Slashdot Mirror


Political Science Prof Asks: Is Algebra Necessary?

Capt.Albatross writes "Andrew Hacker, a professor of Political Science at the City University of New York and author of Higher Education? How Colleges Are Wasting Our Money and Failing Our Kids — and What We Can Do About It, attempts to answer this question in the negative in today's New York Times Sunday Review. His primary claim is that mathematics requirements are prematurely and unreasonably limiting the level of education available to otherwise capable students ."

1,010 comments

  1. yes by yagu · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Yes!

    substitute in his thesis,

    Algebra is an onerous stumbling block for all kinds of students: disadvantaged and affluent, black and white.

    and substitute to:

    History is an onerous stumbling block for all kinds of students: disadvantaged and affluent, black and white.

    and you have a perfect argument for me and the school system not requiring History.

    Even better,

    $yourWorstSubject is an onerous stumbling block for all kinds of students: disadvantaged and affluent, black and white.

    and we've eliminated the need for any required subjects.

    "I am not good at", or "I don't want to" are not good arguments for not requiring learnin'.

    (-e**(i*pi) st post)

    1. Re:yes by Missing.Matter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Mathematics is a tool, but it's not a tool everyone uses to its fullest extent. In my high school, we teach all the way up to Calculus 2, and what percentage of the population actually uses that kind of mathematics? My Uncle, and cousins run a very successful business with revenue in the hundreds of millions of dollars. My cousin is dyslexic and has terrible trouble reading and doing mathematics, but he's sitting pretty on a pile of cash and he's great at his job. Would he be better at his job if he knew how to integrate? Maybe.... but it's not necessary for him, which is what the article is asking.

      So by counterexample it's apparent not all mathematics is necessary for everyone... so I think these blanket answers I'm seeing floated around here by people who probably rely on mathematics daily for their jobs is a little short sighted.

    2. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Or, really, college degrees are onerous stumbling blocks for all kinds of people. I don't have one and I have my own business and make $30-40k per month. Education should focus more on teaching critical thinking skills and at least one trade. Most people would probably find they don't need post-secondary education to make a comfortable wage in an occupation they enjoy, and those that do go on will likely perform better and get more out of it because they are using the school as a means to an important personal end instead of means to a guarantee or even an end itself (anyone not knowing what to major in falls in the latter category).

    3. Re:yes by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1

      Yes!

      substitute in his thesis,

      Algebra is an onerous stumbling block for all kinds of students: disadvantaged and affluent, black and white.

      and substitute to:

      History is an onerous stumbling block for all kinds of students: disadvantaged and affluent, black and white.

      ...and you have something that's arguably a category error. "Algebra" is a particular part of the discipline of mathematics; "history" is the entire discipline of, well, history.

      Now, to be fair, his essay switches back and forth between speaking of particular parts of mathematics and of mathematics as a whole, but it sounds as if he's not arguing "math class is hard, let's go shopping!", he's arguing that, whilst "quantitative literacy clearly is useful in weighing all manner of public policies", requiring people to "master polynomial functions and parametric equations" in order to attend college might not improve quantitative literacy sufficiently to justify preventing students who have difficulty mastering them from taking other college courses that might not require those skills and that might increase their knowledge base and critical thinking skills.

    4. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Mathematics is the language used to describe how the world around you works. At the very least you should understand the concepts of exponential growth and decay (which I think is algebra 2). Most people are going to have credit cards, 401ks, mortgages, car loans, etc. Knowing how these things work is the first step to financial success. I went through differential equations in college and honestly I can't recite off-hand the formulas for those things but I do understand how it works and could look up and calculate loan totals payoffs, monthly payments, etc.

    5. Re:yes by larry+bagina · · Score: 5, Insightful

      All mathematics? No. But math (including algebra) isn't just making sure you give the correct change in your menial fast-food cashier job, it's problem solving. And that doesn't exist (certainly not to the same degree) in other subjects.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    6. Re:yes by Yvanhoe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Anyone not understanding what an exponential is does not have a good enough understanding of demographics to make a fully informed decision about making babies and should not be authorized to take a loan.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    7. Re:yes by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 0, Troll

      History is an onerous stumbling block for all kinds of students: disadvantaged and affluent, black and white.

      and you have a perfect argument for me and the school system not requiring History.

      No you don't. A basic understanding of our shared history is important for the proper functioning of a democratic society. An understanding of math beyond what is needed to balance a checkbook (or national budget) is not. 90% of us never use algebra, even once, after leaving school. It is basically pointless for non-techies.

    8. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I can understand asking this question about Calculus, but Algebra? We use algebra every day. At the grocery store, gas station, etc. I regularly ask my little nephews (five and eight) to answer elementary algebra word problems.

      "Your uncle's motorcycle has a 5 gallon gas tank and tops it off with 3 gallons..." Or stuff like, "You bought ten Silly Bands for [whatever] dollars... how much did you pay for each one?"

    9. Re:yes by Paracelcus · · Score: 0

      I was a Data room tech, field engineer, service tech, systems administrator, and second level support tech (not in that order) for over thirty years, and while I had taken (and done well at) algebra, calculus and geometry/trigonometry, etc I don't remember ever actually using it on the job, is it my memory? Or did I just not need it to write simple scripts in csh, ksh and eventually Perl? And I almost forgot, M68K & X86 assembler.

      --
      I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
    10. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How many people use a substantial fraction of their high school education in their working life?

      The purpose of a high school education is to enable a person to be able to be able to think and be able to have an intelligent conversation. It is not specialization nor is it designed to train someone how to perform a specific job. Math, arts, science, history, music, language, writing, civics, etc., all play a part. A person with a well rounded education is a person who can make useful judgements as a citizen.

      High school doesn't prepare people to be salesmen, barbers, engineers, doctors, receptionists, or mechanics. Each of those fields will have specific training. High school only makes it possible that once you do enter one of those fields that you can do so as an intelligent citizen.

      Is this worth it? Some developed societies separate their education systems half-way through high school into a vocational and college prep line because they want to use high school to prepare their citizens for a job. They choose specialization over breadth. It has been argued that this stifles creativity. Math and science scores are nice on paper to show off your education system, but perhaps the true measure is how creative your students are. Everyone is going to specialize after leaving high school, but the well rounded students who might be a step behind on specialization will be two steps ahead with creativity.

    11. Re:yes by ThePhilips · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Mathematics is a tool, [...]

      ... to develop your brain.

      Math isn't factual or learnable per se - studying math to your brain is what jogging is to your body.

      ... so I think these blanket answers I'm seeing floated around here by people who probably rely on mathematics daily for their jobs is a little short sighted.

      Very very small share of people does the theoretical math. Most people do applied math and most of the time using specialized software.

      I have used math last time god knows how many years ago and personally no huge fan of it. Yet, I'm still very grateful and that I had the math. For it taught me the analytical thinking, it taught me how to find the way to dismantle large problems into smaller ones, it taught how to deal with ambiguities and so on.

      Math stands apart from the rest of the subjects because it is sole pure abstract one. It is the only subject which was created 100% by humans. Yet, since it relates in no way to the outside world, it is also the most unnatural for our brain to learn.

      Instead of all the flames, probably a healthy discussion on how to better teach the math would be more productive?

      --
      All hope abandon ye who enter here.
    12. Re:yes by kubernet3s · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Really now. This presupposes that the point of education is to provide students with things they will "use." If this were the case, why not just send students to trade school? No one really "needs" to learn how to read anything more advanced than a children's book, especially if they're a carpenter or plumber. You don't need to know history, you don't need to know anything, really, except what your job is. Except the point of creating an educated populace isn't to provide students with tools they will always use every day, but to extend their perception of the world in a way which allows them to engage in it effectively. A poor understanding of science is what makes people object to the "theory" of evolution, a poor understanding of math is why phony quantum mechanics treatises fly off the shelf, and a poor understanding of history makes people believe that the Northern US didn't practice slavery, that the declaration of independence was the founding document of our country, and that cavemen rode on dinosaurs.

      No, the point of educating people is not so that, one day, they will go "aha!" and use their knowledge of geometric series or the battle of Gettysburg to found a company and make a million dollars, but to ensure that the constituents of the very influential body politic (in a democratic society) are capable of interacting effectively with their world. While you will never be asked to solve for X in your daily life, you will likely be asked to apply similar concepts, and you will definitely be asked to use your knowledge of, for example, plotting of functions, to understand things like graphs which are presented to the public by the media in ways which are either unintuitive or outright deceptive.

      The same arguments in the TFA could easily have been applied, in an earlier time, to literacy: there are historically plenty of people who lived long, happy lives who never knew how to read. However, it is essential in today's society, because our commitment to a literate society has gone hand in hand with out commitment to an advanced society capable of effective and efficient engagement and contribution to the experience and knowledge of our collective self. Mathematical literacy, of an increasingly advanced degree, is a similar requisite in the modern society, where the sheer amount of information available grows larger and more formidable every day. In such a time, it is the duty of us as a community to ensure all persons are capable of effectively interacting with and utilizing this information. To do less, simply because the individuals prove recalcitrant, or might find ways to ignore our information rich society, is to condemn ourselves to mean regions of social existence, consciousness, and ultimately human experience.

    13. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Learning algebra teaches structured logical thinking and is a fundamental tool for understanding where we're going and why we're in this hand basket and this mode of thinking can penetrate the fog of daily life and give us answers to big questions. It teaches mental discipline and I think that's really in short supply these days.

    14. Re:yes by ohnocitizen · · Score: 1

      So why not eliminate requirements? Why must higher education be restricted to only a precious few, who by dint of childhood achievement or parental finances are able to attend? Let's recognize that an education up to high school is no longer enough, and make it possible for anyone who wants to keep learning to do so. Society can only benefit from a more educated population.

    15. Re:yes by Ouchie · · Score: 1

      "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

      - George Santayana

      --
      "Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most." ~Ozzy Osborne
    16. Re:yes by maxwell+demon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My Uncle, and cousins run a very successful business with revenue in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

      Correction: Your uncle any cousins run a business which currently is very successful. You don't know if it will still be very successful in ten years. And it may be that the reason of a future failure is not recognizing a problem which he would have recognized if he had a solid basic understanding of mathematics (for example, underestimating the importance of an exponentially growing trend). Of course it may also well be that he'll still be successful, or that he will fail for a completely different reason. But the point is that his chances to continued success would be higher with a solid basic understanding of mathematics.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    17. Re:yes by pthisis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I was a Data room tech, field engineer, service tech, systems administrator, and second level support tech (not in that order) for over thirty years, and while I had taken (and done well at) algebra, calculus and geometry/trigonometry etc I don't remember ever actually using it on the job

      I work as a programmer. I took and did well in Spanish, geography, history, chemistry, physics, biology, sexual education, art, wood shop and gym classes in high school, but I don't remember ever using them on the job.

      The idea that education should be reduced to voc-tech work is bizarre.

      --
      rage, rage against the dying of the light
    18. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I was a Data room tech, field engineer, service tech, systems administrator, and second level support tech (not in that order) for over thirty years, and while I had taken (and done well at) algebra, calculus and geometry/trigonometry, etc I don't remember ever actually using it on the job, is it my memory? Or did I just not need it to write simple scripts in csh, ksh and eventually Perl? And I almost forgot, M68K & X86 assembler.

      Depending of what you do, you may never need calculus, geometry & trigonometry.

      But algebra? If you program in assembler et al you are probably using algebra all the time without thinking about it.

      Captcha: topology.

    19. Re:yes by maxwell+demon · · Score: 0

      I think you are confusing algebra with arithmetic.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    20. Re:yes by JDAustin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If problem solving is the goal, then your better served by a Logic/Critical Thinking class then Algebra.

    21. Re:yes by stephanruby · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Also this New York Times article seems to be intentionally misleading.

      He keeps on mentioning algebra repeatedly, and says that his question applies more broadly to "geometry through calculus", not just algebra. But then most of his examples are calculus-level or pre-calculus level.

      And then, he takes a quick jab at University Legacy admission programs and Athletes admission programs, which have much lower Math admission standards, (which I completely agree with), but then he completely forgets to mention Affirmative Action which basically does the same thing and the special Summer/Spring/Transfer admission University programs which also admit students with much lower Math SAT scores (as a way to avoid including those scores in their main official published advertised statistics).

    22. Re:yes by mosherkl · · Score: 1

      Math stands apart from the rest of the subjects because it is sole pure abstract one. It is the only subject which was created 100% by humans.

      I guess. Unless you count language. I know I needed to take a few years of English and a foreign language to meet my NY high school graduation requirements. Last I checked, those were 100% human creations.

    23. Re:yes by joocemann · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If you understood things that might have exponential basis, or you made projections of some value based on the increase/decrease evidence in the past --- even if you didn't do anything on paper but just did fuzzy concepts in your head to get the gist of it --- then you did use it. Chances are that you did use, at least, algebra, and didn't notice.

      Here's an example of me using C Programming education in my current work, stem cell biology: In C programming you can take something complex, like a database, or some complex string of things, and you can OBJECTIFY it. And in this you simplify future treatment of that complex thing by calling it some name -- it is objectified. From that education the powerful method of objectification is made clear in my head. So now in cell biology, to speed up my thinking and make complex concepts simple, I objectify them. So, for example, I take a well designed and intricate process that takes several pages to describe, and I call it something like "XA-2", or whatever I want. At that point my conscious understanding of XA-2 has become baked into the brain, and to consider that process in even bigger concepts, I can logically apply XA-2 in my follow up experiments without trying to conceive each step every moment of the way.

      There are lots of hidden benefits to education. And there are lots of ways to learn.

      I find all the time I spent dancing in packed clubs to be extremely helpful in maneuvering through big crowds or dense traffic. I became experienced in carrying expensive liquids through heavily packed crowds that have unpredictable pulses in various directions --- in time I learned where to look and how to defocus my eyes to see the periphery and predict the movement of people to see when openings happen and closings (squished) may happen.... you get good at it and you push right through crowds that most people go really slow through.

      I find lots of learning from video gaming -- predictions and efficiencies, etc. This is why experienced gamers do well on new games whereas new gamers usually take longer to pick up on new games -- experience in analytical perspective in gaming contexts.

      If you can recognize how you've improved in some skillset -- even skillsets that are seemingly recreational -- you can translate/articulate those skills to other facets of life.

    24. Re:yes by Joce640k · · Score: 2

      I could ask him what use political science is. To me it sounds like a "goofing off" subject.

      --
      No sig today...
    25. Re:yes by microbox · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Anyone not understanding what an exponential

      Anyone not understanding what an exponential is should NOT be making policy decisions at all. Period.

      A very sad fact.

      --

      Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
    26. Re:yes by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      It comes in very handy in programming. A lot of algorithms are described mathematically. If you do anything at all with signal processing, you're going to need calculus. If only so you can take those continuous-function complex-number filters that the mathematicians like and figure out how to impliment them on a processor that actually exists.

    27. Re:yes by fean · · Score: 5, Informative

      If I have $50, and I have to buy lunch every work day for two weeks, how much can I spend on average?
      X = $50 / (2 weeks * 5 days)
      X = $50 / 10
      X = $5

      This is a hard question for people who don't know algebra. Those who DO know algebra do most of the math in their head because it's so ingrained.

      The fact that you don't realize you're using algebra every day should be taken as how vital it is to teach it.

    28. Re:yes by pthisis · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No you don't. A basic understanding of our shared history is important for the proper functioning of a democratic society. An understanding of math beyond what is needed to balance a checkbook (or national budget) is not. 90% of us never use algebra, even once, after leaving school. It is basically pointless for non-techies.

      It's a very good analogy, actually. You're right that a basic understanding of our shared history is important, but the vast majority of people rarely if ever use more than what they'd learned of history by the end of middle school.

      I'd argue that that doesn't make it worthless to teach more in high school--although only maybe 5% will benefit directly from taking more advanced history classes, you don't know which 5% it is and you're handicapping your culture slightly by not providing that knowledge. It's exactly the same argument that I'd make about algebra, except more people are likely to use algebra at some point.

      And in both cases I'd argue that even if you don't directly pull some history facts out now and again or have to figure out how much each of those 10 cars cost pre-tex, you still benefit indirectly by taking those classes--for one thing, it's a lot easier to forget the final levels of coursework than it is the stuff that you used again in later years of school. So if you want people to know, say, algebra I and 7th grade history for the rest of their life, then a very good way to help do that is to make sure they take algebra II and 8th grade history--not only did they just learn the former out of the book, but they practiced it as part of something else for another year.

      --
      rage, rage against the dying of the light
    29. Re:yes by countach74 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Logic/critical thinking very much tie in to Algebra and vice versa. It seems strange to me to present one without the other. Yet it seems logic/critical thinking classes are very rare in contrast to Algebra.

    30. Re:yes by countach74 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Indeed. Unfortunately, power hungry people who are actually not good at real world things jump into politics instead. In other words, we end up with a bunch of retarded ass holes running our nation. What a bunch of fuckers.

    31. Re:yes by SternisheFan · · Score: 3, Informative

      Teach math when students are most adaptable to learning new languages, say ages 3-10. And as to teaching history, I recently watched a program about WWII. A crew member from the "Enola Gay" had been invited to speak about his war experience at a high school. He was introduced as a veteran of "World War Eleven". So, maybe there's a problem with today's youth not remembering history.

    32. Re:yes by originalmouse · · Score: 1

      algebra is any number based variable you do math operations on in any programming language. maybe it is your memory... unless all you wrote was hello world. PoliSci is already kind of a BS degree (no pun intended) to make it so any random person who can't add can get a degree devalues the entire collegiate structure. when you earn a degree it means you went above and beyond in academics and deserve recognition for it.
      lets run with the idea of eliminating unnecessary subjects from degree programs, though (just to see how much actual education we can strip out of college)... for a CS degree, why require english? or history? these have nothing to do with the actual logic, math, and engineering principals that go into designing a program or computer system. you don't need to know that Napoleon had a hard time fighting a ground war in russia in the winter (duh) or that he thought alexander the great was, well, great. you don't have to know about the allegories in the works of twain or be able to discourse on the underlying message of hamlet to be a good programmer.

      unfortunately for you DO need algebra for political science if you're going to continue to call it science.
      From wikipedia: "Political science is a social science discipline concerned with the study of the state, government, and politics. Aristotle defined it as the study of the state.[1] It deals extensively with the theory and practice of politics, and the analysis of political systems and political behavior. "
      so unless they're all just sitting around and talking about it they're gonna need statistics and good luck learning statistics if you can't handle college level algebra.

    33. Re:yes by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Mathematics is a tool, but it's not a tool everyone uses to its fullest extent. In my high school, we teach all the way up to Calculus 2, and what percentage of the population actually uses that kind of mathematics?

      A better question is how many would use it if they actually understood it. The number of applications in everyday life are legio. People make bad estimates and do extra work like going through all receipts and summing them, because they don't know how quickly the job can be done with a little maths.

      And you do realise that your argument can be used against anything taught in school, right? What percentage of the adult population play softball, need to know how peas inherit colours, or make decisions based on knowing when Magna Carta was signed?

      It's general knowledge, which allows people to talk to each other and better understand each other, instead of being divided into cliques who know a lot about a little, but not enough about anything to have any common grounds with people they meet, nor understanding enough basics to understand how they vote.

      Mathematics in the schools have been dumbed down radically over the last few decades, and that's the problem. Kids don't see the need for calculus or advanced algebra because they don't even have the foundation to understand it. A 15 year old from a couple of generations ago had a much greater understanding than someone who leaves university today. Because these days, all that matters is passing tests, not actually understanding anything. It's shameful how far we've deteriorated in the name of "accountability", and people seriously suggest to make it even worse?

    34. Re:yes by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      In the current context, I'd specifically insert "political science".

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    35. Re:yes by FrangoAssado · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not really. Arithmetic is about the operations you do with numbers (addition, multiplication, etc.). Algebra (or rather, elementary algebra) is basically solving equations. The examples the GP gave are usually solved by using very simple elementary algebra and arithmetic: build an equation representing the problem, solve it by isolating the variable (algebra), and then calculate the numeric answer (arithmetic).

    36. Re:yes by Qzukk · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think you are confusing algebra with arithmetic.

      "You bought ten Silly Bands for [whatever] dollars... how much did you pay for each one?"

      10bands * x = $5, solve for x .

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    37. Re:yes by mdenham · · Score: 1

      How exactly does lowering the amount of education provided per year increase the educated population?

    38. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't need mathematics, you don't need higher education. About the only thing that well-educated people consistently wish they'd studied harder is math, because it's EVERYWHERE. If you don't see the use for math, you're not looking at the world with open eyes. I suppose a lot of people aren't, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't.

    39. Re:yes by Mr.CRC · · Score: 1
      "but to ensure that the constituents of the very influential body politic (in a democratic society) are capable of interacting effectively with their world."

      This is the ideal of education in democracy, and it is proven false by empirical reality--that people do not act out of rational deliberation but according to incentives. Thus, this ideal of education needs to be scrapped, along with democracy. Government that is limited to only the role of prosecuting a very short list of truly victim-ful (as opposed to victimless crimes--most of what is currently illegal) crimes solves the problem of needing a rational populace, which can't exist anyway, because WE ARE NOT RATIONAL!

      I believe that everyone *should* partake of intellectual exercises that might not be their particular cup of tea, just for the value of the mental development these challenges provide. But my love affair with my own brilliance stops at the point where most people conclude that "therefore, everyone else should be forced by government to do what I think is good."

      That there is one of the fundamental problems with society at present (actually--since the dawn of civilization).

      Let's cut with the wasting of people's adolescence by forcing them to take algebra or what we--most likely all on the right half of the IQ distribution--think is good for them. Oh how arrogant of us! We are of above average intelligence, so we certainly know what's best for others. It's an insidiously seductive self-deception that almost no one can resist. It is the defining reason why intelligence != wisdom.

      Let the kids decide in middle school to go to trade school or to academic high school and be done with this crap. Jeez, the plumbers we graduate will probably be making more than us some day anyway. Good for them.

    40. Re:yes by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Algebra though is one of the simplest mathematical tools. Without it you will be utterly incapable of progressing in college mathematics, it will be shut off. If you're assuming students who will never go to college, even a junior college, it still teaches abstract thinking which is necessary if we want citizens who can do more than stock shelves.

    41. Re:yes by ultranova · · Score: 1

      My Uncle, and cousins run a very successful business with revenue in the hundreds of millions of dollars. My cousin is dyslexic and has terrible trouble reading and doing mathematics, but he's sitting pretty on a pile of cash and he's great at his job.

      You don't need any kind of education to sit on a pile of cash and look pretty. However, most of us don't have a revenue of hundreds of millions of dollars and thus can't hire people to do the math for us. So, the question is not "does a multimillionaire need to know X", the question is "does Joe Average need to know X".

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    42. Re:yes by jdogalt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "No one really "needs" to learn how to read anything more advanced than a children's book, especially if they're a carpenter or plumber."

      I stopped reading your long comment there. You should try furthering your own carpentry or plumbing skills by just a recreational bit, then rethink that thought.

    43. Re:yes by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Perhaps should someone clue in this "political science" professor.

      In the rest of the industrialized world Algebra is considered an elementary schools subject. The idea that it is too cumbersome to bother average students with simply boggles the mind.

      Formalized education should challenge the students in some way. Otherwise, there is no point in bothering at all.

      It needs to be diverse enough to push everyone outside of their comfort zone if only by a small amount.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    44. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Screw that, it doesn't matter what algebra is good for.
      My 5th grade math teacher said this, math helps change the way you think. It doesn't seem like much, but you'll need that way of thinking in the future. And she was right.
      Advanced math, physics, chemistry, programming, anything that required even a bit of abstract thinking was easier because of those "useless" algebra classes.

      Are they perhaps trying to kill institutionalized education? If so, they're definitely on the right path.

    45. Re:yes by _8553454222834292266 · · Score: 1

      I wish the rest of you humans all understood math so you could understand how to survive on this planet optimally, instead of like a bunch of mindless chimps.

    46. Re:yes by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Math is a means of describing the world. It is not entirely abstract. It can be balls or calories or dollars.

      Money and Finance are all driven by math.

      If you don't understand math, then you will be ill equipped to deal with any serious issue of finance that you will encounter in your life. You won't be able to understand the issues surrounding any significant financial transaction rather it be using credit cars, buying a car, buying a house, or planning for your retirement.

      Math isn't just something "artificial and abstract". It's a survival skill.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    47. Re:yes by luke923 · · Score: 2

      Sometimes, I wish I had a job that required me to use my sex ed training on the job. Then, I remember -- I'm not a hooker.

      --
      "Good, Fast, Cheap: Pick any two" -- RFC 1925
    48. Re:yes by Smallpond · · Score: 4, Informative

      I haven't seen a cashier with any math skills in quite a while. In fact, if you really want to screw them up give them the extra penny. I had a chat with a cashier when the customer in front of me did that after she had rung up a payment of $10.00 and was unable to deal with being handed $10.01 (for a purchase of $9.51). She felt very abused about not being able to calculate the right change in her head. As far as I can tell, the cash register is in charge. She felt her job was to do whatever the cash register told her to do.

    49. Re:yes by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      If you can't understand the simple abstractions of algebra and use them intuitively to understand basic problems, you're not educated enough to manage a business. Those who CAN do the math will have you for breakfast. It's particularly galling to hear this horseshit from someone who may be "educating" America's next generation of leaders.

    50. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At the very least you should understand the concepts of exponential growth and decay (which I think is algebra 2). Most people are going to have credit cards, 401ks, mortgages, car loans, etc.

      Understanding exponential growth is extremely important, but I have to admit I went through an extended-math elementary school, special math high school, IT major and an IT Ph.D. without "getting" the idea of financial maths and interest. I now earn my living teaching university graduates (most of them economists) and many of them still do not "get" the idea when they enter my class.

      It is quite possible to do lots of algebra without getting the important concepts, and I daresay it's possible to get the concepts without learning much algebra (remember taxation problems in SimCity, anyone?).

    51. Re:yes by countach74 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Absolutely! I cannot agree more. How many of us would not have even bothered learning something if we weren't "made to do it"? As a child, my parents forced me to do things I thought I'd hate only to find out I really, really liked some of of those things. Pushing that comfort zone is crucial to developing an educated and open mind about a great many things.

      But, leave it a to politician to see a problem (in this case, our students failing mathematics miserably), and to propose a solution that states "well, we don't need that anyways." Call me crazy, but that seems a bit retarded even for a politician. Wait, no it doesn't...

    52. Re:yes by superwiz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Critical thinking" is a waste of time. In fact, it's worse. It's a negative expenditure of time. Before you decide to pick an argument with me, be warned: I have a PhD in math... not throwing it out as a "shut up" bona fides, but rather to thwart the "you don't know what you are talking about" sea of trolls. I've had actual barred lawyers trying to convince me that they understood logic simply because they took critical thinking. It gives students confidence that they can question every argument... even a solidly proven one. They have no concept of probability, so it useless to argue likely vs known vs unknown vs unlikely with them. One need remember the full probability course to understand what is a correlation and why it doesn't imply causation. But then a critical thinking students is unlikely to understand what is an implication.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    53. Re:yes by fido_dogstoyevsky · · Score: 2

      Anyone not understanding what an exponential is does not have a good enough understanding of demographics to make a fully informed decision about

      taking a loan

      and should not be authorized to

      make babies.

      That looks better.

      --
      It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
    54. Re:yes by narcc · · Score: 1

      There are Algebras for Logic, you know. I don't know how you could get through a class in Logic, Philosophy, or even Rhetoric without Boolean Algebra. Not as well known here are Heyting Algebras.

      I guess my point is that Algebra is a pretty broad term and, yes, it appears that a Political Science student would benefit from a study of Algebra.

      Of course, I'd take it a bit further and suggest that they would very likely benefit from a strong mathematics background, including statistics. I don't see how this is even a question.

    55. Re:yes by superwiz · · Score: 2

      Anyone who doesn't understand exponents can't understand time value of money. And, therefore, cannot understand a credit card contract or a mortgage. And yet such people do insist on knowing something about regulating banks.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    56. Re:yes by turbidostato · · Score: 2

      "I was a Data room tech, field engineer, service tech, systems administrator, and second level support tech (not in that order) for over thirty years, and while I had taken (and done well at) algebra, calculus and geometry/trigonometry, etc I don't remember ever actually using it on the job, is it my memory?"

      So you never planned a IP network layout? You never tested network load capacity? You never found a off-by-one or a minimax problem?

      I know entry-level jobs in the USA are pretty lame but, thirty years in one of them?

    57. Re:yes by superwiz · · Score: 1

      You don't have an understanding of history if you don't understand basic math. In fact, you can't understand any history if you don't understand cause and effect. And how historical effects arose out of historical causes is very much related to measurable quantities. If that's the part you skipped, you don't understand what you think you understand. You just know that things happened... you really, really don't know why.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    58. Re:yes by DarkOx · · Score: 2

      Think you can do carpentry without algebra with any efficiency? I don't. Suppose you have fifteen board feet of two by ten. How long a table top can you make if it's cut and joined and the width of the finished table top must fit a 3 foot space?

      Algebra is a very very neccecary part of carpentry, and my little example is simplistic compared to what carpenters face every day.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    59. Re:yes by countach74 · · Score: 2

      What's wrong with questioning every argument? I don't mean openly with others, but internally. Is it not best to analyze it and contemplate it so that one day you can hopefully understand the "why"? I agree, outspoken individuals who have learned a little bit of "logic" can be quite annoying, especially when crucial variables are ignored or forgotten. My mother in law is a fantastic example of this, but you most likely don't know her.

      One need remember the full probability course to understand what is a correlation and why it doesn't imply causation.

      It's been a long time since I took a logic/critical thinking class. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this one of the first things that they teach? Perhaps I misunderstand what you're saying.

    60. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do your uncle and cousins have to have a college education to run their business? If not, then they do not constitute a counterexample. The question is whether or not algebra should be required for college entrance and/or graduation. It has more to do with what it means to have a college degree and whether or not our system is restricting access to higher education when it should not. If your uncle and cousins skipped college because of the math requirements, then they provide an example of the math requirements not being a problem.

    61. Re:yes by slashgrim · · Score: 1

      Summer/Spring/Transfer admission University programs which also admit students with much lower Math SAT scores (as a way to avoid including those scores in their main official published advertised statistics).

      [citation needed]

    62. Re:yes by just_a_monkey · · Score: 0

      I would be OK with removing mathematics from the curriculum if they substituted it with English. No-one should leave school without having over-learned writing English to such a degree that they, effortlessly, never err on the basics, like how and when to use, for example, "your", "you're", "then", "than", "when" and the like.

      This annoys me more than people who can't solve equations. Even with engineers.

      --
      How inappropriate to call this planet Earth, when clearly it is Ocean.
    63. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And would your cousin be where he is without your uncle and other cousins carrying him? I suspect not...he was lucky enough to have relatives who arranged the work so that someone who could read well or do math had something to do. That is probably more of a vote for nepotism than anything else...

    64. Re:yes by fredprado · · Score: 1

      There are different levels of irrationality. Countries with higher level of education do manage to have better and less corrupt governments, because people are less gullible. Math helps people to learn how to think for themselves, how to question paradigms and how to understand, even if just a bit, how the world works.

      It also helps people not to be easily fooled by statistics manipulations.

    65. Re:yes by superwiz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's been a long time since I took a logic/critical thinking class. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this one of the first things that they teach? Perhaps I misunderstand what you're saying.

      I omitted the "not". One need not remember the full probability course... And what I was saying was that most people can't understand what is a correlation. And without understand the nature of the thing, it's nearly impossible to distinguish it from that which is similar to it. This is why most people fall for the correlational arguments. They don't know what a correlation is.

      What's wrong with questioning every argument?

      This! This is exactly the problem with critical thinking students. They don't know when the argument has been proven. They've been taught to always question, but they have not been taught to understand when a conclusion has been legitimately reached. That would require subject-matter expertise. And that's the part they don't get. And it is why they keep arguing in circles.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    66. Re:yes by Nixoloco · · Score: 4, Funny

      Indeed. Unfortunately, power hungry people who are actually not good at real world things jump into politics instead. In other words, we end up with a bunch of retarded ass holes running our nation. What a bunch of fuckers.

      So power hungry people need to understand powers!

    67. Re:yes by Znork · · Score: 1

      Personally, I'd rank some things like income, job or assets as more important than working knowledge of exponentials for a loan applicant. But apparently it's not needed if the lender is an expert in algebra. Then they can put the loans in a pool, divide it into tranches according to formulas, sell them off to funds at various risk and return levels, insure it accoring to further formulas and profit is plenty.

      Confusing mathematical models for reality can arguably be considered a large part of the whole recent financial mess. If you need to understand any form of advanced mathematics to qualify for a loan or understand exactly how it will affect you economically you're operating on far too thin margins or you need a bank that actually understands and can explain what they're offering.

    68. Re:yes by bryonak · · Score: 1

      Hmm, the sentences before the part you're quoting make the cynical treatment of the issue pretty evident. You should read on, you might find yourself in agreement with what's there ;)

    69. Re:yes by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      Math is not used to its fullest extent. Nor ALL OTHER FRIGGIN' SUBJECTS ARE, except sexual education.

      Anyway, at least, math is one of the few neutral subjects where it's not the professors' bias who decides what is good or bad.

      Political science is the selection of propaganda items that have grown popular because it somehow serves the interests of the powerful people of the moment. No wonder they prefer that instead of math.

      (hey I can troll too, can't I)

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    70. Re:yes by FirephoxRising · · Score: 2

      I second this, in my Science Diploma and then my Degree, I was required to do algebra and calculus, I struggled with them, some students failed and I know that they were excellent at what they wanted to study and then have a career in. Yes we should understand how these thing work, but if you aren't good at them, and don't intend to use them in your course and job, then they shouldn't be required. I'm against all these compulsory subjects at university, uni is where you are supposed to be able to do what you enjoy and are good at, we spend 13 years at school being made to do subjects we don't want to do, we don't need more of the same crap!

    71. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      90% of us never use algebra, even once, after leaving school. It is basically pointless for non-techies.

      Actually, that is what is holding us back. If that 90% could and would use algebra, the world would be a better place.

    72. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      For my own peace-of-mind, my own edification, and personal analyses, I have found a good knowledge of math and computer programming ( especially C++ and mathcad ) invaluable.

      But as far as advancement in a company is concerned, I found a knowledge of math to be a great impediment, as it causes me to stubbornly stick to things, be a "boy scout", "perfectionist" and other derogatory terms those with "leadership skills" attribute to me.

      I am a bit jaded, but it seems to me that the most important skills one can learn is the skill of how to get someone else to do the work.

    73. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't completely agree with this: "A poor understanding of science is what makes people object to the 'theory' of evolution"

      I know plenty of people who got the same education I got, who can define science, who can do science, who do not agree that man has evolved over time. People choose what they believe and typically whatever best suits their existing biases. Sure, education helps, but there's much, much more to it than that.
      .

    74. Re:yes by rtfa-troll · · Score: 1

      He was introduced as a veteran of "World War Eleven".

      Please please someone post this on YouTube and put up the link. It's like the joke about there being 10 kinds of people in the world; those that understand binary and those that don't.

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    75. Re:yes by narcc · · Score: 4, Informative

      Math is a means of describing the world. It is not entirely abstract. It can be balls or calories or dollars.

      If I may quote Whitehead:

      Suppose we project our imagination backwards through many. thousands of years, and endeavor to realize the simple-mindedness of even the greatest intellects in those early societies. Abstract ideas which to us are immediately obvious must have been, for them, matters only of the. most dim apprehension. For example take the question of number. We think of the number 'five' as applying to appropriate groups of any entities whatsoever - to five fishes, five children, five apples, five days. Thus in considering the relations of the number 'five' to the number 'three: we are thinking of two groups of things, one with five members and the other with three members. But we are entirely abstracting from any consideration of any particular entities, or even of any particular sorts of entities, which go to make up the membership of either of the two groups. We are merely thinking of those relationships between those two groups which are entirely independent of the individual essences of any of the m.embers of either group. This is a very remarkable feat of abstraction; and it must have taken ages for the human race to rise to it. During a long period, groups of fishes will have been compared to each other in respect to their multiplicity, and groups of days to each other. But the first man who noticed the analogy between a group of seven fishes and a group of seven days made a notable advance in the history of thought.

      More directly:

      The point of mathematics is that in it we have always got rid of the particular instance, and even of any particular sorts of entities. So that for example, no mathematical truths apply merely to fish, or merely to stones, or merely to colours. So long as you are dealing with pure mathematics, you are in the realm of complete and absolute abstraction. All you assert is, that reason insists on the admission that, if any entities whatever have any relations which satisfy such-and-such purely abstract conditions, then they must have other relations which satisfy other purely abstract conditions.

      From Science And The Modern World Lowell Lectures, 1925

    76. Re:yes by jbeaupre · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sex ed helped with one of my engineering jobs. In fact, we got special training during a 1 week course. I still have the certificate. We even had dirty pictures on the wall. Friends from other divisions would freak when they visited my cubicle. I was lucky. My job dealt with OB/GYN and breast cancer (lots of drawings of boobs on my cubicle walls).

      Another division dealt with enlarged prostates! No body liked visiting their cubicles. Pictures of wangs and needles. Shudder!

      Oh, and I used algebra too.

      --
      The world is made by those who show up for the job.
    77. Re:yes by Stormthirst · · Score: 1

      And yet this is what the educational system in the UK is doing - and I suspect the US too.

    78. Re:yes by nospam007 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      " Most people are going to have credit cards, 401ks, mortgages, car loans, etc. Knowing how these things work is the first step to financial success."

      Not to burst your bubble but this guy teaches future politicians and as you know they have no idea that they have to pay back any loans nor such things as 'interest' and other things.
      If you have to promise the moon to people to keep your job, knowing that you can't possibly pay for it is just a hindrance.

    79. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      math isn't used for itself

      it is a way to hone the skills of your brain.

      you might not integrate NOTHING in your life after you've done learning it

      but all the effort you've done LEARNING it STAYS with you

    80. Re:yes by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      But if people aren't rational, what incentives will you offer them to embrace limited government?

      And you don't seem to mind lecturing people on what is good for them.

    81. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Don't get me started. I've met programmer after programmer, some actually proud of having forgotten most of the algebra they were taught. "I've never had to use it" is the oft-heard line

      Then comes code-review time. Rounding errors. (Hint: (int)(x + 0.5) doesn't work for negative x). Subtle miscalculations (Hint: 0.33 isn't 1/3). And overly complicated expressions because they lacked even the idea to try seeing whether it simplifies, let alone the knowledge to do so.

      They are shocked how, after a couple minor edits, their subroutine now runs 3x faster. Knowing where to look, how to look, and being able to navigate the space of possibilities without getting bogged down in dead ends, ultimately, has its roots in MATH. And, IMHO, a programmer who does not know higher math is like a car engine that's missing half its pistons.

    82. Re:yes by gTsiros · · Score: 1

      you described it much better than I did above

      thank you

      we could be very good friends

      --
      Looking for people to chat about multicopters, coding, music. skype: gtsiros
    83. Re:yes by zippthorne · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Are they perhaps trying to kill institutionalized education? If so, they're definitely on the right path.

      I don't think they want to kill the institutionalized part...

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    84. Re:yes by bryonak · · Score: 2

      First off, thanks for that nonconventional piece of thought.

      "but to ensure that the constituents of the very influential body politic (in a democratic society) are capable of interacting effectively with their world."

      This is the ideal of education in democracy, and it is proven false by empirical reality--that people do not act out of rational deliberation but according to incentives. Thus, this ideal of education needs to be scrapped, along with democracy.

