Math in grade school, hs and college.

I am not sure how switching to the metric system would help math. I prefer the metric system (lots of science training), but cannot see how it would help improve math. You would just simplify one aspect of math.

Good point that we test more kids than other countries. One of the reasons I think SAT/ACT scores have gone down is because so many kids take the test even ones who are only thinking about going to college.

>>>>You sound like a very bitter individual, one who harbors resentment at teachers in general and math teachers in particular.<<<<

Not bitter at all. Actually. I'm quite happy.

Pointing out the absurd nature of one aspect of the education empire does not make one bitter anymore than your disagreement with me makes you "very bitter". Aren't you the guy that blasts theists? I wouldn't get too high minded if I were you.

>>>>First, I'd like a definition of exactly what an "educrat" is<<<<<

Someone who makes their living, at tax payer expense, propogating politician created curriculum.

>>>>Second, I'd like to see some proof of your assertion.<<<<

Some people think well mathematically. But many others do not. They are sensitive to different aspects of reality-it's aesthetic properties, or its ethical dimensions. For such people mathematical thinking is limiting, stifiling, and has little to do with what they want to know. The attempt to force them to think mathematically is a mistake of the same kind as, but far more serious than, the attempt to force a child to be right handed. It is far more serious because it exacts a much greater psychological toll.

It is not a small matter to be training children's minds according to a view of the mind that is false. On the contrary, the mistaken conception of mathematics and its relation to thinking results in a great deal of harm to children. For what actually takes place in mathematics classes has nothing to do with thinking in any creative sense at all. It consists almost entirely of memorizing formulas and carring out purely mechanical operations. In algebra, for example, children are taught dozens of mathematical techniques: factoring, solving equations with one and two unknowns, the multiplications and division of polynomials, and operations with negative numbers and with square roots. They are confronted with a bewildering assornment of processes that htey repeat by rote. The learning is almost always sheer memorization. The thinking involved in studying mathematics, is for most children, docile, uninspiring, and profitless. It consists of laboriously acquiring techniques that are then completely forgotten, never having been put to any real use.

The philosopher Giambattista Vico rejected the applicability of math, as an essential component of thinking, as a form of "pedagogical despotism". This approach, he said, suppresses other aspects of mental development, especially those involving the imagination.

I AM A TEACHER. I believe in kids. I don't worship the education monopoly that's about as flexible as cast iron. If you want to experience bitter, go to a teachers lounge at your local compulsion school house and listen to their "uplifting" rhetoric about the kids. You'll hear a lot of jaded people, frustrated into saying things about children that might shock even a few drunken sailors.

One thing that has become apparent in recent is the necessity of an educated person to understand some statistics. For the last 5 years, it's been my privilege to teach an Advanced Placement course in Statistics. This is the equivalent of a first course in statistics normally taken in college, and students can earn college credit by scoring high enough on the AP exam in the spring. I was apprehensive at first because of all of the whining I've heard from people over the years who've taken Stats, but it's turned out to be the best class I've ever taught and a very popular one as well.

The course focuses less on number crunching and more on interpretating the result. For example, if the average volume of a brand of soft drink advertised at "250 mL", and a sample of that drink has an average volume of 249.6 mL, is there enough evidence to say that the company is underfilling the bottles? Students need to present a convincing argument why or why not with supporting evidence from the data. If they get the numbers wrong and still interpret the result correctly (which happens sometimes in a testing situation when you don't have time to double-check everything), a student can still receive credit for a correct answer if they present a convincing argument. All of the tedious number crunching is done on calculators or computers.

When these students go on to college, they tell me that they're amazed at the number of different fields of study where the topics we covered in statistics come up again and again. And they're very grateful for the way in which this course has taught them to THINK. Even our worst students (who don't pass the AP exam), say that their intro College Stats class is a snap after spending time in the AP class.

When we started the class we targeted it to honors students, but we have since allowed any student who has passed Algebra II to enroll. These students do just fine if they're willing to do the critical thinking involved in the decision process. Our enrollment has grown from one class of 20 to 3 classes with a total of 70-75, and I know a lot of other teachers who've had similar growth.

I think of all of the years where we thought that statistics was a "wait until college" class, and all of the students who lost out on a great learning experience while they were still in HS. I NEVER have a student ask "when are we gonna use this".

I agree that doing higher math can develop one's ability to think critically, as can reading great literature. As a one time English teacher though, I found that forcing large amounts of literature on unwilling students didn't develop much except resentment. I came to believe it's good to force some exposure but not to struggle too much against resistence. There are many ways a person can develop their ability to think critically. I particularly like the statistics course Usher describes, but even that isn't the only way.

