Math in grade school, hs and college.

However you cut it, twelve years of math is about eleven years too much. There is not one shread of proof that math makes one a better thinker. Math, like many other school subjects, is a ROTE enterprise of memorizing arcane proof after arcane proof. What is one to do with their math degree?: teach it to others (95%); work in a completely unrelated field (4.5%); work in a related field that requires about a tenth of a percent of the math knowledge forced down your throat by educrats ( the rest of ya).

b

The thing that's different between reading, "basic" math, and upper level math is that once you've learned the first two you constantly re-use them in daily life no matter what your life is like. But once you're done with upper level math, you're likely done.

I once sort of learned quadratic equations. Doing so was useful to me for several weeks in 1968-69 so that I could pass algebra and never again. There wasn't any applicability for the equations in my other classes. I didn't need to do QEs to do well in English, German, history, phys ed., etc. But if I hadn't been able to read I couldn't have functioned in any classes, even math classes.

From 1970 onward, I've never seen nor dealt with a quadratic equation again and can't even remember what they are. There's no way I could continue to remember how to do them because there was no need to do them and therefore no reinforcement. So I'm always a bit puzzled when someone says people "should" routinely have to study advanced math even if those people have no plans for work in a math-related field. There's never any specific, practical, explanation for the "should."

Having said all that, I agree that students as far up the ladder as high school "should" have a reasonable amount of exposure to higher forms math simply because it creates an opportunity to see who does have some aptitude and might want to pursue a future in it.

New and Improved -

How is learning to solve problems NOT going to help you in any career path?

Math is solving problems. True, you may not need to graph a quadratic function in everyday life, but the process of learning how to solve problems seems pretty useful.

I studied Marine Biology at a state school and it was all metric so it seems to me that the U.S. is just fine thank you. The fact that the non-scientific community does not use the metric system really does not matter. They won't be discovering or inventing anything anyway. I am working on a Computer Science masters and it is all binary and sometimes hex, so depending on what environment you are in is what you will be working with.

So big deal if the general population is not efficient with math, they never will be anyway.

SAT's?

Hmmmm....my Math was 420, my verbal was 520 or 540 (I forget precisely) this was in 1971 or thereabouts.

I entered and left college 3 times, changed schools 3 times and have credits from (I believe) six different colleges altogether. Quite a patchwork. You can guess

I had NO focus whatever after I escaped from HS which, even today, ranks as likely the HAPPIEST day in my entire life.

That may underscore your point about predispostion.

This thread is actually quite interesting. Thanks for all your contributions. Perhaps someone can learn from our collective experience?

new and improved wrote:

However you cut it, twelve years of math is about eleven years too much. There is not one shread of proof that math makes one a better thinker. Math, like many other school subjects, is a ROTE enterprise of memorizing arcane proof after arcane proof. What is one to do with their math degree?: teach it to others (95%); work in a completely unrelated field (4.5%); work in a related field that requires about a tenth of a percent of the math knowledge forced down your throat by educrats ( the rest of ya).

This is just such an ignorant post I don't even know where to begin. Most of the math you learn in school (k-12) is neither arcane nor proof-based. In fact the majority of k-12 math is the kind that is useful in budgeting your money, computing your taxes, figuring a tip, etc. Almost everyone in a science related field has to use some sort of upper level math. Differential equations in engineering, biological systems models in ecology, all kinds of applications in computer programming... all the science that lets you type on your computer or drive your car or listen to your cd player has a mathematical foundation. Stop teaching schoolchildren math and you'll see scientific progress disappear as well.

Have you noticed reading throught this thread, not one person has used a complex setup of mathematical models to argue their case. Basic math that can be learned in far less than twelve years is employed to bolster their contention in part, but the larger portion of proof offered here is LANGUAGE driven. Math has its place, but a twelve year plus pedagogical boredom sentence is not one of them.

Educators claim they are using the mathematics curriculum to train children to think logically. In reality they are squandering children's resources, confusing and frightening them, shattering their confidence and self-esteem. Because the mastery of an arbitrary grab bag of mathematical techniques is thought to be of great value, the damage is ignored. Or if it is noticed, it is seen as a necessary evil, the price people have to pay for learning how to think rationally. But it is an entirely unnecessary evil. The case in favor of the 12-year mathematics curriculum is wrong about the nature of mathematics, wrong about the nature of thinking, and wrong about the relation between the two.