      I think we agree that democracy theoretically works best the more citizens are mature, educated, sensible, etc.
      Now the problem is that you haven't offered any better alternatives along with your critique.
      Looking back at history, would an ant-colony society with many specialized narrow-minded workers and a small elite suit the human nature better? Free-for-all communities where everyone follows their moods simply don't work and quickly degenerate into societies with a huge power gradient.
      Then maybe a traditional India style caste system where (smarter?) parts of the population enjoy more rights, privileges but also obligations? Wouldn't seem to fit with all that freedom-fighting we've been doing and still are.
      I'd very much like to guarantee that the next Einstein gets a chance to go to university, and so far the only notable systems where he can't fall through the cracks are democracy and communism.

      Government that is limited to only the role of prosecuting a very short list of truly victim-ful (as opposed to victimless crimes--most of what is currently illegal) crimes solves the problem of needing a rational populace, which can't exist anyway, because WE ARE NOT RATIONAL!

      But what are we? Granted, the Enlightenment goals of a thoroughly educated populace are still a wee little bit off... but why do you exclude the possibility of having the vast majority significantly more educated than it is right now? Because we possess emotions and urges, besides our intellect?

      I believe that everyone *should* partake of intellectual exercises that might not be their particular cup of tea, just for the value of the mental development these challenges provide. But my love affair with my own brilliance stops at the point where most people conclude that "therefore, everyone else should be forced by government to do what I think is good."

      That there is one of the fundamental problems with society at present (actually--since the dawn of civilization).

      Yes, another case of 'where to draw the line'. I assume you do agree that the government should force everyone to get a driving license before trying out the highway. How about the government forcing people to learn how to read? If no, please elaborate, I'd be curious. If yes, why not more of that (e.g. algebra, to stay on topic) and up to which point exactly.

      It depends on where we as a society want to go with our development. Those who haven't given up on democracy, a mature population and Enlightenment root for more algebra ;)

      Let's cut with the wasting of people's adolescence by forcing them to take algebra or what we--most likely all on the right half of the IQ distribution--think is good for them. Oh how arrogant of us! We are of above average intelligence, so we certainly know what's best for others. It's an insidiously seductive self-deception that almost no one can resist. It is the defining reason why intelligence != wisdom.

      Yes, but... but... we know what's best for them!
      On the other hand, if I can show you that working together is of huge benefit in the long term, if the "dumber" allow themselves to be taught by the "smarter" and raise the average, wouldn't you agree that this is better for the species than letting the "dumber" follow the whims of their fancy? You're doing it with your children (my pardon if I'm making things up here), one of and eligibilities being that you're more experienced and (for n

    85. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like this learned professor is trying to get a larger budget for his department.

    86. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work as a programmer. I took and did well in Spanish, geography, history, chemistry, physics, biology, sexual education, art, wood shop and gym classes in high school, but I don't remember ever using them on the job.

      Well, will be a problem if you use sexual education in your job. XD

    87. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am a software engineer and I use those skills every day to make those types of systems for him to support. Without people using those skills to create something, he would have had nothing to do.

    88. Re:yes by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      A basic understanding of our shared history is important for the proper functioning of a democratic society.

      And how many years of studying history would this require? Also, to what extent do we have a shared history? Even if you include ancestors, the United States is a nation of immigrants. What do we share?

      It is basically pointless for non-techies.

      Your failure to cognize the point does not make math pointless.

    89. Re:yes by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

      Anyone who doesn't understand the difference between correlation and causation does not possess logic OR critical thinking skills. That more or less invalidates one of the roots of your argument. Understanding probability plays an important role in logic as well as critical thinking.

    90. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is exactly what I thought. From this idiot's thesis I would say that most topics are useless in his eyes. Who needs to learn Shakespeare? It's not like anyone writes like that anymore. Athletics? I bet less than a percent of student athletes become professional athletes. So why force all the rest to go through gym classes?

      This guy should be ashamed to call himself a professor. A professor should encourage everyone to challenge themselves in anything (and be ok if not everyone succeeds), rather than purposely discourage people from stretching themselves.

    91. Re:yes by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      [citation needed]

      I tried, but I couldn't find one.

      This was common knowledge at the school I went to. That this kind of sample selection was one of the ways Universities were manipulating their advertised published numbers.

      Not having any citation, or evidence, to back that up, I do not really care that much if you believe me or not. Hopefully, someone else can chime in with better information than mine.

    92. Re:yes by Guy+Harris · · Score: 2

      There are Algebras for Logic, you know. I don't know how you could get through a class in Logic, Philosophy, or even Rhetoric without Boolean Algebra. Not as well known here are Heyting Algebras.

      I guess my point is that Algebra is a pretty broad term

      Yes, there's "elementary algebra", which is what Prof. Hacker was talking about, and there's abstract algebra", which is a much broader topic, and there's an algebra, which is a particular type of mathematical structure in abstract algebra, and....

      and, yes, it appears that a Political Science student would benefit from a study of Algebra.

      Of course, I'd take it a bit further and suggest that they would very likely benefit from a strong mathematics background, including statistics. I don't see how this is even a question.

      And there's even a political science professor "whose work relies heavily on the use of numbers" and who would probably agree with you 100%.

    93. Re:yes by Immerman · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I would actually say statistics is probably the *most* broadly-applicable branch of mathematics. *Everyone* - scientist, politician, gambler, civic-minded citizen, and commercial watching bumpkin would benefit from a firm grasp of at least the basics of statistics, and of those scientists are typically the only ones who have any clue at all, and even their grasp on it is often shaky, especially in the softer science. And you don't actually need much more than basic algebra to learn it either.

      No other field I can think of is as broadly used with as little understanding (how many times have you seen a % today?), which makes it ripe for exploitation. There's a reason for the phrase "there's lies, damned lies, and statistics" - statistics is (mostly) actually pretty simple from a "solve this equation" perspective, the difficulty is that there's a whole lot of counter-intuitive aspects to probability so it can be tricky to answer the question you think you're answering - which makes it ridiculously simple for someone to make a rock-solid sounding statistical argument that's completely spurious.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    94. Re:yes by ThurstonMoore · · Score: 0

      $.50

    95. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      '**' instead of '^'? Are you a python/scipy user?

    96. Re:yes by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No one really "needs" to learn how to read anything more advanced than a children's book, especially if they're a carpenter or plumber.

      If that's the case, and you're so clever, then why do you still need to hire a plumber and why does your plumber have a better car than you?

    97. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My cousin is dyslexic and has terrible trouble reading and doing mathematics, but he's sitting pretty on a pile of cash and he's great at his job.

      Not all companies have a "cash-sitter" position available though. I just checked on Monster.com and found a number of PM and SA positions, but they involve sitting on other people and piles of servers.

    98. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This, this, a thousand times this! They don't teach you mathematics because you'll need to calculate the area of triangles at work, they teach it because it forces you to use logical thinking to solve problems. Critical thinking and logic are essential to solving problems in the real world, no matter where you are.

      Have you ever been walking down a street and instead of coming to the next intersection and turning towards your destination, you cut diagonally across a field to get there faster? You just made use of the Pythagorean theorem to shorten your trek! GO MATH!

    99. Re:yes by mjwx · · Score: 3, Informative

      How many people use a substantial fraction of their high school education in their working life?

      The purpose of a high school education is to enable a person to be able to be able to think and be able to have an intelligent conversation. It is not specialization nor is it designed to train someone how to perform a specific job. Math, arts, science, history, music, language, writing, civics, etc., all play a part. A person with a well rounded education is a person who can make useful judgements as a citizen.

      High school doesn't prepare people to be salesmen, barbers, engineers, doctors, receptionists, or mechanics. Each of those fields will have specific training. High school only makes it possible that once you do enter one of those fields that you can do so as an intelligent citizen.

      I use a shitload of science and maths in my daily job, most of it learned in high school. If it weren't for high school, I would not have the prerequisite knowledge necessary to become a network engineer. This may not be true in your country, but High School in Australia does allow one to become specialised, you have four core subjects everyone must take (English, Maths, Science and Social Studies) and in the final two years, Science and Social Studies become optional, you can choose to do history or biology but you aren't forced to.

      As for algebra itself. Who uses that in real life eh,

      No one needs to figure out how many litres of petrol they'll get for $20. Yep, we never use algebra in real life.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    100. Re:yes by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      Is this worth it? Some developed societies separate their education systems half-way through high school into a vocational and college prep line because they want to use high school to prepare their citizens for a job. They choose specialization over breadth.

      American education does this too (although perhaps less obviously) by separating students into college-prep and non-college prep tracks. Students who take the latter, no matter how good their grades are, will have a hard time getting accepted into college. Effectively, they are in the vocational track. If anything, this trend seems to have become stronger over the last few decades.

    101. Re:yes by ppanon · · Score: 1

      Sometimes, confusion of homonyms is a symptom of dyslexia. Not always of course - sometimes it's just sloppiness. But often it's an indication that there's a minor part of the brain of the author that's not working normally. I used to feel like you, and then had sequelae arising from CFS. I now have to double-check everything I write to correct homonym mistakes that I never used to make. It's frustrating, although after about 6 years since I first noticed the problem, it finally seems to be happening less frequently.

      --
      Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
    102. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Calculus measures the rate of change. IMO, if you don't know how to use calculus, you are unable and unqualified to argue the merits of arguments on Economics, global warming, unemployment, air pollution, groundwater pollution, and thousands of other concerns. Those people who are unable to argue sensibly and knowlageably still have opinions, but those opinions are without merit. Those same people are at the mercy of opinion-makers of questionable integrity.

      Perhaps the proper place for Calculus is in high school, and your school is a possible exemplar. However, it most likely that Calculus is taught only to a select few, and the rest of the high school population is graduated ignorant. IMO, Propositional Logic and Rhetoric should also be taught.

      Algebra is a prerequisite for Calculus, but not everyone understands Mathematics in the way that Algebra expresses it. Almost all mathematical principles can be described in either Arithimetic, Geometric, or Algebraic terms. Assume that some people count, some people visualize, and others like "recipes". At the very least, graduates should be able to describe mathematical concepts in their preferred method, and to be able to recognize those concepts when described in other thinking styles.

      The original article is prima facie evidence that even PhD's are not immune to lousy thinking practices. I would be more impressed with the argument if I thought that Hacker actually understood Mathematics. The reason is that I usually divide people who are into "Political Science" into three major categories:

      At one extreme is the "Political Philosopher" who theorizes about the "best" forms of political action.
      At the other extreme is the "Political Technician" who concentrates the means of obtaining thier "preferred" political situation.
      Sandwiched in the middle is a narrow band of real "Political Scientists" who try to understand the principles behind politics and derive principles that predict the outcomes of various actions. Although these people are hamperred by lack of a "laboratory" in which to conduct experiments and control variables, they have tools such as Logic and Mathematics, particularly Calculus and Statistics, that they can use to evaluate different political actions.

      Hacker comes across as a "Technician" and gets a discount on credibility from me.

    103. Re:yes by mister_dave · · Score: 1

      I thought the current UK government were trying to reintroduce maths and science as a basic requirement for all school children.

    104. Re:yes by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Algebra is an onerous stumbling block for all kinds of students: disadvantaged and affluent, black and white.

      and substitute to:

      History is an onerous stumbling block for all kinds of students: disadvantaged and affluent, black and white.

      Well wait a minute. My wife, a mathematician and math professor, also has her doubts about teaching algebra independently. She believes that it does indeed represent a stumbling block in people's understanding of Math and would prefer that the tools be taught more in context. She feels the same way about Calculus.

      Now, maybe her opinion has been somewhat affected by teaching one undergrad Algebra course, at a Division I school with a big basketball program, and having 3 of the 5 starters in her class. I can see how that might make you feel like the subject is something of a futile exercise.

      But it's an opinion I have heard shared by other mathematicians. Algebra and Calculus (especially) might discourage a lot of students who might otherwise excel at Math. Me, I don't know one way or the other, but I'm not sure I would get much out of a class where you learn how to use a hammer but rarely or never got to hit a nail.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    105. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're confusing education with job training. They are not meant to be the same thing. Education is supposed to teach you how to learn, so that you CAN learn things that are difficult for you. Job training is supposed to prepare you for your job at your dad's multimillion dollar business, or wherever you work. If you are not very well educated you will have trouble adapting to situations in your life, and be pretty much screwed, forever.

    106. Re:yes by ppanon · · Score: 1

      A person with a well rounded education is a person who can make useful judgements as a citizen.

      Specialization is for insects

      Everyone is going to specialize after leaving high school, but the well rounded students who might be a step behind on specialization will be two steps ahead with creativity.

      It's funny but I've been picking up little tidbits of knowledge from all sorts of different areas and used to surprise people at work with random applicable factoids in various situations. I have never thought of myself as particularly creative. It's only after reading Doidges' book "The brain that changes itself" that I've understood that, while diversity of experience is necessary for being creative by applying approaches from an unrelated field to a given problem, that very creative people are also missing certain critical/filtering functions (as in critiquing one's ideas). My sister is much more creative than I, but she's more gullible and has sometimes come up with some doozies. This is why very creative people are often excentric. For me, the filtering functions work at a subconscious level, discarding ideas before thoughts ever breach the conscious level where they might be improved. I'm still wondering if there's someway to learn/practice turning the filtering functions on and off at will.

      --
      Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
    107. Re:yes by SomeKDEUser · · Score: 1

      Parts of linguistics are maths. Maths themselves are a language. Language is a method for expressing abstract ideas.

      This is why any notion of "maths is hard", "students don't need this or that" is evil. Mathematics are perhaps one of the things which makes us Humans, and denying this knowledge to students is to deny them part of their humanity.

      Also, maybe if people understood stats better, politicians would get away with less bald face lies and irrelevant data ;)

    108. Re:yes by loufoque · · Score: 1

      Entrepreneurs are a tiny fraction of the population, successful ones even less so, and successful ones with hundreds of millions even more.
      Are you suggesting we design an education system that would only be useful to the lucky 1% of the population?

    109. Re:yes by multicoregeneral · · Score: 1

      Algebra is useful, but my mind naturally breaks it down to basic arithmetic anyway. I used to get in trouble in grade school because I would do these things in my head without scratch paper. I don't think the subject is flawed so much, but the methods by which we insist on teaching it are hurting children... especially bright ones.

      --
      This signature intentionally left blank.
    110. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Course RA is having a class on mathematical thinking in September. https://www.coursera.org/course/maththink

      I've tutored math for years and the main problem that students ultimately have is that they aren't taught how to think mathematically. Another major one is that it can take years to see enough problems to really develop the necessary intuition to be really good, I know that by the time I last finished tutoring it I could see and do problems which I could never have completed without help when I was taking math classes,

    111. Re:yes by JDG1980 · · Score: 1

      substitute in his thesis, Algebra is an onerous stumbling block for all kinds of students: disadvantaged and affluent, black and white. and substitute to: History is an onerous stumbling block for all kinds of students: disadvantaged and affluent, black and white.

      "I am not good at", or "I don't want to" are not good arguments for not requiring learnin'.

      The problem is that you didn't actually address the arguments he raises in the original article. His primary argument (as I read it) is twofold:

      • Algebra causes more trouble for more students than any other required subject
      • Algebra is not inherently necessary to good citizenship or educated adulthood

      This second part of the argument is where your "gotcha!" formulation falls apart. Some very basic knowledge of US history may be required for good citizenship. But the equivalent in mathematics would not be algebra (a specialized skill which, as Dr. Hacker notes in the article, few adults actually use) but rather a basic understanding of fractions and decimals, knowing how to balance a bank account and calculate interest, and so forth.

    112. Re:yes by greg_barton · · Score: 2

      Absolutely. I'm introducing my daughter to algebra now.

      She's 4.

      It's slow going, but she's getting the basics.

      To think a professor thinks we should drop the subject from college because it's too hard just boggles the mind.

    113. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one needs to figure out how many litres of petrol they'll get for $20. Yep, we never use algebra in real life.

      That is not algebra. That is arithmetic. You can use a variable if you like, but it is not necessary. Now please try again to explain where most people use algebra in real life.

      Here are two examples that actually require algebra:

      If an airplane ticket costs X per mile (one passenger), and your car costs Y per mile regardless to how many passengers carried, then at what distance will it cost the same to drive as it does to fly with Z-1 passengers (assume XY)?

      If I drop a rock off of the Golden Gate Bridge, at what speed will it impact the water?

    114. Re:yes by platypussrex · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have degrees in math and have taught Math at the university level. The biggest problem is that many of the people we send to college in the US should be in tech school instead. They probably won't benefit much from Algebra, but then they are most likely flunking many other courses as well. History, Literature, Biology, the list goes on. For the ones who should be in college, and who will benefit from a college education, they absolutely need the skills that a good mathematics education will help them acquire. For the ones who should be in tech school, they often can't even do basic whole number arithmetic so naturally they don't benefit from Algebra at all.

    115. Re:yes by JDG1980 · · Score: 1

      Most people are going to have credit cards, 401ks, mortgages, car loans, etc.

      And understanding how these things work should definitely be a part of the basic high school curriculum. But figuring out interest rates doesn't require a full-fledged understanding of algebra.

    116. Re:yes by darenw · · Score: 1

      Absolutely!

      I'm voting for all Mathematics Party candidates this next election.

    117. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's a pinhead, even when I was in primary school 25 years ago we were starting on algebra, they didn't call it that and it was simple, but we were working on that. I know that now it's gotten even more blatant as they're introducing and talking about it in primary school to avoid the shock of suddenly being tossed into it later on. Having students that are at least comfortable with the terms and basic operations makes a difference.

      If his students are being bounced from political science in middle school, I'd love to find out what he's doing because somebody that's in college at that age is definitely not stupid. And if they can't handle high school algebra they're really not going to be able to handle the calculus and statistics necessary to be a political scientist.

    118. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Way to miss the point! Wooooooooosh!

    119. Re:yes by JDG1980 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Screw that, it doesn't matter what algebra is good for. My 5th grade math teacher said this, math helps change the way you think. It doesn't seem like much, but you'll need that way of thinking in the future. And she was right.

      They used to make this same argument about Greek and Latin: sure, you may not actually use these skills, but they teach critical thinking and build character. It was nonsense then and it's nonsense now.

    120. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Would he be better at his job if he knew how to integrate? Maybe.... but it's not necessary for him, which is what the article is asking."

      You do not know until you try. You won't know how many job opportunities you've missed out on if you never have the skills to try. You don't know how much you are missing if you give up before starting.

      Let's see. I don't need history, french, art class, all that "creative writing" crap in english class (technical writing, yes), that awful home economics class, et cetera. Would I have been better off without all those? I doubt it. Because I did not know what I was going to be doing, and I didn't know what I was good at or awful at until I tried them. Worse, it turns out that art *is* useful at times, and when I visited Paris and when I have to read the occasional journal article in french, the french is useful.

      So, yeah, let's just axe math because "math is hard" and the students know ahead of time that they'll never, ever need to be mathematically literate in their daily lives. They'll never have to balance a budget, understand the difference between "deficit" and "debt", figure out why paying the minimum payment on a credit card is a bad idea, or why 20% interest on credit is insane. Hell, if half of them are just going to be drug dealers why bother with any of it? Just let them drop out and not learn a thing if they want to, so they can get on with their dead-end mathematically-illiterate lives. Or go into politics, I suppose.

    121. Re:yes by JDG1980 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Specialization is for insects

      Specialization is what makes modern civilization possible. Without division of labor, we'd all be subsistence farmers. Either Heinlein didn't know what he was talking about, or (more likely) the words he put in the mouth of Lazarus Long weren't meant to be taken as gospel truth.

    122. Re:yes by JDG1980 · · Score: 1

      Really now. This presupposes that the point of education is to provide students with things they will "use." If this were the case, why not just send students to trade school?

      Maybe we should be sending more students to trade school. It's not as if our current system of education is such a shining success, or that there are good jobs for all college graduates right now.

    123. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Due, you've just eliminated most of the US Senate and Congress. Congratulations!

    124. Re:yes by JDG1980 · · Score: 1

      Any tradesman who needs to find out whether a square is really square will generally use the Pythagorean theorem. Google "3-4-5 method" for details (though you can probably already guess from the title).

    125. Re:yes by Freultwah · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Who modded this insightful? Studying political science is not about becoming a politician. There are few politicians among political scientists. (There are, of course, some notable exception, but they remain exceptions.) People with a PolSci education tend to become foreign policy analysts, journalists, civil servants and the like, or they stick around in the academia. Politicians mostly come from the ranks of economists and lawyers.

    126. Re:yes by NJRoadfan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      My high school had an elective course called "Math for Living" that taught everyday uses of math like the above examples, no Calculus needed.

    127. Re:yes by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Maybe they should argue about the concept of arguing. Heads asplode everywhere!

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    128. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use a whole lot of college level math in my job, and I am just a farmer. I develop equations relating certain measurements that allow me to predict crop ripeness further into the future. Sure they only work for my location, but I don't pick crops that are not mine, so what do I care if it doesn't work for Old McDonald down the road. I have a set of equations that have correctly predicted the sugar level of my grapes to a 24 hour period, 6 weeks into the future. Fractal dimension measurement has been helpful in my very small directed breeding program for grapes and tomatoes (no results yet, just kind of for fun). Im sure I could do more with more knowledge. I used to share my ideas with my fellow farmers, but they were unwilling to learn/ do the work required. Or outright just don't care. Half of them are failing now, and I am expanding (slowly).

    129. Re:yes by NJRoadfan · · Score: 1

      Algebra for me was nothing more then a prerequisite for higher level math courses. What I learned later on is that its easier to solve some problems using Calculus (differentials mainly) then to solve it using Algebra. Heck my Algebra 2 textbook from high school had a sidebar example of how to solve certain problems with Calculus that was clearly easier then the page worth of work we were supposed to learn in that lesson.

    130. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sex ed helped with one of my engineering jobs. In fact, we got special training during a 1 week intercourse. I still have the birth certificate.

      Fixed that for you.

    131. Re:yes by couchslug · · Score: 2

      "The fact that you don't realize you're using algebra every day should be taken as how vital it is to teach it."

      What po' folks need algebra fo'?

      Ya'all sure you ain't a Communist tryin' to put title loan outfits and pawn shops outta business? :-)

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    132. Re:yes by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Your arguments are valid, but those are certainly not entry-level positions. Far from it in fact. You are way out of touch in understanding the IT industry.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    133. Re:yes by danlip · · Score: 1

      You need an understanding of history every time you go to vote. Those that don't have it tend to vote Republican.

    134. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      math helps change the way you think.

      Learning anything changes how you think. No special distinction for math there, except perhaps that the way it changes your thinking is harmless at worst, and most likely helpful (vs. studying economics with Arthur Laffer for example).

      The most important reason learning math is important is that it proves you /can/ think. In a completely objective testable way. No other discipline does so. Even if you never use it, the fact that you learned it in the first place proves you are not an idiot.

      On the other hand, you can have a PhD in Political Science and you have proven nothing about your intellect whatsoever.

    135. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I shouldn't say 'no other discipline does so'. Any hard science does so. But they all use math.

    136. Re:yes by gr8_phk · · Score: 1

      Algebra is doing arithmetic on unknown quantities in order to learn something about them. Perhaps their value or their relationship to another unknown quantity.

    137. Re:yes by six11 · · Score: 1

      I came here to say just this, and you beat me to most of it.

      But! If we're doing away with all the subjects that make us feel bad, the logical conclusion (not that we understand logic any longer) is that only one course remains that everybody can agree on: sex education! And, since we have nothing else going on at school because it makes us feel dumb, sex ed will be taken to great new heights! Imagine the possibilities!

    138. Re:yes by fido_dogstoyevsky · · Score: 2

      My high school had an elective course called "Math for Living" that taught everyday uses of math like the above examples, no Calculus needed.

      Here in Oz those subjects are referred to BY THE STUDENTS as "vegie maths" (vegie=vegetable).

      --
      It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
    139. Re:yes by Alex+Belits · · Score: 0

      Hey, someone was wrong -- that means, everything else is wrong.

      You are an example of people with defective thinking that comes from lack of studying. Kill all your friends, then yourself.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    140. Re:yes by dcollins · · Score: 1

      "Would he be better at his job if he knew how to integrate?"

      Does he really need a college degree at all to do his job? (For many people I've known running businesses similar to your relatives, the answer would likewise be "no".)

      Is college education essentially about getting a job?

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    141. Re:yes by whois · · Score: 2

      The counter to this is that an overly broad education is also worthless. It's not just that you don't use some of those things you learned, it's that you'll forget them given enough time. Your brain makes room mostly for the things you use each day.

      Now, going too far down that path means people would be extremely dull to be around, all of them specialists in exactly one thing or a couple of things, but it is important to weigh things out every 10 years or so and decide if too much emphasis was put on something. Mathematics is a very broad subject with lots of things to talk about and most of it is different facets of the same animal. Maybe it'll be decided that now that everyone has access to graphing calculators, geometry is a much more intuitive way to solve some of the problems we normally use algebra for. Intuitive being relative according to how you learn, but likely geometry/algebra/calculus should all be melded into one discipline at lower levels and people should be taught according to what makes more sense to them, if they're visual, audable learners, etc.

      They can't do something like that now because classes have to be accessible to all 30 students no matter their IQ or learning type. Computer aided teaching could identify how someone learns and let them explore the concepts without worrying about what disciplines they come from.

      The same applies to Biology, Chemistry and Physics, they all work with each other and if you explore any particular topic saying "and what happens after that.." you get to the boundries between each field. Arguably, the student should be allowed to go straight past that boundry and keep exploring the topic rather than saying "that next part is physics."

    142. Re:yes by dcollins · · Score: 1

      That's a really good point. Thanks for posting it. (Ties into my belief that not teaching logic circa age 14 is a great loss.)

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    143. Re:yes by dcollins · · Score: 1

      I do agree with this. I've come to think that not teaching basic logic at an early age has put a lot of our education on a very sinking-sands basis.

      Historical note: In medieval universities, logic was part of the "first three" most basic subjects (taught around age 14-15), otherwise known as the "trivium", from which we get our word "trivial". And yet for modern students, this trivial subject is never directly encountered, just assumed.

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    144. Re:yes by metrix007 · · Score: 1

      What makes you think critical thinking ties into Algebra?

      --
      If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
    145. Re:yes by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      I don't think they want to kill the institutionalized part...

      Ahhh, you see they are building the new America, a wonderful land, where there are only managers.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    146. Re:yes by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      With all due respect to your dyslexic cousin, how much math does your uncle use? How about your other cousin[s]?

      Mathematics is a necessary part of education, We've been removing the emphasis on mathematics for generations and what has that gotten us? We have millions of people who are under thousands of dollars of credit card debt, that just don't have any idea of how it happened to them. They *should* know better, but they are in positions where then just don't have the tools to understand.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    147. Re:yes by elucido · · Score: 1

      Anyone not understanding what an exponential is does not have a good enough understanding of demographics to make a fully informed decision about making babies and should not be authorized to take a loan.

      But they don't teach an understanding of the concepts of algebra. They were more concerned with you passing exams and getting the problems solved.

      Yes computer programming and science is all about problem solving and use knowledge of certain concepts are useful but the way math is taught a lot of those concepts I've learned better from computer programming or on my own than in class.

    148. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > That more or less invalidates one of the roots of your argument.

      I'm not sure you even understood the argument.

    149. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate it when people say "just a farmer". Two hundred years ago farmers might have been uneducated hacks, but today farmers often need to go to college and grad school to be competitive. The fraction of the population that farms has never been lower and the production of farms have never been higher. Farming is extremely complex and only those who are very intelligent will succeed. The dumbasses who thought they could farm because "farming is easy" have long ago "bought the farm". Only the smartest remain.

    150. Re:yes by NJRoadfan · · Score: 1

      It likely gets the same reception here by students. Sadly that type of education is lacking in the USA. Plenty of folks graduate with a 4 year degree from university and don't know basic accounting or how to formulate a household budget. So we get plenty of people in debt instead.

    151. Re:yes by sinan · · Score: 1

      Professor Hacker's article is a modest proposal based on Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, and a very good one. The article is apparently written for the celebration of the eightieth anniversary of the publication of the book. It's a trap to get people to discuss the antithesis of his real point. It is beautifully done, and suckered in a lot of people.

    152. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Anyone not understanding what an exponential is should NOT be making policy decisions at all. Period.

      Reality contradicts this ivory tower attitude. Might want to change from making wild assertions which will result in 0 change to something more productive.

    153. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually you should read the entire post, it does not go in the direction you seem to think it does.

    154. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They teach useful stuff that get used.

      I regret having missed an additional year of Latin that I could have taken if I had realized suddenly fit in my schedule.

      Greek and Latin are everywhere.

    155. Re:yes by drfreak · · Score: 1

      I didn't really understand math until I became a programmer. I understood flow control and boolean logic, but when the actual data behind the code came into play, that is when I started to understand math. I failed the same algebra 101 course at least five times before I grew up and actually got it. I'm no math wiz by any stretch of the imagination but coming from practicality first, I finally got it. When work became all about variables, constants and the logic of their interactions, things all just started to click.

    156. Re:yes by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      but you'll need that way of thinking in the future.

      She was wrong for a large majority of the population, apparently... At least for more algebra and advanced math. Believe it or not, plenty of people survive without it.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    157. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't know when the argument has been proven.

      Probably not with 100% accuracy, but good enough, anyway.

      They've been taught to always question

      I find that there's nothing wrong with that as long as they aren't constantly getting into frivolous arguments about how 1 + 1 might not equal 2. The problem isn't with critical thinking courses; the problem is with people who learned nothing from them. The people you're describing have no critical thinking skills.

    158. Re:yes by gringer · · Score: 1

      If I have $50, and I have to buy lunch every work day for two weeks, how much can I spend on average?

      I can solve that using letters as nothing but unit identifiers:

      $50 / (2 weeks * 5 days) = $50 / 10 = $5

      Using letters to replace numbers is not always necessary, and can make things more confusing.

      --
      Ask me about repetitive DNA
    159. Re:yes by tqk · · Score: 1

      (-e**(i*pi) st post)

      Least ignorant First Post, ever. On topic even.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    160. Re:yes by Gavagai80 · · Score: 2, Informative

      There's no algebra in that, it's a simple arithmetic word problem.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    161. Re:yes by buybuydandavis · · Score: 1

      Mathematics is a tool, but it's not a tool everyone uses to its fullest extent. In my high school, we teach all the way up to Calculus 2, and what percentage of the population actually uses that kind of mathematics? My Uncle, and cousins run a very successful business with revenue in the hundreds of millions of dollars. My cousin is dyslexic and has terrible trouble reading and doing mathematics, but he's sitting pretty on a pile of cash and he's great at his job. Would he be better at his job if he knew how to integrate? Maybe.... but it's not necessary for him, which is what the article is asking.

      Apparently he doesn't really need to read either. We've got rid of reading and arithmetic, let's make a clean sweep of it an get rid of writing too.

      Lots more time for self esteem classes this way.

    162. Re:yes by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      For the most part, yes, we could eliminate most subjects, and most people would be just as well off as they are today. Most people leave high school and a good many of them leave college with no better than what should be expected of a 7th grader. It is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that most people don't need algebra because most people don't know algebra, and they do just fine. The same applies to history, language, and every other subject taught after the 7th grade. Is it great for those that want to learn more, but it isn't necessary for a good life.

      It seems the right answer to the wrong question has been presented though. It is higher education that is the failing. We run kids through 13 years of primary "education", and then push them into 4 or more years of "education", and what we end up with is a person with a 7 year education. Higher "education" is completely worthless if you haven't received a primary education that ends where the higher "education" is supposed to start.

    163. Re:yes by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      $yourWorstSubject is an onerous stumbling block for all kinds of students: disadvantaged and affluent, black and white.

      Not true in my case. Sport was not part of my final grade.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    164. Re:yes by bhartman34 · · Score: 1

      But his argument isn't that you don't need calculus. It's that you don't need algebra. And that's a very short-sighted view of what education is for.

      Education isn't just for those skills you need at your job. It's also for those skills you need as a functional person in society. The problem with his "logic" is that learning to solve for x is applicable in real life, not just specific occupations.

    165. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The better question would be, if being a skilled plumber could be achieved by reading, why would you ever hire a plumber? I think the GP meant that such skills are very experiential, and do not require reading theses or research papers in their field. You get training and experience.

    166. Re:yes by kyrio · · Score: 1

      You should have paid more attention in English class.

    167. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thing TFA is confusing algebra with arithmetic. From what I have seen, if it is easy, people call it arithmetic; if it is hard, people call it algebra or calculus. Even when those labels should clearly not apply.

    168. Re:yes by buybuydandavis · · Score: 1

      I am a bit jaded, but it seems to me that the most important skills one can learn is the skill of how to get someone else to do the work.

      The most important thing to figure out is how to have a large collective effort that isn't primarily consumed and controlled by parasites. It just may be the nature of a large collective enterprise, and the only option is to work in smaller groups.

    169. Re:yes by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I'd say the latter considering the specialisation of different characters in "Starship Troopers".

    170. Re:yes by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      There is also the unfortunate trend of calling stupid people 'creative'. To be clear, I'm not saying that creative people are stupid. Lumping all of the stupid people into the 'creative' category is really crewing the truly creative. The 6 year old that dreams up a pig that says 'Moo' is creative. The 6 year old that thinks pigs say 'Moo' is dumb. The two are not the same.

      To be fair, we often do the same thing with smart vs. trained. A smart child can tell you that 3 * 3 = 9 because they know that 3 * 3 is the same as 3 + 3 + 3 which is the same as 1 +1 +1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 9. A trained child tells you that 3 * 3 = 9 because that is what the times table chart they were told to memorize says.

    171. Re:yes by Cute+and+Cuddly · · Score: 1

      That is the kind of thinking that has been producing a schooling system of mediocre, self centered, ignorant and arrogant people that are under the impression they are superior to everyone else. People that imagine that it is OK to ge and take anything from another country by force (Mainly petrol these days) just because you have more and bigger guns. People of the US, you better be worried. Your economy is falling to pieces, the rest of the world looks at you with contempt and everyone is better educated and smarter than you are. Right now your space program is the laughin stock of mankind while the Chinese are getting out there doing things you can only dream about. If a US astronaut goes to space these days, it is in a Soyus capsule. Grow a brain, if you get something without making a serious effort, you won't keep it for long.

    172. Re:yes by wisty · · Score: 3, Insightful

      IIRC, math knowledge is one of the most important factors in whether people repay loans. People who can't count (or can't divide by 12, or figure out what interest is, etc) can't manage their personal finance. It's sometimes maddening to hear their explanations. Even if you are good at math, it can be hard to figure out a lot contracts (which are designed to mess with your head), people without math skills who sign contracts are like people who represent themselves in court.

    173. Re:yes by Compaqt · · Score: 1

      In what way did you refute the first poster?

      He said that you can claim $SUBJECT isn't necessary (italics yours) for any value of $SUBJECT.

      You came by and said advanced math isn't necessary for your cousin.

      And neither is history, nor political science, nor probably civics, or chemistry, physics, biology, English literature, English grammar (got Word for that). Anything left?

      --
      I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    174. Re:yes by Compaqt · · Score: 1

      Pray tell, what would be taught in your ideal school?

      I assume that would be only stuff that kids could put to use immediately.

      So, for example, they wouldn't need algebra. Just being able to count their pocket money should suffice.

      --
      I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    175. Re:yes by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      One of the problems there is that math is not a single point. No one knows all math, and it is unlikely that anyone ever will. So, as mere mortals we must accept that "knowing math" is a point on a very long line. Where we put that point will be is debatable. Once you acknowledge that no one will ever know all math, you are just deciding how much math is enough. Students don't need this or that isn't evil. It is a reality of living in our universe. It is not denying them a part of their humanity. It is understanding that they are human.

      The question is and must be, how much math do people need to function, how much math can a particular individual actually learn, and at what point does the payoff exceed the price for each individual?

    176. Re:yes by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      I don't know about the person you are replying to, but I can tell you that I don't need to hire a plumber. Ironically, a plumber is one of the few tradesmen I do hire. The reason I hire him isn't because the one time I needed work done while I was out of town, he did the unusual act of doing a cleaner job than I did. My work was just as functional, but his was faster and cleaner. The work wasn't difficult. It didn't require any intelligence. My plumber would happily say the same. He was completely aware of and confident with the fact that his value was not in some arcane knowledge, or in some high degree of book learning. His value was in the fact that he had a strong work ethic, took pride in his work, and had done it long enough that he could do it with a profit at a time and materials cost that was less than his customers could do themselves.

      Reading anything more advanced than a children's book is no more require to bring value than swinging anything heavier than a mouse is.

    177. Re:yes by sgunhouse · · Score: 1

      I do that to cashiers all the time - in fact, last time was about an hour ago. Some I have to tell what the change would be, this one got it correct.

      I have a problem with most of the discussion prior to this post though ... too many people are talking about high school algebra when the article was obviously about university algebra (which really means Precalculus in context). Admittedly many students are coming to college without the proper prerequisites in high school and unfortunately many colleges will still be forced to teach remedial math even if pre-calc were no longer a prerequisite ... but everyone who talked about Algebra 2 in context of the article is wrong. (Not that the math in elementary/high school discussion isn't interesting, even for a former math professor like me - it's just not related to the original article.)

      And for the record, business majors are required to take Calculus too, but it's a calculus with no trig functions. "Math for Business, Life and Social Sciences" we called it at my school, course numbers Math 124 and 125 (yes, 2 semesters of Calculus). How this guy got to be a Poli Sci prof without it is beyond me.

    178. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's wrong with questioning every argument?

      This! This is exactly the problem with critical thinking students. They don't know when the argument has been proven. They've been taught to always question, but they have not been taught to understand when a conclusion has been legitimately reached. That would require subject-matter expertise. And that's the part they don't get. And it is why they keep arguing in circles.

      Isn't this Critical Thinking 101? I dunno, in the Netherlands that type of class doesn't exist.

      Speaking as a computer scientist (future phd student), I think I can fairly say that equation-solving type math like algebra is, while useful if you want to do science, not that useful in real life. From personal experience, I would argue its better to teach students to calculate quickly and let an economics class cover the interest material. In the Netherlands we split math in high school (at least for those going to uni) into four different levels (aligning with different 'profiles'; when I did this there was an 'alpha' one with languages and such, an economics one, one with a focus on chemistry and biology and one with a math, physics, chemistry focus). I think this works quite well. Adapt the level of math to what the students need.

    179. Re:yes by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Even sexual education isn't used to it's fullest. When my wife was pregnant, we were contently being corrected by people that her pregnancy would be 10 months when we would say 9. The best we could come up with was that enough people had read 40 weeks, and converted that into 10 months. I suppose that is bad math as well...

      The professors' bias might not decide what math is good or bad, but it does tend to screw small children. I can't count the number of times I have heard a teacher defend telling kids a fable about a tiny alligator eating big fish to describe greater than instead of just pointing out that it is a picture of what it means. (the small side is small and the large side is large) Another example is that we teach things out of order. Instead of getting variables out of the way right off the bat so that = always means =, we swap around a half dozen different shapes and symbols in a vain attempt to avoid them. Sometimes they are underlines. Sometimes they are empty squares or rectangles. Other times they are just a blank space on the page.

    180. Re:yes by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      The schools are only getting about 7 years accomplished in those 13 years, so the colleges had to take up the slack. Unfortunately, they are moving in the same direction, and seeing people leave college with a 7th grade education is now common.

    181. Re:yes by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      No, the US has moved to 'social promotion'. It has given up on educating the children and moved to 'socializing' them.

