LogFAQs > #966142281

joe40001 posted...

To say advanced courses harm non-advanced courses in any way is false. Limited resources harm both, so the solution is better and more resources, not even entertaining the idea of dissolving advanced courses IMO.

If the priority is on advanced courses, limited resources will harm the non advanced courses. Not sure why you're saying there's no way it could harm non advanced courses. Could you organize it in a way to be very fair? Sure. But you also could not. So it's important to look into it and make sure it's being done right.

joe40001 posted...

In short, the folks who push for anything that might result in the removal of calculus, even if that's not their explicit intent. Are doing a clear disservice, and IMO are clearly wrong.

That might? What you and the letter, and what this consultant guy are saying are different. I'd like to see the specifics of what changes could be implemented instead of this letter trying to make me reactionary by creating fear about removal of calculus. The letter explicitly said something was being done, then we discover that's not even true.