Slashdot Mirror
A Mathematician's Lament — an Indictment of US Math Education
Scott Aaronson recently had "A Mathematician's Lament" [PDF], Paul Lockhardt's indictment of K-12 math education in the US, pointed out to him and takes some time to examine the finer points. "Lockhardt says pretty much everything I've wanted to say about this subject since the age of twelve, and does so with the thunderous rage of an Old Testament prophet. If you like math, and more so if you think you don't like math, I implore you to read his essay with every atom of my being. Which is not to say I don't have a few quibbles [...] In the end, Lockhardt's lament is subversive, angry, and radical ... but if you know anything about math and anything about K-12 'education' (at least in the United States), I defy you to read and find a single sentence that isn't permeated, suffused, soaked, and encrusted with truth."
... interesting things kids want to do.
Lets face it a minority of people will like math, but matehmaticians have done a lot to make mathematics overly complicated.
I struggled with the symbolic format math was presented in highschool because it was so disconnected from the world, only as I got older did I realize how arbitrary and how that was only one way to present mathematics. To really teach math one must learn how to observe first before one even gets into symbolic computation, math at it's most basic is about observing relationships, patterns of : Size, ratio, proportion, etc. It's really a language invented to systematize structure and relationships of the real world, therefore how math is represented and structured and is taught matters a hell of a lot.
I've learned over the years that many mathematical systems are totally arbitrary are are more obtuse then they need to be, math comes from the simplest observations. Math has built up a lot of cruft and wasteful jargon disconnecting math from the world.
For instance I had no idea for a long time that the way math is structured could be restructured when I was young and it was one group of peoples perspective on mathematical principles, I came across debates and alernative systems like:
http://www.symmetryperfect.com/
And it showed me how arbitrary mathematical systems and their structures really are and they are built to suit particular kinds of minds or cultures.
For instance the ancient mayans used shapes for numbers, instead of 1, 2, 3
See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_numerals
Math is a very rich subject which unfortunately has a lot of cultish like people who think themselves the gatekeepers of mathematics.
I've thought about writing a book in my spare time about how badly mathematicians and the academia has blinded themselves to simplifying mathematics by focusing too much on symbolic jargon and not teaching children how 'mathematical' relationships are related to our simplest observations of the world: Size, shape, form, color, motion, etc.
Found it here: http://plato.asu.edu/LockhartsLament.pdf
The whole idea behind his essay is that he liked playing with numbers and shapes as if it's an art, but he doesn't seem to realize most people don't share this love for math, like pretty much 90% of any student population. This is me speaking as a just-graduated senior: the things he suggests is beyond the ability of most math students in high school.
While I was in university, a computer science professor in the faculty of mathematics told me (and the rest of the class) a cute and funny story about what happens "when the children of math professors get together". He and a colleague, who each had a young daughter at that time, were walking together in a park with their daughters. The children were old enough to have picked up some math-related words and phrases from their fathers, but young enough to have no idea what they really meant - six or seven years old, maybe? The daughters went off to play and their fathers overheard them arguing about who had seen the most flowers in the park.
My professor's daughter said, "I saw five flowers!"
"And I saw... six!", the other girl replied.
Not to be outdone, my professor's daughter said, "I saw a million flowers."
"Oh yeah? I saw infinity flowers."
This, according to my professor, caused his daughter to pause - she had never heard of "infinity" before. How could she top "infinity flowers", especially since she didn't know what it meant?
But after thinking for a few seconds, she said, "Well, I saw all the flowers."
Atheism is a religion to the same extent that not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Bingo, and that's one of the big problems with trying to do anything about the issues the paper raises: there are only so many people with the 1) ability, 2) knowledge, and 3) inclination, to do the kind of real mathematics he's talking about.
We'd have to re-vamp our teacher training along the lines of what's talked about in the paper to try to increase the number of people who could do it, and hope Lockhart's right about this being an art with universal appeal so that enough of the teacher candidates "get" it. Even if elementary schools began using dedicated math teachers (some already do, but many don't) we'd still need a shitload of people trained in this "math as an art/math as play" style, and we currently have approximately zero in elementary education.
Passions come to people unexpectedly. We should deal with the fact that more people are passionate about topics like Art and Humanities than Math and Computer Science. It's just the reality of academia right now.
Isn't his point that we don't really know if that's true, since math isn't taught in a way to inspire passion? That if more people were able to glimpse some of the beauty and creativity in it, there might be more interest in it?
Well if you're not asking for teachers needing to be professional published mathematicians, what was that paragraph about?
I agree we can't expect every teacher to be awe-inspiring; even getting (and retaining) enough marginally competent teachers is a challenge. However, you needn't be a university-level mathematics professor to know some of what he's suggested. For example, public school teachers are supposed to have Master's degrees, right? Now, isn't there something funny about the fact that teachers will go and get their BS in the subject they will teach, but get their Master's degree in "education"? Cue the "Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds" quotes. I'd think that teachers might be better served by a decent master's degree in their field of teaching, rather than "education". That would allow them the opportunity to study the history and philosophy of their subject, get a grasp of recent developments (maybe not in all subjects, but they could at least be able to pick up journals), etc. The really good ones could even get published (I just got my Master's degree, and was able to get a paper published, so yes, it's possible).
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
American education was designed to fail. Read the book (it's free online) The Underground History of American Education by John Taylor Gatto. He is a former New York State and New York City Teacher of the Year
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/
Bah, like we're going to RTFA on a Friday when there are much better ...
I know you're mostly joking but this was a pretty interesting albeit lengthy opinion piece. In fact, he even busts into dialogue between two fictional characters named Simplicio & Salviati to illustrate his point. It's a very Plato/Caroll/Hofstadter sort of way to illustrate his point. Hell, I love this format so much, half my posts are in it!
Anyway, after reading this, I am really eager for vdash.org to get its wiki up and running so that can be used to build engines and homework for students. Maybe even provide a hub for teachers to discuss interesting assignments? I'm sure the discussion pages will prove interesting if real academics get in arguments about proofs and math. I don't think the real payoff would be reinstitutionalizing the teachers but instead giving the students the free online resources to go the extra mile if they so desire. Save your Turings and Erdoses if you can't help everyone!
Lockhart is definitely a dreamer and this isn't going to change public schools. But it might change how you as a parent get involved with your children and math.
My work here is dung.
And you get around the economic obstacles by subverting the system: Crowdsource the textbook to a group of interested mathematicians. Publish it online for free, with printed copies available for a price far below what a crooked textbook publisher would charge. Add value by posting demonstrations by mathematicians, math historians, and math professors on YouTube, linked to the relevant chapter of this comprehensive, global mathematics resource.
Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
Quantum entanglement, duh. You went to American high school, didn't you.
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
The Bible says Pi = 3, in the 1st Kings (7:23). That's OT, not NT.
It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
If everyone were generally qualified for interesting jobs, then boring jobs would pay much, much better. And interesting jobs would pay poorly.
That already happens with academia: the salaries at research institutions are often less than those in community colleges, simply because the former are more interesting jobs.
A pretty good approximation for a society that usually measured them using their forearms, if you ask me. Round 3.14 to the nearest cubit, what do you have? Very closely, 3.
Quiz: True or False -- On a scale of 1 to 10, what is your middle name?