Slashdot Mirror
How Much Math Do We Really Need?
Pickens writes "G.V. Ramanathan, a professor emeritus of mathematics, statistics and computer science at the University of Illinois at Chicago, writes in the Washington Post that although a lot of effort and money has been spent to make mathematics seem essential, unlike literature, history, politics and music, math has little relevance to everybody's daily life. 'All the mathematics one needs in real life can be learned in early years without much fuss,' writes Ramanathan. 'Most adults have no contact with math at work, nor do they curl up with an algebra book for relaxation.' Ramanathan says that the marketing of math has become similar to the marketing of creams to whiten teeth, gels to grow hair and regimens to build a beautiful body, but even with generous government grants over the past 25 years, countless courses, conferences, and books written on how to teach teachers to teach, where is the evidence that these efforts have helped students? A 2008 review by the Education Department found that the nation is at 'greater risk now' than it was in 1983, and the National Assessment of Educational Progress math scores for 17-year-olds have remained stagnant since the 1980s (PDF). Meanwhile those who do love math and science have been doing very well and our graduate schools are the best in the world. 'As for the rest, there is no obligation to love math any more than grammar, composition, curfew or washing up after dinner. Why create a need to make it palatable to all and spend taxpayers' money on pointless endeavors without demonstrable results or accountability?'"
We could use, at least, a basic understanding of probability..
One part of math all people should be required to understand is exponential growth.
It might make people realize that population growth, resource consumption, etc. can't keep increasing at current levels without severe corrections in the somewhat close future.
Yes! How can statistics possibly be useful in today's world? Or an understanding of continuously changing variables, like mortgages?
If more people understood math at that level, a lot fewer of us would be constantly fooled by financial flim-flam and political bullshit.
I'm a professor at a liberal arts college. I feel that music and literature is important, but there's no way I can say it's strictly more important than math or sciences. Equally important to being a well-rounded person? Sure.
Out of idle curiosity, when did "ramblings of a random guy" become "news"?
For me personally, learning advanced mathematics (calculus and beyond) has changed my thinking process from a purely creative, English-oriented one to an objective, analytical outlook. The true understanding of how mathematical principals work--what a derivative is and not merely how to calculate it--has shown me the power of mathematical, logical analysis. As an English major, I came to a point where I was not sure whether or not I wanted to continue taking math courses (as I will need almost no math beyond arithmetic in my life), but I came to the conclusion that the mindset mathematics gives me rather than the quantitative abilities it provides is what matters in my education, and I therefore encourage anybody to continue studying math well past the point in which the skills become irrelevant.
Why teach History? Few people need that in their daily life or jobs. Why teach music? Other arts? Science? Few people need Chemistry or Physics in their daily lives... etc.
Because Mathematics, like the rest, increase our fundamental understanding of the world around us. It's part of creating critically thinking individuals who have more to give back to society than a simple job skill they learned at an early age. Or at least give them the opportunity... take away fundamental education, they no longer have the choice.
A knowledge of math does not simply improve your ability to solve math problems. It is not the direct application of mathematics on everyday life that is most beneficial, but the analytical and conceptual skill set gained by learning higher level math. The real benefit is that when you study "literature, history, politics and music," you can actually conceptualize the complex interconnections and processes at work in a truly quantifiable way.
I learned computer programming at a very young age, and today, as an electrical engineering student, I am at a great advantage over my peers because of my ability to conceptualize and understand processes. The core of that is my learned ability with mathematics, both algebraic and algorithmic. It also spills over into my humanities courses, where the method of formalizing concepts central to the field of mathematics vastly improves my ability to synthesize complex texts. Of course, that's partly because nothing is as hard to understand as undocumented code, and partly because I have the mathematical foundation to build and conceptualize systems.
If anything, we need to push mathematics younger and younger, and complement that with computer programming courses. I know my 2 year old son will be getting weekly lessons from me on these subjects when he grows up, without question.
If the rest of the country continues to decline on the international standard of education, I know that at least my children will not.
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
Music and literature may be popular, but they are hardly essential. And history's importance mainly comes from informing politics.
Do most people need to know multivariable calculus? No. But one thing most people are missing is an understanding of basic statistics and logic. Statisticians don't help much. Courses need to be more than just memorizing a bunch of statistical formulas. People need to understand why basic statistical reasoning works. If people don't have that basic philosophical understanding of why statistics work, then they'll just forget all about the formulas they were forced to memorize after the course is over.