    182. Re:yes by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      Right, but if you look at some of the modern heating, cooling and water systems in houses, you'll find they're way more complicated than just fixing a burst pipe or changing a tap washer. The installation manuals tend to be quite thick and full of fairly baffling technical information. You'd need way more than the reading skills to get through a children's book to do it.

      I'm not sure what the OP's job is, but you probably don't need to be able to read much more than children's books to do it either. For mine, you'd need at least high-school level reading and writing skills (UK, rather higher than in the US) but you *do* need a very good understanding of maths.

    183. Re:yes by tftp · · Score: 1

      "We have one full spool of cable, one empty spool, and a spool with an unknown length of the cable. How much cable do we have on the partially used spool?"

      "We need to drag this cable from here to there. You cannot follow the path of the cable everywhere. We have no plans of this building, but here is your measuring tape. We have as many feet of cable on this spool as you calculated above. Will it be enough?"

      "We need to hang a cable between two buildings, from height $h1 on building A to height $h2 on building B. The cable will be tied to a steel wire that can have tension up to $F newtons. Masses of the wire and the cable (per meter) are known, as well as the distance between the buildings. What is the required length of the cable and the wire, considering that the wire forms a catenary? When done, calculate the wind load for the wind speed of $speed m/s and tell me if the steel wire is strong enough."

    184. Re:yes by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      I am with you, and did the same. Part of the problem is that the word 'Algebra' gets redefined. Our society has decided that 'algebra is hard'. Since 1 + 1 = X is algebra, and algebra is hard, they came up with ways to make 1 + 1 = X NOT algebra. They will do things like 1 + 1 = _ , 1 + 1 = [] or 1 + 1 = .

      It is mind boggling how much people get dumbed down. If your child is doing algebra at 4, you should consider homeschooling. It isn't 1920's rural Wyoming these days. (I apologize if you live in Wyoming) The 'socialization' boogie man is a myth. A room of 30 kids that are years behind her will only drag her down. At 8 years old my son would be going into the 3rd grade in public school. Being home schooled, he is somewhere in between he is ahead of his friends entering the fifth grade of public school and behind his friends entering the 6th grade.

    185. Re:yes by crash123 · · Score: 1

      One of the first thing they told us at university was that nothing is proven.

    186. Re:yes by Compaqt · · Score: 1

      By algebra, do you mean the stuff they teach in 5th or 6th grade?

      Or college-level foundations of mathematics-type stuff?

      Because to figure out a simple (or compound) interest problem (or even to know how to operate a calculator to figure it out), you need the former.

      --
      I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    187. Re:yes by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      They teach useful stuff that get used.

      I regret having missed an additional year of Latin that I could have taken if I had realized suddenly fit in my schedule.

      Greek and Latin are everywhere.

      Hear, hear. As I've pointed out before, any English speaker with even a basic level of education already knows a fair amount of both.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    188. Re:yes by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      True, people have survived having a broken leg and not knowing how to set it properly.

      But I don't consider that a vote in favour of not knowing the basics of first aid.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    189. Re:yes by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      "We need to hang a cable between two buildings, from height $h1 on building A to height $h2 on building B. The cable will be tied to a steel wire that can have tension up to $F newtons. Masses of the wire and the cable (per meter) are known, as well as the distance between the buildings. What is the required length of the cable and the wire, considering that the wire forms a catenary? When done, calculate the wind load for the wind speed of $speed m/s and tell me if the steel wire is strong enough."

      That better not be CATx cable. Twisted copper between two buildings is prone to ground loops, interference, and weather. It should be fiber optic; and even then it should be ran through ground based conduit. So not only are you using the wrong cable for the job, miscalculated overall length, but the implementation is wrong as well.

      FYI. Correct math is still useless if your calculations are based on a flawed solution.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    190. Re:yes by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      He's not talking about Find X and slope-intercept algebra, he's talking about "Here's your board sized equation with imaginary numbers and aleph sets that you need to solve without so much as a slide rule" filler bullshit they make you take in college even when your major doesn't remotely deal with Powers of i. Everybody should be able to handle Elementary Algebra and problem solving. Not everybody needs to be buried two steps shy of calculus with only a pencil and a sheet of paper to dig their way out again.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    191. Re:yes by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Just like algebra, it could be useful to you. Although for the average person (who most likely have access to medical care), probably not. I certainly don't think we should have mandatory classes that waste months of your time 'teaching' about it!

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    192. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope they're trying to reform the math curriculum that gets taught prior to college rather than arguing that it's not necessary. There are math subjects (statistics is the obvious candidate) that should be required learning for everyone graduating from high school, let alone those going to college. The fact that people graduate from high school having been taught calculus and not statistics is just plain wrong. The conspiracy theorist in me wants to say that schools have avoided teaching statistics to ensure that they continue to receive funding from the state lottery, but I think that's giving them too much credit :-)

    193. Re:yes by terminal.dk · · Score: 1

      Politicians knows that money is something they just borrow.

      Inflation is the way God makes sure old debt are getting worthless and disappearing over time.

      That is a fact of nature, and still compatible with creationism.

    194. Re:yes by tftp · · Score: 1

      even then it should be ran through ground based conduit.

      Your objections are valid. But there are situations when underground conduits are impractical. A large, busy city street is one such example. Castle Wolfenstein would be another. Buildings on two shores of a river would be yet another example - trivial to cross in the air and next to impossible (not within an IT budget) by boring under the water. Fiber will be fine; there is armored cable that is designed for such duty - even though it is not under strain. I use CAT5 on my property; the cable is UV-resistant and intended for direct burial.

      Of course when we get that far we can think of microwave links or laser/infrared. With enough power they will be fine in any weather. But I wasn't aiming for a practical example. Though that example was taken from real life because I had to hang a wire once between buildings. It was done this way for a good reason - it was an antenna.

    195. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In addition to being able to use math to enhance one's own life a student can gain respect for the difficulties and sacrifices that other people bear while getting into very difficult areas of mathematics. One can imagine how well students would do if their parents enjoyed solving math puzzles for entertainment. Values are absorbed by the young.

    196. Re:yes by FirephoxRising · · Score: 1

      No, I don't mean that, but when you get to uni and have chosen a field to specialise in, then you should be able to do so. We do all the other subjects at school, and you are free to do a general degree if you choose to do one, but if you want to specialise in your area, then you should be able to do so. I'd rather have taken some more science units or even some history rather than the advanced maths that I have *never* used since.

    197. Re:yes by FirephoxRising · · Score: 1

      Where are you speaking about? I'm Australian an I didn't see anything like that, I resented being made to do some rather specialised units outside my field of study (and frankly aptitude). These subjects should be electives, they may be prerequisites for other units you may want to do, so then you do them. If you want to do mixed units from different areas that's fine, but don't make them compulsory. I see too many people who could be great at some careers kept out because of arbitrary and artificial barriers to entry.

    198. Re:yes by bronney · · Score: 1

      Wait so I owe you 49 cen.. wait. 52.. darn it!!! :D

    199. Re:yes by a+whoabot · · Score: 2

      An understanding of implication is exactly what critical thinking courses teach. The distinction between the sound and merely valid argument is brow-beaten into them. The distinction between necessary and sufficient conditions likewise. Many such students won't fully appreciate the distinctions, but on average they'll be a lot better than most students who constantly deny the antecedent and think they have a knock-down argument for it.* A lot of what you say are just baseless aspersions. They are not taught to always question. They "don't get" that subject-matter expertise is needed for subjects no more than others. Not understanding and not asking is worse than not understanding and asking -- this is one of the foundational views of most academics, well-established since Socrates, even if people like you and Polus get annoyed by those asking the questions. Those students who have no special power of judgement and, having taken a critical thinking course, now ask annoying questions didn't become less powerful in their judgement, they just now have the tools to ask those annoying questions. At least now they have a chance of appreciating arguments. Before they could only go by their prejudices.

      *I heard this one yesterday: "If he tried to flee, then he was justified in shooting. But it isn't the case that he tried to flee, therefore it isn't the case that he was justified in shooting." Passing that one by some people with no training in logic, they all agreed that it was a good argument.

    200. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a massive swing and miss. The point was that the plumber can specialise in the skills required to do their job, which generally invovles limited reading.

    201. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because then university will not be enough. If you remove all hard requirements, you will not end up with more educated populace. You will end up with populace holding a lot of useless university diplomas.

    202. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder though, if her math skills are that terrible, she should probably do what the register tells her. Also, I'm not sure whether someone proficient in math would actually make less mistakes than some one with no math skills who follows exactly what the register tells them.

    203. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bzzzt, wrong! You equate Algebra with history. History is important. Math is important. But is higher level algebra important? Maybe not to the level that it is currently pushed. I'm not sure I entirely agree with not making it a requirement, but the article raises some interesting questions.

    204. Re:yes by bronney · · Score: 1

      No. This is and why we should teach it.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qhm7-LEBznk

    205. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      One of the first thing they told us at university was that nothing is proven.

      See? there is your problem. Take some Math classes and you'll see that plenty of things *are* proven. Given. some. initial. assumptions. You're free to alter those assumptions and see where that leads you, but once you establish your starting point, you can prove things. Now, of course, this has limits on *what* you can prove (incompleteness theorem and all) but some things *can* be proven within a given framework.

      Besides, assuming for the sake of the argument that what they told you was correct, you should wonder why they're not throwing all Logic classes out of the curriculum as it would automatically become a waste of time.

    206. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No True Education Person doesn't know a fair amount of both...

    207. Re:yes by kyliaar · · Score: 1

      People will only use tools they understand and find useful. For too many people, I would say this includes math beyond basic arithmetic. I use algebra commonly... scribbling out ratios to solve for X, etc. I also will use calculus to solve for min/max solutions, such as when gaming. These are just a few useful things I retained from my math education.

      I think there should be a greater focus in math, and other subjects, on the order in which math concepts are taught, whether they are presented with a context and purpose and which ones are stressed over others.

      I used to training for tech support for an ISP. In order for new hires to properly debug things, they needed to be taught how network stacks, most specifically IP, worked. IP relies heavily on the concept of a subnet mask, which relies heavily on understanding binary, which relies heavily on understanding numbering systems with different bases.

      Over time, I found myself having to focus a lot on how decimal characters worked, pointing out the obvious relations between digits that no one really thought about to compare that to binary. Doing this seemed like taking it slow but I got a much higher success rate from the training. No wonder so many people have problems with any sort of math without a solid foundation in understanding how numbers work together to represent values.

      Also, we need to get over these confusions on what math is and how it relates to science. Math is a philosophy and language (or rather, group of) that can be used to express relationships between quantities... and quantities only. However, these languages and philosophies can be applied to real world quantities to approximate and predict changes in the real world. Once you are doing this, you are in the realm of science. Please do note that math only allows for idealized approximations... even though physical scientistists have proven time and time again that these approximations can have extremely high degrees of accuracy.

      Math somehow has taken on a mystical/barely understood place in our society - an arcane ritual that only the elite thinkers really need to understand. After all, I get all my science from Fox News and my pastor.

    208. Re:yes by gtall · · Score: 1

      Spoken like a true Flower Child or Philistine. What happened, you never got the memo on the Enlightenment? Forbid the thought that you might learn something that might be useful in a future you cannot predict, or that learning makes you a more rounded person, or that reading something like Philosophy (which, incidentally is not "used" in business) even though the modern world was built on what were at one time philosophical ideas. Modern algebra was developed by Decartes, maybe you've heard of him....1600's era intellectual, originator of analytic geometry which underlies calculus, that hobgobblin of modern education unless you need to build a bridge.

      Hell, why not go all the way, let corporations educate the little bastards to know just what is needed for "business", after all, there will never be a new idea that comes at a 90 degree angle from what has been done before.

    209. Re:yes by gtall · · Score: 1

      Math relates in no way to the outside world? Are you insane? Have you never taken a physics or chem class? How about building a bridge, think you might use calculus? Where do you think the search for new particles starts; physicists just sit around over pints and dream these things up? How about the Higgs boson, recently in the news, it was theorized to exist at a specific energy level, that energy level was predicted by...yep, math.

    210. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm. That's arithmetic. Not a single grain of algebra.

    211. Re:yes by Bengie · · Score: 1

      Same thing could be said about history class or phy-ed or even english/comm/language. A person in a coma can survive just fine in today's society.

    212. Re:yes by flyneye · · Score: 1

      I got that this was a POLI-SCI guy trying to somehow justify his existence.
      Why don't we just ask a Physician if English Lit. is really necessary?
      Polling a janitor should work out whether to keep political science in our institutions or not.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    213. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So we should only study subjects we like and are good at and be able to pick and choose regardless of how the particular subject underpins others? No thanks, I don't want to have to deal with graduates with that kind of attitude to learning. Science is underpinned by algebra, calculus and statistics and all science graduates should have some post-compulsory education in those topics. How else are we meant to interpret data without the mathematical tools to do so? If we can't interpret data then what use is our scientific education?

      Btw, before anyone starts, interpreting data is a valuable and widely applicable skill. Deciding on whether to proceed with an investment decision for a business project requires data interpretation, for example.

      I general I am deeply skeptical of anyone who suggests we should be teaching kids less because it only leads on to adults who know less and people who know less are generally easier to influence and poorer at decision-making.

    214. Re:yes by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Same thing could be said about history class or phy-ed or even english/comm/language.

      I meant that it's not really a basic skill that most people use. I find phy-ed classes to be utterly useless given their simplicity, so I wouldn't mind seeing those go. If people want to learn about sports/exercises, they can do that on their own time; don't waste my time with a year-long class that gives out information I can find in five seconds.

      history class

      Probably not necessary save for a few key events. Too much filler as it is, in my opinion.

      english/comm/language

      Basic skills.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    215. Re:yes by tibit · · Score: 1

      Nature cannot be fooled. Smile -- just because someone lives in their own world of "leadership" make-believe doesn't mean that things will go their way just because they wish it so very, very much.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    216. Re:yes by tibit · · Score: 1

      Although these people are hamperred by lack of a "laboratory" in which to conduct experiments and control variables, they have tools such as [...]

      You meant to say they are stuck in times of Aristotle. All thought experiments. Thank you for saying it like it is.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    217. Re:yes by Ironhandx · · Score: 1

      You are correct sir. This in fact is largely the reason we are falling behind some of the asian countries. They allow thier students to begin vocational training as they are coming out of junior high, which is EXACTLY when I should have been starting MY vocational training. Its not entirely mandatory and you can get an extra year of general studies in but after the point of junior high they are allowed to differentiate. Our K-12 school system doesn't need to be K-12. It needs to be K-10 at most, in fact back when we were still producing a top-quality work force it WAS K-10, these extra grades have been added on for nothing more than to generate more teacher jobs. What we should be doing is cutting back on the amount of high school and cutting back on the quantity of teachers while paying those that we keep more money, attracting higher quality education on BOTH fronts.

      I, as a construction company owner, have zero need for calculus. I'm good at it, but I didn't need to do it.

      I also have zero need to read romeo and juliet just because some dried up prune on a school board somewhere says its necessary. There is loads of room for exposure to culture in the full ELEVEN YEARS that a K-10 school ecosystem allows. the extra 2 years of bullshit isn't needed.

      It in fact gave me enough time to become entirely disenchanted and disinterested in academic success and drop from an A+ in grade 9 to a C for grades 10 and 11(D in classes I gave less than a shit about and A in a few like maths, woodworking, physics) before upping my average in Grade 12 to a 92 so as not to limit my university options.

    218. Re:yes by tibit · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with questioning every argument?

      Mainly that there's plenty of seemingly simple arguments that literally took centuries to work out and argue. If you question everything, you'll be dead and still stuck a couple centuries ago as far as human thought went. One can't be an expert in everything.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    219. Re:yes by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 1

      See also : History, Science, Politics, Languages, Geography, Sport, .... and the entire rest of the curriculum by the same argument

      If you don't teach these basic subjects then you are taking the option of the jobs that do depend on them away from everyone, and having them as part of your toolkit of skills may give you the advantage over others one day however esoteric or apparently unnecessary they seem to be

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    220. Re:yes by tibit · · Score: 2

      What's even better these days, and what makes various excuses not to learn statistics less valid, is the broad availability of raw computing power and free software that lets you easily model things. It used to be that statistics demanded calculus background to arrive at any usable numerical results. These days you can run a fairly complex statistical (random sampling) experiments as numerical simulations. If you don't know a closed-form formula, nor would understand one, you can still obtain experimental results and reason from that. You may not know what the distribution of coin tosses is in a particular case, but you can simply do the tosses, billions of them, and see for yourself. That's why I think that it's inexcusable not to consider basic programming skills as part of being literate these days. Computers are powerful tools that let you perform numerical experiments that can be used to help with everyday reasoning.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    221. Re:yes by N1AK · · Score: 1

      At the very least you should understand the concepts of exponential growth and decay

      We've been teaching it for decades and I'd bet the majority of people don't understand it. Either we need to find a better way to teach it or, if it isn't worth it, perhaps we should cut our losses and teach them something else that they are more likely to learn, remember and use.

      5% of people with interest only mortgages in the UK don't know that means they won't own the house at the end. Algebra isn't what they needed, though arguably they wouldn't have listened to anything in school. I think maths is a great subject and I think it is vitally important to higher learning and reasoning but that doesn't mean it isn't worth considering if it is a waste to teach it in some circumstances.

    222. Re:yes by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 1

      Your uncle and cousins may run a successful business, but unless one of them knows mathematics of this level, then someone else is running at least some aspects of the business for them ...

      If you are rich and successful then you can afford to pay specialists, to get rich and successful you need to be a generalist and understand at least up to a pre-college level in all the basic subjects ....

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    223. Re:yes by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

      You know very well that they can't teach kids Critical Thinking classes. The religious right/intelligent designers would be in an uproar. ;)

    224. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone who has ever arrived anywhere on time has used math; Algebra, in fact.

    225. Re:yes by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Next time I will save myself the trouble of composing a cogent response.

      So when you get that -1, Dickhead mod, you'll know where it came from.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    226. Re:yes by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      I stopped reading your long comment there.

      And there's the problem.

      If you believe that plumbers are day to day using algebra to fix leaks and plumb in new showers, etc then you hail from a very different planet than I do. The way they generally work out the amount of pipe needed is to carry round a bunch of pipe in the back of their van and go and get some more whenever they run out. Overbuying isn't a problem since they will use it all pretty soon.

      Yes, it's true, you can use algebra to help, and there are plumbers out there who probably do. Heck, there are probably some plumbers who use results from operations research to really maximize speed and efficiency. If you think that the average plumber is doing that, then, well, you clearly know some very unusual plumbers.

      Likewise with carpentry.

      Finding (for instance) the optimal number of pieces you can get out of one bit of wood is pretty much the knapsack problem, with added complecations. Even though I know aobut such things, I have never resoprted to using an approximate NP-hard solver to aid in recreational carpentery.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    227. Re:yes by pruss · · Score: 1

      I did google, never having heard of this method before. Cool. But actually, that's not the Pythagorean theorem. It's more like a converse to it (if c^2=a^2+b^2, then it's a right-angled triangle), but more precisely it's a qualitative application of the cosine rule: if c^2 is more than a^2+b^2 then cos theta is negative and the angle is more than 90 degrees, and if c^2 is less than a^2+b^2 then cos theta is positive and the angle is less than 90 degrees.

    228. Re:yes by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      At least she knew how to operate the machine. While on the light rail in Portland I overheard an individual reciting a story about how she couldn't get hired as a cashier because she couldn't do simple math (like making change) and was offered the use of an adding machine. Her statement back to the interviewer was "How am I suppose to know how to use an adding machine if no one has ever taught me" at which point the interview was ended. She then waxed on about how unfair the world is and how she has been wronged because she can't get a job to support her self after she quit high school because they didn't teach anything useful.

      Sadly this type of thinking seems to be more common that most would realize. While in high school and college I worked at a gas station and had worked my way up to assistant manager (not all that difficult) and got the joy of interviewing people. The high school dropouts were the worst as they seemed to believe that the world owed them everything and it was a terrible affront to them that you would ever be asking them to do simple math or expect that they show up to work. My favorite thing to ask when interviewing for the gas station was "Tell me why I shouldn't hire you." Which produced some interesting answers such as:
      I do a lot of drugs.
      I can't cont.
      I will only show up if I feel like coming into work.
      I like to steal.
      I can't really read.
      I only plan on working here until I can buy .
      There were others but these were both fairly common, highly humorous, and very telling. By the way if you really want to screw with a cashier hand them $10.03 when the total is 9.28

      --
      Time to offend someone
    229. Re:yes by craigminah · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Funny how a political science professor says this about math...I think a lot of math professors would say political science was hard and equally unnecessary. I consider this issue a political one therefore any debate will be fruitless.

    230. Re:yes by JDG1980 · · Score: 1

      From a mathematics perspective, algebra is everywhere.

      From the perspective of middle school / high school education, "algebra" means an abstract field of study that involves equations with letter variables, usually disconnected from any real-world context.

      Yes, you can write I=prt as an algebraic equation. But understanding how this works is not as difficult as what is usually called "algebra" because it does not involve abstract thinking and because its real-world application is clear and unambiguous. Many people, perhaps a majority, simply do not and cannot understand abstraction.

      A lot of the things taught in high school algebra are completely disconnected from the real world. As a programmer, I probably use algebra-derived concepts more than the average person, but I can't remember the last time I ever had to factor a polynomial. Why do we think everyone needs to learn trivia like that?

    231. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Precisely. The number of times that I have used non-linear algebra or calculus in my career has been exactly zero.

      The number of times that I have used statistics? Countless.

    232. Re:yes by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 4, Informative

      There's no algebra in that, it's a simple arithmetic word problem.

      The word Algebra comes from "The Compendious Book on Calculation by Completion and Balancing" written in ~820AD by a mathematician called Muhammad ibn MÅsÄ al-KhwÄrizmÄ (algorithm). The word "al-jabr" was an arabic word standing I beleive for the idea of adding/subtratcing the same amount from both sides of the "equation" (I stand to be corrected)

      The entire book is a giant collection of arithmetical word problems.

      The term "algebra" came to be understood not as a single technique, but as a general term for the entire framework of techniques used to solve these arithmetical word problems. The problems could be understood and the solutions confirmed using arithmetic, but to actually find a solution, in a systematic way, required the application of the techniques that al-KhwÄrizmÄ espoused in his solutions.

      Algebra is how we solve problems systematically, not the problem itself. If you solved the problem, even a basic one, you used some kind of algebra. Even if it was now now an unconscious operation, at some stage you were taught the technique explicitly, or learned it in class through solving problems.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    233. Re:yes by AtomicJake · · Score: 1

      At the very least you should understand the concepts of exponential growth and decay.

      Fully agreed! But unfortunately, I think that only 1% (pure speculation, could be also 5% or - more likely - 0.1%) of our population understand those concepts (i.e. are able to see that those concepts are at work even if the question was not mathematically formulated for them). If we now just would get 1% more students leaving the school understanding those concepts every year ...

    234. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The biggest problem is that many of the people we send to college in the US should be in tech school instead. They probably won't benefit much from Algebra, but then they are most likely flunking many other courses as well. History, Literature, Biology, the list goes on.

      Algebra is taught in Jr. High or at the latest, early high school. It's NOT college level math.

      Tech school has its place, but that place is in job training not general education. The point of general education is to give you a solid foundation and the skills to either go on to college or to learn whatever trade is currently in demand. Trade schools are great until the jobs become obsolete or get sent over seas, then you just have a crowd of people with no education or training, and little ability to be re-trained in a new vocation.

    235. Re:yes by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I don't know how you could get through a class in Logic, Philosophy, or even Rhetoric without Boolean Algebra.

      Boole was around in Victorian times, so I guess Aristotle, Bacon & Descartes managed without it.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    236. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My high school had something similar as well, it was intended for teen mommies and taught them how to balance a checkbook and calculate credit card interest. They figured these were vital skills for them to learn as it was expected they would drop out before every graduating. Most of the teen moms I went to school with didn't drop out though, made for an interested bus ride on Senior beach day as they brought their kids with them and the one's that were still pregnant praddled on about how their "man" really loved them and were going to be with them forever. My school was pretty f***ed up.

    237. Re:yes by thelovebus · · Score: 1

      "My cousin is dyslexic and has terrible trouble reading and doing mathematics, but he's sitting pretty on a pile of cash and he's great at his job."

      Okay, I'll take your anecdote to the next level -- since your cousin is apparently rich, but dyslexic, obviously schools don't need to teach kids how to read, either. Anecdotes are fun!

    238. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In order to get my computer science degree I had to get through a gauntlet of *6* Calculus semesters.

      Many of my other friends who also wanted to get a computer science degree ended up switching majors due to the artificial barrier.

      I attribute my success in Calculus to an excellent high school teacher and program that actually *taught* me calculus, rather than the various college professors who lectured in broken English and really didn't seem to care if we were taking any of it in.

      So yes, math is often an artificial educational barrier, but as long as college still has them, offering it in high school makes sense.

    239. Re:yes by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      No one needs to figure out how many litres of petrol they'll get for $20.

      I disagree with this part. One needs to be able to figure out it out. This sounds like you are not living in the U.S. Given a situation where you have to pay cash up front when you pump gas at a gas station. You either do not have a credit/debit card or do not want to use one. Your car's gas tank is about 3/4 empty. A gallon of gas (the type you want) is $3.00. You know that your car can hold up to 16 gallon and you have $100 in your pocket. You need a full tank of gas and you walk into the counter to pay for the gas.

      If you cannot calculate the amount (on a paper or in your mind) and you spend the whole $100, what do you think would happen? Or even you spend $50 and hope that your gas tank would hold up, what would happen? How about you spend only $20? You would have to pump the gas to see if it is full, go back in to spend some more if it is not, and keep doing until the tank is full; however, this still does not guarantee a good solution.

      Therefore, the sentence of "no one needs to figure out..." is not always true. Yep, we often "use" algebra in real life but "we often do not realize that it is algebra."

    240. Re:yes by Immerman · · Score: 1

      That's actually exactly the opposite reason as I would use - very few people do the sort of work where applied computational statistics is relevant. What they would benefit massively from is the underlying theory - things like combinatorics, probability interaction, and dependent versus independent variables. The things that are immediately applicable to just about every future-looking decision we make in our day to day lives.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    241. Re:yes by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      The number of applications in everyday life are legio.

      Is that LEGO or LEGION? Given a choice, I choose Lego(tm).

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    242. Re:yes by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      I think you should read the whole paragraph before jump the gun. You could easily misunderstand what the person is trying to say... Both of you (jdogalt & DarkOx)...

    243. Re:yes by fatphil · · Score: 1

      However, on the assumptions that in the absense of any reasons to justify shooting, there is no justification for shooting, and that all the evidence had been presented, their conclusion was correct. Their "error" was perhaps nothing but the lack of mentioning what they considered to be accepted postulates. You didn't mention the postulate that there is no omnipotent being who occasionally touches gun wielders with his noodly appendage, and gives them carte blanche to shoot anyone at will, for example.

      Of course, one of those postulates may not have been acceptable, depending on the situation (in particular the "all evidence" one), in which case, indeed they had applied flawed logic.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    244. Re:yes by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      and everybody should know enough about "first aid" to know that if they have been run over by a bus/ fell out a third story window ect
      THEY NEED TO STAY DOWN (not make the EMTs job harder).

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    245. Re:yes by mcgrew · · Score: 2

      The guy's a political scientist. It might as well have been an astrologer saying we don't need algebra; astrology is about as scientific as political "science".

      Ask that dufus (the political scientist) how the hell they could have built the LHC, or even launched space rockets, without algebra? Or developed new drugs?

      God, the stupidity!

    246. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You, sir, have failed to differentiate between algebra and calculus. Algebra is pretty much basic math. The difference between the two is like the difference between knowing how to sew on a button vs how to build a full suit. One is a useful skill for everyone to have, and the other is only useful if you make a career out of it.

    247. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it?

      If I have $50, and I have to buy lunch every work day for two weeks, how much can I spend on average?

      He is solving for x. His X is the average he can spend per day.

      This is a *SIMPLE* algebra problem. The kind you learn in 5th or 6th grade.

      Algebra problems come in the form of word problems almost every single time. You missed his point. The fact that you don't realize you're using algebra every day should be taken as how vital it is to teach it. You did it easily. But at some point someone taught you to do that...

    248. Re:yes by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      Spoken like someone who has never tried to plumb a house before.

      Do you understand the plumbing codes for the area you live in? *All* of them?

    249. Re:yes by johncompsci21 · · Score: 1

      I have degrees in math and have taught Math at the university level. The biggest problem is that many of the people we send to college in the US should be in tech school instead. They probably won't benefit much from Algebra, but then they are most likely flunking many other courses as well. History, Literature, Biology, the list goes on.l.

      I agree with you. This college myth needs to be busted. Students who attend top colleges and have high GPA's make more money than those who do not go to college. For most, college is a big waste of time and money where many do not belong and do not succeed. They go because they are told they need to . I will take your idea one step further. All schools should starting in the 3rd grade test students to determine their learning styles and natural skills and abilities . Students should be guided to middle schools that match their learning styles and natural skills and abilities. Students along with parents get to make the correct decision based on the test results. If the track does not fit, changes can be made along the way. Many parents are in the dark on what there child needs. Children who do well usually have a life plan for there child. What we do now is try to put a round peg into a square hole . This approach may have a higher up front cost but will result in far more prepared students who graduate with real skills to move themselves and the country foward. Many students loose interest with school because they see no purpose to what they are doing . We need to get the motivated parents and students into programs that push them that leads them into high teach careers. We need to get the unmotivated or non college bound students into programs that address their needs. AND THE MOST IMPORTANT PART, if you do not take your studies seriously you will be dumped from the program. The current education idea wants to keep everyone in school. it is the schools fault if a student does not do well in a program. This is often not the case. Like everything in life, you often do not appreciate something until it is gone. Some students learn the boundaries to what they can get away with and hold tight to them. This creates as situation where the teacher looses power. Over time they end up falling so far behind they fail out weakening the educational opportunities. I often am glad some students are absent, the whole class learns that much more that day

    250. Re:yes by Wild_dog! · · Score: 1

      Great point. Mathematics helps form the basics of logical problem solving. I had math up through calculus in high school.
      When I decided to go back to college and take some courses, I was able to figure out how to do chemistry problems a couple of ways besides what was in the book. It really helped that I had developed a way of problem solving that became embedded in my brain even though I couldn't remember any specific formulas.

      Math helps develop thinking and problem solving.

      Instead of less math we need more math. After all..... mathematics can better define the workings of our universe.
      Sounds like Andrew Hacker misses this part of why math is vital.

    251. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Buddy, nearly all mathematics used in everyday-life is barely above arithmetic. Everything you describe can be covered in a Finance class. Not everyone needs to know algebraic theory, and failing people out of high school because they can't master something they'll never need is asinine.

      Those who want to take a university-level stream are free to do so. Those who don't want to won't get into the STEM majors but guess what? That's fine.

    252. Re:yes by butchersong · · Score: 1

      I think we'd be much better off if more schools still offered a classical education. I guess you could make an argument that reading Euclid for geometry like people have did sucessfully for 2000 years or studying harmony might not be as good as what our text book companies churn out... Surely we can agree that some of the classes would be worth considering though. Say we trade out... 'civil rights' class for rhetoric. Which of these do you think more likely to equip your student with the tools necessary to actually protect their individual liberties?

    253. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The maths per se are not necessary, but the thought processes for doing it are. A previous argument about history is also the same way. Knowing the history isn't necessarily important, but the perspective that things can and often are much bigger than the last 5 minutes, the last week, the last year, is.

    254. Re:yes by narcc · · Score: 1

      That's a bit like saying calculus isn't essential to physics as every natural philosopher before Newton got along just fine without it. :)

      We're a bit ahead of Aristotle, Bacon, and Descartes now.

    255. Re:yes by dogsbreath · · Score: 1

      For_any subject where subject isanelementof all_subjects_under_the_sun
      there_exists a_person where a_person isanelementof humanity

      such_that

      subject is_useless_to a_person
      and
      a_person in_some_way_trashes subject
      and
      a_person claims world_will_be_better_off

      Consider as well that the fella is a poli-sci. ;->

    256. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to be a cashier, and I just learned to type in whatever the customer gave me, so I would just type in $10.01 if that is what the customer gave me.

      So now, when I am rounding to the nearest nickel, dime or quarter, and give the cashier a weird (to them) change amount, I just encourage them to trust me and to just type the amount in to their magic cash box. When their magic cash box gives them the amount of change to give me, generally a light goes off in their head.

    257. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also some grammar classes.

    258. Re:yes by erikscott · · Score: 1

      Not to burst your bubble, but most PoliSci majors are there because (a) they flunked out of engineering and (b) PoliSci has no minimum GPA to enter (2.0 to graduate). Virtually no incoming first year students apply to political science and there are practically no first year students in the program, yet it ends up being (by default) one of the five largest departments, year after year. It's not something you want to go into - it's something you wind up in when you run out of options. Sorry.

    259. Re:yes by hazah · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with questioning every argument?

      The overwhelming circumstance is such that it's a waste of everyone's time. Why bother entropy so needlesly?

    260. Re:yes by dogsbreath · · Score: 1

      A key element of education is teaching people how to think well . . . although apparently critical thinking is not well received in some jurisdictions by some political parties.

      There is a body of research that indicates people's ability to reason is enhanced (and actual neural growth occurs) when we are exposed to new and diverse information and methods.

      Math may be a useless life skill for some people but the process of learning it is important and leaves the student changed forever. This can be said of all subjects. We don't have to learn everything in depth but it is important to have diversity in education and not narrowly pipeline everyone.

      The process of learning a subject that is a stretch for an individual is more important IMHO than the actual subject itself. I dare say that most of the folk I work with do not directly use any of their comp-sci or other university subjects. Most are immersed in things they learned as side effects (Unix admin or such) or things that they had to learn on the job and for which they had no prior training ( business analysis, project management, leadership ).

      Somehow, struggling through an AI course in symbolic representation helps a person to become an excellent business analyst.

      Go figure.

      That said, there have to be alternatives to the educational factories of elementary-highschool and the prescribed jump hoops of higher institutions. There have to be advancement paths which do not arbitrarily cut people off who are otherwise capable.

      From direct experience I know there is an advantage to a team when the members have a diversity of education levels and life experiences.

    261. Re:yes by cartman · · Score: 1

      I'm a computer programmer for a living. Furthermore, what I do is complicated. I don't just make plain web apps, or enterprise software with business rules (not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's easier than what I do). In my company I'm one of two programmers who does not have a PhD.

      In my work I rarely use any kind of math above Algebra. Neither does anyone else here. When I do encounter math above algebra, it's usually some kind of bizarre, obscure math which I must learn about on my own, and my education was no preparation. I rarely use advanced math even though what I do is much more technical than 95% of the population.

      I would guess that the author is correct that only 5% of the population routinely uses math above Algebra for their work.

    262. Re:yes by hazah · · Score: 1

      I have a hard time finding the reference, but to add to the same line of thought... mathematics is a window into into the nature of your own imagination. If you concider a triangle, for instance... mathematics is already there to tell you about that triangle's properties once you have decided on the initial object. You can effectively say, I have "this" triangle, and the language is shaped such that other properties of the triangle, not explicitly defined, become rather obvious. Like the root of a word. It is a language that shapes thought.

    263. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suggest we discontinue teaching political science instead. We'd all be better off teaching students how to use mathematics and statistics to discover the truth, than teaching them how to obfuscate statistics to hide the truth and the failure of ideology.

      I heard the related "why do we need science" statements too often as a physics student and professor. Humerous, as we discuss this topic using technology based on discoveries in electromagnetism and quantum mechanics. So take away modern transportation (thanks Carnot, Bernoulli, ...), replace NBC and PBS with a town crier (thanks Maxwell, Faraday, and Helmholtz), give up electronics (thanks Einstein, Planck, Schrodinger, Heisenberg).

    264. Re:yes by arth1 · · Score: 1

      No, I meant legio, an archaic synonym of numerous.

      Origin: The bible: "Et dicit ei : Legio mihi nomen est, quia multi sumus."

    265. Re:yes by ppanon · · Score: 1

      To be fair, we often do the same thing with smart vs. trained. A smart child can tell you that 3 * 3 = 9 because they know that 3 * 3 is the same as 3 + 3 + 3 which is the same as 1 +1 +1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 9. A trained child tells you that 3 * 3 = 9 because that is what the times table chart they were told to memorize says.

      I disagree. Both are trained children, just with different levels of training. A trained child could also repeat or demonstrate the proof by 9, which is related to the divisibility of the sum of the digits that indicates whether a number is divisible by 3 or 9. The smart child (who presumably also has been exposed to the associative and commutative principles), will be able to figure out why the proof by 9 works (although you'll probably need to prod the child by asking the question and breaking it down using the divisibility problem first).

      --
      Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
    266. Re:yes by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      On behalf of my many friends who work fire/rescue, thanks for that.

      They'd probably also like to add, "And tell the people who aren't hurt not to stand around gawking and to GET THE HELL OUT OF OUR WAY!!"

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    267. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that's what a poor understanding of the underlying mathematics does to you.

    268. Re:yes by narcc · · Score: 1

      Well, I did copy it from the book. You can find reprints on Amazon, it's still quite popular.

      I'll bet if you dig around you can find a PDF. You might check google books, you can usually read large portions there. The quotes I used are from Chapter 2.

    269. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's too late. College diplomas are the new high school diploma. Everyone has to have one. The mill will keep churning, the degrees will become worth less and less and then the Masters degree will be the new high school diploma.

      There are some serious problems in the education market today and they really have little to do with whether or not algebra is required for art majors.

    270. Re:yes by cartman · · Score: 1

      I just don't find your argument convincing at all. You claim that critical thinking is a "waste of time," and the evidence you offer is that some people fail at doing it. Does that show that critical thinking is a waste of time? Is Algebra a waste of time because some people who think they're good at it actually suck? It would seem to be a stronger argument if the people who succeeded at critical thinking still didn't benefit from it.

      One need remember the full probability course to understand what is a correlation and why it doesn't imply causation.

      I don't think this is true. There are many things in a probability course that don't need to be remembered in order to understand why correlation doesn't imply causation.

    271. Re:yes by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · · Score: 1

      Yeah a few years back there was a "letter to the editor" in the local daily that was from a professor at one of the local U's. Basically he said the world would be better off if people spent more time studying "the arts" and developed an appreciation for "beauty" and that there was no beauty in mathematics. Pretty much proof positive that he had never learned any mathematics.

      --
      The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
    272. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The biggest problem is that many of the people we send to college in the US should be in tech school instead. They probably won't benefit much from Algebra, but then they are most likely flunking many other courses as well. History, Literature, Biology, the list goes on.

      Algebra is taught in Jr. High or at the latest, early high school. It's NOT college level math.

      Tech school has its place, but that place is in job training not general education. The point of general education is to give you a solid foundation and the skills to either go on to college or to learn whatever trade is currently in demand. Trade schools are great until the jobs become obsolete or get sent over seas, then you just have a crowd of people with no education or training, and little ability to be re-trained in a new vocation.

      Amazing how almost every college in the country has a course called College Algebra. Maybe you haven't been to college yet.

    273. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like the fact that our entire university football team is almost entirely made up of Communications majors (with the exception of three).

    274. Re:yes by jc42 · · Score: 1

      I would actually say statistics is probably the *most* broadly-applicable branch of mathematics. *Everyone* - scientist, politician, gambler, civic-minded citizen, and commercial watching bumpkin would benefit from a firm grasp of at least the basics of statistics, ... No other field I can think of is as broadly used with as little understanding (how many times have you seen a % today?), which makes it ripe for exploitation. ...

