HL maths or history?

[faith]

I had a real dilemma earlier deciding between HL maths and HL history. I have decided to do maths HL for next year after my grades improved from high 5-low 6 in the beginning of the year to high 6-7 in the end of the year. (I was really amazed: I went from being almost the bottom of the class in mid year exam to the top of the class in the end of year exam) However, after the results came out yesterday for last year's year 12s I'm starting to have serious doubts. A friend of mine, who is considerably better than maths than I am, got a 6 in maths. (she ended up getting a 44 though. =))

Anyway, I just want to do a brief survey here: Did anyone here (or anyone you know) get a 7 in Maths HL. If so, are you, or the person you know, a math genius? I also heard from others that they have have never heard of anyone who does HL maths getting a 45 because HL maths take up so much time.

Thank you to everyone in advance. =)

[Awail]

Well I am doing HL maths, and I am not really a math genius, more of a science guy. I find it a good challenge but not real that difficult. In my year 11 i got around 110/120 in both of my papers. i didnt go crazy and practice 1000 Questions infact I have a very unusual way of approaching math that proves to be effective: I read math and not practice it. try it for a test and see for yourself(it works for me atleast)so it is extremely feasible for you to get 45 with Math HL. Personally I feel math is about ur ability to solve problems, so it really shouldnt take soo much time for studying in comparison to something like history(which u need to spend hours reading fat books). To be honest math HL is nota real challenge for math geniuses cause there is a something higher than Math HL in IB and it is called IB Further Math SL. I know many people with math HL 7's, infact my friend class of 60 people had 45 people with a math HL 7.

[Bishup]

Awail you're undeniably good at maths after what you said. People at my school do well in it to but it's not a doddle. I feel as though I haven't spent enough time on it, so for the future i know what to do. Maths is a case of consistency and a slaight flare or passion. Do maths for one concrete and proactive hour a day during two year you'll definetely get a 7. And also it's not a matter of just knowing but being able to produce on paper without thinking, therefore you need loads of past papers and need to practice questions.

[Awail]

Well like I said< i am not excellent but i guess above normal standards . I agree with on the daily thing, tacking math everyday is essential(but we get daily HW for math HL at our school). I would like to say it also depends on the background you get. I did IGCSE, which I found to be very weak preparation. But I also did Kumon(where I sweated my ass off and thus the casual approach to IB:). IB math paper(paper 1 and 2) will push you for time so I guess you need to be very clear on your concepts however I beg to differ on your point(Bishup):"produce on paper without thinking". IB is about your thinking, and analysing abilities. For ex. take a quick glance at IB may 2009 paper 2(TZ2) question on geometry(geometry that is of 10th grade standard). It stumped people worldwide(and it was 18 marks). You never know what to expect in IB, so you really cant expect to be ready to produce without thinking. Rather it is pre-requisite that you mould yourself to approach problems with prudence and intelligence. The key thing is IB hardly repeats questions. The concepts of math will forever remain same but there are infinite methods of applying your concepts.

[Sandwich]

I beg to differ on your point(Bishup):"produce on paper without thinking". IB is about your thinking, and analysing abilities. For ex. take a quick glance at IB may 2009 paper 2(TZ2) question on geometry(geometry that is of 10th grade standard). It stumped people worldwide(and it was 18 marks). You never know what to expect in IB, so you really cant expect to be ready to produce without thinking. Rather it is pre-requisite that you mould yourself to approach problems with prudence and intelligence. The key thing is IB hardly repeats questions. The concepts of math will forever remain same but there are infinite methods of applying your concepts.

I've heard this too. You do have to have a good personal flair and talent for Maths HL in order to succeed because the problems aren't ones which can be learned through repetition. They have veryyyy different ways of presenting them and (so my HL Maths buddies tell me!) often you have a question completely unlike anything you've seen before for which you're meant to recognise the principles and then apply them creatively. IMO this requires a very, very good level of understanding which you can't always gain through practice.

Nobody at my school got (or has ever got in the last 6 years) more than a 4 in HL Maths, although they were all predicted 6/7 based on what they'd been doing before. The message I've got from it is that you either have it or you don't, and hard work can only get you so far as regards getting the top marks.

I do know somebody who got 45 and did HL Maths ABSOLUTE out of this world genius child, though. Honestly, I know a couple of other people who got 45 and this guy is intellectually leagues ahead of them, even though they got a perfect score!

I agree with Awail, pre-IB preparation for Maths is really important. iGCSEs are inadequate, GCSEs are even less intense and therefore extremely inadequate and so on. I'm quite sure that's why we've never had more than a 4 (and why both SL and HL Maths is viewed as a menace in the UK!). I expect most well-prepared people do better.