In the equation ax^2+bx+c=0, x equals

(-b +or-(b^2-4ac)^.5)/2a

In my job I use algrbra like this all the time. Telling me that you don't need to be able to solve a 2 degree polynomial to solve complex problems is like telling Hicham ElGuerrouj that he doesn't need to be able to run a 50 second 400 to run a mile in 3:45. You don't need the advanced math very often in the real world, but when you do, and can do it, it can put you ahead of the pack at the office VERY quickly. College students should study higher math not just because it's useful, but because if you can't handle it you shouldn't be in college.

I am an economics PhD and teach economics and statistics at washington and lee university. I hated math until I went to grad school where I was forced to "love" it, as without a love for it you will go crazy using it all of the time. It is hard trying to make stats class "fun", but you can at times (but not all the time!!)

Typical Standards taught in first grade:

1. place value (up to Hundreds place)

2. counting 0 to 180 (no negatives)

3. counting change up to $1.00 in value

4. recognizing dates in numeric form

Getting by with only these skills? You need nothing more?

That's like saying I don't need to learn formal language, because most people can grasp my meaning with grunts.

HRE,

I think that studying some advanced math is comparable to reading some classic literature or philosophy as part of your college curiculum. A lot of adults never read classic literature anymore, and some people find philosophy very hard to understand. The average college grad probably knew at one time the differences between the beliefs of Plato and Aristotle, but if they've been out for a while, can probably no longer remember specifically what those differences are. But that's not a good reason why a student shouldn't have to take literature or philosophy classes as part of his general ed.

For example, when I was in UG, I read some Heidegger for a class. I use the quadratic formula occasionally, but I'll probably never have to pick up Heidegger again or remember what he said. But I think that struggling through his writings and understanding then what he was talking about helped me to become a better thinker and left ideas on my subconscious even though I can't state them explicitly. Likewise, the more math you have, at least calculus, the more accustomed you'll be to problem solving and critical thinking. If you have proof-based classes, you'll learn to think more abstractly. So not everyone must take upper level math, but anyone who wants to be as complete a thinker as possible "should" take it, just as they "should" read literature and philosophy.

jbuys wrote:

Typical Standards taught in first grade:

1. place value (up to Hundreds place)

2. counting 0 to 180 (no negatives)

3. counting change up to $1.00 in value

4. recognizing dates in numeric form

Getting by with only these skills? You need nothing more?

That's like saying I don't need to learn formal language, because most people can grasp my meaning with grunts.

EXACTLY. Basically, people that say math is stupid ARE stupid.

You don't have to TEACH PEOPLE TO THINK, anymore than you have to teach them to walk or talk. Hell, if the educrats attempted the latter two examples we'd have a nation of cripples and mutes.

As for a first grade approach to mathematics, that's your approach, not mine. I have more faith in the little ones than that.

LOL. God Bless You.

I took stat THREE times before passing it by the skin of my teeth with a 1.9 on the 3rd try. This was with nights where I would get up at 1-2AM and try, try, try...

When you pay your own tuition it can get doubly and triply frustrating not to mention EXPENSIVE. I took Accounting I 3 times, flunked it once outright, took a WF the second time and on the third time dropped it after 4 classes understanding that I would never get a BSBA or MBA.

I have NO feel for Quantitative stuff, how you can make that interesting is beyond my poor mind to fathom.

I have a civil service job (clerical and 25+ years of service) and my degree has not aided me owing to various 'issues' in the system. Not to mention that I have been accused of being "too linear" and having a DANGEROUSLY low tolerance for B/S from managers and co-workers.

prestige?? wrote:

jbuys wrote:

Typical Standards taught in first grade:

1. place value (up to Hundreds place)

2. counting 0 to 180 (no negatives)

3. counting change up to $1.00 in value

4. recognizing dates in numeric form

Getting by with only these skills? You need nothing more?

That's like saying I don't need to learn formal language, because most people can grasp my meaning with grunts.

EXACTLY. Basically, people that say math is stupid ARE stupid.

That's mighty mathematical of you.

Math is quite useful as a learning tool even if the student pursues a path apparently devoid of math. It can teach you to ...