      There was an interesting brief article on this topic over at the Language Log blog, which is run by (mostly) professional linguists. It was triggered by the burst of articles about the Piraha, an Amazon-basin tribe whose language lacks words for numbers (but has some general words for sizes).

      Many people were amazed by this discovery, because how can you even survive in this world, even as a remnant primitive tribe, without the ability to count things? The author's argument is that, in the modern Western world, it's equally difficult to survive without an understanding of the properties of groups of things, i.e., probability and statistics. But, while English may have appropriate terminology, only a tiny fraction of our population (e.g., well under a million Americans) have any understanding at all of even the simplest statistical words. He argues that this is as surprising as the Pirahas' lack of counting words. The foundations of much of modern technology require such an understanding, implying that most of the population in the "advanced" world have no understanding whatsoever of many of the things that have important in their lives.

      The current topic is merely part of the general attitude that we can survive with no understanding of the world that's developing around us. Sensible people wouldn't want their children "educated" by schools that go along with such ideas.

      And once you've picked up that most people use what the author calls "distribution talk" words without actually understanding them, a lot of things you read (including here at /.) that contain such words will start to make a lot more sense. For example, the oft-repeated mantra here that "correlation doesn't imply causation" generally signals a lack of comprehension of correlation, causation, or implication. In a statistical setting, correlation very often does imply (some sort of) causation, though ferreting it out often requires further research. But this mantra is used primarily to dismiss a conclusion that the writer just doesn't want to believe, when the writer has no actual evidence on the topic. It's generally a safe way to dismiss someone's conclusion, since so few of the other readers here have any understanding of statistical reasoning.

      (One of my other favorite comments on this was that a correlation was the universe's way of whispering "Hey, there's something interesting going on over here that you might want to know more about." ;-)

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    275. Re:yes by a+whoabot · · Score: 1

      Why would me not mentioning such a postulate affect the validity of the argument in any way?

      The validity of an argument depends only on the statements of which it is made, not on those of which it is not made. Hidden premises should be gestured towards, for example, by being the minor in a syllogism when the major and conclusion are given. They can't just be anything that would make the argument valid, otherwise every statement of an argument would be of a valid argument, which would be absurd.

      Their error was not in not mentioning something. Their error was in confusing necessary and sufficient conditions, as is common. If they were presented with "He was justified in shooting only if he tried the flee. But it isn't the case that he tried to flee, therefore it isn't the case that he was justified in shooting", they would have had a valid argument and they would have identified it as such. But they can't distinguish between that and the original fallacious argument because they have no firm conceptual distinction between necessary and sufficient conditions.

    276. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly, Is Political Science Necessary? is what I would ask. The truth is a well rounded education makes you better at anything you choose to do. Understanding of any subject can't hurt and can certainly help no matter what it is.

    277. Re:yes by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      So you do mean Legion. Wikipedia says "Legio in Latin means Legion." I've always heard that Biblical quote in English, and it does use the word 'legion'.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    278. Re:yes by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      It used to be that statistics demanded calculus background to arrive at any usable numerical results.

      Maybe we're talking about different things, but if I needed the chi-squared diddly doodly for n degrees of freedom and a fiddly widdly of 0.05 I used to look it up in books of tables.

      They used to smell horribly if the deerskin hadn't been properly cured.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    279. Re:yes by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure I was doing compound interest calculations as part of my math curriculum in 8th or 9th grade. (with a book of logarithms, not a calculator) I think the main purpose was to find an application for raising values to the nth power.

      --
      Nullius in verba
    280. Re:yes by SolitaryMan · · Score: 1

      Math stands apart from the rest of the subjects because it is sole pure abstract one. It is the only subject which was created 100% by humans. Yet, since it relates in no way to the outside world, it is also the most unnatural for our brain to learn.

      I'd say that it is quite the opposite, the most natural thing for our brain to learn. It is purely artificial, which means *created by human brains* to help *human brains* structure thoughts in a way that makes complex subjects manageable.

      It requires effort, yes, but it's well worth it, because then you'll see that it is literally everywhere: Physics, Law, Economics, hell even Psychology or History. All other subjects are structured around math, because math is how people think.

      --
      May Peace Prevail On Earth
    281. Re:yes by SolitaryMan · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the units, it's $/band

      --
      May Peace Prevail On Earth
    282. Re:yes by SolitaryMan · · Score: 1

      Most people are going to have credit cards, 401ks, mortgages, car loans, etc. Knowing how these things work is the first step to financial success.

      Except that most of these are created to be as confusing as possible, so educating the masses will just make them more confusing.

      --
      May Peace Prevail On Earth
    283. Re:yes by nobodie · · Score: 1

      Exactly, I was taught that each discipline required a different "way of thinking" and that the job of the student was to master all these different ways. When you drop out one as important as math you are crippling people and returning to the middle ages.

      On a historical note: The British secretary of the navy for King James and his successor (I think, I don't do the UK history too good), Samual Pepys, explains in his diary (in project gutenberg, a fantastic read BTW) that first he began to drink coffee instead of wine, which helped him stay sober enough to pay attention to the world. When he achieved sobriety during the morning he decided to learn how to multiply because he thought he should be able to do what a navigator did.

      A graduate of Oxford (or Cambridge, i forget the history stuff, remember?) he could read greek and latin but couldn't do simple math. Neither could the rest of the "educated class" that were running the country.

      Mathematics was a tool for the middle class of the times.

      --
      Subversion of spatial scale luxury decoration ideas.
    284. Re:yes by ultranova · · Score: 1

      I've had actual barred lawyers trying to convince me that they understood logic simply because they took critical thinking.

      That's not exactly a fair example. Being a lawyer is about winning an argument, not figuring out where it logically leads. As such, it is very likely that a lawyer understands logic very well - for how else could he pervert it for his client's benefit?

      It gives students confidence that they can question every argument... even a solidly proven one.

      You can, and should, question even proven arguments. Who's to say that the proof is correct, or that the very axioms you used aren't self-contradictory?

      One need remember the full probability course to understand what is a correlation and why it doesn't imply causation.

      Correlation doesn't imply causation because nothing implies causation.The whole existence of causality - much less any specific causal relationship - is impossible to prove. All observed correlation could be a result of either random chance or a hidden third variable(s). It gets ludicrously unlikely pretty fast, but it can never be ruled out by any finite amount of data.

      But of course it's impossible to live that way, so in real life we pretend that causality exists and simply try to isolate particular correlations as well as possible, then come up with the simplest possible model that explains them. The problem is that this means that correlation does, in fact, imply causation for some values of "imply", which leaves open all kinds of loopholes for people with agendas to argue for or against particular causal relationships.

      But then a critical thinking students is unlikely to understand what is an implication.

      In strict logical sense, "A implies B" means that "if A is true, then B must also be true". Unfortunately, this implies a causal relationship, which is unprovable since the very existence of causality is unprovable, thus most of the time when people speak of implication they actually mean "if A is true, then B is very likely true". So it depends on the context.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    285. Re:yes by cusco · · Score: 1

      The very idea that any kid in middle school can decide what they're going to work at for the rest of their life is absurd. What did you want to be in 8th grade? Is it in any way related to what you do now? In 8th grade my sister wanted to be a rock star, my brother wanted to be a big game hunter, and I wanted to be a naturalist.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    286. Re:yes by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with questioning every argument?

      '"Question all things" — but it helps to be able to think, first.' - Anton Lavey

    287. Re:yes by Tamerlin · · Score: 1

      "Are they perhaps trying to kill institutionalized education? If so, they're definitely on the right path." I think they're just trying to kill of critical thinking. Start by removing things that people conceive of as "hard" and then gradually dumb them down from there...

    288. Re:yes by LoRdTAW · · Score: 1

      I think the problem lies with the way its presented and taught. Sure we need math for some of the things you mentioned but honestly, very very few will ever sit there with a piece of paper and calculator to figure out their mortgage payments or credit card bills. Most will just look at the bill and pay what they can.

      I faild pre-calc several times in university. As embarassing as it was it simply never clicked. Then I had a teacher who didnt stand there and drone on or stick with a rigorous rote learning method. He simply presented the theory, broke down example problems and only highlighted the important parts. during exams you were allowed one page of notes. Why? Because its useless to force a student to memorize sin theta = opp/hyp and tan theta =opp/adj or that the quadratic equation is (-b+/- SQRT(a^2-4ac)/2a. I cant tell you how many time I fucked up a sign, formula or some other trivial thing that completely ruined an answer. His method was much more practical and actually made math interesting. You actually got around to solving problems instead of memorizing shit that in reality would be looked up on the internet or a book. He would rather you had a cheat sheet which removed the stupid mistakes many people make. You actually used your knowledge to solve the problems and had a guide to help you. Just because a student has a copy of the quadratic equation on hand during a test doesnt mean he/she can solve for x. But it eliminates the problem of the student forgot there is a - sign in front of b or that its a^2-4ac and not a^2+4ac. Plus he gave partial credit for a problem where he saw you knew the math but made a dumb mistake like misplacing a decimal point or somehow plugging in the wrong number. And the best part? he would allow you to re-take a failed exam on your time during his office hours (i never had to retake an exam but a few did). How good is that? I aced that class with an A+ and I never heard a single student complain that the work was too hard. I was much more prepared for the harder calc stuff. I struggled with calc and calc 2, never got anywhere near an A+ but I had a sturdy foundation and passed thanks to my pre-calc teacher.

      We need more teachers that focus on actual application of mathematics and not rote learning. If the student understands the process then memorizing the formulas and rules are moot. Understanding the quadratic formula, what a polynomial is and how to use the two is more important than remembering the actual formula. For students not entering math intensive scientific, medical or engineering curriculum's, its pointless to force a rote learning process that punishes the most minute of mistakes.

    289. Re:yes by KingBenny · · Score: 1

      heh i wouldnt have minded having only 2 hours of history i.o. 2 + 2 hours of political history (it got me to the point of skipping). Dont you have this like system where you get a base pack and students pick a few hours a week of classes they are actually interested in? Basic math seems hardly something you can just leave out, advanced math is not for everyone. Ofcourse, if it's political science 1 and 1 ain't always 2 in the long run so i can see why it matters less

      --
      Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
    290. Re:yes by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > In my high school, we teach all the way up to Calculus 2, and what
      > percentage of the population actually uses that kind of mathematics?

      Pretty much only those who go on to take higher math in college. That's the *purpose* of Calculus: to get your brain ready for the really interesting (i.e., abstract) math.

      Algebra, however, is necessary for pretty much everyone. You need basic algebra to manage your personal finances, design a doghouse for your pet, figure out how much to enlarge the one-inch tattoo design image you got from a book and are photocopying so that it fits in the space on your shoulder, or understand the extremely simple math you see every day e.g. in news stories. Basically, without algebra, you cannot function independently as an adult in our society. Someone would have to look after you all the time and do everything even slightly complicated on your behalf.

      Yes, there are a few people who genuinely cannot learn algebra. There are also people who cannot learn to count past five or tie their own shoes or wipe their own noses or cross the street by themselves. Society makes provisions for these people, and these provisions mostly work, as long as such people are few in number.

      But if we stop requiring students to take algebra, people who cannot function in adult society will NOT be few in number. They will be the majority, and society will revert to an early-twentieth-century standard wherein less than 20% of the population is capable of any white-collar work beyond answering the phone.

      Most high schools don't require calculus, and I think that's okay. People really only need calculus if they're going to take additional math in college. Basic trigonometry is more arguable. Algebra is not arguable: it's just necessary.

      Frankly, in this modern era when nobody's ever more than six inches from the nearest computational device, algebra is much MORE necessary than the ability to do multiplication and division with numbers larger than 100. We could chuck long division and four-digit multiplication and mostly not miss them, but we cannot afford to skimp on algebra.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    291. Re:yes by adavies42 · · Score: 1

      Her statement back to the interviewer was "How am I suppose to know how to use an adding machine if no one has ever taught me" at which point the interview was ended.

      coincidentally, i just finished rereading atlas shrugged last week. she sounds just like Philip Rearden.

      btw, there are apparently whole countries that just don't practice change minimization--i got the funniest looks in singapore when i'd offer eleven dollars (a ten and a one) for a six-dollar purchase. i'd just nod and smile and hope they'd learn something useful when they saw what their machine said....

      --
      Media that can be recorded and distributed can be recorded and distributed.
      -kfg
    292. Re:yes by khallow · · Score: 1

      Trade schools are great until the jobs become obsolete or get sent over seas, then you just have a crowd of people with no education or training, and little ability to be re-trained in a new vocation.

      Then retrain them in something else. "little" ability is enough ability.

    293. Re:yes by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      >>>why is that worthy of putting in a sig? I mean congratulations on your accomplishment. I'm sure I could custom build an i-7 equipped PC for cheaper than whatever one you bought.

      Is that an offer? If you can build an i7 PC with Windows7 installed and 8GB of RAM plus 1TB drive for $500 shipped, I'll buy it from you.
      What's that?
      You CAN'T build it for that cheap? Oh okay. Well then stop talking trash. (And stop defending Apple; there's no reason an equal-spec Mac should cost ~$1250 shipped.)

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    294. Re:yes by pthisis · · Score: 1

      No, I don't mean that, but when you get to uni and have chosen a field to specialise in, then you should be able to do so.

      Sure, and I wouldn't argue that everyone should take differential equations. But we're talking about algebra here. It's freshman in high school material, maybe sophomore if you're a bit slower than normal at math and 8th grade if you're on a normal fast-track in math (there were several kids in my year who were even another year ahead of that, but they were clearly very gifted in the arena).

      I just went back and checked, and the standard track at my (normal public) high school for people pursuing an Arts/Humanities BS program after graduation has them take Algebra I (freshman), Geometry (sophomore), Algebra II (junior) and then one of Pre-Calc, Logs & Trig, and Honors Geometry as a senior. If you're a fast math student it's not unheard of to be several years ahead of that and finish Calculus I

      You could easily rearrange that to be Algebra I, Geometry, "Life Math" or whatever it's called, and Algebra II to fit in a year of statistics and such (which I'm not opposed to as an idea). It'd work without sacrificing basic algebra, and for people who are a bit slower math you'd still cover the basics even if things slipped back a year.

      --
      rage, rage against the dying of the light
    295. Re:yes by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      At one extreme is the "Political Philosopher" who theorizes about the "best" forms of political action.
      At the other extreme is the "Political Technician" who concentrates the means of obtaining thier "preferred" political situation.
      Sandwiched in the middle is a narrow band of real "Political Scientists" who try to understand the principles behind politics and derive principles that predict the outcomes of various actions. Although these people are hamperred by lack of a "laboratory" in which to conduct experiments and control variables, they have tools such as Logic and Mathematics, particularly Calculus and Statistics, that they can use to evaluate different political actions.

      Hacker comes across as a "Technician" and gets a discount on credibility from me.

      I'd say there is some merit to that, but you're applying it all wrong. The two are not mutually exclusive. Hacker is a real political scientist. He also has some preferred outcomes that he argues for, and he argues that we should make certain changes to achieve them. I would argue that it's pretty hard to study an issue in serious depth without ending up at some preferred policy or outcome. You wouldn't expect a cancer researcher to be indifferent about smoking, diet, or exercise anymore than you would expect a political scientist to not have a policy recommendation.

      In the context of a NYT Op-Ed, Hacker is doing what I would expect him to do. It's not real science, but NYT Op-Eds rarely (if ever) are. At the least, it's generating some real debate about education in the US... a system that needs real reform.

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    296. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>>why is that worthy of putting in a sig? I mean congratulations on your accomplishment. I'm sure I could custom build an i-7 equipped PC for cheaper than whatever one you bought.

      Is that an offer? If you can build an i7 PC with Windows7 installed and 8GB of RAM plus 1TB drive for $500 shipped, I'll buy it from you. What's that? You CAN'T build it for that cheap? Oh okay. Well then stop talking trash. (And stop defending Apple; there's no reason an equal-spec Mac should cost ~$1250 shipped.)

      WTH does this have to do with the thread / topic you are posting to?

    297. Re:yes by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      I actually thought about telling the poster that, but then I actually thought "nah, I wouldn't require a 5-8 year old to understand unit conversion and cancellation". Then I thought the poster was probably not 5-8 years old, but by then I had to get back to work.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    298. Re:yes by mjwx · · Score: 1

      No one needs to figure out how many litres of petrol they'll get for $20.

      I disagree with this part. One needs to be able to figure out it out. This sounds like you are not living in the U.S.

      That part is obvious seeing as I call it Petrol and we have the option of pre-paying or post paying where I live.

      But you're wrong. I have $20 to buy petrol this week, there are 4 petrol stations near me at varying distances, I want to determine which petrol station will give me the most petrol for my $20, it's a simple matter to take into account the price per litre but then I have to consider the cost to get there, so I also need to consider the litres of petrol consumed in getting to each petrol station. So the petrol station furthest away may be $0.04 cheaper per litre but if I use 1 extra litre getting there it's not worth it as $0.04 over $20 equates to less than 1 litre of petrol.

      Therefore, the sentence of "no one needs to figure out..." is not always true

      I take it your sarcasm metre is broken.

      Of course people use algebra and not even know it. Same as with all the other things kids said "where are we going to use this in the real world" during high school.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    299. Re:yes by smellotron · · Score: 1

      They used to make this same argument about Greek and Latin: sure, you may not actually use these skills, but they teach critical thinking and build character. It was nonsense then and it's nonsense now.

      The very little Greek that I learned in one college course was all about word-stems. I use it regularly as an aid to interpret new words or to help recall rarely-used words. The "critical thinking" and "character-building" arguments for foreign languages/words do sound like nonsense, but it is ignorance to believe that the information is not useful. It takes a lazy mind to ignore all of the Greek and Latin heritage in English.

    300. Re:yes by afidel · · Score: 1

      The idea that education should dismiss votec work is what gets me. The world needs plumbers, mechanics, CNC operators, etc. The fact that less than 5% of US jobs today include any kind of on the job training/apprenticeship is just bizarre to me and would be to most other western countries. In Germany almost 70% of secondary students end up doing a paid apprenticeship that is comprised of about 2/3rds on the job training and 1/3rd academic study when they complete their secondary education. Consequently the German youth unemployment rate is 7.8% right now, somewhere between a third and a quarter what it is in the US and probably less than one sixth what the US rate is if you consider underemployment.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    301. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mathematics is a tool, but it's not a tool everyone uses to its fullest extent. In my high school, we teach all the way up to Calculus 2, and what percentage of the population actually uses that kind of mathematics? My Uncle, and cousins run a very successful business with revenue in the hundreds of millions of dollars. My cousin is dyslexic and has terrible trouble reading and doing mathematics, but he's sitting pretty on a pile of cash and he's great at his job. Would he be better at his job if he knew how to integrate? Maybe.... but it's not necessary for him, which is what the article is asking.

      Tell me about it. My father in law has a similar story that, by your reasoning, proves that all schooling is totally useless.

      He grew up in an undeveloped country. He had to leave school after sixth grade to feed himself, working in restaurants that hired children. He moved to the US in his late 20s. His restaurant was highly successful before he sold it for a very nice profit and retired. He never learned english, because he had no opportunity to practice it: His customers all spoke his native language.

      Clearly, there is no point in teaching any language other than Korean. We should send all sixth graders to Korea to be cooks instead of wasting their time in school.

      So by counterexample it's apparent not all mathematics is necessary for everyone.

      And with my counterexample, learning anything at all in school (besides making noodles) is not necessary for everyone.

      Seriously, your example is stupid because you can't know which children will need which skills when they grow up. How will we decide which children don't need to know math, history, or spelling?

    302. Re:yes by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      Yes!

      substitute in his thesis,

      Algebra is an onerous stumbling block for all kinds of students: disadvantaged and affluent, black and white.

      and substitute to:

      History is an onerous stumbling block for all kinds of students: disadvantaged and affluent, black and white.

      Just getting up to go to class is onerous and impedes learning

      and you have a perfect argument for me and the school system not requiring History.

      Even better,

      $yourWorstSubject is an onerous stumbling block for all kinds of students: disadvantaged and affluent, black and white.

      and we've eliminated the need for any required subjects.

      "I am not good at", or "I don't want to" are not good arguments for not requiring learnin'.

      (-e**(i*pi) st post)

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    303. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no algebra in that, it's a simple arithmetic word problem.

      It may be a simple word problem, but it is definitely an algebra problem. Please show how you would solve it without using algebra.

    304. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's an example of me using C Programming education in my current work, stem cell biology: In C programming you can take something complex, like a database, or some complex string of things, and you can OBJECTIFY it. And in this you simplify future treatment of that complex thing by calling it some name -- it is objectified. From that education the powerful method of objectification is made clear in my head. So now in cell biology, to speed up my thinking and make complex concepts simple, I objectify them. So, for example, I take a well designed and intricate process that takes several pages to describe, and I call it something like "XA-2", or whatever I want. At that point my conscious understanding of XA-2 has become baked into the brain, and to consider that process in even bigger concepts, I can logically apply XA-2 in my follow up experiments without trying to conceive each step every moment of the way.

      ^^^^ Except it's NOT "C Programming" education. They don't teach about code/software designs in C classes. You have to learn it from real-world examples.

    305. Re:yes by RobbieThe1st · · Score: 1

      While I agree on the tech school part, most any tech field requires base-level algebra(solve for X), as well as being able to know enough to operate a calculator correctly. Trig is also useful, but the tech-trig you need can be contained on a single sheet of paper and taught in a week or less.
      I also know that tech school students often struggle with math, even lower level stuff... but it's kind of important in most fields.

      In my case, I /decided/ to go to tech school so I didn't have to deal with a lot of the "background" crap you get in college, aced my program(Machining), and got a fun and challenging job at an aerospace supplier... But I was definitely the exception when it came to my fellow students, most of whom struggled at math(at least until a particular concept was explained in the correct manor).

    306. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe he went to one where they don't expect to teach you how to read, write & dress yourself after you arrive.

    307. Re:yes by FirephoxRising · · Score: 1

      At high school, fine. At uni you shouldn't have to do calculus unless that's your stream.

    308. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, politicians come predominantly from business and finance, not law. There's definitely overrepresentation of doctors and lawyers as well, but they're not the largest groups across the board. Economists are even rarer.

    309. Re:yes by dokc · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Unfortunately, power hungry people who are actually not good at real world things jump into politics instead. In other words, we end up with a bunch of retarded ass holes running our nation. What a bunch of fuckers.

      Nope, we end up with a bunch of retarded ass holes serving as a front-end for people ruling the World in the background.

      --
      In love, war and slashdot discussions, everything is allowed.
    310. Re:yes by pthisis · · Score: 1

      I think we're in violent agreement.

      (The original article, fwiw, is about algebra which is covered years before university for most folks and seems misguided mainly by dint of being out of touch with high school curriculae)

      --
      rage, rage against the dying of the light
    311. Re:yes by rinka · · Score: 1

      I am a bit jaded, but it seems to me that the most important skills one can learn is the skill of how to get someone else to do the work.

      Yes that is a key skill but if we have everyone who knows how to get the work done, who really does the work? Even then, everyone will have to work at analyzing, managing, tracking (thus needing math/programming etc., skills) to make sure the others work.

      And :-P no, outsourcing is not the answer because someone has to do the work to figure out what to tell 'em to do.

    312. Re:yes by fatphil · · Score: 1

      If you don't know what postulates are, then there's no point continuing this exchange. If you can't see how my suggested postulates would validate their argument, then you are not sufficiently skilled in logic to be criticising their presumed error.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    313. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (sorry... you just do not think the such same way with mathematics than without them; in your example, ask: would such business perform better without a dyslexic in it? probably...)

    314. Re:yes by countach74 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but most people don't like to accept that reality.

    315. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree! Algebra is not really math. It is a lesson in thought processes. The ability to reason and think in the abstract is revealed by success in Algebra. It should be required for any one who wants political office to have successfully completed both plane geometry and Algebra. Plane Geometry is a matter of solving problems using a set of rules and visual tools. Algebra takes that one step further to problem solving using abstract terms and symbols.

      Hacker should stick to something he knows about.
      VisionAndPsychosis.Net

    316. Re:yes by Paracelcus · · Score: 1

      No it isn't when kids are graduating with staggering debt, taking extra courses that do NOT DIRECTLY affect my job prospects is just plain stupid!

      Everybody likes to criticize the tight focus of Indian schools, but look around you, how many Berkeley liberal arts/humanities grads are working at Starbucks vs the Indian H1B's that occupy jobs in the valley?

      --
      I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
    317. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your high school does not require Calculus. Only certain highly specialized schools do. No one would advise a student to take Calculus unless that student is heading for the sciences, math, or engineering. But algebra is the fool's bridge to abstract thinking. Everyone with a high school education should have mastered it.

    318. Re:yes by Paracelcus · · Score: 1

      At IBM, in all the jobs I described, I/we NEVER strung cables between buildings, in California you need permits, engineering clearance, and a specialty contractors license to do what you are describing, not to mention a cherry picker, forklift, crane, etc!

      Are you twelve or are you showing off your mathematical ability?

      --
      I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
    319. Re:yes by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      I have yet to see one, and I have looked.

    320. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with the other AC. This is the 3rd time you've posted this (and the 2nd time it was completely unrelated to the post you were replying to). How in the hell you can tell us with a straight face that the 2nd and 3rd times are neither troll nor flamebait, I have no idea.

      And that doesn't even include the fact that:

      1) The PC you bought and the MacMini are likely not equally spec'd. Yes, form factor counts. You've had three chances to either confirm or deny that the PC you bought was the same form factor as the MacMini. That you have instead chosen to post attacks against Nixoloco instead of telling us the form factor leads us to the conclusion that your new PC and a MacMini are not the same form factor, and that you deliberately chose a MacMini in order to artificially inflate the Apple Tax. To flip the comparison around, it'd be like us saying that a Mac desktop is cheaper than an equally spec'd Windows laptop. We all know you would bite our heads off if we dared to make such a comparison in order to "prove" that Apple products are cheap, so it's only fair to do the same to you.

      2) Nothing in Nixoloco's original post can possibly be interpreted to be either "trash talk" or "defending Apple", so just shut up with the baseless accusations. All it does is make you look very much like an immature two year old.

    321. Re:yes by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      The PC is the size of a standard desktop with 2 empty bases for expansion: Can you show me where I can buy a Mac with approximately-equal form factor and it only costs $650?

      I've asked this before but Apple fanboys have conveniently refused to answer, because they know Apple makes no such thing because Apple is likea damn Chrysler or Lexus or Acura.... voerpriced metal/plastic shit (paying for a damn label where a Dodge or Toyota or Honda are just as good of cars but 1/3rd to 1/2 as much).

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    322. Re:yes by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "Your arguments are valid, but those are certainly not entry-level positions."

      Exactly my point. You can bet that what I talked about is considered barely entry position... in other parts of the world.

      "You are way out of touch in understanding the IT industry."

      Certainly it might be the case, despite of my more than 20 years in the business.

    323. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you show me where I can buy a Mac with approximately-equal form factor and it only costs $650?

      First, thank you for the polite reply.

      Second, I made no such claim of being able to do any such thing. I will agree with you that an equally spec'd Mac will cost more than an equally spec'd Windows PC. In fact, nothing in my previous post should be construed to be disagreeing with you on that point. What I am disagreeing with you on, is an apparent attempt at over inflating the higher cost. I also disagree with your claim that Nixoloco was "talking trash" and "defending Apple".

      Apple is likea damn Chrysler or Lexus or Acura.... voerpriced metal/plastic shit (paying for a damn label where a Dodge or Toyota or Honda are just as good of cars but 1/3rd to 1/2 as much).

      Another thing we disagree on. Yes, in the sense that they will get you from Point A to Point B in a safe and secure manner, the cheaper cars are "just as good". So will a car that has a manual transmission, lacks anti-lock brakes, lacks AC, lacks power locks/windows, lacks a wireless lock/unlock/starter device, and has the barest of airbags, but that doesn't mean a car which has an automatic transmission, anti-lock brakes, AC, power locks/windows, can be locked/unlocked/started remotely, and has front/side/rear/top/bottom impact airbags isn't better*.

      I've never had a reason to research luxury cars (and likely never will), so I cannot tell you exactly what perks such cars may contain that won't exist on the "just as good" cheaper alternatives, but I still understand that it is more than just a different emblem that is being paid for.

      *Depending, of course, on personal preference of automatic vs stick shift, and personal preference of doing without something in order to achieve a higher MPG.

    324. Re:yes by pthisis · · Score: 1

      No it isn't when kids are graduating with staggering debt, taking extra courses that do NOT DIRECTLY affect my job prospects is just plain stupid!

      That's like saying "how many people have staggering debt because they dropped a lot of money on a yacht that didn't directly affect their job prospects, it's just plain stupid!"--the solution isn't "figure out a way to make buying expensive boats help you earn money", it's "don't buy expensive boats if you can't afford them". A liberal arts education isn't a professional education and isn't supposed to be focused on job prospects, and if it's going to cause you staggering debt you probably ought to look at alternatives: among tons of other choices, there are job-focused programs at 4-year schools like engineering, architecture, or computer science programs; advanced occupational programs like med school and law school; college-equivalent professional schools a la nursing schools; and alternatives like automotive mechanic and other voc-tech options.

      Shoehorning occupational crap into a liberal arts program is a bad idea because a) you're choosing the wrong tool for the job--it's "everything is a hammer" syndrome, and you're always going to get worse job training trying to turn an anthropology degree into occupational readiness training than you would actually going to a job-focused program; and b) you wind up ruining the liberal arts education, the purpose of which is to get a well-rounded base and learn about a particular topic in depth, notto prepare you for the workplace.

      If your goal is job training, go to a job-focused program. But don't try to turn all kinds of education into job training.

      --
      rage, rage against the dying of the light
    325. Re:yes by MrResistor · · Score: 2

      I'm betting that, while obtaining your math degrees and teaching it at the university level, you never had the opportunity to actually work in a trade... which is why you think the people who should be going to trade schools wouldn't benefit from Algebra. If you've ever wondered why construction projects so frequently go over-budget, I can tell you from first hand experience that you generally need look no further than the workers who don't have at least an intuitive understanding of basic Algebra and Geometry. (it should come as no surprise that pieces don't fit together right when they aren't cut at the correct angles, and it logically follows that additional resources will need to be expended in order to fix that mistake.)

      Having spent 10 years in construction, 2 years as a machinist, and 4 years as an electronic technician, and feel fairly confident in proclaiming that Algebra is, in fact, useful in many, if not most, trades.

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
    326. Re:yes by FirephoxRising · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I had to look up FWIW! lol

    327. Re:yes by joocemann · · Score: 1

      The course I took did. We coded a small database and simplified code, etc. This was an entry level course in 1999. What do they do now? Describe some functions then pass you with an easy A?

    328. Re:yes by adamchou · · Score: 1

      Besides abstract thinking, math isn't easy for many. It wasn't meant to be. It wasn't for me. But its through hardwork, discipline, and determination that we learn to master it. What does it say to our youth when society says its acceptable to quit a difficult subject simply because you don't understand it the first time? Reinforcing that kind of mentality is hugely detrimental to the future of our society.

    329. Re:yes by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Next time I will save myself the trouble of composing a cogent response.

      Which I replied to. I just didn't agree with it. But if you want to mod me down for disagreeing with you, I guess there isn't much I can do.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    330. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for the update from the front lines.

      I agree, algabra is a good trick to delay students figuring out what the real world is like.

    331. Re:yes by tibit · · Score: 1

      Without knowing quite a bit of the underlying theory you can actually run the experiment and see for yourself. Early in the college I needed some cut-off values (say in chi-squared test, I don't exactly recall) for which no formula was given and the table in the book was truncated short of values that I needed. I read up on the meaning of those numbers and obtained the needed ones experimentally by throwing lots of coins, so to speak, and validated my method with the numbers already provided in the book. That's just one example where it helped me out. Applied computational statistics is always relevant in the sense that you can use it to arrive at the results that otherwise might take quite a bit of derivation to get closed-form solutions on. Of course one might argue that if you've got a good symbolic math package, all those derivations will be trivial, but still you need to know what equations to start from, and even that might be a bit of work if you're not in the field of statistics.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    332. Re:yes by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1
      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    333. Re:yes by Immerman · · Score: 1

      That's great for those of us that went to college, and more to the point use what we learn afterwards, but my point is that what you just described is something that probably less than 2% of the population would ever have any reason to do. Have you even ever needed to do something like that outside a highly artificial school environment? Joe Sixpack is unlikely to ever have any use for such knowledge. He will on the other hand have use for the ability to tell when the meaning of some statistic is being misrepresented in order to distort his judgment. Or to know that getting a positive result for some disease on medical test with a 99% accuracy rate doesn't mean there's a 99% chance that he has it - if only 1 in 1000 people have the disease then 10 people will test positive for every one that has it. Okay, that one was a bit contrived, though apparently it will throw a dismaying number of doctors. But the basic principles apply all over the place - realistically most people won't remember the math well enough to calculate the exact probabilities in anything even moderately complex, but everyone should understand the principles well enough to at least be able to say "Wait a minute - this is one of those situations where the naive assumption gets things spectacularly wrong"

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    334. Re:yes by Paracelcus · · Score: 1

      Sorry to burst your bubble but assembler is like pulling teeth if it's not what you regularly do, but Algebra? no, not that I remember anyway!

      --
      I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
    335. Re:yes by kubernet3s · · Score: 1

      Why does a carpenter need to be able to read "The Giver" or "Animal Farm?" I actually worked as a carpenter's apprentice for nearly a year. Yes you need to be able to follow words, but you sure didn't need to extract meaning from text: your reading level barely needs to surpass the fifth grade, and as I mention, members of these trades have historically been quite competent, and many of them were functionally illiterate. And moreover the point is moot, since I was providing a facietious counterexample to a person who claims education is unecessary, and by extension all of English past the fifth grade is useless. When does a carpenter have to write an essay?

    336. Re:yes by kubernet3s · · Score: 1

      Reading technical manuals does not require reading skills, it requires technical skills. And the vast majority of tradesmen do not learn their trade from perusing the technical manual, but from experience combined with occasional reference. I have WORKED under successful carpenters and plumbers who did attend high school, let alone graduate.

      And you mention the caveat "some of the modern heating, cooling, and water systems." Are you under the impression that all carpenters and plumbers are capable of designing and building complex mansions with heated floors and integrated thermostats? Some carpenters build small houses, some plumbers fit houses with toilets, sinks, and that's about it. And even the ones who are designing pool house complexes with showers you can turn on from your iPhone very probably did not learn how to read the complicated technical manuals from writing an essay on "A Separate Peace."

      And is that supposed to be a dig at me, because I correctly posited that a high level of conventional education is not a prerequisite for a tradesman as a facietious counterpoint to the above comment? I am curious to know in what manner I have conveyed a literary deficiency, and more seriously, I am concerned that I have given the impression of decrying the status of tradesmen by implying a low level of formal education. In this debate, I did not think it necessary to reassure my audience of my belief that the degree to which a person utilizes their formal education is not a measure of their status.

    337. Re:yes by kubernet3s · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because our manufacturing and construction industry is really booming.

    338. Re:yes by tibit · · Score: 1

      On the contrary, I think that if one presumes that entry-level programming ability should become integral part of the literacy curriculum for the 21st century, then doing such computer-based experiments will be easier than learning the calculus needed to figure things out otherwise.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    339. Re:yes by Immerman · · Score: 1

      For college-level literacy, sure. Anyone who plans to ever do research in their life absolutely should have the computational statistics down cold - how to apply it and understand the results at least, computational packages can do the actual work so very few will need to know what the formulas are. It's shameful the amount of research that gets published with glaring problems in the statistical analysis

      I think we're having different conversations here though - I'm talking about the vast majority of people - those who get a highschool-level education and *maybe* an associates or bachelors degree which they never actually use except as a badge of completion. What use does a plumber, auto mechanic, receptionist, etc. have for such tools? None whatsoever. And they're complex enough to learn that you're necessarily detracting from other more valuable education.

      If we can fix our schools so that kids are reliably learning Algebra in middle or grade school like they should be then we can talk about teaching chi-squared tests to the masses, until then we've got to make compromises. ( I mean come on - you learned long division in what, 3rd or 4th grade at the latest? Every "math" class between that and algebra is basically special cases no one will ever remember anyway - so start teaching the language instead, once you know that you can figure out most of the special cases from general principles, and the more complex stuff is WAY easier to explain with algebra)

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    340. Re:yes by superwiz · · Score: 1

      You fall into the trap of arguing good vs bad. Real life choices are rarely between good and bad. They are usually between better or worse. If critical thinking gives students with poor judgement more confidence in their ability to judge but does not actually improve their judgement, then it is worse (despite the fact that such a course might be good for those who do have a good judgement).

      There are paths of studies which are better than critical thinking for all students. This makes critical thinking a worse (much worse, in fact) overall alternative. As someone who wants to seriously ponder what servers best most students, one would do well to read Polya's "Solving it". He shows that reasoning is a gradual incremental process.

      Trying to "teach" people to reason the way people are taught history (by presenting them with overall context and demanding that they remember all the details of the context before they can understand the picture) is foolishness. Learning reasoning is best done as a side effect of being forced to reason in subject matters in which everything is done as a logical deduction. Only after the students have internalized the process of reasoning does it become useful to formalize it with teaching them the distinct categories of arguments and their names and formal relations. Until the students have internalized such reasoning methods, teaching this formalism only helps students with good memory.

      Logical thinking, on the other hand, is a tool which is useful to those with both good and bad memory.

      Just remember, not good or bad... better or worse. If you accept that this is always the choice of alternatives, then you won't fall into the trap of arguing pro's of position A vs con's of position B.

      If we taught Geometry the way we teach basketball (starting with simple moves at early age and gradually building up to more complicated parts by lots of practice and slow progress), we would not be having this argument. Most Americans would understand logical thinking to a much larger degree than even the best of "critical thinking" students do now.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    341. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps we should require a quick calculus exam at poling stations. But what do I know. I don't have calculus so my opinions are without merit.

    342. Re:yes by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      "According to the Congressional Research Service 170 members of the House and 60 Senators are lawyers.
      Out of a total of 435 U.S. Representatives and 100 Senators (535 total in Congress), lawyers comprise the biggest voting block of one type, making up 43% of Congress. Sixty percent of the U.S. Senate is lawyers. Enough said. 37.2% of the House of Representatives are lawyers.
      Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_percentage_of_US_congress_members_are_lawyers#ixzz22Y8oD7Ym"

      This is bothersome to me, because lawyers' training tends to be: 'Given a desired point of view, generate an argument to prove it is true". Much the opposite of the "scientific method" (which is not universally applied by scientists to all decisions, I do realize) And more in line with actors, whose job training is to make fiction appear "truthy". And that brings us to Ronald Reagan, considered the greatest president ever by the half of the American voters who, by some coincidence, also happen to be the half who are easily convinced of things by lawyers, actors, etc.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    343. Re:yes by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Have you ever seen a victim of the kind of school which considers itself "applied" and therefore attempts to teach students engineering and/or technology without the "hurdle" of learning calculus on even the level of the basic concepts of derivative/slope and integral/area. Actual experience convinced me that it's easier to teach these guys enough calculus to understand their subject, than it is to teach them the subject without any reference to the principles of calculus. And as people have pointed out here and again, the "hard sciences" are the easy ones. The reason so little progress is made in the soft sciences is because they're way way more difficult, more complex, harder to measure, harder to define.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    344. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, historically Woodrow Wilson had a PhD in political science. Come to think about it, maybe he wasn't such a great example...

