sociologist James Coleman. I have also benefited from many interactions and co-authorships with the versatile Burton Singer of Princeton.</p>
<p>At Chicago, I have had close relationships with many students with whom I have co-authored numerous papers and from I learned much. One of the greatest pleasures of academic life is watching young tentative students form into finished mature scholars with well developed ideas. Much of my work in the past 20 years is joint work that emerged from interactions with my students and colleagues in offices and classrooms. The Chicago environment of open rigorous discussion has greatly enriched my research."</p>
<p>For Brooke & ridethecliche: Regardless of what textbook you are using for economics, I would highly recommend you supplement with Thomas Sowell’s Basic Economics. It also wouldn’t hurt to read the latest edition of Free to Choose, which Friedman wrote when I was an undergrad Ec major “many many moons ago.” Both are written for the general public and will add depth to the topics discussed in your text, while stimulating your thinking. :)</p>