I wouldn't call this change an unqualified success either. There are probably ways to improve from this new status quo. Maybe a 13 percent decline in calc enrollment is a sign of overcorrection.
I would call it an improvement, though. That's all I'm on about. Basically what you said about "calc in high school not being quite as essential as (some) people think", together with a dash of "everyone thinks their kid is a genius who's being held back by this change but most of them are wrong" and a heavy dash of "stats is obv better than calc anyway".
calc enrollment goes down by 13%; alg re-dos go down by 30%; seems like most people are winning or breaking even right?
I disagree that “a heavy dash of stats is obv better than calc”. Not saying there’s no case for it, but it isn’t obvious at all.
I also don’t think the line about everyone thinking their kid is a genius is productive for this discussion. I think there’s a reasonable point in there, but I think it’s needlessly caustic and fails to recognize legitimate concerns about the effect this will have on aspiring STEM students in college.
I would call it an improvement, though. That's all I'm on about. Basically what you said about "calc in high school not being quite as essential as (some) people think", together with a dash of "everyone thinks their kid is a genius who's being held back by this change but most of them are wrong" and a heavy dash of "stats is obv better than calc anyway".
calc enrollment goes down by 13%; alg re-dos go down by 30%; seems like most people are winning or breaking even right?