    345. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >For my own peace-of-mind, my own edification, and personal analyses, I have found a good knowledge of math and computer programming ( especially C++ and mathcad ) invaluable.

      IMO, the problem is teaching the wrong maths, at least for CS/SE. In Australia, to be a certified SE, you need to do the same maths as a mech eng would do (so lots of calculus). While that maths might be useful occasionally in applications, I have never had occasion to use it, whereas I have had plenty of times where I've had use for more advanced discrete maths and set theory than I was able to fit in around the CS and the required courses.

    346. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, those numbers for the 112th Congress are 167 and 55 with law degrees, not attorneys by occupation, of which there are fewer. Attorneys are the largest-reported prior occupation only in the smaller body of the Senate--they're the third largest group in the House, behind business and public service.

      Members of Congress (in both chambers combined) who have ever practiced law overall are the third largest block, not the first. Tracking back the entire professional careers of legislators, there are 209 members of the legislature reporting a business/finance background, 208 from a public service background, and 200 with any background in the practice of law. There are also 81 former educators, 5 ministers, over a dozen scientists and engineers, and about 30 with doctorate-level degrees in medicine.

      I'm not sure what the virtue of the scientific method has to do with anything, really, since social, political, and fiscal decisions are not dictated by empirical efficiency.

    347. Re:yes by happy_place · · Score: 1

      I found my university Linear Algebra course to be worthless, not because the content wasn't useful (we use it all the time in 3d graphics for example) but because of the way it was taught. I think many people taking abstract courses are hindered by the level of educators rather than education. Practical application and accessibility should matter, but often at the unversity level it becomes less about comprehension and more about a weird elitist obfuscation for the sake of a professor's ego. (And this doesn't just apply to Math Education.)

      --
      http://www.beanleafpress.com
    348. Re:yes by avandesande · · Score: 1

      I would average 100$ a month

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    349. Re:yes by Kaz+Kylheku · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a good argument that your cousin does not require academics at all, i.e. schooling.

      This is about whether or not academics should include math. I would say that without mathematics, you take away all rigor from academics, leaving only fluff. When rigor goes out the window, it is closely followed by credibility.

      Academics is the business of being smart largely for the sake of being smart. The more you chop out of that, the more of a farce it becomes.

    350. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a habit of doing that myself just so I get toll-worthy change afterwards. I am happy to say that not one cashier in my experience has failed the test yet :)

    351. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would take that a bit farther. Specialization is what makes progress possible. Some people can easily do 5 to 10 to even 100 times the work J Random Person can do at a given task. Why not let them do it? The problem arises when you have large amounts of people who can't do anything very well at all.

    352. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You had a MATH-SPECIFIC teacher in 5th grade?

      Wow. Nice school. Me, I had Ms. Poma, a very crotchety old lady who swatted me when she caught me pinching a girl's butt.

    353. Re:yes by Lando · · Score: 1

      Even if the algebra skills are not directly applicable, mathematics teaches people how to figure out "correct" solutions. It focuses on procedure and how to analyse and figure out the answer. I can't think of another subject that guarantees this. History is more about memorization. English being able to write well, doesn't mean it's correct nor does memorizing some paragraph from some book. Art... Maybe shop does this, but it's a bit more materials intensive than actually requiring students to think. That doesn't mean students in other subjects don't think, just that mathematics has objective tools to test whether they understand the concepts or not.

      --
      /* TODO: Spawn child process, interest child in technology, have child write a new sig */
    354. Re:yes by Lando · · Score: 1

      Hmmm,
            If I remember correctly logic/critical thinking was fairly easy because it was basically discrete mathematics for non-science types. Seems like a decent class to give people and introduction to logic and how to analyse arguments. It wasn't about continuously questioning the same statements over and over. It also pointed out some of the main fallacies that people use in arguments, which though I had a course with similar concepts in the 5th grade, I imagine a lot of students don't get that type of education and it falls upon the colleges to at least give students some sort of critical thinking concepts. Does everyone get and understand them, no, but tell me one class where every student understand everything the course was designed to teach.

      Sure with a degree in Mathematics the class might have been a waste of time to you, but what about others that don't have your background. Arguing that the class shouldn't be a requirement for all students wouldn't be a bad argument, but stating that the class is a waste of time and implying that the class should be removed is not really a valid argument in my opinion. Also not, that there are a lot of different classes with that title, perhaps the class you took could have been improved especially if all you got from the class was that arguments have to be argued even if they are "proven" Of course, if the argument was proven, then it wouldn't be an argument anymore, it would be a statement correct with supporting evidence, correct?

      --
      /* TODO: Spawn child process, interest child in technology, have child write a new sig */
    355. Re:yes by Lando · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I've seen that as well, but considering that many cashier's only make minimum wage, if that, I'd be willing to guess it's more of what the business is willing to pay someone to do the job and not education as a whole. Unless, of course, you discussed the cashier's education background with them and found that they had a PhD in nuclear engineering. Likely, the person has that job because they had no other skills and perhaps they never even completed high school. I'd say, it's more about the job applicants that are competing for that job than a statement of what education levels are.

      Btw, though I have run into a few cashiers like this, I've run into far more that can give proper change with no problems. It's just that people with basic math, english, thinking skills can get better jobs and that makes room for those that don't have those skills in these positions.

      --
      /* TODO: Spawn child process, interest child in technology, have child write a new sig */
    356. Re:yes by Miseph · · Score: 1

      Probably because your sex-ed class taught you what a dangerous and unpleasant job that would be.

      --
      Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
    357. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But as far as advancement in a company is concerned, I found a knowledge of math to be a great impediment, as it causes me to stubbornly stick to things, be a "boy scout", "perfectionist" and other derogatory terms those with "leadership skills" attribute to me.

      This sounds strange to me. There is no reason I can see that training in maths should make you stubborn and inflexible. Are you very young or are you O-C or ADD or something? In any case, a stubborn perfectionists with balls can sometimes be valuable on a team. For example: the legal/security/finance/[insert high risk here] manager should be prepared to go all out to stop the company sliding headlong into some stupid major issue even if (s)he is said to be a dick by others.

      .. it seems to me that the most important skills one can learn is the skill of how to get someone else to do the work.

      If you want to be a manager that is certainly an invaluable skill to have. Unfortunately many managers are poor at motivating their staff.

  2. Mathematics is a tool by GodGell · · Score: 5, Insightful

    NO.

    It's the unintuitive ways in which it's taught (which in turn causes the societal alienation of the subject) that is the problem, not the fact that it's a requirement.

    Mathematics is nothing less than the upmost tool of rationality. Lose it, and all progress decays.

    --
    [SHOW SOME LENIENCY TOWARDS ... I mean, FUCK BETA] Eat. Survive. Reproduce. GOTO 10
    1. Re:Mathematics is a tool by GodGell · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You are right, I made a mistake, my bad. I never took an English course. I never needed to, an online dictionary and some persistence taught me enough English to communicate on the level required. I've never been to an English-speaking country so far.

      How many languages do you speak fluently?

      --
      [SHOW SOME LENIENCY TOWARDS ... I mean, FUCK BETA] Eat. Survive. Reproduce. GOTO 10
    2. Re:Mathematics is a tool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends. Do you count Klingon?

    3. Re:Mathematics is a tool by vlm · · Score: 2

      GodGell (897123) made a pretty convincing display of how mathematics has to be taught (classes mostly suck, books mostly suck, online mostly sucks, turns out there is no royal road to geometry even after centuries...) but we don't really "need" language classes because immersion works well enough for everyone but the grammar fascists. Therefore I think "we" need algebra class a lot more than "we" need english lit.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    4. Re:Mathematics is a tool by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      Mathematics is nothing less than the upmost tool of rationality. Lose it, and all progress decays.

      Depending on what you call mathematics, I'd argue that formal logic is closer to the essence of rationality. (Although if you consider mathematics as reasoning about any system with mathematical structure, and consider logical formalisms to have mathematical structure, then I guess the argument goes the other way around and I'd agree with whole-heartedly.)

    5. Re:Mathematics is a tool by Guy+Harris · · Score: 4, Informative

      NO.

      It's the unintuitive ways in which it's taught (which in turn causes the societal alienation of the subject) that is the problem, not the fact that it's a requirement.

      Mathematics is nothing less than the upmost tool of rationality. Lose it, and all progress decays.

      Yeah. Somebody should point Prof. Hacker to this essay, in which the writer states that

      Peter Braunfeld of the University of Illinois tells his students, “Our civilization would collapse without mathematics.” He’s absolutely right.

      Algebraic algorithms underpin animated movies, investment strategies and airline ticket prices. And we need people to understand how those things work and to advance our frontiers.

      Quantitative literacy clearly is useful in weighing all manner of public policies, from the Affordable Care Act, to the costs and benefits of environmental regulation, to the impact of climate change. Being able to detect and identify ideology at work behind the numbers is of obvious use. Ours is fast becoming a statistical age, which raises the bar for informed citizenship.

      Perhaps if he were to read that, he'd change his mind. :-)

      (Shorter me: "You did RTFA, right? If not, please do so before ascribing to Prof. Hacker opinions he does not hold.")

    6. Re:Mathematics is a tool by fnj · · Score: 2

      Your English is so good that Mr Rude Coward made an assumption about you and in so doing made an ass of himself. On the other hand, I looked up some of your posts, and your self-taught English fluency is damned impressive.
      ~~~
      10: label not found

    7. Re:Mathematics is a tool by divisionbyzero · · Score: 1

      NO.

      It's the unintuitive ways in which it's taught (which in turn causes the societal alienation of the subject) that is the problem, not the fact that it's a requirement.

      Mathematics is nothing less than the upmost tool of rationality. Lose it, and all progress decays.

      I agree that most mathematics teaching sucks and that it is the utmost tool of rationality but it's not the utmost tool of understanding and I'm not convinced that rationality is more important than understanding. Rationality is pretty much useless when dealing with people. In fact pure rationality combined with a certain kind of
      monomania can lead to some pretty bad results.

    8. Re:Mathematics is a tool by GodGell · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Depending on what you call mathematics, I'd argue that formal logic is closer to the essence of rationality.

      You are correct, but what tool do you use to teach people logical thinking (and only logical thinking - you could argue that programming computers is the 'purest' form of applied logic, but most people don't have the mindset or sufficient interest for that), if not - mathematics?

      Consider how mathematics came to be: as far back as thousands of years ago, the drive of the most intelligent thinkers of society to understand the world, and to create a system of documenting (and thus passing on to later generations) identified and verified connections within it, is what led to the invention of what we now call "mathematics". It rose directly from the desire to put rational thoughts and ideas into a systematic, and thus advancable, way of thinking.

      This in turn has lead to the exponentially increasing complexity that we see today - slowly, layer by layer, raising the level of effort and intelligence required to acquire a "reasonable" level of understanding. Compounded by a way of education that does not adequately address the diversity of capability within human populations, the prevalence of the idea that mathematics is unneccessary and too far removed from reality was bound to inevitably become widespread enough to matter.

      And hence: this article.

      --
      [SHOW SOME LENIENCY TOWARDS ... I mean, FUCK BETA] Eat. Survive. Reproduce. GOTO 10
    9. Re:Mathematics is a tool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad modern browsers don't yet have semantic analysis, so they can't detect when one correctly spelled word is used in place of another similar one.

    10. Re:Mathematics is a tool by gerddie · · Score: 3, Informative

      Unfortunately upmost will not be underlined, because it actually exists: it is short for uppermost. It even seems that the use of upmost was correct.

    11. Re:Mathematics is a tool by aaronb1138 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Exactly THIS. The way higher levels of math are currently taught and in particular the lack of true relation to practical problem solving is a huge issue.

      I have seen a few professors and textbooks which remedy this great problem. Probably at the top of the list is Morris Kline. His Mathematics for Non-mathematicians (or Liberal Arts Majors) textbook, its language, and approach are a perfect template for better broad discourse on mathematics to non-STEM majors. Even his Calculus text better relates the importance of concept and understanding far better than the current popular books by Thomas, Tan, and Stewart (though the latter two books are both mere knockoffs of Thomas' book, made popular to obsolete Thomas' skus). Consider that I am a STEM major, in Physics, and all of my courses within the department manage to relate skills and knowledge in vastly more useful manners and with little abstract ambiguity.

      Calculus and Chemistry seem to be the most popular courses Universities use as "weeding" courses. The observed problem every time is teaching in overly abstract terms and with little relation to useful problem solving approaches in the subject matter. Anytime a professor offers an outside of class time "problem solving" session shortly prior to a test, they are letting you know they failed to teach all of the problem solving skills and especially never related practical knowledge. While I can appreciate the dedication it demonstrates on the part of the professor, they should be doing their jobs and putting it in the classroom to begin with.

    12. Re:Mathematics is a tool by lennier1 · · Score: 1

      Pretty much.
      Often it's not even the topic itself, but how advanced mathematics can teach people to analyze complex problems, select a suitable method and then devise a solution.

      Be it advanced physics or complex software engineering, knowing the basics and having the right mindset can make the difference between sink or swim.

    13. Re:Mathematics is a tool by Aryden · · Score: 1

      And you would use mathematics, including algebra, in virtually any programming you could do. So you would have to know how to do it in order to use it. Mathematics, especially higher math, are foundations of not only critical and logical thinking, but corner stones for everything we do.

    14. Re:Mathematics is a tool by arth1 · · Score: 2

      Perhaps if he were to read that, he'd change his mind. :-)

      Doubtful. I think he's trying to justify his own incompetence in maths, so arguments are going to be wasted.

    15. Re:Mathematics is a tool by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      Formal logic? It's actually very close to the high algebra - both of them are based on set theory. Only high algebra discusses various types of sets (like groups, rings, fields, etc.) and formal logic discusses the theories that are built upon these concepts.

    16. Re:Mathematics is a tool by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1

      Perhaps if he were to read that, he'd change his mind. :-)

      Doubtful. I think he's trying to justify his own incompetence in maths, so arguments are going to be wasted.

      Actually, it's "doubtful" because "that" refers to the very essay he wrote. One technical term for what I was doing there is "snark", i.e. GodGell said "Mathematics is nothing less than the upmost tool of rationality. Lose it, and all progress decays." in a fashion that seemed to indicate he was arguing against Prof. Hacker, so I just quoted back at him a passage from the very essay linked to by the /. article in which Prof. Hacker agreed that "Our civilization would collapse without mathematics.”. However, "our civilization would collapse without mathematics" is inequivalent to "our civilization would collapse if we don't try to teach algebra to every high school graduate". Perhaps both statements are true, but the former doesn't ipso facto imply the latter.

      And I didn't see anything in the article to lead me to believe that Prof. Hacker is completely incompetent in mathematics; he might not understand, for example, differential geometry, or category theory, or algebraic topology, but that's probably true of most people arguing with him in the comments here. (I, at least, will admit to knowing a tiny bit about the first of those, a much tinier bit about the second, and nothing about the third, although I suspect that I'd be able to understand a tiny bit more by reading a description of them, and could perhaps understand them somewhat better if I spent many years studying them full-time.)

    17. Re:Mathematics is a tool by fermion · · Score: 2
      No it is a misunderstanding of what Algebra is trying to teach. Each basic subject, at the secondary level, it trying to get a person to think at new levels of abstraction. Science teaches to gather and analyze a set of data in valid ways. History teaches us to question facts within a framework of other accepted facts. Writing teaches us to communicate abstract ideas in more or less concrete fashion. Math teaches us to create and manipulate abstract representations of physical constructs to gain new valid information.

      Frankly, 'real world algebra' or whatever fancy methods are popular at the moment are worthless if they try to hide of minimize the abstraction of physical information. It is ok to minimize the symbolic manipulation, as that is just rules. A student must know how to manipulate symbolically, but understanding why those manipulations and not others are valid is the important information.

      Algebra is also a gatekeeper for college. It is a simple way to make sure a student is mature and has the capacity for abstract thought. One thing to remember is that not only does everyone not need to go college, but not everyone needs to go to college at 18. There are many people who start college in early and mid 20's, and many who do not receive a bachelor degree untile much older. That is fine. College requires a level of development that not everyone has at 18.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    18. Re:Mathematics is a tool by mister_dave · · Score: 1

      It's the unintuitive ways in which it's taught

      You could just as easily blame lack of intellectual curiosity among children/society.

      I've just finished reading Made to Stick in which they tell the story of a teacher successfully winning students over to algebra being useful to them by describing it as mental weight training. "you do math exercises so that you can improve your ability to think logically" (ch.5, p.194) .

    19. Re:Mathematics is a tool by GodGell · · Score: 1

      Your English is so good that Mr Rude Coward made an assumption about you and in so doing made an ass of himself. On the other hand, I looked up some of your posts, and your self-taught English fluency is damned impressive.

      Thank you very much! :-) To be fair though, I was cheating. My native tongue is Hungarian, so it was not too hard (I never actually wanted to learn English).

      I made an ass of myself in a similar fashion (assuming someone to be American because he was using brand names instead of adjectives) a few posts back, so I well and truly deserved it!

       

      10: label not found

      Point taken. :-)

      --
      [SHOW SOME LENIENCY TOWARDS ... I mean, FUCK BETA] Eat. Survive. Reproduce. GOTO 10
    20. Re:Mathematics is a tool by loserMcloser · · Score: 1

      Anytime a professor offers an outside of class time "problem solving" session shortly prior to a test, they are letting you know they failed to teach all of the problem solving skills and especially never related practical knowledge. While I can appreciate the dedication it demonstrates on the part of the professor, they should be doing their jobs and putting it in the classroom to begin with.

      Wow, I can't believe how wrong this is --- clearly you misunderstood your role in the classroom as a student. In class, a professor should explain the concepts and techniques, but you shouldn't expect them to teach you step-by-step methods of how to solve every single problem in the subject area --- there isn't enough class time for that.

      The most important part of the learning process happens outside of class --- when you work and struggle towards learning on your own by working through the problems. Your professor in class is a guide in your learning journey, but they can't do the learning for you --- you need to put in the effort yourself!

      When a professor schedules an extra "problem solving" session, they are letting you know they can't be there to hold your hand through that most important and difficult part of the learning process --- the part where you work and learn on your own --- but they understand that you probably got stuck at some point in that process, and are willing to spend their own valuable time to help you get unstuck.

    21. Re:Mathematics is a tool by cusco · · Score: 1

      College at 18 would have been a waste of my time and my parents' money. When I finally went back at 29 and studied something that I in the meantime had learned interested me (computers) I did so well that I hit the Dean's List almost every semester and graduated with Honors.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  3. That's A Convenient Theory by Revotron · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm pretty sure if I wrote that paper, the resulting Slashdot headline would be "Engineer Asks: Is Political Science Necessary?"

    1. Re:That's A Convenient Theory by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 2

      It's more likely that the engineer will one day make the political scientist obsolete than the other way around, but until that day comes, we have to suffer with them.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    2. Re:That's A Convenient Theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Please, the Slashdot heading would be closer to "OMG PONIES" because such a logical topic would not incite a flame war and therefore not make it to /.'s mainpage.

    3. Re:That's A Convenient Theory by lexsird · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Political Science is an oxymoron, and insult to the term science. It should be Political Skullduggery, or something to match the true ilk of it, being an observation of the human nature at its finest and worst at the same time.

      --
      Take the Red Pill.
    4. Re:That's A Convenient Theory by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      The Engineer would have to ask: Is politics a science?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    5. Re:That's A Convenient Theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      History teaches us to want our own wars when it's our turn.

    6. Re:That's A Convenient Theory by gweihir · · Score: 1

      No. The engineer knows that it is not and that its practitioners are merely organized con-artists.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    7. Re:That's A Convenient Theory by Door-opening+Fascist · · Score: 1

      There are many of the social "sciences" that don't live up to the name. That doesn't mean all of them fall into that boat, or that all practitioners of the social "scienes" are not actually scientists, but anyone who approaches their field without placing the scientific method front and center doesn't deserve to be called a scientist.

    8. Re:That's A Convenient Theory by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      And then, disillusioned, the engineer turns his thoughts to other things.

      When Bernard Haykel asked the engineers and scientists among the numerous fundamentalist Islamists he interviewed what it was about Salafi thought that appealed to them, they pointed to its intellectually clean, unambiguous and all- encompassing nature (personal communication, September 2007).

    9. Re:That's A Convenient Theory by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Those who can, do.
      Those who can't, teach.
      Those who can neither do nor teach, rule.

    10. Re:That's A Convenient Theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where ever there is an organization in the nature there are something to study about. Whether it is about atoms, cells or con-artists, it's all fair game.

    11. Re:That's A Convenient Theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...Is Political "Science" Necessary?

      FTFY

      (sorry, I (didn't try to) resist)

    12. Re:That's A Convenient Theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Drivel"

      Melody: Bamboo ("River, she come down")
      By: Jane Anne Robinson
      On: Dr. Jane's Science Notes, Off-Centaur Publications

              You come up with a theory, a questionable theory
              But you've got to prove a theory, if you want to write a paper
              Oh--Ho, No--Oh, Science

              You gather up some data, then bias all the data
              And manipulate it shamelessly, and throw it in the paper
              Oh--Ho, still no, Science
      Drivel, she come down (x 2)
      http://www.thedance.net/~roth/SONGS/drivel.html

    13. Re:That's A Convenient Theory by russotto · · Score: 1

      No. The engineer knows that it is not and that its practitioners are merely organized con-artists.

      Therefore it should not be taught in college, but in a vo-tech school.

      Here's an experiment for you: Grab a few undergraduate engineering majors, and make them take the introductory political science classes. Now grab some political science majors and make them take the introductory engineering classes. What do you figure the results would be?

    14. Re:That's A Convenient Theory by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      And the answer would be "no", and colleges would stop requiring high SATs in political science in their admission criteria...oh wait.

      Not a parallel example.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    15. Re:That's A Convenient Theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been a political science prof for nearly 20 years. Hacker is not a serious scholar, and no one in my discipline would ever mistake him for one. Moreover, the comments here betray a serious misunderstanding of what political scientists (real ones, not... well... hacks like Hacker) do.

      Here's a link to the top-ranked (by five-year citation score) journal in political science:

      http://pan.oxfordjournals.org/

      Read a few of the papers. They are representative of what mainstream political science, by serious scholars, circa the 2010s, looks like. Inform yourself before talking about an entire scientific discipline.

    16. Re:That's A Convenient Theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a IT consultant I often find my Poly Sci classes much more useful than my technical classes. With that said I think every should be educated as a generalist and then specialize.

    17. Re:That's A Convenient Theory by khallow · · Score: 1

      I disagree. Anything can be methodically studied be it politics, postage stamps, the culture of Morocco's gay taxi drivers. And that methodical study is by definition science.

    18. Re:That's A Convenient Theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honestly, I'd consider an engineer more qualified to comment on politics than a political scientist to comment on the utility of math in education.

      Look, if this guy thinks "math is hard" and asking too much of students, no, suck it up and deal with it. Figure out how to help the struggling students. Don't lower the standard so that the standard doesn't mean anything anymore.

      I didn't agonize my way through English, French, civics, history, and other humanities subjects just to hear people whine about how "hard" math is. Yeah, we all have different aptitudes. Deal with it if you want to graduate. The standard is reasonable. Meet it or get out of education and accept that you aren't going to college or working in a mathematical field. I couldn't graduate high school without 3 full years of English, my worst subject. But letting me graduate without it wouldn't be right. Whether I appreciated it at the time or not, I needed it. It prepared me for a future where I had to read and write extensively. I'm still not the greatest at writing, but I am *better* than I was. If I was allowed to give up and let it slide, I'd be worse off. If I can do that for languages, why can't other students for math?

      Oh, and most importantly, if I went on to university without being pushed to improve my worst subjects, I probably wouldn't have succeeded in the ones that I am good at. The whole world doesn't revolve around math and science, and it doesn't revolve around the humanities either. You need a healthy dose of both even if one of them doesn't turn out to be your job.

    19. Re:That's A Convenient Theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like all those "Democratic Republic of X" countries, if you have to add the word "science" after it, it probably isn't much of a science.

    20. Re:That's A Convenient Theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's more likely that the engineer will one day make the political scientist obsolete than the other way around,

      No it isn't, because both chances are zero.

    21. Re:That's A Convenient Theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disagree. Anything can be methodically studied be it politics, postage stamps, the culture of Morocco's gay taxi drivers. And that methodical study is by definition science.

      Absolutely, but is it?

    22. Re:That's A Convenient Theory by kubusja · · Score: 1

      > I'm pretty sure if I wrote that paper, the resulting Slashdot headline > would be "Engineer Asks: Is Political Science Necessary?" Nope, Engineer Asks: Is Political Science a science ? And answers it in a negative way...

    23. Re:That's A Convenient Theory by gweihir · · Score: 1

      I expect that the results would be confirmation for the mutual disdain for both sides. However engineers are known to be critically needed for modern society to work. Political sciences has yet to prove they have better than massive negative effects on society.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    24. Re:That's A Convenient Theory by khallow · · Score: 1

      By definition. Of course, I imagine you're really asking are whether opinions, that happen to come with the people doing the methodical research, also science? That would be "no".

    25. Re:That's A Convenient Theory by Lando · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, computer science, often falls into this category as well. Most people with a cs degree seem to be primarily focused on being entry level programmers rather than understanding the algorithms and design behind software. They would be much better off in a CIS degree rather than causing "real" computer science majors to be lumped into a "programmer" title. But that is strictly my personal opinion.

      --
      /* TODO: Spawn child process, interest child in technology, have child write a new sig */
  4. This guy is an idiot by zero.kalvin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The point is not learning how to do complex calculation, the point is by learning these mathematical subjects you develop certain skills in logic, problem solving , and in critical thinking. It goes beyond mathematics and to how to be a rational thinker ( and yes I am exaggerating a bit ).

    1. Re:This guy is an idiot by Revotron · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'd be wary bringing up the notion of "rational thought" in the presence of a PolySci professor. I hear they find that idea quite revolting.

    2. Re:This guy is an idiot by Kergan · · Score: 1

      I'd be wary bringing up the notion of "rational thought" in the presence of a PolySci professor. I hear they find that idea quite revolting.

      Of course they do... Most of them are completely incapable of logical reasoning. Much like in all social science fields, they compensate by hiding behind key thinkers in their discipline -- almost all of which, dare I add, were trained mathematicians or physicists.

    3. Re:This guy is an idiot by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2

      And if nothing else, you learn that some things are hard and the people who work to master them are worthy of respect. Except this guy seems to have missed all of those lessons. Maybe he somehow dodged out of required math?

    4. Re:This guy is an idiot by Missing.Matter · · Score: 2

      There are other ways to teach problem solving, logic, and critical thinking that don't include mathematics. Math can be a very abstract concept, and while it's embedded in most everything, the concepts are abstracted in a way that makes sense to people even if they don't realize they're learning calculus or factorization. The author of the article is asking if teaching raw math is really necessary, as most people get so frustrated with it they just give up entirely.

      Critical thinking, logic, and problem solving exist in almost every subject. Literature, art, psychology, history, engineering, biology, physics all have avenues to the aforementioned thinking skills, and each is a different level removed from raw theoretical mathematics. Perhaps we need to consider if math is really necessary to achieve these skills?

    5. Re:This guy is an idiot by am+2k · · Score: 2

      The point is not learning how to do complex calculation, the point is by learning these mathematical subjects you develop certain skills in logic, problem solving , and in critical thinking.

      I don't know where you're from, but here none of this is taught in the subject that's declared as being "Mathematics" in school. What we learn here is akin to a cooking course where you learn to cook instant meals.

    6. Re:This guy is an idiot by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure that's really true. If you look at how introductory calculus, algebra, and arithmetic are often (I think) taught, it's more about algorithm memorization than careful reasoning.

      Not that those subject need to be logic-free, but they mostly seem to be. I was done with school before No Child Left Behind was enacted, but I could imagine that exacerbating the problem.

    7. Re:This guy is an idiot by Pezbian · · Score: 1

      Of course they do... Most of them are completely incapable of logical reasoning. Much like in all social science fields, they compensate by hiding behind key thinkers in their discipline -- almost all of which, dare I add, were trained mathematicians or physicists.

      And that... would be the joke.

      --
      In a world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king--and the two-eyed man is a heretic.
    8. Re:This guy is an idiot by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1

      The point is not learning how to do complex calculation, the point is by learning these mathematical subjects you develop certain skills in logic, problem solving , and in critical thinking. It goes beyond mathematics and to how to be a rational thinker ( and yes I am exaggerating a bit ).

      Yeah. Maybe Prof. Hacker should read this essay, which proposes that

      ...mathematics teachers at every level could create exciting courses in what I call “citizen statistics.” This would not be a backdoor version of algebra, as in the Advanced Placement syllabus. Nor would it focus on equations used by scholars when they write for one another. Instead, it would familiarize students with the kinds of numbers that describe and delineate our personal and public lives.

      It could, for example, teach students how the Consumer Price Index is computed, what is included and how each item in the index is weighted — and include discussion about which items should be included and what weights they should be given.

      This need not involve dumbing down. Researching the reliability of numbers can be as demanding as geometry. More and more colleges are requiring courses in “quantitative reasoning.” In fact, we should be starting that in kindergarten.

    9. Re:This guy is an idiot by elashish14 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No exaggeration at all, this is completely true! The author himself states that he's not in favor of ruling out quantitative reasoning, which he considers important. The fact that the thinks algebra isn't an important component of this skill only shows how ignorant he is of mathematics (why he's given his soapbox in light of this is only more concerning, but I digress).

      Algebra builds an understanding of abstract and unknown concepts. You can train students to do quantitative reasoning problems like machines, but algebra is much more abstract, but then you can throw them a curveball and they'll be totally hopeless. You end up with situations where students can solve problems like 'how much should 3 apples cost if one costs 1$' and then they won't be able to solve things like 'if you have 5$, how many apples can you buy?' We have freaking tip calculators on our phones because we're too lazy to learn that all you have to do is slide the decimal over, round to a convenient number and double it. Is that really so hard?

      No, the problem isn't the subject - it's the students. Get over the fact that you have to learn things that you don't like. I feel like all the time I spent on my humanities subjects in secondary school and college were thoroughly wasted as well, but I put up with it because I had to. I fell off the honor roll when I was 12 because I got straight A's and a B in Art. Art for Christ's sake! Pardon me if I suck at using a pair of scissors! I guess that's what should hold me back from being recognized in my math and science achievements, right?

      I'm not gonna stand here and suggest that I never complained about it, but at the same time, I went into that class every day fighting for my life because I knew that was the one thing standing in the way of my being recognized as a good scholar. So ultimately I didn't reach my goal, but at least I can say that I tried as hard as i could. I don't make excuses. The problem is that nowadays we have a problem telling kids to suck it up and deal with it. Math is a requirement - deal with it. I'm not gonna get a damn thing out of reading Dante's Inferno, or buillshitting about character development and relationships in Dickens, but do it because I must. Kids (and their parents) seem to not accept that as a reason nowadays.

      Maybe alongside with learning algebra (or whatever subject trips you up), we should learn to accept that not eveything's gonna be easy in life and that we shouldn't make excuses and just blame ourselves instead.

      And before I forget, obligatory xkcd: http://xkcd.com/1050/

      And also before I forget, not only should algebra be mandatory, but statistics should as well.

      --
      I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
    10. Re:This guy is an idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      One reason for this problem is that "rational thought", in the sense of reasoning from premises to conclusions according to formal deductive rules, is difficult to pull apart from "rational choice", in the sense of following specific patterns of value judgements. There is good reason to be suspicious of the latter, in that the tendency to see rational choice as a mechanism for connecting several diverse behavioural patterns in microeconomic theory tends to hinge on dubious presumptions about human motivations.

      It's also difficult to pull apart from Classical Logic, which asserts that a very particular set of formal deductive rules, tied up with metaphysical statements about how the world must be structured if it is to "make sense", are all and only ones you can use. Mathematics has no room for vagueness - this algebra or this topological space has its features determinately - whereas much of the inductive reasoning we employ makes room for borderline cases, outside freak possibilities and shades of grey.

      If "rational thought" means "determining the right answer" then it's not always the right tool. Especially when, as a political scientist, you discover just how ill suited it is for the task of interpreting the ambivalent and self-contradictory people that together constitute... pretty much everyone.

    11. Re:This guy is an idiot by fredprado · · Score: 1

      Mathematics is logic formalization. You can't really understand something if you are incapable of formalizing. The best you can do is to have some vague notion that can many times be wrong or misleading.

      Mathematics teaches you to question your paradigms, to deeply understand some logical concepts that are important to avoid fallacies, and as a bonus helps you to understand why your money evaporates at the end of the money and what you should do to prevent it from happening.

    12. Re:This guy is an idiot by fredprado · · Score: 1

      *end of the month.

    13. Re:This guy is an idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly how will solving an derivation make me a more rational thinker?

      I think I was rational before learning math up to college degree. It's just a toolbox, and MOST of my math learnt up to college has been completely useless to me.

      I sense religious undertones in these dogmatic knee-jerk reactions.

    14. Re:This guy is an idiot by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      Mathematics has no room for vagueness"

      It sure does. Read about the "fuzzy logic" someday, for example.

      If "rational thought" means "determining the right answer" then it's not always the right tool. Especially when, as a political scientist, you discover just how ill suited it is for the task of interpreting the ambivalent and self-contradictory people that together constitute... pretty much everyone.

      So you're saying that the Pol"Sci" students are taught to spew loads of self-contradictory crap designed only to distract and misguide people?

    15. Re:This guy is an idiot by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      We have freaking tip calculators on our phones because we're too lazy to learn that all you have to do is slide the decimal over, round to a convenient number and double it. Is that really so hard?

      It is if you tip 12.5% or 18%.

    16. Re:This guy is an idiot by JDG1980 · · Score: 1

      Just tip 20% and don't be a cheap bastard.

    17. Re:This guy is an idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mathematics has no room for vagueness"

      It sure does. Read about the "fuzzy logic" someday, for example.

      There is nothing vague about fuzzy logic. It can completely be described as a formal axiomatic system.

      Don't get confused by the word "fuzzy": it is jargon.

    18. Re:This guy is an idiot by elashish14 · · Score: 1

      18%:
      1. Calculate 20%
      2. 10% of #1.
      3. subtract 2 from 1.

      12.5%:
      1. Divide by 8
      OR
      1. Divide by 10
      2. Divide #1 by 4
      3. Add #2 and #1.

      Not so hard. This is the kind of arithmetic operations that 10-year-olds learn.

      Besides, any of these are easy enough to approximate by just adding a few dollars here or there. And do you really have to be that precise? Would you really give someone a tip of 9.90$?

      --
      I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
    19. Re:This guy is an idiot by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I'm glad I moved to a place where tipping is never done. If your employer doesn't pay you enough to live on, quit. I once tipped 17% on a corporate meal and had the expense rejected because 17% was excessive. Tipping as a sole-source of income is a stupid scheme designed to help restaurants pretend their prices are low. "Only $20, but you are expected to pay $24 for the $20 meal."

    20. Re:This guy is an idiot by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      Sure. Fuzzy logic deals with "vague" concepts like "cold" or "hot" (at what temperature exactly does a thing become "hot"?). Substitute "vague" with "non-formalizable" and you might be a little bit closer to correctness.

    21. Re:This guy is an idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have freaking tip calculators on our phones because we're too lazy to learn that all you have to do is slide the decimal over, round to a convenient number and double it. Is that really so hard?

      Actually, it's a pain in the ass. I won math competitions in grade school, but even I don't like to add that many digits in my head. I tip $3 for each $20 and approximate from there. It's far easier.

    22. Re:This guy is an idiot by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Oh, he is not an idiot, he has an agenda.
      You can download this interview with him he made on the 7th of August 2012. He has an agenda, and this agenda is about increasing the number of people studying his subject in college settings and to do this he wants more people to stop studying algebra and other math and sciences.

      He is interested in arguing in class for Obamacare and he wants to use statistics and no other math, and he wants this to be the environment for the young kids to learn in.

      He is talking about indoctrination and dumbing down and at the end it's about money and power.

  5. Unnecessary roughness on statistics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The article's author should be penalized for pointing out the unemployment rates for hard sciences graduates with no comparison to the corresponding rates for liberal arts majors.

    1. Re:Unnecessary roughness on statistics by Revotron · · Score: 1

      I don't think that would help much - the reason being that a hard science graduate would rather stay unemployed than take a job at Starbucks. For a liberal arts major, that's practically a career path.

    2. Re:Unnecessary roughness on statistics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      An engineer asks - how is that?

      A physicist asks - why is that?

      A polisci major asks - would you like fries with that?

    3. Re:Unnecessary roughness on statistics by ceoyoyo · · Score: 4, Funny

      Give the guy a break. He can't do algebra. That means he can't do statistics.

    4. Re:Unnecessary roughness on statistics by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

      Well, he is obviously innumerate, so he can be forgiven for thinking a numerical comparison is unnecessary...

    5. Re:Unnecessary roughness on statistics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the unemployment rates for collage graduates is about the same for STEM grads and liberal arts.

    6. Re:Unnecessary roughness on statistics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hear people making those snide comments all the time and not all liberal arts degrees are equal. Some employers, believe it or not, prefer them to people with a hard science degree for the simple reason that they're more flexible and generally have had to take a wider range of courses to get that degree.

      And I'd like to see some evidence to support the notion that scientists are opting out of employment because it's below them. I think more likely they don't have the skills to work outside of their major like your typical liberal arts student does.

    7. Re:Unnecessary roughness on statistics by dcollins · · Score: 1

      Actually he does say, "I say this as a writer and social scientist whose work relies heavily on the use of numbers." I read this as meaning he has to use statistics and its prerequisite of algebra. He just assumes every other profession (historians, doctors, artists, etc.) are a bunch of neanderthal trench-diggers who probably aren't really doing anything sophisticated.

      P.S. "professor emeritus" = old senile dude (IME)

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    8. Re:Unnecessary roughness on statistics by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Don't automatically give him too much credit. Most people who use statistics today don't have the slightest idea how they work, or how to actually do them themselves. Thus the rampant bad stats issues.

      If this guy does social science research he probably dumps numbers into his stats package of choice (or more likely has a gad student do it) and wouldn't know where to start if he actually had to code up his own.

    9. Re:Unnecessary roughness on statistics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      During my time studying physics we always told the joke this way:

      What does the employed physicist say to the unemployed one? ...would you like fries with that?

  6. If you want to understand the world... by hxnwix · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you want to understand the world, you need math. If your education doesn't include that, what sort of education is it?

    1. Re:If you want to understand the world... by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 2

      How much math? And the world also includes laws, bankers, lawyers, notary publics, etc. Sure, we can teach l'Hopital's rule in high school, but can we also please teach the social realities that can have much more of an impact in everyday life than math?

      --
      Mostly random stuff.
    2. Re:If you want to understand the world... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I certainly prefer my banker to know algebra, and so should the lawyer and notary. Social studies (history plus geography) was ALSO required when I was in school. And if you haven't noticed, studying and actually solving a lot of those "social realities" that have such a big impact in everyday life depends on statistics, which is... math.

    3. Re:If you want to understand the world... by Missing.Matter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think it's a bit presumptuous to claim those who do not know math are incapable of understanding the world. The level of mathematics taught in high school is the smallest shrivel of the scope of the mathematics field. You don't really start getting into the core of the subject until the graduate level. So are you saying anyone without a graduate level of education in mathematic is unable to understand the world? Or perhaps you think only a highschool level of educate is necessary to understand the world?