These types of courses should be essential for all, but they aren't even available until college--and even then they're optional.
Speaking as someone with a degree in Physics, I can safely say that I've only used literary analysis one time in my life: when learning it in school.
Math is important for understanding why math is important. Which in turn allows you to see that math is important for being able to reason in a structured and abstract way about the world. Many people confuse math with arithmethic, algebra, trigonometry and calculus because these were all labeled math when they were students. Nothing could be farther from the truth. At its foundation, math is very closely tied with logic in that it is deductive rather than inductive, and you use it to prove complex assertions by stitching together smaller components you already know are true. The fact that with this system you can go on and prove the validity of the theoretical tools that you use to build a bridge that stays up or to make an airplane that flies or even to understand the best way to invest your own money is what makes math not only important but also amazing...
My book: Friendly F#, fun with game development and XNA; my game: Galaxy Wars by VSTeam; my gamedev language: Casanova.
The languages we know affect what thoughts we can think. While it is very zen to say that words hide meaning, empirical evidence seems to indicate that we cannot conceive of ideas that we do not have language to express. Math can express most anything which allows for thoughts right up to the limits of our hardware. It seems like this is also a good reason to learn a human language with different roots than your native one, but I have not done that yet, so I couldn't say.
refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.
How much do you understand the budgets you pay taxes on, rates of growth in government and private economy, trends in your home value? Do you know how much you pay in interest on your loans, vs paying in full a little later? Have you considered how much you'd save by changing how your home is heated and powered, with an upfront investment? Do you have any idea how your IRA/401k is performing, or how you'd do if you reallocated its investments? Do you know how your gas mileage varies with different driving patterns or gas octanes?
You would if you used math.
--
make install -not war
Obviously we all need some math (and as many here - myself included - are engineers, we know that a small portition of the people need more math)... But how much? Really, does average person ever have to deal with integrals, derivations... or nearly any other area of abstract algebra... after graduating? Everyone needs some very basich math (when shopping, dealing with loans, etc... But the type of math needed for that sort of things have been dealt with by sixth grade. If the point is that many still don't know them well enough, teaching more advanced subjects doesn't seem like a good solution.
Danica McKellar said so, and she's prettier than G.V. Ramanathan.
I've felt this way for a long time now, only about many other subjects that are mandatory in the school system as well. Instead of just teaching the essentials in the early years and allowing them to choose their classes in high school, they force you to take classes which have nothing to do with your desired profession. This likely increases the amount of failures because failing one of these non-essential subjects (which you aren't interested in) could cause you to fail an entire year. If you attempt to do well in one of these classes which you do not need, you will end up devoting a lot of time and effort for... something that you do not need. If people later change their mind about their desired profession, that is their own choice. They do that currently, and many of them have to relearn what they need for their desired profession, anyway, because when you don't use something, it is easily forgettable (even in a short amount of time). Sadly, many people think that more mandatory classes and tedious work will somehow make everyone more intelligent, but in reality, much of their time goes to waste memorizing this information which is not useful to them (which they forget soon enough because they do not use it, anyway).
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
I know Ramanathan as the author of a series of study manuals for the preliminary examinations for actuarial science in the US. It honestly surprises me that someone of that level of mathematical knowledge would make such a poorly reasoned argument. As such I must consider the possibility that this is some kind of cynical elitist ploy to retain mathematics as the language of the privileged and well-educated, much like Latin hundreds of years ago. But this too seems too sinister a line of thought to entertain--and somewhat contradictory, given what I know of him.
Nevertheless, the logic is unsound. Mathematics is not merely computation or abstract manipulation of symbols. It is a way of thinking that not only fosters an understanding of the importance of logical reasoning, but also the necessity to substantiate and quantify one's empirical observations. That is to say, mathematics is the foundation of science. To say that most people don't need anything more than the most basic knowledge of math is like saying people don't need the ability to think critically.
