Slashdot Mirror
Requiring Algebra II In High School Gains Momentum
ChadHurley writes with this quote from the Washington Post:
"Of all of the classes offered in high school, Algebra II is the leading predictor of college and work success, according to research that has launched a growing national movement to require it of graduates. In recent years, 20 states and the District have moved to raise graduation requirements to include Algebra II, and its complexities are being demanded of more and more students. The effort has been led by Achieve, a group organized by governors and business leaders and funded by corporations and their foundations, to improve the skills of the workforce. Although US economic strength has been attributed in part to high levels of education, the workforce is lagging in the percentage of younger workers with college degrees, according to the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development."
Come on, people! We should all know this already. Just because "Algebra II" is a predictor of success, doesn't mean that it causes the success. It is much more likely that the smarter students who are (or at least were, before the depression) more likely to succeed are also more likely to take Algebra II. Making everyone take it is going to have about as much success as cargo cults did.
No kidding. Just because education is a predictor of success does not mean that we should educate our kids. Some kids are guaranteed to succeed without education whatsoever.
Is this catchphrase a restatement of the "Necessary vs Sufficient" principles? So Algebra might be Necessary (on a percentage scale) but it is not Sufficient. Also the percentage scale means you can succeed without it if a more difficult spread of counterbalancing factors shows up.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Come on, people! We should all know this already. Just because "Algebra II" is a predictor of success, doesn't mean that it causes the success. It is much more likely that the smarter students who are (or at least were, before the depression) more likely to succeed are also more likely to take Algebra II. Making everyone take it is going to have about as much success as cargo cults did.
Require Algebra II - teachers will teach to the exam. Alas, this is what is happening. We don't want you to be able to think for yourself, just memorize a lot of stuff and hope it will get you through. Never mind once you understand concepts of Algebra it's really easy stuff.
Beware the candidate who says "I'm an Education Candidate, I want to revolutionize educations!" What they really mean is I'm going to pretend and just throw another mandated test at the schools.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Maybe we should require Probability and Statistics, then, since people still think they can reverse cause and effect.
"Look! Successful people drive expensive cars! Tell your brother to go buy one, that ought to get his business back on its feet in no time!"
FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
Boy, that's backward thinking. It is because it is optional that it is such a good indicator. Only people who are planning ahead to college, or who actually enjoy math take it. Forcing everyone to take it won't magically make everyone else start planning ahead to college or enjoying math too.
Personally I think Calculus 1 should be required as well, I mean are limits that hard?
if all the schools do is rubber stamp the grades. Having worked as a tutor in college math lab when I was a piss poor student, there were people seeking help in the lab that can't handle basic fraction arithmetic.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
"Algebra II is the leading predictor of college and work success"
This is not precisely true. The most accurate statement is "The taking (and passing) of math levels beyond Algebra I (and maybe Geometry) is the leading predictor of college and work success." There's nothing about Algebra II as a subject that would innately give humans an edge in college or life success. It's going above and beyond the minimum requirements that's good for the student.
Moreover, a student going above and beyond the minimum may be more than a sign of innate mathematical competence. It may be a symptom of certain school, peer, or family pressures-- all of which combine in the "culture of education" which is a fantastic predictor of being accepted into 4-year institutions of higher education.
Calculus is the foundation of SO many different things. Almost every discipline from medicine to engineering to economics requires a foundation in calculus to understand.
Not every student needs to go into engineering or economics. A couple of my high school buddies went into auto body and they live FAR better than I do as a programmer (not to mention they were buying homes and starting families while I was still starving in college).
I'm much more concerned that schools are eliminating vocational electives than not requiring algebra II or calc. There is nothing wrong with being an HVAC tech.
Godaddy is a scam and a ripoff.
Many schools offer a course on geometry via mathematical proof.That covers a lot of abstract logic theory.
From TFA:
Among the skeptics is Carnevale, one of the researchers who reported the link between Algebra II and good jobs. He warns against thinking of Algebra II as a cause of students getting good jobs merely because it is correlated with success. “The causal relationship is very, very weak,” he said. “Most people don’t use Algebra II in college, let alone in real life. The state governments need to be careful with this.”
Ok, let's look at this. First part of the quote:
Algebra II is the leading predictor of college and work success
Ok, that makes sense. Second part of the quote:
according to research that has launched a growing national movement to require it of graduates.
That is idiotic. The reason why Algebra II is a predictor of success is because it is one of the classes you opt-in and take if you're going to college. Only people with career plans in high school take Algebra II - of course it's a predictor of success. And conversely, if you make it mandatory it won't be an indicator anymore.
Reminds me of the joke about the guy who heard that most accidents happen within ten miles of his home, so he moved.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Although what we REALLY need a class on is "common sense" how to deal with money. Interest, balancing a 'checkbook'/banking account. Hell I'd settle for 'this is how you count back money.'
That's what Home Economics used to be...