... pay attention to details

... recognize that there are a variety of different solutions to the same problem

... use both algorithmic (logical, step-by-step procedure) and heuristic (investigative) methods to find answers

.. translate specific examples into general principles

... express concepts with symbols (this is no different than when learning languages - in language, the basic symbolic units are letters and words)

Math professionals feel free to add to this list.

You cannot do anything technical without knowledge of math. Go and try and build something precise. It culd be anything: a ski jump, a wheel, a car, a running shoe, a rocket, a computer, a baseball bat, a pair of glasses, a clock, a stove, anyhting. You will need math and lots of it.

Better yet, try and do anything quantitatively. How the mileage of your car differs depending on average speed (high way miles compared to city miles), whether it's worth your time to cut coupons for 60 minutes a weekend, how much extra money you will end up paying for a car if you take a loan instead of writing a check, the actual distance a plane travels from take off to landing (line integral), whether we should nuke the USSR before they nuke us or if we should wait it out(game theory), any computer programming (anything digital), anything involving odds, I could on and on.

The area where I am living flooded this weekend. Want to know when/how fast the flood waters will recede? That is one giant differential equation (probably a partial diff. eq) and it is EXTREMELY useful to everyone in the community, yet most of them go around thinking that any math above basic algebra is useless.

Math is the language of the universe. It describes our entire world. If aliens land tomorrow then it will be the mathematicians that will communicate with them because 2+2=4 no matter where in the universe you're from (yes I know, an absurd example but hopefully you see my point).

PS- uses for the quadtratic equation are all over the place. Try throwing something across the room. It's path is parabolic, which is exactly what a quadratic equation describes.

new and improved wrote:

You don't have to TEACH PEOPLE TO THINK, anymore than you have to teach them to walk or talk. Hell, if the educrats attempted the latter two examples we'd have a nation of cripples and mutes.

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

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

You sound like a very bitter individual, one who harbors resentment at teachers in general and math teachers in particular. I've had some poor teachers in my day but I've come across some very good ones as well (as is true in most any profession). If you think that math is little more than a set of rote tricks to solve specific problems I have to conclude that you don't understand mathematics very well. I've taught engineering courses for 20+ years. My experience with math comes in at several levels. From what I have seen, a lack of math skill is a major roadblock for many students in college. This doesn't just affect their performance in math class but in many other classes, some of which may appear to be completely unrelated on the surface. Two quick examples: I remember taking a music theory class while an undergrad. At one point we were taught a set of rules for basic 4-part harmony. The prof would write out an 8 bar melody and ask us to harmonize it. It was a piece of cake. As a mathematical puzzle it was simple exercise in inclusion/exclusion of sets mixed with a little forethought, yet I knew many students for whom it was total confusion. Example two: How can an individual make intelligent decisions regarding politics and spending if they can't deal with "big" numbers? (i.e., how can you vote intelligently if you can't see past a smoke screen of rhetoric and platitudes?) Sometimes I hear people whining about how some federal program "pissed away" a fifty thousand dollars on a park improvement or somesuch and yet totally ignore the fact that a new bomber might cost $700 million each. There is no sense of magnitude.

Someone mentioned the "cool factor" regarding not knowing math. That's a nail on the head comment. No one would walk around these days bragging that they're illiterate, but lots of people just smile and laugh and say "I'm not good at math". For some reason, math is seen as nonessential and "geeky", yet our very existence here owes much to applied mathematics. Without basic math you wouldn't even have toilets, let alone bridges, cars, lights, and modern medicine.

Another comment was made about the metric system. I can't see a single reason why the USA doesn't switch to it other than simple stubborness. There are too many reasons to list in favor of switching. I think the fact that we haven't switched says something about the view we have of ourselves as a nation.

Same damn story I tell my kids when they ask "When are we ever going to use this?" (which is only asked by the students who are failing).

An educated person knows more than he/she needs. You never know what life is going to send your way, so if you are broadly educated you can take advantage of many opportunities. If a great job opportunity comes your way and they want just a little more math skills than you have . . . well, someone else will get it. Ditto for writing skills, reading skills, and lots of other things. How often does the typical American change jobs? Careers? It pays to be prepared -- my wife got a great full-time IT job with a English & creative writing degrees because she was prepared for lots of things.