      And how exactly do you define the world? The world is vast, and we can probably define and describe less than 1% of all we know with mathematical formulas. What about poets, artists, authors... do they not understand the world? I can't tell you the last time I read an equation that elicited more emotion than Whitman or Frost. So maybe it's apt to say those who do not understand love or nature or poetry or biology do not understand the world.

    4. Re:If you want to understand the world... by tibit · · Score: 2

      Math is, to me, a core requirement for civics -- you know, being someone who can't be easily lied to by politicians who pull numbers out of their sleeves and pretend that everything can be solved with their fave solution du jour.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    5. Re:If you want to understand the world... by khallow · · Score: 1

      but can we also please teach the social realities that can have much more of an impact in everyday life than math?

      What "social realities"? Is this going to be like the guy who simultaneously advocates "intergenerational transfers" (education, social security, health care, etc) while simultaneously ignoring the consequences (greedy babyboomers taking our stuff via "intergenerational transfers").

    6. Re:If you want to understand the world... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The problem with your comment is that you're somehow assuming that the 'beauty' a poet or an artist can see is not accessible to a physicist. Spoiler alert: IT IS.

      The problem with not learning math is that you really can't tell for certain how the world ACTUALLY works. Sure, you can describe it with words, but can you be as precise as with mathematics? Of course not.

      When you decide not to learn mathematics, you're only limiting yourself severely.

    7. Re:If you want to understand the world... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      regarding algebra I'd like to see my plumber or carpenter being able to solve problems with one or two unkowns - like the bill.

    8. Re:If you want to understand the world... by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

      Understanding the world well enough to vote requires knowing enough math to tell when statistics are being used appropriately.

      That requires some degree of algebra, though factoring polynomials doesn't help with it, and it's a different set of skills than pre-calculus.

    9. Re:If you want to understand the world... by odysseus_complex · · Score: 1

      My rule of thum for science and math is that you should learn at least one step further than what you absolutely need. The extra skills gained makes what you are doing seem less like magic and makes you feel less like just a cog in a machine.

      As to the complaints about math being hard, students (and the public in general) needs to learn that life is hard and you won't always have someone there to hold your hand so suck it up and dealt with it.

    10. Re:If you want to understand the world... by NJRoadfan · · Score: 1

      Where I live, any legal adult can become a notary. They just have to take an oath, no math required.

    11. Re:If you want to understand the world... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      I didn't say it was required, just that it's a good idea. A pure verifying-signatures-notary is a pretty niche job. Most notaries do other things, often working in banks or performing some of the same jobs as lawyers, negotiating contracts and mortgages and things. I certainly prefer that people doing things like that be able to understand, for example, compound interest.

    12. Re:If you want to understand the world... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Uh, I work with hundreds of scientists in my job. A fair percentage have PhDs. I'd be surprised if 10% truly could apply math at the level you describe. Oh, I'm sure many could differentiate a polynomial, or look up an integral in a table or follow an example from their old calculus texts. They calculate standard deviations every day. However, this really has little bearing on their UNDERSTANDING of the fundamental concepts of statistics and such.

      I see people misuse math as a result all the time. I see them misuse it and basic principles of science when doing quantitative work in their own fields. Usually the errors are small enough to not matter, but their calculations are often flawed and some day if they use that math in a situation where some unrealized assumption doesn't apply they could get grossly incorrect results, and no doubt report them because that's their "well-tested and understood" process.

      I wouldn't be surprised if half the math professors they had made similar errors, or taught the concepts from a book but never really impressed their true meaning. No doubt they took the book exercises and changed the numbers on the test to ensure they could be worked out again, but that doesn't convey true understanding.

      Science and math tend to be full of assumptions. Those assumptions are all-important. Usually the people who come up with the theories or theorems do a very good job of documenting those assumptions, but those who follow after decades later just learn how to use the formulas and don't really bother to understand WHY they work. Try to use half of the theorems in calculus on a discontinuous function and watch as everything turns out wrong (oh sure, you can apply calculus to discontinuous functions, but you have to realize that the function is discontinuous and handle it appropriately). In science assumptions are even more important. Most of the laws of physics on practical scales are gross approximations that hold up under certain circumstances, because near-perfect models of how the universe works start to fail once you get much bigger than a few atoms, and even then require computer simulation.

      I have no hope that the common voter will ever have a grasp on this stuff...

    13. Re:If you want to understand the world... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you truly understand biology without understanding mathematics? Can you understand nature (I'm assuming you mean things like trees, flowers, ponds, birds, etc.) without understanding the mathematics of ecosystems? Perhaps you can understand *what things look like* and *how they feel* but not *how they work* without mathematics. How things work, while perhaps not as directly emotionally rewarding, is far more important as far as I'm concerned.

    14. Re:If you want to understand the world... by dido · · Score: 1

      I'll shoot back with a quote from Leibniz:

      Sans les mathématiques on ne pénètre point au fond de la philosophie. Sans la philosophie on ne pénètre point au fond des mathématiques. Sans les deux on ne pénètre au fond de rien.

      Without mathematics we cannot penetrate deeply into philosophy. Without philosophy we cannot penetrate deeply into mathematics. Without both we cannot penetrate deeply into anything.

      Mathematics is the underpinning of all modern science, that tool that our species has for understanding the universe which has allowed human civilization to progress the way it has over the past six thousand years. This gives us an understanding of nature. Your poets, artists, and authors have, on the other hand, an understanding of people. A properly functioning society needs both in good measure, and by extension, the populace of such a society needs both as well.

      --
      Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
  7. The real question is: by EnglishTim · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... is High School necessary?

    1. Re:The real question is: by fustakrakich · · Score: 4, Funny

      Emo prof asks: Is anything necessary?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:The real question is: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know why all the jobs are outsourced to asia. They actually believe in education!

    3. Re:The real question is: by vlm · · Score: 3, Funny

      ... is High School necessary?

      The high school reunion industrial complex, as one of the few remaining vibrant industries in America, so its been declared "too big to fail" so we can't get rid of H.S.

      Interestingly the reunion industrial complex is failing due to facebook... Why do you need a retro-cover-band and a rented hall to find out whats new, when every one who cares about such things, already knows from facebook.

      My learning almost completely stopped in H.S.... its curriculum moves too slow. Made a very painful impact when I suddenly had to start learning again at university. Whoa, I haven't studied since middle school, WTF? You mean I have to read the book now?

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    4. Re:The real question is: by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 2

      Emo prof asks: Is anything necessary?

      No, Emo prof cries, "Leave Algebra ALONE!!!!"

    5. Re:The real question is: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... is our children learning?

    6. Re:The real question is: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know, is they?

    7. Re:The real question is: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Angry Nihilist prof asks: Who the fuck cares?!

  8. Why anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not just take this one step further and just not have any requirements to get a degree/diploma. Why should I have to take English classes that teach rules of spelling, grammar, and sentence structure I'll never use in the real world? Why should I learn art or history? Why not just forgo gym? Why take biology or physics or chemistry or any science if I am not going to use it every day?

  9. A more fitting question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is political science necessary?

    1. Re:A more fitting question... by __aajfby9338 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Is political science necessary?

      YES! If political science majors studied things like engineering or computer science instead, then who would sell me coffee?

    2. Re:A more fitting question... by superwiz · · Score: 1

      Same people who do it now? Pretty immigrant girls who came to America because it's where you find a rich husband?

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    3. Re:A more fitting question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of the new generation of China's political leaders have engineering degrees. It was considered a "safe" subjects were allowed to study aboard when their parents were the leaders.

      This contrast greatly with the politicians in the west that have mostly law and political science backgrounds.

    4. Re:A more fitting question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YES! If political science majors studied things like engineering or computer science instead, then who would sell me coffee?

      An otherwise unemployed engineer working at StarBucks?

    5. Re:A more fitting question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      robots ?

    6. Re:A more fitting question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, mightn't you be in danger of dying from a disease contracted from an insufficiently sanitised telephone handset ....?

  10. This is why we can't have nice things... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ... and why we make fun of the artsies. If you can't do basic math then you have no place in higher learning.

  11. Don't really get the American system by nicolastheadept · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Perhaps it would be better to move away from graduation based on everything together, to passes in individual subjects? Allow pupils to excel in the areas they can.

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    1. Re:Don't really get the American system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the idea is that you are supposed to be getting a "well rounded" education.. which does kinda make sense.

      If you _just_ want to be a programmer, or welder, or whatever.. there are trade schools for that.

      Now why the industry has decided that a programmer with a university degree is better than one with a degree from a decent vocational school, I have no idea...

    2. Re:Don't really get the American system by vlm · · Score: 2

      Now why the industry has decided that a programmer with a university degree is better than one with a degree from a decent vocational school, I have no idea..

      My AS in electronics which was pretty much a EE without the liberal arts electives was around $1500/semester full time depending on books.

      My BS in CS at a private college was around $15000/semester full time (although I went part time with reimbursement, even with xfer credits from the associates took something like 6 years)

      That's $13500 per semester of debt slavery. Or $13500 willingness to be lead around by a nose ring without regard to the students future. Or willingness to follow the herd.

      If a voc/tech school charged as much as a engineering university, then it would get the same respect. Its just conspicuous consumption, nothing more.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    3. Re:Don't really get the American system by EdIII · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I agree to a point. General education is useful to provide a well rounded education. Sometime in the teen years you can start allowing children to specialize, which is something adults do anyways. Heck, even our brains do it, unless I am wrong about my limited understanding of neuroscience.

      The value in math is not what you can do with it. Highest math courses I passed were Calculus and I never went on to anything else in college. To this day I don't use very high level math, the standard deviation equation being a notable exception. I just don't need an absolute ton of math to be programming and administrating the systems that I do. I know there is a *huge* amount of math involved in the platforms that I am using, but I'm working at a much higher level of abstraction and can just use a math class or plugin where required.

      The true value of math is learning critical thinking skills and logic. While only a very small percentage of students will ever use it daily, 100% could be benefiting from the critical thinking skills and logic.

      Regardless of specialization, those skills need to be taught. Could there be a better way than pure math? Perhaps.

    4. Re:Don't really get the American system by DesertJazz · · Score: 1

      I think there is something to be said for this. The only problem is do you really know what you want to do when you're 13? 14? 18? For me I didn't make my decision between a degree in Biology, or Music Education until my third semester of college when I was 19. It's a lot to ask a kid to decide the rest of their lives when they're 13. Unfortunately I watch that one happen all of the time.

      I believe that students do need to have a good basis in math so that they have options open to them in the future. By not keeping those options open they have limitations that are tough to overcome. That being said, as I watched a student I admired greatly drop out of high school and decide to do his GED instead this past month - Solely because he couldn't pass the state math test... I am nodding my head at a lot of the points of this article. Most kids really don't need to do much past basic functions and statistics when they get to the real world. I know that sounds like a load of dung... but I use something on the Algebraic level a couple times a year... Maybe? At the Calculus level never. Statistics is almost a far more useable form of math so they understand things placed in front of them. I think that's ultimately what this writer is trying to get to. Not to get rid of math, but understand that it's foolish that we keep this massive hurdle up to prevent the masses from being able to move forward in their educations.

    5. Re:Don't really get the American system by Hentes · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, but mathematics is a necessity in anything you do. Physics, history etc you may do without, but not without the ability of rational thinking.

    6. Re:Don't really get the American system by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      Because she can write a technical specification, understand the real world applications, communicate with the customers, her boss and the users. Because when I hire a software engineer, she has to know how to think about more than just code.

    7. Re:Don't really get the American system by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I spent about $3000 a semester at a public university (including room and board). I moved to a country where university is essentially free so my children won't have to worry about the failing US education system.

    8. Re:Don't really get the American system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're falling into the same one-size-fits all trap. It's not "sometime in the teen years" for everyone. Some kids can specialize as young as 2 or 3, others may not be able to handle specialization well into their 30s...

  12. Flamebait Headline by Missing.Matter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The summary and headline seem to imply that the professor is questioning whether algebra/mathematics is necessary for anyone, but really he's asking if it's necessary for everyone. I have a degree in physics and computer engineering and I personally benefit tremendously from mathematics. But pretty much everyone I know (outside of my comp sci/phsyics friends) is terrible at math, and never use anything except simple calculations in their daily lives, and they get by just fine in their professions. Yes, they do a lot of math without being very aware of it, but they don't need to know the extent of the theory, and they aren't what I would consider especially proficient, which is what highschool at least aims to make you.

    The professor in the article is asking something completely different and reasonable: since everyone is different, and everyone has a set of proficiencies and aptitudes, why do we try to teach everything a set of knowledge someone somewhere has somehow determined to be paramount? What if everyone's talent was fostered at a young age instead of forcing them to neglect their proficiencies and learn skills which perhaps they will never use? Would we end up with a society where everyone was an expert at something, rather than a society where everyone has a little knowledge everywhere but no real spectacular skill?

    I don't know the answer to any of these questions, but really, I think they're worth considering. I for one was fostered at a young age because my parents identified that I was good at science and math, and I benefited tremendously. I could only imagine if that kind of fostering was afforded to every child, we might be better off.

    1. Re:Flamebait Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You, and the author, are pretending like Algebra is advanced math. It's not -- at least not the portion that typical students are required to know.

    2. Re:Flamebait Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He *is* pushing the argument too far though, at least way beyond the point where it loses merit. From TFA:

      But there's no evidence that being able to prove (x^2 + y^2)^2 = (x^2 - y^2)^2 + (2xy)^2 leads to more credible political opinions or social analysis.

      Really? lack of even basic abstract thinking skills is now enough for credible political opinions and social analysis? That silly equation requires elementary notions like multiplication and addition. Hardly rocket science. I shudder to think that people who would consider that *hard* might actually have a significant weight in a country's political or social decisions.

      By the same argument, you don't need to go to the gym, as it doesn't do anything for your daily job for the vast majority of people. Keeping muscles in shape? phew, who needs that. Keeping your brain in shape? double phew! So I move to eliminate *both* math and sports from all curricula, or at most make them electives with no presence in passing exams or getting admission to college.

    3. Re:Flamebait Headline by Tough+Love · · Score: 0

      The summary and headline seem to imply that the professor is questioning whether algebra/mathematics is necessary for anyone, but really he's asking if it's necessary for everyone.

      To be precise, simple algebra and basic mathematics is necessary for everbody except Apple customers, because there's an app for that.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    4. Re:Flamebait Headline by ztexas · · Score: 1

      Nicely said, from another math/cs/physics/engineering type. Wish I had mod points for you. My wife is terrible at maths... fine with arithmetic and the most basic algebra, but I fail to see how making her struggle with factoring quadratic equations helped her (or society) in any way. One of the most brilliant programmers I've ever met is a terrible speller. Perhaps he should have been denied his high school diploma?

    5. Re:Flamebait Headline by Missing.Matter · · Score: 1

      You're making the mistake of assuming that mathematics is the only gateway to critical thinking and logic. True, mathematics is one of the best gateways to higher-level thinking, but it is so abstract that many people are just plain bad at it. There are other ways to exercise the brain, and people practice them every day. There are many hard, challenging, important jobs out there where much mathematical theory is not entirely necessary. Yes perhaps they use math, but the math the use is distilled and put in a very clear context relevant to a task at hand, not pure theory which you learn in the classroom.

    6. Re:Flamebait Headline by Ichoran · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But he's talking about algebra, not about category theory or partial differential equations. Algebra, taught well, is no more than firstly, the ability to solve problems in general using abstract thinking, instead of muddling through the specifics every time; and secondly, to map numerical concepts onto the world and use them to solve problems. These reasoning skills are incredibly basic and incredibly important in today's society to function as a competent and responsible individual. If some people manage to learn the same skills through another circuitous route, that's okay, but if a HS diploma is supposed to mean that an individual has reached some minimal level of education, and they cannot manage to read and decipher texts of the level of complexity necessary to understand the world, cannot manage to think abstractly about problems quantitative and otherwise so as to act wisely on the basis of experience, and so on, then what is it that the diploma signifies aside from reaching a certain age? What is it that a B.A. from Harvard is supposed to signify--that the person is intellectually accomplished, or merely that they do one thing that they like well?

      Democratic societies ultimately depend upon the intellectual sophistication of their members. Measures that increase the pressure to be intellectually sophisticated are therefore advisable.

      Now, if we're doing a lousy job teaching algebra--and I think we are--then we should be alarmed and try to find ways to improve dramatically. Then most everyone will be able to learn that basic skill, and devote the rest of their time (after covering the other basics) to whatever it is that they're particularly good at and/or passionate about. (I think that the thought-patterns required for applying calculus to physical problems are also so fundamental that they should be required in high school, but let's try to get algebra under control first.)

    7. Re:Flamebait Headline by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      Understanding statistics is necessary for being an informed voter.
      Statistics requires algebra.
      Thus, it is in the public interest to make sure people understand algebra and statistics.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    8. Re:Flamebait Headline by Urza9814 · · Score: 1

      If you're working at McDonalds and need to figure out how much change to give someone -- you need algebra. What's the change on a $5.38 meal if they paid with a $10 bill -- that's algebra. 5.38 + X = 10. Perhaps it is more difficult to grasp than it should be because of the way it is taught, but I think there are very few people in this world who do not use algebra on a daily basis. This isn't calculus. It's basic math. In my school system, algebra was 6th or 7th grade.

    9. Re:Flamebait Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please point to the sentence he or the author claimed that.
      You said that - a straw man's argument.

      Keyword: recoil

    10. Re:Flamebait Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dogma. You can easily get the same "skills" doing other puzzles. It doesn't have to be math. In fact, the majority never truly see the logic behind maths, just more information to memorize, which is why they fail miserably.

      I'd say those enjoying maths (I am one of them), are probably predisposed for critical and rational thought. Such individuals can find gold in ANYTHING, not just math, and so can most people if given the chance in *their* area.

    11. Re:Flamebait Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you mean fostering or mentoring?

    12. Re:Flamebait Headline by pipatron · · Score: 1

      Understanding statistics is necessary for being an informed voter. Statistics requires algebra. Thus, it is in the public interest to make sure people understand algebra and statistics.

      Which is why, when I read articles like this, stop to think: Who benefits from a lesser educated general public? Some kind of follow-the-money reasoning, or in this case, follow the power.

      Maybe it's just me, but it also seems that it has become more common to lash out on maths in the last few years.

      --
      c++; /* this makes c bigger but returns the old value */
    13. Re:Flamebait Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's a question: Because you are good at science and math, should you have been required to pass English in order to graduate from high school?

      I think the answer is the same for the question about math.

      By all means, expand the course selection in the areas that students are good at, minimize in the areas that they are not. Flexibilty like that already exists in most high school programs (I took a *lot* more math and science in high school than the minimum required, and took only the minimum humanities), but allow students to cut out some of the basics entirely? No way. There should be basic literacy in a range of subjects. Students shouldn't be able to completely abandon math any more than they should be able to completely abandon English.

    14. Re:Flamebait Headline by Nemyst · · Score: 1

      Why should being an expert of a field have to come in opposition of knowing a bit of everything? What's wrong with striving to have both?

      You may not need math in your career, but to say that you don't need it at all is blatantly false. The problem is that currently people don't know maths, so they don't realize what they're missing out on. Just think about the number of times people get fooled by basic probabilities or simple statistics. It's not because they can live their life without it that it becomes useless!

    15. Re:Flamebait Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When is the last time you've seen someone at McDonald's who could handle that sort of complicated math? If the register doesn't give them the answer, they're lost. I've seen plenty of cashiers stumble when faced with basic math, especially when you give them more money to simplify the change you'll be getting back. If anything, they need more (or just better) basic math education, they clearly aren't learning enough for their daily lives.

    16. Re:Flamebait Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's a question: Because you are good at science and math, should you have been required to pass English in order to graduate from high school?

      Um, yes. Passing classes is so pathetically easy with schools so reluctant to fail anyone that it shouldn't be too much to ask that you pass the bare minimum of classes to be considered a high school graduate. If you are good in one area to the exclusion of all others, you don't deserve a diploma.

    17. Re:Flamebait Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I'd say your post is really an example of how mathematics is taught very very badly in HS, and only moderately better in College. Mathematics is taught as if kids are going to grow up to be mathematicians, by mathematics people who usually don't have exposure to applications of mathematics. If we taught mathematics along with areas where it's applicable, more kids might actually be interested in the topic. Instead we teach it as a series of mechanical operations to get the right answer that nobody really cared about in the first place! Gee.. fun. It's rare that math class tries to apply mathematics to someones life. Is it any wonder that most people that went through the math curriculum rarely can actually apply what they learned to their real life?

      Mathematics is simply everywhere. Open your newspaper and look at a poll, and there's statistics. Read about a scientific study with a p value of .10, and again you have statistics. Take a loan out on your house and calculate the interest and payments? Some pretty simple mathematics. You can't really understand our modern world without a base of mathematics, and providing that base is really important for everyone. People "get by" in their jobs mostly only because they aren't expected to understand mathematics only because most people don't. You're always judged by the AVERAGE person in your field, not the most exceptional ones. The average person in most fields don't have a very good grasp of mathematics. I'm quite sure that most people would have a better grasp of their field if they had a better grasp of math.

    18. Re:Flamebait Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a democracy, how can the people make decisions about complex events like war, disease, and climate change if they can't understand the simplest mathematical models that explain them? Politicians are bad because the people who should know better than electing them don't know better. The populace doesn't know better because it has a difficult time modeling, problem solving, reasoning, and calculating. Hence, vote for the handsome guy, or the funny guy, but whatever you do not for the smart guy.

    19. Re:Flamebait Headline by Shazback · · Score: 1

      Would we end up with a society where everyone was an expert at something, rather than a society where everyone has a little knowledge everywhere but no real spectacular skill?

      When I look at the world today, I do not bemoan foremost the lack of experts, but the lack of generalists at a high level. Of course, I am not asking why there are fewer polymaths today than in the 17th century, since science has broadened and deepened since then. But be it in academia, the business world or even in public office, I see people whose expertise is more and more limited. This means they are less able to explain their ideas to people from other expertises, and in turn less able to understand changes in other fields.

      I suppose most people here work in the business world. How often do we come across people (managers, programmers, colleagues, bosses, clients) who whilst experts (or at the very least trained) in their subject have no idea or understanding of what other people are trying to explain, simply because the person they are talking with has a different expertise? How often have businesses made poor choices because engineers, managers, salespeople and every other branch of the company has no understanding of what the other parts do? Naturally, the world is increasingly complex, and as such there will always be a growing need for experts. But there is also a huge need for "high-level generalists". People who are not an expert in any specific sub-field, topic or subject, and yet have a good enough understanding of a multiplicity of subjects, topics or sub-fields so that they can bring various experts to work together and benefit in a mutual manner from each expert's insight.

  13. Oh Hell No! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why on Earth would Algebra be of any value to a political science student? Why would it be good for a political science major to be able to do basic mathematics? Economics is for chumps!

    There's no value in algebra for political science MORONS. If however you want a well rounded graduate with the ability to understand rudimentary levels of statistics, probability, economics, you know, governmenty stuff, then algebra is probably a pretty good foundation block.

  14. Let's look at the larger picture by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There is so much missing from high school and post high school education. I'm from Quebec so the system is a bit different, you go to CEGEP between high school and university here. Anyways, nobody learns about how the society works here. We need young people to learn about the Civil Code, how contracts work, how renting works, how buying real estate works. Nothing in depth, but at least a functional knowledge so you don't walk into bad situations.

    Am I making sense? We are focusing on things that are easy to teach like piles of math. Things that are complex and can create aware citizens seems to interest the system less.

    --
    Mostly random stuff.
    1. Re:Let's look at the larger picture by cnettel · · Score: 1

      And you are supposed to learn how renting works (and whether you are being shafted or making a good deal), without math?

    2. Re:Let's look at the larger picture by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      You know, the worst situations people walk into regarding the things you mentioned probably involve credit and interest. and how do you understand interest? With algebra.

    3. Re:Let's look at the larger picture by tibit · · Score: 1

      Precisely. The overwhelming credit card debt and the mortgage fiascos the world over is mainly because people can't figure out simple compound interest.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    4. Re:Let's look at the larger picture by raodin · · Score: 1

      You make a good point, in that schools tend not to teach a lot off important life skills. That doesn't mean we should skimp on foundation skills like math. What point is there teaching someone about real estate, if they can't even handle algebra? Understanding concepts like interest rates requires more than basic arithmetic.

    5. Re:Let's look at the larger picture by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 1
      How much math do you need to understand how a lease works, what rights you have as a renter, how annual rent increases work, how to expedite repairs, how the Regie du Logement (Rental Board) works? And how is what I said implying that we exclude math? I'm saying we're teaching too much math at the expense of everyday realities. It's not like we are teaching a little bit about the Civil Code, we are teaching NOTHING in high school. How will Newton's three laws help you when you rent or buy your first place? It's far easier to learn about Newton's laws in the comfort of your properly understood housing than it is to rent just knowing Newton's Laws.

      Surely it is simple to understand.

      --
      Mostly random stuff.
    6. Re:Let's look at the larger picture by Hentes · · Score: 1

      The real need is a legal system that doesn't require years of study to understand.

    7. Re:Let's look at the larger picture by Urza9814 · · Score: 1

      Here in the US I learned quite a bit of that in highschool. Nothing in-depth, as you said, but the general concepts were certainly mentioned at least.

      And maybe you could scrap the higher levels of math if really necessary -- in my school system, pretty much everyone made it to "PDM" -- Pre-calculus and discrete math. The more math-adept students got one or two years of Calculus. But Algebra? Shit, that was 6th or 7th grade. 10-12 years old. You can't just not know algebra, it's pretty essential.

    8. Re:Let's look at the larger picture by EdIII · · Score: 1

      Am I making sense? We are focusing on things that are easy to teach like piles of math. Things that are complex and can create aware citizens seems to interest the system less.

      No, you are not making sense. Math teaches the critical thinking skills and logic that cover everything you just spoke about. From legal contracts, to finances, to real estate, those critical thinking skills and logic help you figure shit out.

      Let's also be clear here. We are not talking about math classes that only mathematicians take. Algebra is basic, and Calculus is at most intermediate.

      Maybe we might teach those skills with something other than pure math, but those skills are essential. Without them, it is going to get pretty scary. I already feel like an intellectual titan walking around in society when I look at younger people these days, and I'm the guy that would get invited as the idiot to parties with real intellectuals.

    9. Re:Let's look at the larger picture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      simple compound interest.... I think you don't understand it

    10. Re:Let's look at the larger picture by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      Am I making sense? We are focusing on things that are easy to teach like piles of math. Things that are complex and can create aware citizens seems to interest the system less.

      No, you are not making sense.

      On the contrary, the skills of mathematics may be essential, but the GP is saying that critical thought is a threat to the powers that be. Some people in power might well want a skilled but uncritical citizenry.

    11. Re:Let's look at the larger picture by Nemyst · · Score: 1

      I don't know about you, but I had courses in high school that were supposed to cover such things as making a budget all the way to cooking. Whether they were effective is another matter, but it's not as if it were entirely absent, it's merely not prevalent enough and perhaps misdirected (we wasted a lot of time on trying to learn how to cook and only ended up making cookies).

      However, teaching math is not easy. In fact, I'd say it's fucking hard. The problem is that it's possible to "teach" math in a way that requires a lot less effort, but also ends up giving not a whole lot of knowledge. Just pile in a ton of memorization and rote formulas and ask the students to learn everything and vomit it back on the test, then forget it until the final exam.

      I'd even go as far as to say that there exists no easy subject to teach. If you find it easy, it's because you're not actually teaching.

  15. Oblig xkcd by Revotron · · Score: 4, Funny
    1. Re:Oblig xkcd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a more relevant comic:
      http://xkcd.com/1050/

    2. Re:Oblig xkcd by supercrisp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That old sort of joke says more about its author and those who think it's funny than it does about the humanities. Yes, there's some BS. But, having worked in the science and now being a humanities professor, I can tell you that there's BS in both. It's just that people tend to think they can or should be able to master the humanities, to, for example, walk up to a sculpture and appreciate what it's about. But sculptors tend to reference other scultors they like, shapes call out to other shapes, materials to materials and traditions of working them, etc. etc.. Certainly there was a fat wodge of bullshit in 80s decon. But that's because it was HARD and poseurs could hide out in that hardness, chatting with one another about the emperor's new Member's Only jacket. And there's been bullshit in every era of the humanities, but most often what is derided as the work of a dunce is really good stuff that just happened to be inimical to the received opinions of its day.

    3. Re:Oblig xkcd by 32771 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Some have argued that the so called soft sciences actually have to deal with far more complex systems than humans can handle. If you compare this to engineering where you can frequently synthesize systems, some soft social science looks much harder.

      --
      Je me souviens.
    4. Re:Oblig xkcd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do I get the idea that you are only trying to appear to be an expert in humanities?

      The sad part about it is I am serious.

    5. Re:Oblig xkcd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think this is the more relevant comic: http://xkcd.com/1050/

    6. Re:Oblig xkcd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This would have a much bigger effect if you hadn't posted anonymously to reduce your attack surface. Now it looks just like a cheap shot.

    7. Re:Oblig xkcd by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      Call us when a humanities professor pulls an inverse Sokal hoax.

    8. Re:Oblig xkcd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That old sort of joke says more about its author and those who think it's funny than it does about the humanities. Yes, there's some BS. But, having worked in the science and now being a humanities professor, I can tell you that there's BS in both. It's just that people tend to think they can or should be able to master the humanities, to, for example, walk up to a sculpture and appreciate what it's about. But sculptors tend to reference other scultors they like, shapes call out to other shapes, materials to materials and traditions of working them, etc. etc.. Certainly there was a fat wodge of bullshit in 80s decon. But that's because it was HARD and poseurs could hide out in that hardness, chatting with one another about the emperor's new Member's Only jacket. And there's been bullshit in every era of the humanities, but most often what is derided as the work of a dunce is really good stuff that just happened to be inimical to the received opinions of its day.

      Actually, the XKCD cartoon is remarkably close to the truth.

    9. Re:Oblig xkcd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that's bullshit. Yes, they're complicated, but that doesn't justify the lack of proper scientific method. Had physicists or astronomers taken that cop out we would never know much of anything in those specialties. Yes, human thoughts and motivations are complicated, especially in groups, but that's no excuse for a lack of proper scientific method. True, you can't always do proper controlled experiments, but if you're not using the scientific method then it isn't science. And all too often you end up with something like psychology which nearly completely bullshit.

    10. Re:Oblig xkcd by Amouth · · Score: 1

      If you compare this to engineering where you can frequently synthesize systems, some soft social science looks much harder.

      Only if you where the hold the social science to the same level of final product as the engineer. When was the last time you saw a social science experiment with results measured on the 6 sigma scale? when was it a 5 sigma or higher result?

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    11. Re:Oblig xkcd by fatphil · · Score: 1

      Oooooh - were Pons and Fleischmann really humanities tricksters in disguise?

      Anyway - dear mods - upmod parent interesting!
      (Hmm,, half an hour ago I had 10 mod points, but alas they disappeared even more quickly than P&F's findings did under scrutiny.)

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    12. Re:Oblig xkcd by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      But physicists didn't need deconstructionists to refute Pons and Fleischmann.

    13. Re:Oblig xkcd by 32771 · · Score: 1

      Do people live up to that standard? I don't know lets see:
      "A six sigma process is one in which 99.99966% of the products manufactured are statistically expected to be free of defects"

      Have you been "synthesized" to similar specifications?

      But this isn't the point, I was more thinking about overwhelming complexity and the following article discusses a few examples:
      http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/12/ff_causation/all/
      and beyond that states "Even when a system is dissected into its basic parts, those parts are still influenced by a whirligig of forces we canâ(TM)t understand or havenâ(TM)t considered or donâ(TM)t think matter."

      We build systems where we have this interconnectedness under control. Whenever you have to deal with biology you don't. Ultimately you will also be faced with the problem of explaining yourself, which sounds impossible to me, but never mind.

      --
      Je me souviens.
    14. Re:Oblig xkcd by Amouth · · Score: 1

      I know what the what the six sigma process is, i also know that it is common to use the six sigma scale to represent certainty/accuracy of findings as a measurement of standard deviation.

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    15. Re:Oblig xkcd by 32771 · · Score: 1

      Well you didn't seem to be interested in the rest of my comment did the first part distract you too much?

      Then again I don't know enough about social sciences to compare confidence intervals.

      --
      Je me souviens.
    16. Re:Oblig xkcd by Amouth · · Score: 1

      Well you didn't seem to be interested in the rest of my comment did the first part distract you too much?

      Actually, yes it did, that and I tend to avoid Wired lately.

      Now after looking, and long read, i'm not sure what your argument with my original comment is?

      Do note that the root article for this is about Political Science, and then dove into social science. The article you point to is about drugs and your quote biology, which is a fairly hard science. Sure you can't control all factors in biology, but end the end they are working with chemical reactions which science and pin a certainty/confidence measure to quite easily.

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    17. Re:Oblig xkcd by 32771 · · Score: 1

      Ok, I could read your comment differently and assume you meant that few people would ever hold social sciences to such high standards. There far too many engineers, me included, that mistakenly do (did), however.

      Hm, maybe I was stuck in a rut somehow. Maybe it was the AC above you that triggered my possibly misplaced reaction.

      Sorry about the wired article, I didn't like some of it either, but it does highlight some of the aspects of complexity that I find interesting.

      --
      Je me souviens.
    18. Re:Oblig xkcd by Amouth · · Score: 1

      NP, going back to my original post to you, i wasn't trying to be insulting or a smart ass. My comment was to the bit of "some soft social science looks much harder", if they are that hard then they need to be in a rigorous frame work for evaluation. If soft sciences want to be considered as difficult as hard sciences then they need to hold them selves to at least the same level.

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
  16. another Lake Woebegone thesis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Instead of cramming all this 19th century "3 R's" curricula down the throat of our nation's youth, let's empower all our kids and concentrate on raising their self esteem! Once they learn to love themselves (like Whitney Houston sang about in her big hit), they'll be able to love their fellow men and women!

    We can begin by making courses like "How to Judge American Idol" the centerpiece of our 7th grade programs.

  17. Yup. by mosb1000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Most students do not really understand mathematics anyway, they simply memorize equations and techniques. Why should students who can't manage that be barred from the higher levels in other courses?

    1. Re:Yup. by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Indeed. But if we require mathematical understanding, what do we do with all the morons that are simply incapable, but still want to have some "higher education" to hide their stupidity behind? Turn them directly into managers and politicians?

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    2. Re:Yup. by James+McGuigan · · Score: 1

      This suggests that mathematics is poorly taught.

    3. Re:Yup. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most students do not really understand mathematics anyway, they simply memorize equations and techniques. Why should students who can't manage that be barred from the higher levels in other courses?

      Because if you want to find patterns in your data or find some underlying factors it can help to know more math opposed to trying different methods in SPSS until you find something you like.

    4. Re:Yup. by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      Really it's poorly conceived. In the historical sense, people working out abstract figures on paper makes perfect sense, but today that's not how math works. It's an anachronism that does nothing to prepare people for math they might encounter in real life. It's more of a history lesson than anything.

    5. Re:Yup. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to disagree. While this may be the case, there are also students that are simply uninterested in learning higher levels of mathematics that they will never have to use. If you are learning something you aren't interested in, you're not likely to spend as much time and effort to master it, you'll just get the basic ideas or remember enough to just get a passing grade. I'm not going to lie, I've not been able to learn much of anything from any of my history classes mainly because it's always been something I had no interest in learning, as far as I know nothing that I've learned from my history classes has been relevant since I graduated high school and college.

      In the age of computers your mathematics understanding doesn't have to be very high either. Just pull your phone or a computer. If you don't remember the formula look it up, plug in the numbers and you have an answer. It is much faster, efficient, and accurate. Basic algebra does have many real world applications and I agree it should be taught so some degree. Higher levels though I think should be up to the student and what they plan on doing for a living.

    6. Re:Yup. by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

      Soylent green.

    7. Re:Yup. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the real problem is that most math teachers teach math, not applications of said math. Even if you know calculus if you have no idea when to use calculus, whats the point?

    8. Re:Yup. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed. But if we require mathematical understanding, what do we do with all the morons that are simply incapable, but still want to have some "higher education" to hide their stupidity behind? Turn them directly into managers and politicians?

      They will eventually end up there anyways. Sadly the way the system works is that social promotion continues way past elementary school in to work life and into retirement. In general, there are few discarded along the way if they assimilate. The exceptions become wildly successful or fall off the wagon and are forced to make it on their own.

    9. Re:Yup. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that a rhetorical question? Because there are quite a few good answers. Those students who "simply memorize equations" are the same students who fail to turn concrete examples into general concepts. And without such abstraction, all that's left of science is just collecting butterflies. We don't need PolSci majors who can describe the political system of Belgium; they need to be able to explain it in context of parliamentary multi-party systems. Why does it work fundamentally different from the UK/US system two-party system?

      [ Professional Engineer, but Pol.Sci dropout myself. I did finish that paper on Belgium though. ]

    10. Re:Yup. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why should people who can't read or read be barred from getting phd?

      it is a human right to get phd without any effort.

    11. Re:Yup. by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's right. There's no point in memorizing equations if you fail to grasp the underlying concepts. People who can memorize equations can earn degrees in fields which are not math related. Those who can't drop out, even though there is no real difference in ability because neither really understands the math. Moreover, it wasn't important to the field of study anyway.

  18. the true lesson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This tells us very little about teaching algebra or its usefulness, but quite a lot about political "science".

  19. Limiting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Certainly it's limiting, all those poor political science majors have to go through big, scary math to get to the useful thing. Like political science.

  20. Claiming mathematics causes high dropout rates by noahgolm · · Score: 2

    The author of that article cites high dropout rates, then claiming that these are caused by algebra courses without any evidence. Really, freshman year algebra is simple and taught even earlier in many schools.

  21. Dumbed down education and "civilization" by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 1

    I can't honestly associate "college level" with having to learn remedial algebra. Secondary or tertiary training for the innumerate should be distinguished from advanced or professional education. We already have a hand waving, bullsht "politically correct" society, ever less capable of effective competition and critical thought at the individual level. This brain fart proposal further promotes and affirms that.

  22. Idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Algebra is very simple. There are only two reasons someone would not understand it. The first is that their teachers are not teaching them correctly. This includes the person/child having an undiagnosed or unacknowledged learning disability of some kind, by which I mean something like severe ADD or dyslexia. Something that inhibits traditional learning processes but does not actually reduce a person's intelligence or ability to reason. The second reason is that the person is literally an idiot (by the medical definition).

  23. Yes, it is. by ocean_soul · · Score: 1

    But it's no surprise that a political science prof doesn't understand this.

    1. Re:Yes, it is. by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Probably he never mastered mathematics to any reasonable degree.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  24. Of course it is necessary... by mikael · · Score: 4, Informative

    Algebra is a subset of mathematics, and forms the basis for statistics. Statistical analysis is required in just about every science field as well as arts. Social studies and biology require analysis of population dynamics; geology and geography require understanding of hydrodynamic equations. Psychology requires statistical analysis in many different ways. There's even a mathematical package called SPSS - Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. Even history will require the use of probabilty analysis to determine the most likely chain of events.

    --
    Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    1. Re:Of course it is necessary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't get around much in the real world, do you? You should probably remain inside, you'd be scared stiff outside where virtually nobody is doing the things you think they're doing.

    2. Re:Of course it is necessary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if you see them using SPSS you know they don't understand the math.

    3. Re:Of course it is necessary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously, this article is not talking about smart people who are going into academic fields. It's talking about jobs which require zero education but do require a high school diploma.