I got that, along with "repair" level sewing, some cooking, and baking skills when I took Home Ec.
Being the only straight male in class with 24 females was just a bonus.
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
Although what we REALLY need a class on is "common sense" how to deal with money. Interest, balancing a 'checkbook'/banking account. Hell I'd settle for 'this is how you count back money.'
We had tracks based on ability, and you're describing the "general math" / "consumer math" track.
Lots of bitter feeling toward it... Generally speaking, the kids who were not going to make any money got all the education about money, while the kids who were going to make fat stacks of cash were carefully not educated about money but instead educated on stuff far beyond what they'd ever use on the job.
Set up for failure, by careful design.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
> And the uncomfortable elephant in the room is what do you do with the ones who can't specialize and can't apply? The ones who can barely pass rote memorization even with lowered standards? Pat them on the back and throw them at the nearest menial labor recruiter?
Auto shop. Electric shop. Plumbing shop.
And for the record that doesn't mean they won't do well in life. The oil change in my boat was quoted at 80$ an hour and cost me a total of $700, since the mechanic had to move a battery, remove the alternator to get around at things.
I hear the complaint "teachers will teach to the exam" all the time as an argument against standardized testing. Damn right they will. If this results in a poor education, it means they weren't good exams (e.g., the SAT). I had standardized exams at the end of my secondary education and we had to know the material damn well to do well on them.
"Teaching to the test" is a talking point, not a valid criticism. It presupposes the system will be implemented badly. Anything and everything will fail when the execution is poor.
If they lack the necessary intellectual prowess why "should" they be allowed into college? College used to be about actually learning something, not putting up with incompetents that slow the pace of learning and erode academic standards. College should be more than a piece of paper that permits a job interview. It shouldn't be necessary to waste time and money on an advanced degree simply because dumb asses were permitted entrance and allowed to waste everyone elses time as an undergrad. We have trade schools for a reason.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
Algebra II could be neither necessary nor sufficient, but still correlated with success. For instance, it could be that kids who are able and/or motivated to take Algebra II are likely to be successful.
For most people, it would be more useful to teach either statistics or financial math than calculus. We teach calculus because it's next in math or engineering education. But for ANY of the social sciences and several of the sciences statistics is more useful, and for life financial math is more useful.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
To be frank, for most occupations Algebra II is simply not necessary, and most will forget it anyhow.
I suggest that Boolean logic, set theory, and basic statistics be required instead. Those are more applicable to the actual work world. As manufacturing drifts overseas and the US specializes in fads, marketing, and finance, "physical" math is less needed, while discrete and statistical math is replacing it as a need.
Table-ized A.I.
Don't put down those fields. You would be absolutely amazed at how much MORE difficult those are than, say, getting a BS in computer science. Yes, I said it, MORE difficult.
You want to be a construction electrician, with the top end license? Here's the requirements:
- Approximately 5 years of experience in the field to get your journeyman's license. Until you have that, you cannot work alone (except in a building without power, I believe). You also cannot apply power to any circuits without them having been examined by a journeyman (this rule gets broken pretty quickly once you advance and are trusted, though). You *must* work in an industrial/construction environment. Those working in a residential or commercial environment need not apply (They get a lesser license that does not permit them to work outside of their environments).
- Attend college regularly during those 5 years to be able to pass your various exams so you can get your journeyman's license. I believe if you can pass them early, it's too bad, you get to sit in class anyways.
- To pass the exams, you will basically not only memorize the entire electrical code, but you will need to know exactly WHY the electrical code requires those things, and, of course, you'll need an in-depth understanding of electricity. Not in-depth electronics knowledge, though, so you won't be building a space shuttle or solving K-Maps. But in-depth enough to understand Kirchoffs law, Reactance in a multi-phase stystem, calculate instantaneous load (including instantaneous power factor), etc.
- Spend another minimum 3 years working as a journeyman, attending more classes in college so you can pass your masters exam.
So, after a minimum of 7 years (and, honestly, for anyone who wants this badly, it's going to be 10 years, I have never heard of anyone doing this in 7) you can get a full masters C&M electrician license and can then do any work anywhere anytime in any conditions. I tried to be a C&M electrician. It is unbelievably difficult (mentally and physically) and I guarantee 50% of any students at a university would fail the exams, and 95% (Who am I kidding!? 99%) would fail the work conditions. I passed the exams, but the work conditions were just to much, so I went back to working on computers.
To get a BS in computer science is easy in comparison. 2 2/3 years of classes and exams and you're done. You never actually need to *do* anything to prove your knowledge (of course, to get the Masters/PhD, you will need to).
I hear plumbing is somewhat easier, and auto mechanic work is probably somewhere in between, though. But people assume those in professional occupations like these aren't smart, and they're wrong. It's not easy to get those jobs, and it's not easy to pass the top-level exams, although the basic ones are, admittedly, easy.