Posted on 12/05/2005 1:02:05 PM PST by anymouse
Homeschool ping.
Obviously wasn't dumbed down by other students ability to keep up.
Why on earth would this come up in a calc I class? I teach the stuff.
Now you're going to encounter helices in biology, or at least double helices. Or maybe calc III. But once I saw an amazing math/biology talk, by a guy who used something very abstract ("knot theory", a branch of algebraic topology) to solve a certain problem in molecular biology. He helped the biologists figure out what "topoisomerase" does, an enzyme in the cell that helps with the problem of cutting and gluing DNA strands, so they can pass through each other when the cell does its incredible mitosis dividing process. The biologists subjected bacterial plasmid DNA loops to the stuff, and got odd links and chains as a result; they couldn't figure out the algebraic patterns, but the mathematician helped them do it.
Not as far as you think. My kids could factor a quadratic in their heads at six. It's not that hard. It's what we should be expecting considering what we're paying.
Having taken a bit of aerodynamics and math in my time, I can assure you that this kid's achievement is very far in advance of your kids' solving quadratic equations in their heads. He's one of those First Rank math types. It'll be interesting to see if we hear from him again.
Being personally tutored by someone with a Ph.D. in neuroscience is a bit unusual even for a homeschooler, isn't it?
I wouldn't necessarily call Dr. Mom a "non-credentialed non-professional".
Scenes you've never seen in the movies...
At six years old? The older one started self-teaching calculus at eleven.
Either way, I never claimed my kids were some sort of geniuses. Quite the contrary, if you read my prior post again, you'll note that I was saying that it SHOULD be expected. There's no reason we can't have an average child learning calculus by ten to eleven years old. None.
The kid in this story was adopted. I doubt that he was originally any sort of genetic genius either.
Children are far more capable than we realize, particularly when they have the emotional stability home education promotes, by which to focus upon a particular subject for extended periods of time.
Not if you ask a "professional educator." If you don't have a degree in education, you have no business teaching anyone anything. Or so they say.
She didn't take the required Teaching Methods classes. (Probably didn't pay her union dues either.)
How many "professional educators" have you asked?
I'm a "professional educator". An education degree is in no way comparable to a Ph.D. in neuroscience.
Didn't mean to denigrate your kids -- the point is that this guy is wayyy to the right. And heck, maybe yours are too. No matter how you slice it, though, he ain't your normal sort.
Not now, certainly. I'm merely pointing out that it's unlikely that raw genetic advantage is a significant factor.
I'm merely disagreeing with you... ;-) This kid's special. His parents were a great help, of course, but math talent like that is born, not made.
I gutted out nearly 3 years of Calculus and higher mathematics only because I knew I needed to in order to graduate with a degree in Aerospace Engineering.
I've spent the last 20 years working in a wide variety of engineering functional positions and have never needed to use even the most basic Calculus to perform my job duties.
Heck, rarely do I even have to use Algebra or Trigonometry.
Now Geometry, that I have applied much more often, even in my personal life.
The judges were quoted as saying that Michael is so intelligent that they could NOT find the limits of his knowledge. WOW-O. He went right over the Judges heads! They will have to get a different test now. Good for him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.