      If it seems strange that these sorts of jobs require a high school diploma, the article's argument that many students fail college freshman algebra seems stranger still. Firstly, I question whether failing freshman algebra isn't a symptom of something else; I've found that certain schools just have horrible environments that cause failure for non-academic reasons. Further, those with such glaring educational gaps are probably only in college out of social pressures; they don't want to be there.

      The writer treats going to college as a human right and status symbol that is being denied to a segment of the population out of some discriminatory requirement. Maybe they should wait on a higher education until they've mastered seventh grade math. College is for learning not for bragging rights.
      Moreover, there are schools for very talented people, which emphasize only a single subject.

      I think basic mathematics is sort of proof of being born in a modern society. Mathematics is "The Great Art" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ars_Magna_(Gerolamo_Cardano))

  25. Diplomas for everyone! by misnohmer · · Score: 1

    Let's just sell diplomas to everyone with a credit card and we'll be the most educated nation in the world! So what if the people buying them cannot balance their checkbooks or figure out that $50/month for 60 months is way more expensive than a $1000 one time fee - hey, we'll be propping up the failing bank industry too!

    1. Re:Diplomas for everyone! by Erpo · · Score: 1

      So what if the people buying them cannot balance their checkbooks or figure out that $50/month for 60 months is way more expensive than a $1000 one time fee

      We're already there--what do you think a 2-year cell phone contract is? "Save $450 on the handset by agreeing to pay an extra $50/mo for 24 months."

    2. Re:Diplomas for everyone! by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      Doesn't a cell-phone contract include having a phone company? How would you use a cell-phone without a contract? Pay as you go?

  26. Idiot is as idiot does by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This guy is an idiot. A high school diplomas mean less now than they did 50 years ago, college degrees mean less than they did 25 years ago. We're devaluing the meaning of formal education by dumbing it down to get more people through it and it is killing us when we compare our education system to those around the world. The idea that everyone is suited for high education is a strangely American fallacy. Should everyone have access? Yes. Should we make it easy enough that everyone can succeed at it? No.

    Education and training are different things. If our concern is training to make people useful then let's make training available but don't make education pointless for those that can succeed. The real answer is trade schools, apprentice systems, junior colleges, certification systems, etc. The problem is this sort of approach too often leads to "tracking" which is considered horrible by most educators because it tends to exclude some populations from the highest level of education. The truth of the matter however is that not everyone is ready for college. If you didn't have the proper education and environment for the first 18 years of your life you're probably (n.b. there are always exceptions who will succeed regardless of the barriers) not prepared fo turn it all around in the next 4. If you want to have a history-only degree that can get you a job in a historical society or a library then fine but don't dumb down the highest levels of education just so that we can pretend that the guy who has a tripple degree in Physics, Math, and Philosophy is functionally equivalent to someone who didn't take entry level math because it was hard.

    Whatever your goals teaching less of the subjects which promote rational thought, critical thinking, and problem solving is definitely not the answer to making education better.

  27. remember Heinlein's assessment? by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe and not make messes in the house."

    1. Re:remember Heinlein's assessment? by Tough+Love · · Score: 0

      bathe?

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    2. Re:remember Heinlein's assessment? by suomynonAyletamitlU · · Score: 4, Funny

      "At best". Nobody was talking about you.

    3. Re:remember Heinlein's assessment? by Phyrexia · · Score: 3, Informative

      Here is another of Heinlein's assessments:

      Never try and teach a pig to sing: it's a waste of time, and it annoys the pig.
      --Robert A. Heinlein Time Enough for Love

    4. Re:remember Heinlein's assessment? by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      He said "at best." I concur with Heinlein that they would have to bathe to be considered the best sort of subhumans.

    5. Re:remember Heinlein's assessment? by fido_dogstoyevsky · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I'll see your pig and raise a

      A man should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyse a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialisation is for insects.

      --
      It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
    6. Re:remember Heinlein's assessment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [SIC]

    7. Re:remember Heinlein's assessment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given that maths was not part of standard education in Shakespeare's day, I think it unlikely that he would have been able to cope with much maths. But, in terms of being 'fully human' I would rate Shakespeare well above Heinlein.

      I'd also prefer reading his works....

  28. Closing doors by peteypooh · · Score: 1

    If we stop teaching algebra to all students at the high school or early college level, we are closing certain doors to them. You simply cannot master an entry-level, algebra-based Physics course without geometry and a lot of algebra work. If you can't do that, you cannot major in physics, most engineering subjects, nor math itself. I think economics would be a stretch as well.

    If students (or parents) can choose to not take algebra at the 9th grade level, they are making a de facto decision that they will not study nor work in a STEM field later in life. Age 13 is awfully early to make that choice. They have not even attempted the challenge yet -- they do not know their abilities.

    Even if they do continue in their studies and gain admittance to college, it will almost be a moot point. Their opportunities will have long since been limited.

    1. Re:Closing doors by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't Physics be based on Calculus?

    2. Re:Closing doors by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      You don't (or at least didn't when I took it) need Calculus for High School Physics. Just algebra, geometry and a little bit of basic trig. Once you reach college, you'll need Calculus, but not for the basics.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    3. Re:Closing doors by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      Well, from what I remember, I was taught a bit of integration, a bit of differentiation, and so. It would have made more sense had I known Calculus at the time. Apparently, this is in the grand tradition of physicists not caring about general cases

    4. Re:Closing doors by peteypooh · · Score: 1

      I completely agree -- in fact, I currently teach a calculus-based Physics course. I was trying to get the author the benefit of the doubt -- I understand that other institutions offer algebra-based Physics for pre-med students and the like. It is simply comical to think of doing any real science without algebra.

    5. Re:Closing doors by superwiz · · Score: 1

      You don't need calculus to state Newtonian physics. You need calculus to arrive at Newtonian physics (essentially to rediscover it). But if want to just teach the results without showing how they are derived, you can do it with algebra/geometry/trigonometry.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    6. Re:Closing doors by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      It's akin to geometry without proof-- arbitary and incomplete.

    7. Re:Closing doors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't calculus the one with derivatives?
      If I remember correctly pretty much everything in physics required an understanding of that?
      velocity, acceleration, force, momentum, current probably some others.

    8. Re:Closing doors by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      Not at the high school level. or at least back when I took it. Back then, you learned the various formulae and how to use them. It wasn't until college, when I'd had some Calculus, that I learned how they were derived. Of course, I graduated from high school in '67, so things are probably different now.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
  29. Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There used to be some kid's show my son used to watch, there was a character that was a fanatical Russian Math teacher who used to say, "Without Math, we are nothing but cavemen eating mud!"

  30. Is there a /. department of Ironic Headlines now? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

    Political Science Prof Asks: Is Algebra Necessary?

    That's Political Science.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  31. Everyone wants Excel skills. by Above · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you've been in any large business you realize that it operates primarily on Excel spreadsheets being repeatedly e-mailed back and forth. While many of the folks creating these spreadsheets don't even realize it, each of the cells are little algebraic equations. People often ask "what from math class do you use every day", well algebra is an easy one, people write business formulas in Excel.

    1. Re:Everyone wants Excel skills. by Daniel_Staal · · Score: 2

      Exactly. I'd argue that algebra is probably the minimum required mathematics to be able to handle much of the world today: It's where symbolic math and basic formula skills (not even solving, but just evaluating!) are taught. Without that, you are going to have trouble with any Excel worksheet, any tax form, and numerous other things on a day-to-day basis.

      If someone wants to go into a non-math heavy field and thinks they won't need more than that, ok, I can see the argument - most of what follows is only actually needed in specific fields - but you've got to be able to handle that much.

      --
      'Sensible' is a curse word.
  32. What science? by biodata · · Score: 2

    Politics is not a science except in Asimov stories.

    --
    Korma: Good
    1. Re:What science? by fnj · · Score: 1

      Just because Hari Seldon has not been born yet doesn't mean he never will be. But psychohistory is not really political science.

  33. Theory is necessary by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

    How about we teach math theory from the bottom up instead of teaching students this is a formula and this is when you use it? When you understand a thing rather than having it by rote it will stay with you.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  34. Of Course It Is Necessary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Algebra is one of the fundamental ways to introduce problem solving. It is absolutely necessary: http://pinojo.com/2012/07/29/is-algebra-necessary-absolutely/

  35. As an art student... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...who did reasonably well in math in high school and college, I thought I'd never use it in life. That is, until I began dabbling in 3D programs and learning procedural texturing and animation. I can't imagine life without basic algebra and trigonometry. I was as far left as humanities could go, without needing as much as writing a paper, now I'm finding myself downloading math books and learning new formulas all the time.

  36. Look at the British System by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a Brit living in the US I find the US education system very complex and can understand why some students would give up on education rather than study all the general education requirements all the way through the system. I myself am pretty good at the sciences and anything that can be worked out given some basic information but was terrible at history where I had to simply remember dates and events. If I'd had to do history (and a few other subjects) all the way through school I'd have given up.

    In the British system (of 20 years ago and I hope it's not changed significantly) everybody did general education until 16, with some limited specialization into the subjects that were of most interest, this would have included basic algebra for everybody and more advanced algebra for those with more interest in Maths. After that those students who did not want to continue an academic career could leave school and get apprenticeships and/or training more suited to their chosen profession (e.g. Plumbers who probably do not need or want to know much more than basic algebra).

    From 16 to 18 the rest specialized into 3 or 4 subjects of choice and then from 18 to 21 a single subject at university. We did have to take one class outside the department that meant for the computer science department most students took a maths course.

    The benefits of this in my mind is that at 16 or 18 years old students can leave the academic education system if it is not what they want to do and start working, and those that do continue to University have a bachelors degree by the age of 21 and are ready to work (except of course for those that continue on to do a masters degree).

  37. WTF is this reddit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slashdot has become nothing more than a day old semi-nerd related reddit.

  38. Short answer: yes. by n5vb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Longer answer:

    The fact that anyone felt the need to ask this question says to me that we're doing education wrong in the USA. Very wrong. Fundamentally wrong. Yes, algebra is necessary, possibly more necessary than any other branch of math, because there are so many other fundamentally useful concepts wrapped up in it -- formal logic, proof, and a whole bunch of other basic building blocks of epistemology, not just mathematics -- that IMHO it's crucial to teaching students to think and reason answers and not just churn them out by rote memorization the way they do with arithmetic .. the way we're currently teaching it.

    But why are we approaching the subject as though it's something "hard" that we have to "work" to learn and then question whether the effort is necessary? The only reason we have that view of it is that by the time our kids hit algebra, they've had all the curiosity and fascination for new knowledge hammered out of them, by normalizing their curriculum to death assembly-line style. Arithmetic by addition and multiplication tables and memorization is boring, mind-numbingly so, and any kid who gets through that gauntlet and is still interested in algebra didn't learn his/her math in the classroom, they learned it by exploring and playing around with it and getting a feel for number theory and how arithmetic operators work .. you know, real math, the kind that gets the imagination flowing.

    And if you haven't had curiosity crushed out of you by memorization drills, algebra is fascinating. If you're teaching it right and letting the math itself do the teaching, you'd be hard pressed to stop kids from learning it. Case in point: In my 6th grade math class, a "substitute" (who I'm fairly sure was actually an education researcher experimenting with math teaching methods, but "substitute" was what they called him) came into the class, which was starting on basic algebra, and taught us what turned out to be differentiation by the power rule. I ended up using that one method in every math class I had from then on -- much to the consternation of my teachers who weren't quite sure how to deal with me doing differential calculus on high school algebra tests -- but I also ended up exploring how polynomials went through simpler and simpler derivatives until they ended up as a constant, and then zero, and gained a whole new appreciation for how they worked, and later on, integration and the fundamental theorem of calculus just sort of fell into place. The power rule is still one of my old friends when it comes to math. But I have that "substitute" to thank for most of the algebra I learned on my own because I couldn't get enough of it -- that one little seed sparked a whole adventure that continued to teach me mathematics for decades afterward.

    Granted, I'm a hardcore nerd in a lot of ways, but I'm not entirely sure that's an aspect of who I am and not just an artifact of a society raised on the "math is hard" meme. It's hard, yes, but it's irresistible to a curious mind, and we're all born curious .. it's how we bootstrap every bit of knowledge we gain firsthand about the world. If we stop killing it in the schools, give it a few generations and our PolySci professors wouldn't even think to ask this question..

    1. Re:Short answer: yes. by dagelf · · Score: 0

      Math = building blocks of epistemology? Please explain? I tend to feel there's a missing, more fundamental language. I agree with the rest of your post.

    2. Re:Short answer: yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Longer answer:

      The fact that anyone felt the need to ask this question says to me that we're doing education wrong in the USA. Very wrong. Fundamentally wrong.

      Did you actually read what the professor wrote, or are you going off on what the /. headline says? Why should anyone take you seriously?

    3. Re:Short answer: yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about we just get rid of arithmetic, and skip straight to Algebra?

    4. Re:Short answer: yes. by ZombieBraintrust · · Score: 1

      And the people who drop out because the fail. What about them. Does their education stop because they can't pass algebra? Sorry we can't teach you how to draw until you learn some more math. No history for you learn some more math.

    5. Re:Short answer: yes. by FoolishOwl · · Score: 1

      Great scott. Someone actually got the frakking point of the article.

    6. Re:Short answer: yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Totally agree, math is badly teached.

      Conrad Wolfram and Dan Meyer talked about their views on the matter at TED,

      http://www.ted.com/talks/conrad_wolfram_teaching_kids_real_math_with_computers.html

      http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_meyer_math_curriculum_makeover.html

    7. Re:Short answer: yes. by fineghal · · Score: 1

      Re: Differentiation by the power rule. So I'm assuming he got the whole idea about change across? What were you using differentiation for in your other algebra classes? All I'm coming up with are perp/parr. lines and creating lines given a point and/or a slope etc. Just curious. :-)

    8. Re:Short answer: yes. by avandesande · · Score: 1

      It's funny that you bring this up- I am helping my child with algebra and I have forgot most of what I had learned in HS... but I am relearning everything with little proofs that I write myself. It is actually quite fun and I remember hating the classes from when I was in school.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
  39. wrong by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

    Given how poor people's basic math is, I don't think Algebra is the problem. I'd say if anything there isn't enough focus on math in general and that needs to be improved rather than taking math away.

  40. False comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    The piece specifcially suggests higher math requirements are a problem. It does not suggest math is a problem. Therefore you should have RTFA before you made your dumbass remark.

    1. Re:False comparison by solidraven · · Score: 1

      Well, if that's the case I demand that we in engineering were never forced to take all those stupid management and environmental law subjects. Most of us don't need them and we are able to come up with the ideas mentioned in those courses anyway simply by applying some logic.

    2. Re:False comparison by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      You must have read I different article than I did because I just went back and RTFA'ed and it is obviously an anti-intellectual diatribe.

      Not surprising from a poly sci prof really.

      Algebra a "higher math requirement"? Really? Next you will be advocating that we water down the english lit and composition requirements.

      Here's a situation where a better background in History can provide some perspective on the matter.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  41. Algebra is necessary, and so it statistics by Aidtopia · · Score: 1

    I found this proposal more insightful than questioning the need for teaching algebra. Teach statistics before calculus: http://www.ted.com/talks/arthur_benjamin_s_formula_for_changing_math_education.html

    1. Re:Algebra is necessary, and so it statistics by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      If you stick to discrete distributions, OK, but what about continuous distributions such as the normal distribution? Wouldn't those be easier to describe to students who have had calculus?

  42. Still in the dark ages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This article makes my blood boil. I currently have a job that involves lots of statistics and calculations. However, I did poorly in high school math. I had two successive math teachers that destroyed any appreciation I had for the subject. It took me years and years to get to where I am today: someone who constantly employs math, and specifically ALGEBRA, in their daily activities.

    The reason that kids fail at math these days is because of the ass clowns they have teaching the subject, the way the material is presented, and the attitudes of morons like Dr. Andrew Hacker over here that math really isn't that important.

    Instructor: You factor this problem this way because that's the way everyone does it.
    Policymaker: Yeah we'll continue asking teachers to teach math using the rote method even though every other subject has been designed around creative thinking.
    People who failed math like Andrew Hacker: You don't need math. See how successful we are without it?
    Student: I hate math!

  43. Relevance by Monsuco · · Score: 1

    As a college student myself (and one who is not particularly good at math), I know full and well that math is necessary and, indeed, some algebra is necessary but at some point the issue of relevance must come into play. I'm a computer technician by trade, not a programmer, a technician. I aim to go into system administration. I might need the occasional bits of basic algebra, but thus far, I have yet to encounter any scenario where I've wished I had a better grasp of logarithmic equations.

    The article suggest that perhaps applied uses of mathematics and statistics might be more useful and I totally agree with that assertion. There are plenty of good jobs out there where you don't need to know polynomial equations. I'm not convinced that every Kindergarten teacher needs to know matrices or that every real estate agent needs a firm grasp of conics. I do feel that many American's would benefit from more statistics in lieu of more algebra. Like many Americans, I would much rather be able to understand how variations in market volatility might affect my return on investment than devote more time to inverse functions.

    1. Re:Relevance by vlm · · Score: 1

      I aim to go into system administration

      Depending on how high or low you aim, you'll probably eventually bump up against DeMorgan and related logic rules, and Venn diagrams. Dependencies, things of that nature. Also you need enough glossary knowledge or whatever to at least be able to talk to the programmers about "big O notation" and how you'll scale designs accordingly. To some extent its easier to learn how crypto works, than to try an memorize every little obscure detail of every implementation, so some number theory seems appropriate.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    2. Re:Relevance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you even begin to understand statistics without a thorough understanding of algebra?
      Calculating the mean, correlation, standard deviation, all these things require algebra.

  44. He defeats his own argument by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

    From the article:

    It’s true that students in Finland, South Korea and Canada score better on mathematics tests. But it’s their perseverance, not their classroom algebra, that fits them for demanding jobs.

    WTF? So he's saying that children in these other countries have more perseverance than those in the USA? No, I think not. I think the problem is that children in the USA are being taught more poorly. And assigning blame for that is complicated. It's not necessarily the teachers' fault, but it's likely a whole host of things.

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    1. Re:He defeats his own argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not necessarily the teachers' fault, but it's likely a whole host of things.

      Teacher's unions to a large degree are at fault. That, and the fact that Liberal/Progressives would prefer an ignorant un-/under-educated populace. It makes the population so much easier to exploit and control.

      To Liberal/Progressives, "Idiocracy", "Hunger Games", and "1984" were instruction manuals and glimpses of Liberal/Progressive versions of heaven. That's why US education has been in a steady death-spiral since Liberal/Progressives gained effective control of the US education system in the '50s-'60s.

      That's one of the major reasons why people like Scott Walker of Wisconsin are such a threat to Liberal/Progressives and why they mounted a nationwide effort to defeat/recall one state's governor.

    2. Re:He defeats his own argument by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      It's not necessarily the teachers' fault, but it's likely a whole host of things.

      Teacher's unions to a large degree are at fault. That, and the fact that Liberal/Progressives would prefer an ignorant un-/under-educated populace. It makes the population so much easier to exploit and control.

      To Liberal/Progressives, "Idiocracy", "Hunger Games", and "1984" were instruction manuals and glimpses of Liberal/Progressive versions of heaven. That's why US education has been in a steady death-spiral since Liberal/Progressives gained effective control of the US education system in the '50s-'60s.

      That's one of the major reasons why people like Scott Walker of Wisconsin are such a threat to Liberal/Progressives and why they mounted a nationwide effort to defeat/recall one state's governor.

      It so happens there are teachers' unions in Finland, South Korea and Canada, and the political cultures in those countries are arguably more liberal/progressive than the USA. So much for your overly simplistic argument.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    3. Re:He defeats his own argument by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      It so happens there are teachers' unions in Finland, South Korea and Canada, and the political cultures in those countries are arguably more liberal/progressive than the USA. So much for your overly simplistic argument.

      No, not even close. I hate such specious and ignorant arguments. You've never traveled much, have you?

      You're comparing apples and oranges. Totally different cultures, societies, and histories. The Swiss require every military-aged male to keep a full-military assault rifle in their home. Do you think that would work in the US? Why not? Totally different societies, histories, and cultures is why not.

      So much for your overly idiotic argument.

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    4. Re:He defeats his own argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It so happens there are teachers' unions in Finland, South Korea and Canada, and the political cultures in those countries are arguably more liberal/progressive than the USA. So much for your overly simplistic argument.

      No, not even close. I hate such specious and ignorant arguments. You've never traveled much, have you?

      You're comparing apples and oranges. Totally different cultures, societies, and histories. The Swiss require every military-aged male to keep a full-military assault rifle in their home. Do you think that would work in the US? Why not? Totally different societies, histories, and cultures is why not.

      So much for your overly idiotic argument.

      No, you're as much of an idiot as the OP I replied to.

      It's about intent.

      The US Liberal/Progressive unions intend to collapse the US as a nation. The unions elsewhere do not intend to collapse their nations.

    5. Re:He defeats his own argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It so happens there are teachers' unions in Finland, South Korea and Canada, and the political cultures in those countries are arguably more liberal/progressive than the USA. So much for your overly simplistic argument.

      No, not even close. I hate such specious and ignorant arguments. You've never traveled much, have you?

      You're comparing apples and oranges. Totally different cultures, societies, and histories. The Swiss require every military-aged male to keep a full-military assault rifle in their home. Do you think that would work in the US? Why not? Totally different societies, histories, and cultures is why not.

      So much for your overly idiotic argument.

      No, you're as much of an idiot as the OP I replied to.

      It's about intent.

      The US Liberal/Progressive unions intend to collapse the US as a nation. The unions elsewhere do not intend to collapse their nations.

      Neither of you has dealt with the OP's point, which is that unions and liberal politics are not to blame for low test scores. You want to blame them for the destruction of the country. Debatable, but that's an entirely different topic from the OP. And BlueStrat somehow thinks this topic has something to do with mandatory gun-ownership in Switzerland. Both of you, take your debate somewhere else.

    6. Re:He defeats his own argument by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      Neither of you has dealt with the OP's point, which is that unions and liberal politics are not to blame for low test scores. You want to blame them for the destruction of the country. Debatable, but that's an entirely different topic from the OP. And BlueStrat somehow thinks this topic has something to do with mandatory gun-ownership in Switzerland. Both of you, take your debate somewhere else.

      You missed the point. He mentioned that teacher's unions existed in other countries and don't have such a deleterious effect. I used the Swedish example to illustrate my point that different cultures are...well...different, and different results come from nearly-identical situations depending on the society, culture, etc.

      Teacher's unions in the US *DO* have a negative effect on student test scores, as teacher's unions protect and retain bad teachers with more seniority over good teachers and block voucher programs to allow students to escape failed schools for just two examples.

      If you're unable to grasp the conversation, whether from poor reading/comprehension skills or pure laziness, perhaps *you* should heed your own advice.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    7. Re:He defeats his own argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neither of you has dealt with the OP's point, which is that unions and liberal politics are not to blame for low test scores. You want to blame them for the destruction of the country. Debatable, but that's an entirely different topic from the OP. And BlueStrat somehow thinks this topic has something to do with mandatory gun-ownership in Switzerland. Both of you, take your debate somewhere else.

      You missed the point. He mentioned that teacher's unions existed in other countries and don't have such a deleterious effect.

      No, the other AC did not say that. He said that US unions are trying to "collapse the US as a nation" and non-US unions are not. It's impossible to have a rational discussion with someone who holds such an irrational extremist unsubstantiated premise. The OP apparently tried and gave up.

      I used the Swedish example to illustrate my point that different cultures are...well...different, and different results come from nearly-identical situations depending on the society, culture, etc.

      That was Switzerland, not Sweden. Whatever...

      Switzerland has no army. A militia of conscripted males in their 20s serve to protect the country, and for logistic reasons they keep their weapons at home. Arms are issued by the military and the use of ammunition is monitored closely. I would hardly call this a "nearly-identical situation" to the USA. You are the one comparing apples and oranges.

      Teacher's unions in the US *DO* have a negative effect on student test scores, as teacher's unions protect and retain bad teachers with more seniority over good teachers and block voucher programs to allow students to escape failed schools for just two examples.

      Teachers' unions, in all of the countries in this discussion, negotiate for many things that can improve students' test-scores, such as lower class-sizes, more lesson-preparation time, materials support, professional development, and general defense of the teaching profession so that it remains an attractive career path for talented individuals.

      If you're unable to grasp the conversation, whether from poor reading/comprehension skills or pure laziness, perhaps *you* should heed your own advice.

      Strat

      If all you have left is ad hominem then you have lost the argument.

  45. One of my Physics professors once said by portforward · · Score: 2

    if you have to add the word "science" it probably isn't. Biology? Science. Chemistry? Science. Physics? Science. Political science? Not so much.

    The Newton/Leibniz invention of integral and differential calculus rates as one of the very greatest achievements of all time. It ranks as high as any work of literature or art. I don't know if someone could not be considered educated if they haven't studied it, let alone pass algebra.

    1. Re:One of my Physics professors once said by MicroSlut · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Politics is an art. To analyze politics is a science. Political Science is not the practice of politics; it is the study of politics. Appending Science to the name differentiates the two. Your Physics professor sounds like a douche.

    2. Re:One of my Physics professors once said by ZombieBraintrust · · Score: 1

      So if i study Pokemon I can claim to be a Pokemon Scientist? Everyone who attends college is studying things. That doesn't make everything science.

    3. Re:One of my Physics professors once said by MicroSlut · · Score: 1

      If they teach Pokémon Science at your University, you can claim to be a Pokémon Scientist after the dissection lab. And, yes, it does make everything Science. Please look up the meaning(s) of Science. Most of my Political Science courses had very little to do with the practice of Politics and much to do with pure forms of government and theory, which are the principles of politics. Practicing anything can be an art. Analyzing anything is science.

    4. Re:One of my Physics professors once said by Missing.Matter · · Score: 1

      Computer Science?

    5. Re:One of my Physics professors once said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Computer Science. :)

    6. Re:One of my Physics professors once said by ZombieBraintrust · · Score: 1

      I would argue that Science is more than analysis. It is a paticular kind of anaysis that adheres to the scientific method. Analyis that involves observation and experiments. I haven't taken many political science courses in college so I won't argue it is not a science. But I can say with certianty that I am not a Pokémon Scientist.

    7. Re:One of my Physics professors once said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about computer science? What an illogical statement for an advocate of mathematics.

    8. Re:One of my Physics professors once said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about Computer Science?

    9. Re:One of my Physics professors once said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Computer Science?

      As Tom Lehrer would put it, That's Mathematics!

  46. The answer to the real question by Borg+Bucolic · · Score: 1

    When my students ask me, "When am I ever going to use this in my real life?"

    I reply, "Right now, right here, you need it to graduate high school."

    I have never understood why people consider school life, or any other part of life, not real life.

    1. Re:The answer to the real question by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      I reply, "Right now, right here, you need it to graduate high school."

      Yuck. Really?

      Why learn to draw or paint? Why do woodshop? Why read books? Why write stories? Why make things? Why learn to run well or kick a ball or swim a mile? Why look at the animals in a pond? Why dissect a pig's eye? Why burn stuff or make things fizz, stink or explode? Why learn to speak French?

      If the answer to any of those is "you need it to graduate high school", then you have managed to suffocate the life out of the subject.

      You don't need maths to live. You don't need any of those things, and most people will never need the majority of them.

      I have never understood why people consider school life, or any other part of life, not real life.

      Because it is not. It is a weird, artificial construct that has next to no bearing on what happens next and most people seem very pleased to leave behind. School kids are kids, and as such they look forward to growing up and moving on. That is not only natural but healthy: they should want to grow. That is why they do not consider school real life because they can't wait to get at what lies beyond.

      You have managed to resuce essentially all interesting subjects to "do it you need it because because I say you do".

      Yuck.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    2. Re:The answer to the real question by Borg+Bucolic · · Score: 1

      Quote: You have managed to resuce essentially all interesting subjects to "do it you need it because because I say you do".

      That's just the point. In life, you are expected to do things that you may not understand a need for or may never use in any other context. The point is that is real life, realistic or not. It isn't because I said you have to do anything. In fact, I'm fine if you don't. You can realize the consequence of your actions, good or bad. And yes, you do need maths to live. You may not realize that the contexts are different. The moment you approximate, count, consider the amount of something, or predict the outcomes of possible actions you have applied the skills (logic of enumeration) of maths.

      Yes. I realize that school life is a weird artificial construct. I also realize a vast majority of people experience it, like a great number of weird artificial constructs such as governments, television, and etcetera. That is also life, real life, you experienced it, artificially constructed or not.

  47. Mathematics is just learning to reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would we end up with a society where everyone was an expert at something, rather than a society where everyone has a little knowledge everywhere but no real spectacular skill?

    Without reasoning skills, you cannot be an "expert" at anything except non-reasoned subjects. And even in those subjects you would only be an "expert" on your own say-so, or on the say-so of equally irrational peers, so how much is that worth to society? All objective measures of merit are based on reasoning.

    So no, there is no alternative in a modern society to learning to reason, and mathematics is the principle discipline which teaches you to reason accurately.

    Advanced mathematics may not be required of everyone, but there is a basic minimum which lies substantially above simple arithmetic which is needed if one is to contribute usefully to a modern and ever more complex technical society, even for mostly non-technical professions. Which particular topics are most useful is a worthy matter for discussion, but not the omission of essential foundations to rational thought, of which basic algebra is one.

    A side thought for you: the less competence in reasoning that you have, the more people will take advantage of you. Don't wish that on your or friends or descendents.

  48. In related news. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    . . . Algebra Prof Asks: Is Political Science Necessary?

  49. Algebra in college? by nukem996 · · Score: 1

    I learned algebra in middle school not college. At least where I went to college calculus was the first college level math. Anything lower didn't even count toward your math credits.

  50. I'm an English professor by supercrisp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And I use algebra constantly. And knowledge of algebra is necessary for my spreadsheet grade books. And geometric proofs gave me some of the most pleasurable homework/classroom experiences in my K-12 education. I honestly don't think it hurts anyone, everyone, to learn algebra. Maybe calculus is taking it a bit far for _everyone_, but not everyone even takes algebra, so this guy is basically doing the high-brow version of trolling. If anything, I'd say we need MORE math, but of a simpler, more applied variety, like calculating compound interest, household budgets, calories, bills, and so on. But the need for more simple stuff doesn't mean we don't want people to at least have a taste of higher abstract thought and fricking reasoning. God knows, we could do with more reasoning.

    1. Re:I'm an English professor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A population dumbing down by poor education is easier to control.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism

    2. Re:I'm an English professor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The stupid thing to me is that people say:
      Oh I never use algebra, or I never use calculus.
      But they use it all the time without even knowing it.
      They just don't see the relation between what they are doing and algebra.
      It's all just rote memorization. If the question doesn't come in the form of an equation it's not math.

    3. Re:I'm an English professor by istartedi · · Score: 1

      IMHO, "applied math" is a cop-out. We need better ways to teach the theory. There is a book that is decades old called "Calculus made easy". It might be out of print; but it was available deep in the stacks of the UVa library. Finding that book was some kind of godsend. In it, they lay out the fundamental theorem of calculus that relates summation and integrals. They somehow managed to do it in a way that gave me that "ah-ha!" experience. I owe the author an excellent grade on a test that, IIRC, counted for something like 30% of my grade. He (almost certainly a man given the age of the book) is probably dead though.

      Oh wow, I got curious enough to google it before hitting post: Silvanus P. Thompson is the author, and yep, he wrote it in 1910 which makes it 102 years old. It's apparently regarded highly enough to still be in print too, which is a nice surprise.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  51. philosophy by VValdo · · Score: 2

    But it's not easy to see why potential poets and philosophers face a lofty mathematics bar

    Spoken like a man who has never taken a philosophy class...

    --
    -------------------
    This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    1. Re:philosophy by grcumb · · Score: 1

      ... or written a poem, for that matter. Make fun of those head in the cloud aesthetes all you like, but until you realise the depth of abstraction required to really grasp what Keats was saying when he wrote, 'truth is beauty, and beauty truth' you don't deserve to comment.

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
  52. No, but... by pubwvj · · Score: 1

    No, algebra isn't necessary. Many people get along just fine without it. My wife never uses it and says it was a waste of time to force feed to her in school. I on the other hand find algebra very easy as do all of our kids. My kids and I all use algebra on a daily for non-school work. My wife doesn't need it and it doesn't come natural to her. It comes natural to our sons, daughter and I and we use it all the time. Probably my wife would use it if it was easy for her but she also doesn't "need" it.

    1. Re:No, but... by ledow · · Score: 1

      The reason she doesn't "need" it is because she can't do it and, thus, presumably avoids it.

      Self-fulfilling prophecies are rarely useful. It's like saying that nobody using Firefox comes to your website, so it's not worth trying to make it work in Firefox.

      Algebra isn't something that magically appears out of life if you're not looking for it but something that, if you know how to use it, makes life easier. Hell, I just used it, and trigonometry, and geometry, but I was laying a floor in an attic at the time so maybe that's a primarily "male" pursuit. But if I didn't know how to use them, I could still have laid the floor, it just might have been a bit uglier, I might have used more board, or had to make more estimates and cuts than I did.

      Algebra isn't necessary, but then nor is knowing how to read, write or count. People exist without all those skills and exist perfectly happily. The question is how much easier would that knowledge make their life.

      Given that, in most education systems, maths, language and science form the majority of the timetable (by VAST amounts), there's likely to be something there to be inferred about their relevance. On the other hand, do kids really need a bunch of inadequate teachers showing them how to use Word - in my experience, working IT in schools, the answer is no.

    2. Re:No, but... by pubwvj · · Score: 1

      No, not at all. She simply doesn't have things she needs to use algebra for. I know of plenty of people who don't need or use algebra, some who can do algebra quite well. This exact topic has come up for discussion among friends and many of them said they don't really use algebra in the real world, e.g., not school situations.

      Those of us doing engineering and science tend to use algebra a lot making us have a math-centric view of the world. But a whole lot of people don't use math very much. Fortunately there is room for both.

      I do think it is important to expose students to things such as algebra, history, writing, etc so they can learn the basic concepts and find out what they are good at and enjoy. What isn't necessary is to push everyone beyond the basics if they don't want it.

      What some people seem to forget is just because you don't study something now doesn't mean you can't go back and learn it later. Life is learning, for most of us.

    3. Re:No, but... by Dazzadowling · · Score: 1

      I would contend that she does use algebra but she merely does not recognise it as such

      Algebra essentially is "finding the missing thing" and it can be as simple as working out what your change is when you go shopping (as well as a million and one other examples).

      People think that because they dont sit down with a pencil and paper and scribble some funny symbols they are not doing maths when in actual fact they are using those skills (maybe innate skills) all day, every day.

  53. Algebra or trig? by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 1

    The subjects taught at school are chosen by... drum roll please... medieval custom.

    That is to say, we study the subjects we do not because they are essential or useful, but because they are part of a "classical" education and we've always taught that way.

    Algebra is the foundation of all the rest of mathematics, so in a sense it's the first thing one would teach outside of basic arithmetic (add, subtract, multiply, divide).

    Rather than algebra, let's consider trigonometry.

    No one would argue that trigonometry isn't important, but wouldn't probability be more useful? The ability to judge the likelihood of something, or the potential payout?

    No one would argue that geometry isn't important, but how about [personal] economics, or statistics? The ability to read and understand the results of a scientific study, or a political speech, or just to understand whether maxing out your credit card is a good idea.

    There's lots of things we *should* be teaching children, but instead we load them up with esoteric subjects simply because that's the way we've always done it - for over 600 years.

    1. Re:Algebra or trig? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is to say, we study the subjects we do not because they are essential or useful, but because they are part of a "classical" education and we've always taught that way.

      I'm guessing your "classical" education considered punctuation neither useful nor essential.

    2. Re:Algebra or trig? by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      The subjects taught at school are chosen by... drum roll please... medieval custom.

      Analytic geometry (taught in Algebra I) was not developed until the 17th century; and the use of parameters in algebra dates only to the late 1500s. Latin isn't a big subject today.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trivium_(education)

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadrivium

      Of the seven subjects in the two curricula, grammar, geometry, music, and arithmetic are commonly taught; logic, rhetoric, and astronomy, not so much. The other natural sciences (physics, chemistry, and biology) were not part of these, nor was history.

    3. Re:Algebra or trig? by fatphil · · Score: 1

      How do you do geometry without algebra? I can't believe the mesopotamians weren't calculating the number of workers needed to plough a field with certain dimensions? (Even if they were using the wrong formulae and constants.) Solving Rate.n = Area for n is algebra requiring parameters.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    4. Re:Algebra or trig? by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      One can do algebra geometrically, a la Euclid, Book II.

  54. screw him by paiute · · Score: 1

    I am offended that he and his kind pretend to be scientists.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
  55. George Bush knows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    George bush, once our esteemated leader, said it best "Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?" Does they learn math? Does they learn political science? Does hard things make our childrens sad?

  56. graduation rates by Khashishi · · Score: 1

    Too many kids are dropping out of school. The logic is clear; we could have fewer kids dropping out we don't require them to learn anything.

  57. Please RTFA before commenting by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1

    I.e., don't ascribe to Prof. Hacker, based purely on the title or summary of the /. post (or on your prejudices about education, political science, political scientists, politics, politicians, or people who can't prove that (x^2 + y^2)^2 = (x^2 - y^2)^2 + (2xy)^2), views that he does not, in fact, hold. Thank you.

    1. Re:Please RTFA before commenting by Pezbian · · Score: 1

      ... (x^2 + y^2)^2 = (x^2 - y^2)^2 + (2xy)^2) ...

      I wish the hell I could understand that just looking at it. And I'm not even joking.

      I'm in my 30s now. I'm starting to see big gaps in my skill set.

      --
      In a world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king--and the two-eyed man is a heretic.
    2. Re:Please RTFA before commenting by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 1

      " What of the claim that mathematics sharpens our minds and makes us more intellectually adept as individuals and a citizen body? It's true that mathematics requires mental exertion. But there's no evidence that being able to prove (x² + y²)² = (x² - y²)² + (2xy)² leads to more credible political opinions or social analysis."

      It seems to me that you can't tell the difference in the opinions of people who read his stance and those that read the title... since it summarizes the article nicely.

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    3. Re:Please RTFA before commenting by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 1

      Also, I would like to point out that Hack's (sic) article, other than the statistic showing students tend to not do well in math, was full of loose correlations, statistics not related to his points, or anecdotal evidence.

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    4. Re:Please RTFA before commenting by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1

      ... (x^2 + y^2)^2 = (x^2 - y^2)^2 + (2xy)^2) ...

      I wish the hell I could understand that just looking at it. And I'm not even joking.

      I'm in my 30s now. I'm starting to see big gaps in my skill set.

      Well, one gap might just be "unfamiliarity with the notation used in some programming languages for exponentiation"; x^2 is "x squared" in, for example, BASIC (and that might sort-of come from ALGOL, if I'm remembering correctly that up-arrow in early versions of ASCII became caret). In FORTRAN and some other languages, it would be x**2. As somebody whose first high-level programming language was FORTRAN, I'm not sure why I tend to use the ALGOLish/BASIC convention, perhaps because it's one fewer character, or perhaps because I suspect (perhaps incorrectly) that more people would be familiar with it. (See the "in programming languages" section of the Wikipedia article on exponentiation for the syntax for exponentiation in various programming languages.)

      I tried just copying and pasting that from Hacker's article (and checked it, to make sure nobody ended up saying "ha, ha, see, that dumb political science professor can't do algebra!" - yes, they really are equal), and it didn't work. I was too lazy to try digging up HTML entities for the superscript-2 character, and didn't know whether that would work everywhere, so I just fell back on ^2.