I also agree that mathematical knowledge can translate into good jobs, better pay and the like. But there are people with few math skills who get good jobs and make good money. Having never liked math, I was always willing to sacrafice some money in exchange for having little to do with math. I'm grateful I was forced to take enough math to know that about myself and also grateful that I was free to walk away from studying it at an appropriate time.

I agee that most of the things made in the world require some mathematical ability. I'm also confident that there are enough people who have and develop those abilities so that we'll always have things made for us. I don't think we need to force people who are happier doing other things to study exensively subjects that are unpleasant for them to insure that we'll always have products.

Once, the same arguments were made for studying Latin as are now made for studying higher math, e.g. you learn to think critically by reading the classics in Latin and can't have a complete education if you can't do that. I'm old enough to have heard that argument myself more than once. I can, on rare occasions, still translate the odd Latin expression or word and find it of little value, though sort of fun and I don't think studying Latin had much to do with the development of whatever critical capacities I have. I reject the idea that most LR posters, who I suspect have not studied Latin, are incapable of critical thinking because of it. I always found literature professors who argued that you couldn't think critically unless you read the classics a bit arrogant. And I have the same opinion of people who make the same argument for math.

It is a useful skill, one that we all need to some degree. But I think once a person is near to adulthood, they should be free to decide how much or little of that skill they want to pursue.

new and improved wrote:

Some people think well mathematically. But many others do not. They are sensitive to different aspects of reality-it's aesthetic properties, or its ethical dimensions. For such people mathematical thinking is limiting, stifiling, and has little to do with what they want to know. The attempt to force them to think mathematically is a mistake of the same kind as, but far more serious than, the attempt to force a child to be right handed. It is far more serious because it exacts a much greater psychological toll.

Some people are dyslexic. They have trouble learning to read and are sensitive to different aspects of reality. For such people, forcing them to read when they see letters differently than most is limiting, stifling, etc. Forcing them to think linguistically is a mistake. Let's all hold hands and draw pictures of happiness instead of trying to force them to read.

HRE- I don't think that everyone MUST take higher math, Latin, or loads of classic lit to be intelligent. But I know that I've benefitted by having those things as part of my education and they're a benefit for anyone who takes the time to learn them, even if they're a struggle. I think we're on the exact same page now, if we weren't already.

mud wrote:

Now that I think about it, what the hell is a liberal arts degree good for?

Your last statment was lame, and if you were truly enlightened, you would be able to see that math can and should be integrated into a liberal arts education.

I was terrible at school math (C's and D's), but tested much better. Muddled through college algebra, but did pretty well at calculus as a post graduate. Scored 700 on math GREs, which was in the top 20% even for science majors, and did well in advanced stats as a grad student.

Calculus is a great pedagogical tool, and should be integrated into a liberal arts education. But just becasuse someone went to a liberal arts school does not mean that they are a dummy with a worthless degree. Eschew the bigotry.

My gosh, no wonder this country faces the problems it does with the likes of new and improved in charge of educating kids. Equating learning math with right-handedness is so foul that you should be fired on the spot, as it shows you have no understanding of mathematics whatsoever.

For those of you who point out the necessity of statistics (and you are correct - absolutely essential just to be an informed voting and responsible citizen of this country), the same can be said for elementary calculus. Calc gives one the fundamentals and tools to LEARN about rates of change, which is also absolutely essential in understand everything from economics, to politics, to global warming. New and improved should have never been let out of school. I'm a professor, and hereby award him with an "F" for his posts.

how many math problems a week do You do?

Several hundred, at least. How bout you?

Interesting series of posts.

For myself a C-grade or better in math was a cause for celebration. I was freed from all that and am grateful for it; anyone who works with advanced math (for me anything beyond the basic 4: addition, subtration, multiplication and division) on a daily basis is a Superior Being as far as I am concerned and bless you for it, you deserve the money because I could never make heads nor tails of that stuff.

Math was why I never finished college.

Here's another series of questions: how do we get people to Unlearn their math phobias?

How many prospective MD's never get to Med School owing to some arcane math?

How many people choose college majors, or consider college at all, based on how few math courses are required?

new and improved wrote:

Not bitter at all. Actually. I'm quite happy.

Pointing out the absurd nature of one aspect of the education empire does not make one bitter anymore than your disagreement with me makes you "very bitter". Aren't you the guy that blasts theists? I wouldn't get too high minded if I were you.

Oh, I see, this has already devolved into personalities. I fail to see what my secular leanings, if any, have to do with this. I'm not saying that you sound bitter because you and I disagree, I'm saying that you sound bitter because you sound bitter. It's called "an observation".

>>>>First, I'd like a definition of exactly what an "educrat" is<<<<<

Someone who makes their living, at tax payer expense, propogating politician created curriculum.