The reason why we learn mathematics is not just to perform work with it, but to learn how to think logically and behave rationally. If there should be any doubt about this, just look at the state of mathematics education in the US today, and compare that to how appropriately we assess things like the relative risk of terrorist threats versus being in a car accident; or how well people understand what happened with the Wall Street bailouts; or even something as basic as compound interest as it applies to making payments on credit cards. I think the evidence is overwhelming to support the notion that people suffer from innumeracy, not too much mathematics. And given that Ramanathan writes study manuals for actuarial candidates, I find his lack of understanding of this point to be all the more remarkable.
Why stop at math? We don't need to know much about chemistry, physics, biology, engineering, or anything besides how to change the batteries in the remote. An operative word here is "need". In some sense all we "need" do is stuff food in our mouths and breathe. Now, change the "need" to some zeroth law about seeing the species as a whole progress, and suddenly a general awareness of math at a deeper level becomes quite important. I find the original author's thesis to be narrow, cynical, and with a subtle complacency to separate of the populace into Brahmans and non-Brahmans.
If you can't, or don't, understand the relatively simple concepts behind trigonometry and polynomials, you aren't ready for calculus.
I think you are talking about a different form of analysis. The sort of analysis that you would do on a technical paper would be a technical analysis, verification of facts, etc... not a literary one. Literary analysis involves explaining a work of fiction or poetry by means of interpretation based on the specific linguistic expressions or structural tools used by the author.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Hmmm.... I wonder what would have happened if this guy would have lived circa 1853 right before Bernhard Riemann invented calculus on smooth manifolds, also known as Riemannian Geometry. Maybe Riemann would have been discouraged and scrapped his work. Too bad, since that work, which had no useful applications at the time, would turn out to be the core mathematics Einstein needed to complete General Relativity some 61 years later.
Math is the language that describes the universe. Stop pursuing new heights in math an you will never reach new heights in reality.
jdb2
So the higher you can raise that denominator, the better off society will be in the long term, because effectively, we're all making the decisions by electing our leaders, and if the bulk of the population is ignorant of the effects of exponential growth, disaster will eventually ensue.
That's why our public education was originally created - to have an educated electorate. Then somehow over the years, our education became job training - even at the university level.
Whenever I hear a business leader complain that our schools aren't producing "educated workers" my blood boils - and I can understand the folks who rant about "corporatism".
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
The problem of history, economics and political science is that many of the sources are actually the work of "manipulative talking heads".
With Math, or anything else probably, it's now so much "how much you know" but "how well you know it". It's the old "quality" versus "quantity" problem. There are plenty of concepts that would be useful to understand just from a basic life skills perspective that most people simply don't get. Something as simple as compound interest is lost on most people and that's a pretty basic mathematical idea. Applied math can be a very handy thing. However, most maths education goes out of it's way to avoid any sort of real world relevance at all.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Even people that go on to college can benefit from votech skills. A lot of this stuff works out to be basic survival skills in a highly technological society where being able to fix your house or your car or your TV is of considerable advantage. It helps even if you don't want to do the work yourself. It allows you to understand the work well enough to properly judge it and shop for it as a consumer.
It's like anything else that seems unecessary in education. Understanding the world allows people to make better informed choices.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I'd add "order of magnitude estimation" to that list, becuase I find it regularly useful to make ballpark guesses about various issues. So, being able to do something like this, just to make something up as a calculation of the mass of the Earth:
The Earth is about 8000 miles across, but let's call it 10,000 in round numbers. It's a sphere, but if it were a cube, it would have a volume of 10K time 10K time 10K, or about 1,000,000,000,000 cubic miles. A mile is about 5000 feet, so a cubic mile is about 75,000,000,000 cubic feet, or about 100 billion cubic feet in round numbers. A bag of dirt is about a cubic foot and weighs about 40 pounds, but lets call it 100 pounds in round numbers and accounting for rock. So a cubic mile of Earth weighs about 10,000 billion pounds. So, the Earth weighs about 10 thousand billion trillion pounds. Or about 5 billion trillion tons.
Let's check how close I got? :-)
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/planet-earth-weigh.htm
6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (6E+24) kilograms.
10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 pounds (so, a little low if divided by 2.2)
10,000 * 1,000,000,000 * 1,000,000,000,000
Pretty close! :-)
Anyway, while that's a complicated calculation, and with big rounding errors in various places (compressed molten rock must weigh quite a bit more than topsoil since I rounded up a bunch), the more people who can do that sort of thing, the more people can make sense of a lot of public policy issues like comparing NASA's budget to the DOD budget, or understanding the amount of the economy goint to social security relative to education, or guessing how feasible some technical proposal is, and so on. The devil is in the details, of course, but order of magnitude estimation at least can put a sort of ballpark fence around the details. I used just facts I knew (diameter of the Earth, weight of a bag of soil) without precise details to get close. Often, in public policy, close is all you need to have a feel for the basics of a situation and to fact check what you are being told.
