AP courses are no big deal.

Jay Matthews on AP courses:

Most of the available data shows that high school students who do well in AP courses and tests do better in college than students who do not take AP.

Of course, you moron. AP students are, by definition, better students. What did you expect that research to show?

I think AP is a plus. Many high school students have told me their AP and IB courses made it easier for them to handle college academic demands. They have persuaded me that the AP approach to teaching and learning — smaller classes meeting more frequently with better-trained instructors — is better than what most colleges give their freshmen. But perhaps I am biased.

Jay is biased but that's not why he's wrong in this article. His basic premise is that AP courses are better than college freshman courses of the same name. He trots out a UNC freshman who feels that the AP History course had much more rigor than the freshman introductory course, and honestly seems disappointed that colleges are backing off their acceptance of the AP for credit.

Here's the deal.

Those AP courses enroll the best students in the school so they can be more rigorous than a general college course would be. College profs aren't stupid - they know their classes aren't filled with AP students. They know that they have to keep as many kids as possible in school or funding dries up and student evaluations get nasty.

Even though AP is better than the introductory courses, it can't hold a candle to the REAL courses.

Take my students, for example. They took AP Calculus and did well, worked hard, understood ... but every student in the room had a different plan, a different major lined up. Some wanted to do Marine Biology but they weren't totally sure, others engineering, one math, one history, one film, one psychology and some other BS degrees.

I couldn't incorporate the business examples the one kid needed, the physics that the other needed or the computer programming the others needed. My calculus, of necessity, had to be fairly general. I couldn't teach Calc121 for mechanical engineers because they weren't that specialized yet and because there was an incredible range of interest and course preparation in the room.

There were things missing, examples that I couldn't use because the physics was beyond them or because the economics was beyond me.

Far better for these kids to take the specialized calculus through their new department and get an easy A. Then they can excel by discussing the finer points with the professor, working beyond the class, and learning to work with calculus in a fluent and beautiful way.  this builds the network, allows them to succeed in college and get on the right track through a very big transition in their lives.

The history major who took AP Calc because he could, and who didn't really need it for his major, should absolutely get credit for the AP course.

Somewhat necessary.

The math major for whom the rest of his career will depend on a solid calculus foundation, should not. The engineering, or economics, or physics majors should not. No matter how good a job I do, there will always be a ton of stuff missing, stuff that a calculus for physics majors class will incorporate seamlessly.

What could possibly be missing from my spectacular class? Well, for one thing, computer solution techniques. Did I do the same amount of work using MatLab as the CALC121 class did? No, because it isn't allowed on the AP exam, wasn't included in the syllabus and was not demanded in the audit. Should those kids get credit for a course that doesn't really resemble the college course at all?

The takeaway: If you NEED a course for your major, AP courses should not count. A good foundation is too important.

Critical Thinking is not for Everyone.

The latest act in the worldwide WikiLeaks comedy: on Friday, the White House told federal employees and contractors that they're not allowed to read classified federal documents posted to WikiLeaks unless they have the proper security clearance.

It's posted for all the world to see, but if I work in Gov't, then I must adhere to the security limitations so the only people who won't read it are in Gov't.

Stunning.

Update from the drive home:

And then I thought about it a bit. Those with clearance randomly undergo security screenings and occasionally polygraph testing.  One question usually deals with "Have you seen, read or otherwise had knowledge of classified documents for which you did not have the proper security clearances?"  If I had seen something on Wikileaks, the honest answer would have to be "Yes."  That would lead to a whole lot of unpleasantness.

This advice might just save a few jobs.

Bullying

Once again, the call is made for schools to do what the parents do not (or cannot).

Expulsion from school for something that happened off campus, out of the school's jurisdiction and out of the school's control? Should we expel students who take a summer vacation to Florida and smoke pot on the beach? Or one who steals money from the till at their part-time job? Or one who cyber-bullies over accounts the school did not set up, can't supervise and doesn't control?

Bullying is a problem. The new laws against it aren't a solution that makes sense or that can be applied fairly by schools (by fairly, I mean in ways that don't simply get the school sued every time). Does the school do something if the bullied person is at a different school? Are we just reacting because of a pretty girl who committed suicide - because someone said mean things about her nude photos sent to several teenage boys?

The urge to "Do Something" is strong. The limits on what a school can do are also strong.

The school cannot subpoena anything or anyone and they have no ability under the law to coerce students into revealing anything. They cannot pry into personal matters or demand that you reveal the contents of your computer. They cannot eliminate cellphones, never mind require that boys and girls stop sexting. They cannot stop them dating the "wrong" boys, or getting tattoos that proclaim themselves tramps or sluts or pimps or hos, or stop them from driving too fast, or texting behind the wheel or updating their Facebook page with "I'm a prostitute for him." The kids have rights.

If the new laws were to make it possible to defend the rights of the victims, it'd be great, but I'm not holding my breath. Schools can only react to a "crime" or an offense already committed in the school (or on a school-sponsored trip). The current law is very clear on this. They cannot require that people with histories be removed from their schools to forestall future crimes.

Furthermore, bullying is rarely out in the open where teachers can see it. Only the aftermath is visible to the teachers and even then is often obscured by rage or clothing. Expecting that teachers will be the policemen and investigate off-campus crime is laughable. Do you want me poking around in your kid's life out of school just on the off-chance that I might find an issue? You'd scream and rightfully so.

"Few cases are prosecuted because they are extraordinarily difficult to prosecute," an article says.

When it gets reported, then what? Give them a "detention"? How about a "suspension," which for those in question amounts to a vacation from school. Can you prove it? Do you have actual evidence or just hearsay? Is it a crime to call someone a slut or is it something the kid should shrug off? How about for the twentieth time today? Did he get tripped and punched where someone believable could see it clearly? How much jostling is bullying - or is it horseplay among friends - and who decides? (We've already gone too far this way - a friends punch to the shoulder landed him out for a week).

If the school expels the kid, it's still not over. He goes to another school but he still knows everyone. If the other school won't take him - no wait, they can't refuse - the law says that you have to provide a Free and Appropriate Public Education. Or you contract out to the reform school-type thing - $50k a year for the alternative - and the kid keeps bullying from there. There's still a Facebook. Now, how do we deal with it?

Making a bully get a job is usually the best way to smarten him up - because the adults there won't tolerate it. (Military is just better and quicker at this step.) That's all fine, but will anyone accept a school determining this?

You cannot stop bullying because that is the nature of people in a closed society, which is what teenagers essentially are. I don't want to sound defeatist, but don't expect any law to change fundamentally obnoxious people or save everyone from the bullies.

We still need parents to help their kid get past bullying and be enough of a presence and caregiver that they don't resort to suicide or murder.

On the Other Hand, Have a Nice Flight.

I can't tell you how happy I'd be to win the Lottery, just so I could buy this Sukhoi-27 Flanker.

It's for sale. All weaponry has been removed, of course.