OK, who else finds that comment mean-spirited? The last time I checked, politicians didn't create curriculum. Sometimes pressure groups do (e.g., forcing people to teach so-called "creation science"), and perhaps one could say that the politicians are a proxy for those groups in some cases.

I think Bum hit the nail on the head. If you're a teacher, you might find another line of work. Your description of learning/teaching math is nothing like what a good math teacher would do (it's what a bad math teacher do. Not that these don't exist, mind you. Perhaps too many for that matter.)

Ultimately, math is a tool. In a highly technical society it's pretty much a requisite to an effective and intelligent life. As others have mentioned, I can't imagine how someone can get through the day making intelligent, informed decisions without a knowledge of statistics, algebra, and so forth.

Bay,

I don't believe there is any such thing as a math phobia. There is a fear of getting things wrong, and with math you have to be willing to get a lot of things wrong to learn.

Also, there is not a damn thing wrong with a C in math. The problem is the perception. To get a C in math, I'm guessing that you had to toe it up and give the problems a tussle. That's the way it's done. Sure, you may not have done enough problems on a test to get a better grade, but that doesn't always equate with learning. You may have learned a lot more math than someone with high aptitude that got an A without doing any problems. That's commendable in my book, and not something you should downplay.

The other problem is that many who do struggle to get C's in some classes get frustrated by those who can get A's without working as hard. It's too bad you will never get to see those "math wizards" struggle like you do when they get to the higher level stuff. They go through the same pain you do. Sure it's in a different class, but sooner or later everyone feels the pain of math if they stay with it. However, the frustration and pain is the good part. Just like running, the suffering will make you much better at it.

none, unless you count figuring change and making entries in the checkbook

It must be incredible for some to be able to handle math as easily as you suggest.

The notion leaves me shaking my head in amazement.

Then again, that's why Gates in so rich, right?

So when you are driving on the highway, and notice a car in your rear view mirror closing the distance, you are unable to figure out whether he will catch you or not? You do math all day long and don't realize it. Most people do. Some of us actually have to solve equations as part of our jobs, but that doesn't mean that we are the only ones doing math.

Tonight when you see the most recent polls showing Kerry with 47%, Bush with 45%, you will automatic think that Kerry will win right? Not going to figure in that margin of error, or which direction the polls are going? You'll just take it at face value? I doubt it.

Hey Bum, this is for you. OPEN YOUR MIND!

A quick primer on compulsion schooling BEYOND THE MATH CURRICULUM:

1)Government school is the essential force for social cohesion. It cannot happen any other way. A bureaucratized public order is our defense against chaos and anarchy.

2)The socialization of children in groups monitored by state agents is essential; without this, children cannot learn to get along with others in a pluralistic society.

3)Children from different backgrounds and from families with different beliefs must be mixed together. Robert Frost was wrong when he maintained "good fences make good neighbors."

4)The certifiable expertise of official schoolteachers is superior to that of lay people including parents. The protection of children from the uncertified is a compelling public concern.

5)Coercion in the name of liberty is a valid use of state power. Compelling children to assemble in mandated groups for mandated intervals with mandated texts and overseers does not interfere with academic learning.

6)Children will inevitably grow apart from their parents in beliefs as they grow older and this process must be supported and encouraged. The best way to do this is by diluting parental influence and discouraging the children's attitudes that their own parents are sovereign in either mind or morality.

7)The world is full of crazy parents who will ruin their children. An overriding concern of schooling is to protect children from bad parenting.

8)It is not appropriate for any family to unduly concern itself with the education of its own children, but it may expend unlimited effort on behalf of the general education of everyone.

9)The State has the predominant responsibility for training, morals, and beliefs. Children schooled outside government scrutiny frequently become anti-social and poverty stricken.

You want me to stay away from kids? Fair enough. But that cuts both ways. You dig?

I'm going well beyond the thread here so this is just a vanity post.

Whoa, not sure what that post came from. I agree with most of the points. So what the hell does all of this have to do with the specifics of the arguments regarding math? Or is this just your forum to act philosophical?

I think the assumptions are true, but I don't agree with them philosophically. You?

I told you it was a vanity post. It does, however, go to the core of what I think is destructive about compulsory government education in relation to human dignity and freedom of thought.

I did well in math until college, when I nearly flunked multi-variable calculus. It was taught by a world-famous mathematician named John Tate. Nice guy, lousy teacher. So I majored in music, took some computer science, and ended up a programmer.

But I'm still curious about math, and one day, want to teach it. Once I'm done with raising my big-ish family, I will, not for the money, but for the love of it.

I wish they would teach the personalities behind the math discoveries. Newton and Galois, for example.