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Teaching math isn't about teaching a specific skill that everyone will use, it's about teaching how to approach problems quantitatively. At least it should be. As someone pointed out in a post further down, a lot of us don't use literary analysis in day to day life either but the reason to learn it is that learning different topics that require critical and logical thinking will arm students with better methods to approach problems with.
A physicist may well benefit a great deal from from having gone to English class in high school. Sure they only use make use of the basics, like correct spelling and grammar, every day but the style of critical thinking that is exercised in literary analysis is additional tool that they have. Similarly, math teaches and practices a way of approaching problems that other subjects don't address.
Someone who has an education in only a range of topics that is limited to their interests will be a flat, bland and incapable person.
So if this is the future...where's my jet pack?
I can't think of a better way to do it
Teach it to them when they do need it.
Personally I find most branches of maths to be mind numbingly boring and utterly irrelevant. Until the times I need them to solve an actual problem. In which case they suddenly become interesting and useful, and a whole lot easier to grasp beyond rote learning for a test.
Integrating the necessary maths into the disciplines that actually need them might perhaps take some more time, but I think it'd be less of a waste of time than the current situation and probably yield easier learning of the maths useful in those disciplines.
It's even more than that. Without math, your ability to understand physics is compromised; and without physics basic and very practical things like your driving skills are going to suffer. People are *really* a lot better drivers when they can bring a realistic understanding of traction, inertia, kinetic energy and so forth to the driver's seat. But that's not all. Polls completely bewilder and mislead their readers without basic statistics; lotteries rob the probability-impaired (hence the joke, "lotteries are a tax for the math-impaired); people who don't have a good, intuitive understanding of what thousand, million, billion and trillion mean relative to each other are inherently incapable of forming useful opinions on federal budget issues (and consequently, are likely to vote in a random, haphazard manner more driven by crap like fox news than sense); it even leads to poor military strategy, an excellent example of which can presently be found in the Iraq war.
The pachyderm in the parlor, however, is the fact that if you take an IQ 100 person (or lower) and try to teach them math beyond the basics, you're not often going to get very far. People aren't born equal in capacity, and we can't fix that by applying more pressure to their foreheads, which is about what forced math classes do.
It's that whole thing about teaching pigs to dance. It wastes your time, and it annoys the pig.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
No.
I went to high school 6 years ago, and we learned nothing. Absolutely nothing at all. The entire day was a complete and utter waste. The problem was the pace. Everyone assumes kids are stupid, so they teach us slowly. If they did a better job teaching, it would be trivial to reach a meaningful depth in every subject.
I'm not promoting math at the expensive of other subjects. I'm saying every subject is woefully under taught.
Actually, I think we should pull back on subjects like "standardized test preparation." We're taught to pass idiotic tests, so all we ever learn is idiocy.
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
One of the things I found frustrating about calculus was that we had a lot of drill, with little or no explanation of what we were being drilled upon.
For instance, I remember spending about two weeks on l'Hospital's rule, in two different classes. One instructor laboriously worked through proofs, and was scrupulous about terminology. The other instructor offered cute mnemonic devices. The same textbook was used both times: a paragraph introducing l'Hospital's rule talked about a "struggle" between two derivatives with an uncertain conclusion. It was clearly an incomplete thought.
Later, it dawned on me that it amounted to, "If you can't work out what happens when comparing two rates of change, try comparing the rates of change of the rates of change. Recurse as needed." That, some of the caveats, and a few illustrative sketches would have explained it clearly in a single lecture; a handful of problems would have verified that I understood it. Instead, I got weeks of confusing lectures and about a hundred increasingly complicated problems that drilled me on a procedure that, at that point, I didn't understand.
If you don't understand the point of the procedure, how are you to recognize when it would be useful to apply it, if it's outside the context of a homework problem set or an exam? Yet there never seemed to be any concern with whether we understood mathematics conceptually, only whether we could grind through meaningless assignments.