[faith]

I beg to differ on your point(Bishup):"produce on paper without thinking". IB is about your thinking, and analysing abilities. For ex. take a quick glance at IB may 2009 paper 2(TZ2) question on geometry(geometry that is of 10th grade standard). It stumped people worldwide(and it was 18 marks). You never know what to expect in IB, so you really cant expect to be ready to produce without thinking. Rather it is pre-requisite that you mould yourself to approach problems with prudence and intelligence. The key thing is IB hardly repeats questions. The concepts of math will forever remain same but there are infinite methods of applying your concepts.

I've heard this too. You do have to have a good personal flair and talent for Maths HL in order to succeed because the problems aren't ones which can be learned through repetition. They have veryyyy different ways of presenting them and (so my HL Maths buddies tell me!) often you have a question completely unlike anything you've seen before for which you're meant to recognise the principles and then apply them creatively. IMO this requires a very, very good level of understanding which you can't always gain through practice.

Nobody at my school got (or has ever got in the last 6 years) more than a 4 in HL Maths, although they were all predicted 6/7 based on what they'd been doing before. The message I've got from it is that you either have it or you don't, and hard work can only get you so far as regards getting the top marks.

I do know somebody who got 45 and did HL Maths ABSOLUTE out of this world genius child, though. Honestly, I know a couple of other people who got 45 and this guy is intellectually leagues ahead of them, even though they got a perfect score!

I agree with Awail, pre-IB preparation for Maths is really important. iGCSEs are inadequate, GCSEs are even less intense and therefore extremely inadequate and so on. I'm quite sure that's why we've never had more than a 4 (and why both SL and HL Maths is viewed as a menace in the UK!). I expect most well-prepared people do better.

WOW nobody at your school got more than a 4??!! I'm freaking out...

[SharkSpider]

Well, I took math HL and I got a 7. Right now I'm going to university and taking advanced-level pure math courses, and from this perspective, math HL looks like a purely technically-based cake walk. Really, they say they give you new and interesting problems, but if you study from a good textbook and use past exams, then there's nothing that should really catch you up. Basically, you need some talent, at the very least, and a good conceptual grasp of functions, vectors, and probability. That being said, I'm far from being considered a genius, by any standards, and I did manage just fine, along with 3 other students in my class.

You should do Math HL if you're good at math and if you want to go in to math or science at university. Note that most schools will provide inadequate teaching, so you are going to need to do alot of self-study to do well in the course. I basically read Stewart Calculus from chapters 1 to 7, as well as 10 and 11, and then did complex numbers, probability, and linear algebra straight from the course book. Basically, if your teacher doesn't get a few 6es and 7s every year, then they're not really qualified to be teaching the course, and they shouldn't be putting students in to exams unprepared.

[Awail]

Hey SharkSpider, I see that you are doing UW math and business. I am actually interested in their math with riskmanagement course.What course are you doing and is it challenging?(in comparison to IB HL)

And ya I agree that Math HL is not really for geniuses...

[faith]

Well, I took math HL and I got a 7. Right now I'm going to university and taking advanced-level pure math courses, and from this perspective, math HL looks like a purely technically-based cake walk. Really, they say they give you new and interesting problems, but if you study from a good textbook and use past exams, then there's nothing that should really catch you up. Basically, you need some talent, at the very least, and a good conceptual grasp of functions, vectors, and probability. That being said, I'm far from being considered a genius, by any standards, and I did manage just fine, along with 3 other students in my class.

You should do Math HL if you're good at math and if you want to go in to math or science at university. Note that most schools will provide inadequate teaching, so you are going to need to do alot of self-study to do well in the course. I basically read Stewart Calculus from chapters 1 to 7, as well as 10 and 11, and then did complex numbers, probability, and linear algebra straight from the course book. Basically, if your teacher doesn't get a few 6es and 7s every year, then they're not really qualified to be teaching the course, and they shouldn't be putting students in to exams unprepared.

Hey sharkspider, you know how you did both HL history and HL maths, which subject did you find more difficult and more time consuming?

My school has actually done pretty well in the last couple of years in HL maths. Everyone tells me the HL maths teacher is amazing and that's the main reason I chose it over HL history.

[lexie]

I hope your decision works out well for you

I was in the exact same place, and am currently trying to undo it.

I know a person who did HL maths and got a 7 and wasn't a genius. I think it just requires a lot of dedication (hopefully!)