    5. Re:Please RTFA before commenting by OneAhead · · Score: 1

      I speculate GP just made up an equation that is quite easy to prove, but otherwise pointless, presumably to make a point about people who speak or act based on prejudice about people who cannot prove pointless equations. It would, however, have been helpful if GP would have hit reply on the post he was replying to instead of on the /. summary; without context, his post appears just slightly more random than mine. Or is that because we're both playing the "parse this sentence" game?

    6. Re:Please RTFA before commenting by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1

      " What of the claim that mathematics sharpens our minds and makes us more intellectually adept as individuals and a citizen body? It's true that mathematics requires mental exertion. But there's no evidence that being able to prove (x + y&#178;)&#178; = (x&#178; - y&#178;)&#178; + (2xy)&#178; leads to more credible political opinions or social analysis." It seems to me that you can't tell the difference in the opinions of people who read his stance and those that read the title... since it summarizes the article nicely.

      It "summarizes" it but omits Hacker's repeated insistence that mathematics is important (so the opinions of people who actually read the entire article would not use "Mathematics is nothing less than the upmost tool of rationality. Lose it, and all progress decays." as if they were stating something opposite to what he's saying, given that Prof. Hacker said "Peter Braunfeld of the University of Illinois tells his students, “Our civilization would collapse without mathematics.” He’s absolutely right." in his article.

      I.e., several posters fired up their blowtorches and set fire to a strawman bearing no resemblance to Prof. Hacker. I think his essay is worthy of further discussion and research (on both sides, including the opposing side), but that's not possible if you think he's saying nothing more than "math class is hard, let's go shopping!"

      (I also wonder whether it was phrased as "Political Science Prof Asks: Is Algebra Necessary?" rather than "Should We Require Algebra For College Admission?" solely to provoke squealing outbursts of nerd rage, but that's another matter. Yes, it's true that Prof. Hacker is a political scientist, and, yes, it's true that he's asking whether algebra should be necessary for college education, but arguing that it's sort-of technically accurate, modulo his point not being that nobody needs algebra, doesn't mean that's the best choice of headline - I'm not sure how relevant his profession is to the discussion, especially given that he says "I say this as a writer and social scientist whose work relies heavily on the use of numbers.")

    7. Re:Please RTFA before commenting by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1

      Also, I would like to point out that Hack's (sic) article

      You're not quoting somebody who gave his name as "Hack", so "(sic)" is inappropriate there. ("Is learning proper word/abbreviation usage necessary?") It's appropriate in my response, as it indicates that I didn't call him "Hack", you did.

      other than the statistic showing students tend to not do well in math, was full of loose correlations, statistics not related to his points, or anecdotal evidence.

      And doesn't discuss anything outside the US in any depth, which is my biggest problem with it. Yeah, he says

      It’s true that students in Finland, South Korea and Canada score better on mathematics tests. But it’s their perseverance, not their classroom algebra, that fits them for demanding jobs.

      and

      That sort of collaboration has long undergirded German apprenticeship programs. I fully concur that high-tech knowledge is needed to sustain an advanced industrial economy. But we’re deluding ourselves if we believe the solution is largely academic.

      but just says that in passing, which is why, although I think it's a good starting point for discussion (and not just something to be dismissed, especially by people who couldn't be bothered to RTFA), it's far from a definitive statement. I think the question "should we require algebra for high-school graduation or college admission?" is worth asking, even if the answer ends up being "hell, yes!" Even if that is the answer, you might learn something about how to teach algebra (and other parts of math) in the process.

    8. Re:Please RTFA before commenting by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1

      I speculate GP just made up an equation that is quite easy to prove, but otherwise pointless, presumably to make a point about people who speak or act based on prejudice about people who cannot prove pointless equations.

      If by "GP" you mean "the person who made this post", he did not make up the equation, he copied it from Prof Hacker's article and pasted it into his posting (and converted it to use BASIC-style syntax for exponentiation because he didn't trust it to survive Slashdot's posting tools otherwise - just pasting it definitely didn't work, and at least one person quoting me tried using HTML entities without success, either, although maybe they just did it wrong), so, no, he didn't make it up.

      It would, however, have been helpful if GP would have hit reply on the post he was replying to instead of on the /. summary; without context, his post appears just slightly more random than mine. Or is that because we're both playing the "parse this sentence" game?

      He wasn't replying to a post. He was, in effect, replying to a whole crapload of posts in which people seemed to think Prof. Hacker was saying math, or algebra, was completely useless, which, as anybody who Read The Fucking Article would see, is not what he was saying.

  58. What if you actually WANT and NEED to learn Math.. by Pezbian · · Score: 2

    .. but got stuck between the balls and anus of public education, landing right square on the taint?

    I was doing Trig since my Freshman year of HS due to Electronics courses, but the actual Math department stuff had me topping out at Geometry, which came before Trig in the curriculum pecking order, followed by Precal and Calc. I was busting out sine, cosine, and tangent three years before I was supposed to and ended up being marked down on my grade because of it.

    The worst part is I missed some of the simple stuff due to the cookie cutter approach not being adaptable to my unique situation. I still don't understand "opposite operations" intuitively or otherwise.

    "Show your work"... indeed. Goddamn drudgery when you can bash out a QBASIC program that solves it for you in maybe half an hour as opposed to staying up til 2AM only to fall asleep in class.

    And then I'm told Calculus negates basically everything prior to it. I just end up glazing over the moment I see Greek alphabet most of the time.

    There are secrets and keys to understanding hidden in all that shit. And I want to know it, but I'm left with only small pieces of the story with no clue what I'm missing or where to pick it up and fill in the gaps. It's incredibly frustrating and the shortcomings of the assembly line approach to education drive me bonkers.

    --
    In a world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king--and the two-eyed man is a heretic.
  59. College algebra doesn't teach math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I am teaching college algebra this summer, as a math graduate student, and I've come to the conclusion that the students are barely learning math. Mathematics is about problem solving and the extremely, logical reasoning inherent in the proof-theorem structure of mathematics.

    Students don't learn problem solving. Word problems are too hard for them, so they need to be held by the hand. Nor can they learn general principles and apply them on their own without a recipe given to them. They are confused if you present an alternative way of solving a problem using the same principles they are learning, but not "by the book".

    The beautiful elegance in precision of argument in proofs is also not conveyed in these courses. I tell my students that in mathematics, the answer to a problem is not a number boxed in at the end of the page, but everything you write down on your piece of paper. You are a lawyer, but with a very picky judge, who won't stand for anything else but a tight argument. Highschool geometry is intended to convey this aspect of math, but I am doubtful it works, and their is no reason to convey to students that geometry is the only subject that has proofs.

    Because of what is lacking in these courses, the general public doesn't understand what I do as a graduate student, or what my professors do either.

  60. Not if you want to serve coffee for a living by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

    For anything else you can't do statistics in any college level major which is a requirement (unless you do humanities). You also can't do chemistry or any science course because you can't interpret a graph. Infact, you can't even do a simple presentation in the workforce as a graph wont make any sense without knowing what an x,y, independent variable and so on.

    But since the middle class is going down the crap shoot then say know as counting change for the cash register for minimum wage is the wave of the future.

    What a stupid topic ...

  61. This is the best comment respond to. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've used so much algebra and geometry in my daily life: work, home improvement projects, cooking, .....

    And many times working on a project, you'll read how to do something in a book that doesn't quite fit your situation but I know the math behind it and with a little calculation, it fits my needs.

    I am not a math person. I wasn't good at it and I had to white knuckle my way all the way through Calc I.

    Political Science - I have never - ever - have had a need for that. I just need basic civics to know how my government works; which would just require a quick google to find out how it works. Most people can't do that with math - it takes years of study and building on skills building on skills building on yet more skills.

  62. non-core classes by i.r.id10t · · Score: 1

    How about we eliminate non-core classes from degree requirements? Why is that as a comp sci student I have to take any classes in the sociology/humanities area? I can see having electives, but why does X number of elective credits have to come from those departments?

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    1. Re:non-core classes by mbone · · Score: 1

      How about we eliminate non-core classes from degree requirements? Why is that as a comp sci student I have to take any classes in the sociology/humanities area? I can see having electives, but why does X number of elective credits have to come from those departments?

      Partially to (try and) teach you how to think, partially to (try and) provide us all with a common set of shared memes, so we can maybe understand one another, and (of course) partially to justify their existence.

  63. Ask not what math can do for politics... by dagelf · · Score: 0

    Ask what politics can do for math! It's not about the math... it's about the nose-in-the-air attitude of most of the formally educated.

  64. Algebra 2 predicts success by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Algebra I is the tipping point between the lowest tier of jobs and the top two tiers of well-paid and highly paid jobs. Those students who take a math course that is more difficult than algebra I tip the scales in favor of a good job, as they are more likely than average to be working in a top- or middle-tier job. Likewise, students who took less difficult courses were more likely than average to end up in lower-tier jobs.

    Connecting Education Standards and Employment: Course-taking Patterns of Young Workers
    By Anthony P. Carnevale and Donna M. Desrochers Educational Testing Service (Sorry for the lack of a decent link. Google is being a pita when linking to PDFs.)

    Most of the college courses I teach don't make extensive use of advanced algebra. The best predictor of success in those courses is, however, high school algebra.

    It's obviously not the algebra, per se, it's something else, like work habits for instance. How about: Students who are too lazy to take Algebra 2 don't do as well as those who do take Algebra 2.

  65. Algebra is necessary.. by Junta · · Score: 1

    If he had made the argument about Calculus, maybe, but Algebra is too frequently valuable. Even vague recollections of some pre-calculus lessons at least somewhat help people navigate the trappings of banking offerings.

    The thing that strikes me:

    To our nation’s shame, one in four ninth graders fail to finish high school.

    The implication being that our nation, in comparison to others, has a lower rate of high school completion than other nations. His answer would be to lower the bar. While this very myopically could improve the very specific metric, we could acheive the same thing by giving out high school diplomas to any toddler that can reliably count to 10. Of course, the fact that the world rapidly adjusts to reflect the american high school diploma as less valuable is conveniently ignored.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  66. Political Science is not science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why should we any credence to someone whose own specialty is fraudulently titled?

  67. Student failing? Lower requirments! by Dunge · · Score: 0

    I saw this technique used a few times, but to remove completely one of the pillar of education? AH!

  68. Algebra is the only exposure many kids get to... by divisionbyzero · · Score: 1

    logic. Most high schools don't or won't include logic in their curriculum and so logic's cousin mathematics has to serve double duty. So, if you want kids to be devoid of any experience with logic and even more irrational than they already are, then sure get rid of algebra.

  69. So how does that work out for Brown University? by NotSoHeavyD3 · · Score: 1

    Since it's my understanding they don't have distribution requirements, IE you could theoretically avoid algebra or any other class if you really wanted to do so.

    --
    Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
  70. Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd say it's necessary for most professions except political "science".

  71. Professors are obsolete by gavron · · Score: 1

    Do we really need to be taught by lumbering dinosaurs who have reached their tenured position
    only through hidining below the radar, pubilshing papers instead of teaching, and who don't
    understand the "modern" aspects of algebra, CAI, and office-time?

    Clearly not. It's time to remove the onerous obligations of students to have to put up with these
    dinosaurs, and eliminate "teach for the sake of having a free lifetime job" from the manual. If
    you love to teach, teach. If you'd like to do research, find a grant and research. If all you want
    to do is avoid students and kvetch about how "some other department with whom I have a feud
    in my mind" is valueless, go get a job. A real job. One where if you screw up or don't do anything
    you get fired.

    Then from atop that dais come preach to us how other people are teaching useless things.

    E

    1. Re:Professors are obsolete by rbmyers · · Score: 1

      Perhaps we could put our collective wisdom to the task of finding ways to weed out people like the author of the article earlier.

  72. Politics in the USA is void of logic by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    Figures that is is a US Poly Sci prof who argues learning basic math logic is a waste of money.

  73. A Mathematician's Lament by mdmkolbe · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's the unintuitive ways in which it's taught ... that is the problem

    Lockhart put this quite elegantly in his A Mathematician's Lament. Treating math as a rote subject (as it is now) is the moral equivalent teaching art as paint by numbers.

    1. Re:A Mathematician's Lament by dcollins · · Score: 1

      I very much disagree with Lockhart's renowned piece. Let's just stick with the subject of algebra (as identified in the NY Times article today). Yes, the vast majority of community college students (for example) fail out due to inability to pass this one subject.

      From my perspective, the analogy is this: Basic numerical handling (decimals, percents) is just learning the symbols of math, equivalent to letters of the alphabet. Basic algebra (variables, order of operations, relations of operations, being able using a formula) is equivalent to the grammar of math, very similar to when I took 7th grade English and was drilled on identifying parts of speech, diagramming sentences, etc. You need this stuff before you can even read any useful modern anything, before you can have a conversation about anything interesting mathematically. I don't see any way to teach letters-of-the-alphabet (number notation) or grammatical-sentence-structure (algebraic variables & operational relations) that can usefully pretend to be discovering this stuff for the first time or training people to be researchers. The notation really is arbitrary, and simply has to be learned and cemented before meaningful literature/conversations (math) can take place. It is this level that Prof. Hacker is disputing as necessary; the one thing he's right about is that the majority of our fellow citizens are demonstrably unable to succeed at it today.

      Likewise, my girlfriend is currently learning Chinese for the first time. She simply has to spend hours every week learning new vocal tones, vocabulary, and drilling writing characters over and over again to ingrain them. It's simply fallacious to pretend that it's unnecessary to do the grunt work of initially learning new (and arbitrary) symbols and structure for any new language.

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    2. Re:A Mathematician's Lament by Mr+Z · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up. I came here to post Lockhart's Lament.

      And, I happen to disagree with dcollins's reply to your comment. It's perfectly possible to be erudite without knowing what a gerund is, how to diagram participles, etc. It's also perfectly possible to have interesting mathematical insight without the rigor. It's also perfectly possible to make interesting music without a degree in music theory.

      The formality does help when it comes time to refine your craft. But, it's a barrier to entry that's wasted on most people. You have to appreciate the art of and wonder mathematics before it makes sense to dive into the full formality.

    3. Re:A Mathematician's Lament by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      I very much disagree with Lockhart's renowned piece.

      Why?

      Basic numerical handling (decimals, percents) is just learning the symbols of math, equivalent to letters of the alphabet.

      Except that that is not actually correct. It's learning to manipulate the symbols of one particular branch of maths. You can do plenty of maths without arithemtic and percentages. In fact it won't help with geopetry for instance. Or boolean logic (I used to love messing around with logic gates when I was a kid. I never thought of it as maths, but it is).

      I'm not denying that being able to work with numbers is useful, and understanding percentages is handy, but that is not what much of maths is about.

      very similar to when I took 7th grade English and was drilled on identifying parts of speech, diagramming sentences, etc. You need this stuff before you can even read any useful modern anything, before you can have a conversation about anything interesting mathematically. I don't see any way to teach letters-of-the-alphabet (number notation) or

      I, personally think you have disproven yourself with that claim. You were already fluent by year 7. You could already happily write new stories. You didn't have to be drilled in the minutae of sentance structure to do those things.

      Likewise, you don't have to have memorised massive multiplication tables to do geometry or understand or probe Pythagorus's theorem. In fact, Pythagorus proved it before algebra or positional number systems even existed.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    4. Re:A Mathematician's Lament by loserMcloser · · Score: 1

      You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how teaching & learning works. Rote and memorization are essential first steps --- get the techniques down, so that you can free up your higher-level reasoning for understanding. You will never understand math if you can't do math.

      I guess you would also ask sports coaches to stop doing drills in their practice sessions?

      -- Doing practice lay-ups and free-throws over and over is so boring, let's just explain to the kids how to do them, and then throw them into a game.

      -- Practicing your swimming strokes is so boring, let's just explain to the kids how to swim, and then throw them in the pool and the swim meet, and they'll do just great.

      Yeah, right.

      Your analogy about painting is way off, as well. Have you never heard of artists practicing techniques by copying works by the masters? Never seen an art student in a museum with a sketchbook in hand?

      The problem with most students is that they expect to be taught, but they don't expect to have to put any effort themselves into learning. Then, when they don't learn, it must have been the teacher's fault...

    5. Re:A Mathematician's Lament by dcollins · · Score: 1

      Except that that is not actually correct. It's learning to manipulate the symbols of one particular branch of maths. You can do plenty of maths without arithemtic and percentages. In fact it won't help with geopetry for instance. Or boolean logic (I used to love messing around with logic gates when I was a kid. I never thought of it as maths, but it is). I'm not denying that being able to work with numbers is useful, and understanding percentages is handy, but that is not what much of maths is about.

      Saying that numbers are "the symbols of one particular branch of maths" is pretty much the total opposite of their actual status. Numbers are everywhere except for limited niche purposes. It's necessary for any writing or applications in the modern world, like calculus, probability, statistics, etc. Logic is a prerequisite to math but not included in math (e.g., where I went to school it was taught in the philosophy department). Geometry, your example, was initiated by concerns of length, area, volume, etc.

      I, personally think you have disproven yourself with that claim. You were already fluent by year 7. You could already happily write new stories. You didn't have to be drilled in the minutae of sentance structure to do those things. Likewise, you don't have to have memorised massive multiplication tables to do geometry or understand or probe Pythagorus's theorem. In fact, Pythagorus proved it before algebra or positional number systems even existed.

      You can achieve a novice-level of functionality at a natural language; to go further, to engage in conversations on how to debug pieces of writing, to be understood without expecting others to spend great effort filling in your gaps, you need to understand the grammar of the language. (As an aside, you've got at least 9 misspellings in the piece of text I've quoted from you so far.)

      Your facts about Pythagoras are, like, way off. Positional number systems (using 60's as on our clocks and angle measurements) were used in ancient Babylon (~3000 BC) thousands of years before Pythagoras (~500 BC); in fact, Babylonian tablets exist showing the values for Pythagorean triples all those centuries earlier. Other comments on Pythagoras: (1) The Pythagorean theorem is fundamentally about a notion of area; if you don't understand that as a quantity I can't imagine how the theorem is meaningful; (2) if you want to work on the Pythagorean theorem as he did, in words and without algebraic symbols, be my guest, but it's so immensely inefficient you'll spend your whole life and no one else will be able to communicate with you; and (3) the Pythagoreans were deeply interested in issues of number -- in fact, their entire philosophy revolved around it, and their single most earth-shaking discovery was that a certain triangle must have an irrationally-valued side:

      "In ancient Greece the Pythagoreans considered the role of numbers in geometry. However, the discovery of incommensurable lengths, which contradicted their philosophical views, made them abandon abstract numbers in favor of concrete geometric quantities, such as length and area of figures. Numbers were reintroduced into geometry in the form of coordinates by Descartes, who realized that the study of geometric shapes can be facilitated by their algebraic representation, and whom the Cartesian plane is named after. Analytic geometry applies methods of algebra to geometric questions, typically by relating geometric curves and algebraic equations. These ideas played a key role in the development of calculus in the 17th century and led to discovery of many new properties of plane curves. Modern algebraic geometry considers similar questions on a vastly more abstract level."

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometry#Numbers_in_geometry

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
  74. Maybe not for him... by haggus71 · · Score: 1

    It might not be needed for a Poly-Sci major(love the contradiction of calling that a science). For those who want to exercise their mind, and to have a head up on most others around them, however, yes, understanding Algebra(and I might argue Geometry and Trigonometry) is necessary. This is just another argument to dumb down classes so parents who raise their children like veal can be happy with even more devalued A's in class. The only good thing is, Those whose kids actually work hard and do it the right way will be the bosses, while those awesome LA and PS degree kids will do what they've been doing...taking my order and getting my drink at the restaurant.

  75. You need math to be a citizen by RichMan · · Score: 2

    I am keeping this focused on poli-sci.

    To take part in a democracy the citizens are supposed to make educated informed voting choices. How do you do this if you don't understand growth rates, investment income, cost per person of wars. One should not take the opinion of news pieces one should take the facts about things and be able to form ones own opinion.

    Proper democracy requires education. Math most of all in our financially driven economies.

    1. Re:You need math to be a citizen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think your broader point is why isn't algebra being used in political science, or history for that matter? Shouldn't mathematical ideas which kids learn in algebra be re-enforced in other classes? Like going thorough how opinion polling is done? the demographics of various regions? Why isn't this part of political science? We teach algebra in isolation, when really is adds insight to almost any of the social sciences - not just the physical sciences

    2. Re:You need math to be a citizen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An example, which to me showed that many politicians themselves can't do math.

      Public transport in the Netherlands has migrated to an electronic ticketing system comparable to the London Oyster card over the last 7 or so years. Local and regional transport tariffs had been zone based, and in the new system they are based on travel distance. We have a system of concessions for the exploitation of public transport lines commercial companies can compete for. They were not supposed to use the new tariff structure to increase the cost of transport, on average prices were to remain the same.

      A few years back I happend to see a live broadcast of the Dutch parliament asking the responsible minister questions about complaints that prices had increased. Not a single one of the politicians arguing their point seemed to grasp that if prices remain unchanged on average, traveling between two specific locations may become less or more expensive, and as people often live and work and shop in specific locations, individual people will see their transport cost decrease (I was one of the lucky ones) or increase. And as part of the last group will inevitably complain, receiving complaints is to be expected, by itself that means nothing.

      The result was that the minister would have the tariffs investigated to determine if they had or had not remained the same on average, something that needed to be done anyhow if they wanted to check if policies were being implemented correctly. But it was shocking (even when it was no surprise) to see a parliament waste quite some time on utterly useless discussions based on a complete lack of understanding of the dynamics of what they are talking about. And all that was required for that understanding was some very basic mathematical insight, which I expressed in just two sentences in the previous paragraph. Compare this futility to the financial mess Europe is currently in. It's scary.

    3. Re:You need math to be a citizen by rhalstead · · Score: 1

      How do you do it anyway if the politicians lie about their opponents and themselves? while the mainstream medial is completely untrustworthy. How can you find the truth or know who to believe?

  76. ptRe:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You use algebra every time you use variables in program/script to do a calculation.

  77. Political ? Science ? by mbone · · Score: 1

    To paraphrase Voltaire, political science is neither politics nor science nor indeed necessary. But, I guess it provides training on how to get in the papers.

  78. Mutually exclusive: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Political & Science

  79. Bad headline. by aussersterne · · Score: 1

    For those that didn't RTFA (which seems to be a lot of people here), he does actually advocate the teaching of algebra, just via a "backdoor" which amounts to applied Algebra in another subject.

    Parsing his argument, the different between the two is probably the critique that he should have made: some people struggle not so much with the basic formal thinking skills involved in Algebra but with its notation, which is tremendously economical.

    I think that there is something to the argument that we ought to consider teaching the thinking skills learned in Algebra in ways that don't require the particular notation that is commonly associated with it, so that people can gain formal and quantitative reasoning experience and skills even if they struggle mightily economical, significantly abstracted symbolic systems.

    Right now, if they can't eventually grok the notation, they don't manage to gain the thinking skills, either, because we marry them.

    I think there's a benefit to be had by wondering whether or not we could teach these skills in another way for those that can't do notation and ultimately fail it repeatedly and/or never get it down. At least then we might have more people with formal reasoning and analytical skills, whereas now the Algebra drop-outs or C-level passes have essentially neither thinking skills nor notation skills at all (and it's a lot of people).

    --
    STOP . AMERICA . NOW
    1. Re:Bad headline. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would be for it if we did not stopped to teach proper algebra those who has aptitude for it. Everyone must be taught the same way and this proposition basically throws all talented kids away.

  80. This guy, Hacker, is a troll. by bdwoolman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    He has gotten a few minutes of glory by killing a sacred cow. In this case The-Math-Is-Vital to-Higher-Education cow. The cow is sacred because it is a good and right cow. An all-the-way-down cow. It is so easy to make a name for yourself by taking contrary positions -- especially if they are outrageous. This specious argument was born to be reported on Cable News. Or *"cough* on Slashdot. Of course these pay-as-you-go degree mills would like to have more customers. So let's just change these ridiculous standards. This guy has an agenda.

    Here is my next book? "The Reading Railroad. Speak Don't Write." The summary: With the advent of text to speech and audio recording reading and writing is an unneeded barrier to many otherwise smart people getting PH.Ds. As long as they can get a student loan they can get a doctorate.

    "Here. Let me help you with that wordy loan application."

    The brain is a mathematical engine. When you catch a fly ball you are solving a differential equation. Intuitively. When you gauge the speed of an oncoming car to cross the street that is Algebra. Hell, even dogs can do it. Sometimes. Mathematics when taught elegantly is interesting. It is a critical structure for the first of the two main components of Education: 1) The Discipline of the Mind (The ability to think) The other being 2) The Furniture of The Mind (Knowledge). Learning a second language, doing mathematics, reading music, writing computer code are all mental disciplines that require a disciplined mind. Knowledge without mental discipline is furniture without a room.

    --
    "No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
    1. Re:This guy, Hacker, is a troll. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're paying for a PhD you're getting scammed big time. Unless it's in something useless like P.S. In fact, you're getting scammed big time even if you are getting paid.

    2. Re:This guy, Hacker, is a troll. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The brain is a mathematical engine. When you catch a fly ball you are solving a differential equation. Intuitively. When you gauge the speed of an oncoming car to cross the street that is Algebra. Hell, even dogs can do it. Sometimes.

      I was with you until here. We are certainly not solving differential equations when we catch balls and dodge cars. We are interacting with our perception of our surroundings in a tight feedback loop. Want to catch a ball? Move until it is not moving laterally -- it is now headed right for you, stick your hand in the way and keep adjusting until it hits. The myth of the brain as mathematical engine set back the field of cognitive psychology for many years (robotics as well, for that matter).

    3. Re:This guy, Hacker, is a troll. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "When you catch a fly ball you are solving a differential equation. Intuitively."

      I modded you up insightful, that is perhaps one of the most insightful things I've ever read. Please don't mind if I use that in conversation with others :D

    4. Re:This guy, Hacker, is a troll. by YaddaMinski · · Score: 1

      "Knowledge without mental discipline is furniture without a room." LOL!

    5. Re:This guy, Hacker, is a troll. by Chowderbags · · Score: 1

      The brain is a mathematical engine. When you catch a fly ball you are solving a differential equation. Intuitively.

      Doubtful. It's much more likely that the brain applies very simple rules for when a ball is coming towards you:

      If the ball looks like it's moving left, move left.
      If the ball looks like it's moving right, move right.
      If the ball looks like it's sinking in your view, move forward.
      If the ball looks like it's rising in your view, move back.

      If you do these things and the standard line up your glove between the ball and your eyes to catch it, then you've got a pretty darn good chance of catching the ball, no need to have the brain doing any sort of Diff Eq. Most motion actually follows heuristics and best guesses like this way more than any sort of mathematical precision.

    6. Re:This guy, Hacker, is a troll. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The brain is a mathematical engine. When you catch a fly ball you are solving a differential equation. Intuitively. When you gauge the speed of an oncoming car to cross the street that is Algebra. Hell, even dogs can do it. Sometimes.

      No, no, no. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

      Look, I love math. I love it so much I took three different number theory courses in college. But the brain is not a mathematical engine. It is a pattern-matching engine. When you catch a fly ball, you are not doing math in your head, not even intuitively. The truth is you are curve-fitting, visually. You have seen lots of fly balls in your life, you know what the curve is for an object under the influence of gravity and wind resistance, and you match that curve to the ball in motion then position your hand where the imaginary curve in your head ends.

      Don't get me wrong, this is still an incredible achievement. You are doing this in real-time, in 3D, while you are moving. It is an impressive feat in its own right. But you are simply matching a pattern (a familiar curve) to something you see in the world (a ball in flight). There is zero math going on in your brain, it is all patterns. If you want proof, look at babies. When humans are very young, they have no idea what a ball in flight is going to do. As we grow up, we see lots of balls being thrown and we slowly learn what the curve looks like. Very young children cannot catch a ball, they frequently end up in the wrong spot. They have not learned the curve yet. As they practice playing catch, they get better and better at predicting where the ball will go, until they get it right every time. If it were the brain doing a differential equation, they would be able to do this without practice. But no, children must practice catching a ball before they can do it, because they have to learn that curve as well as what the curve looks like when viewed from the target rather than from the side. (The ball gets larger at a certain rate, both eyes draw in while tracking it, etc.)

      Don't mistake being able to work with a mathematical system with simulating or calculating that same system. When I catch a ball, my brain is not doing math. When I predict when an oncoming car will pass me, I am not doing a differential equation, I am pattern matching against my own experience driving. (This is why we must learn to drive.) When I see a faucet pouring water into a dirty bowl of soup, I do not do a differential equation to figure out how long it will take for the bowl's contents to go from soup to clear water, I am simply pattern matching against my own experience of doing dishes.

      Incidentally, this also explains why higher math is so hard for so many people. Our brains are simply not wired for it, it must be learned. Our brains are designed to match patterns. Some argue that intelligence itself is simply pattern-matching done recursively to produce mental abstractions. Mathematics, however, is not really akin to pattern matching, so you must train yourself to understand it. You could say mathematics is pattern matching with the underlying concrete reference removed, the link to the real world against which we normally match. I don't have enough information to argue this one way or the other.

    7. Re:This guy, Hacker, is a troll. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, he's a troll, but that doesn't reduce how much fun reading all these heated replies is.

    8. Re:This guy, Hacker, is a troll. by roman_mir · · Score: 1
  81. Stop linking to pay sites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck you.

    1. Re:Stop linking to pay sites by FormOfActionBanana · · Score: 1

      It worked for me, dipshit.

      --
      Take off every 'sig' !!
  82. yes, please, don't teach to much tech by Pirulo · · Score: 0

    because if you free some time, they might teach philosophy, and that's really dangerous

  83. Agreed. by aussersterne · · Score: 1

    There's a lot of prejudice today from the STEM crowd against disciplines in the social sciences and philosophy even though the math requirements are similarly rigorous.

    It's just that the category of problems being approached by these groups aren't problems that scientists and engineers are familiar with: they exclude any notion of causality from the start and the correlative properties of any case are highly complex. Not to mention that they deal with black-box agents as objects that behave in unpredictable ways.

    That doesn't mean that it's not useful to be able to find a correlation between (for example) not learning Algebra and financial success later in life. In fact, I don't suspect most STEM folks would find the prospect of a study like that to be inherently unscientific, so long as the claims were precise and well qualified and the methodology sound. They just forget that *that is social science* in practice. I see social-scientific arguments and data here on /. all the time, but also see lots of dismissal of the social scientists that produced much of our common knowledge about, say, the importance of STEM for economic success at the national level.

    --
    STOP . AMERICA . NOW
  84. Please elaborate by ArchieBunker · · Score: 0

    How does math help you understand the world?

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    1. Re:Please elaborate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol, haters gonna hate

  85. Do some restrospection on your own persona, by Pirulo · · Score: 1

    In my case, I wasn't any good at math untill I was about 10 or 11,
    before that, my brain just couldn't process it,
    after 10, I got a natural understanding of it.
    It's not that they teach to much, they teach to early.

    1. Re:Do some restrospection on your own persona, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad English never caught on for you. Perhaps they started teaching that too late.

      btw, what's with the hard returns? Is your post supposed to be a poem?

  86. 2 much by drwho · · Score: 1

    butt math is hard! i dont no why u think that everyone nedes to learn hard stuff i have an iphone witch has a calculader app so why do i need to care about sily stuff like math and speling. well my spellin app is broken write now but i can still talk and stuff so what watt is the biggie? u dont have to kno how a car work in order too drive. i dont use math @ work , I sell furnituer. so y did i have 2 sufer so much @ school bcuz u geeks want 2 proove u are so smart. but u r not.

  87. As "a professor of Political Science"... by alexmin · · Score: 1

    he's obviously unqualified to discuss any real science topics.

    1. Re:As "a professor of Political Science"... by billd10 · · Score: 1

      Maybe we should only teach political science and all successful graduates can learn to vote for whomever promises the most handouts, as they will likely be unqualified to do anything meaningful...except maybe to teach political science, which is not science at all.

  88. His point is by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

    That you are excluding people from history and English degrees just because they did not do Mathematics - in the UK Oxbridge would be looking for A* English Lang and Lit and History A levels - they used to require O level Latin but dropped that in the late 70's..

    I doubt any Admissions tutor for a UK university for the soft degrees gives a rats ass about the candidates Mathematical knowledge

    1. Re:His point is by stdarg · · Score: 1

      The question he didn't address is whether having more English and history majors and also having fewer people with basic mathematical knowledge is a net gain for society. Do we have a shortage of people with degrees in English? Not that I've ever heard. What happens to people who want to major in English but lack the math skills to do so? Are they more or less helpful to society than the same person with an English degree with no math requirement?

  89. long division? by jirka · · Score: 2

    He thinks algebra is bad but thinks all kids should learn something so fundamentally nonuseful as long division? (Yes I know it's useful once you get to polynomial division, but that's algebra ... It's often not even taught in calculus where it becomes useful to integrate rational functions.)

    I teach at the university level, and from time to time I teach non-math majors, and I don't think the problem is that algebra is too hard. It is that the amount of effort students put into studying has gone significantly down. See:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/college-inc/post/five-colleges-where-students-study/2012/05/22/gIQAK0gvhU_blog.html

    On average, students now spend 15 hours studying per week compared to 24 in 1960. The problem is not algebra, it is facebook, iphone, internet in general, grade inflation, and role models nowdays being those that made a lot of money with no effort compared to astronauts in the 1960s.

    I had my wife visit one of my calculus classes once and she sat in the back row. There was about half the class present (normal if you don't require attendance in a large lecture). Half of the remaining half was playing with their iphones and ipads or whatnot (no, not taking notes on them). And that was a calculus class where majority were engineers, students who are generally more interested in math. I know how pre-calculus can run and it can be depressing that no matter how hard you try to make the subject interesting (and approachable) you have at most one or two people in a class who pay attention and do what one would consider "well". Then due to grade inflation, most of the students pass anyway without getting much out of the class.

    I had to take all sorts of classes as an undergrad (including political science) and I enjoyed every one of them. I had to work more in some than in others, though of course liberal arts classes were usually easiest to get an A without an effort. It's easy to get an A in art class for example, without having a shred of artistic talent. I found almost all these classes were doable with just going to class, doing homework and no extra studying. Comparing grades of different subjects is total nonsense. Would we improve the situation if we just gave everyone an A in math?

    In summary, I don't think that anyone capable of being good in any field taught in a university can't pass an algebra class given a bit of effort. If it is not important to you to put in the effort, then your own field is not very important to you either. Why would it be an advantage to have an unmotivated person like that graduate?

    1. Re:long division? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      "On average, students now spend 15 hours studying per week compared to 24 in 1960. The problem is not algebra, it is facebook, iphone, internet in general, grade inflation, and role models nowdays being those that made a lot of money with no effort compared to astronauts in the 1960s."

      Ahh the educator reality distortion field....

      Here is what REALITY is.... at least what I see and what my wife sees....

      On average, students now spend 15 hours studying per week compared to 24 in 1960. The problem is not algebra, it is having to work full time to actually live somewhere and eat, ridiculousness abound from "professors" that require insane amounts of busywork such as writing at least 5 essays during your internship and checking into the online forum for the class nightly to post at least TWO insightful discussions. Like I have time to blow 4 hours reading through the drivel from my classmates to come up with a minimum of 120 words to respond with on two different discussion streams or I don't get my points for the day.

      I am here to LEARN advanced mathematics, not stroke the professors ego. YOU WORK FOR ME instead of me being your slave to your quirky whims. try working 60 hours a week, dealing with a family and going to school full time. Stop giving me shit for turning in a paper 5 minutes late, I have real reasons for missing your unimportant and arbitrary deadline.

      This is what I experience lately trying to take classes for my masters. Snotty self adsorbed professors that demand they be called "DOCTOR" that are so out of touch with reality that all you do it seethe hate towards them.

      I hope you are the opposite. Someone who understand that people have real lives and are trying like hell instead of assuming.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:long division? by jirka · · Score: 1

      "YOU WORK FOR ME" (even capitalized to add volume) really tells me what kind of a student you are. You are exactly the kind of student who spends about 15 minutes out of my office hours every week complaining about random nonsense that has nothing to do with the material (e.g. why was this worth 5 points and not 3 points) wasting time that other students could use to actually ask useful questions and learn in the class. Yes, everything is somebody elses fault, and the professor goes out of his way to make your life miserable. Because it is his (or her) only reason for living. He (or she) spent half their life with very little pay for lots of work studying and perparing for a job where he could finally annoy you in particular.

      BTW, you have just blown quite a bit of time reading slashdot, and responding, though I dare say not insightfully. Perhaps time better spent studying.

      PS: Apparently in 1960s students had no real lives.

    3. Re:long division? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Luckily, I go to a Uni that has a vary public forum that talks about the profs and will out which ones are not worth taking classes with that believe they are holy chosen ones. So I get to avoid professors like you that waste students time. and no I don't care about the points, I am old enough to know that GPA is 100% worthless in the real world.. A masters degree that is a Solid C is worth as much as a A++ summa cum laude Masters degree. 99% of all employers don't care at all about GPA or even check the degree, only academic types push the fairy tale that high grades have more value, reality says otherwise so your wild assumption is way off.

      What I care about is wasting my hard earned money with professors that should not be teaching because they pile on worthless busy work.... Like instead of working on a very difficult theory or process, write a 30 page thesis on David Hilbert. When I did not cover the man and how he liked chicken, but his work on algebraic manifolds I get marked down for not covering the man but a "side topic". Yeah, this is not History 201.

      I never said they go out of their way to make life miserable, I clearly said they require dumb things or require busywork to stroke their own ego. And many professors have deep wells of ego, the first indication is the "my name is DOCTOR...." demand. And they always fit my observation profile perfectly when they have that requirement.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    4. Re:long division? by jirka · · Score: 1

      Your trolling powers are good; a good one with the "30 page thesis on Hilbert" that 1) nobody would assign in a class that's not math history, and not even then because nobody wants to grade a bunch of horribly written 30-page papers 2) completely avoiding the topic of studytime that the original post was about as if all the classes you took had 30 page papers on Hilbert to write.

      I give that a C for effort and conclude that you never actually went for a Masters in math. What you wrote sounds like a bad extrapolation of a non-math undergrad, possibly out of school for some time, about what masters study in math would look like. Just from your comments I assume you are a disgruntled student who spends (wastes?) a lot of time on slashdot and tries to blame everything on others. Or perhaps you just like trolling.

      BTW, see my comment about "insightful" above.

  90. Good point, education is mostly useless. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

    School is mostly about teaching kids to fall in line, believe everything they are told and follow orders without question.

    Then you have University which is the new indentured servitude where people take on massive debt because it makes them attractive employees. Attractive because with massive debt they will have little choice but to accept any bullshit the employer demands.

    I loved math. Did great in school. Then I finished and realized I'd wasted the most productive years of my life.

    My sister travels teaching English since there are no jobs in the first world, and she talks about how children are taught actual jobs with the perspective that that is somehow a bad thing. Most kids here spend 12+ years in school and don't know fucking anything useful after.

  91. Logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mathematics is numerical logic. Logic is a method of thinking that will yield a correct result. The real question is, why aren't grade school students taught deductive/inductive logic courses? Perhaps, if such critical thinking classes were required, then someone wouldn't be able to become a high profile professor spouting off illogical bullshit to the public because he was never taught to think correctly (which probably explains his area of expertise).

  92. I shoot back with... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    It's more necessary than Political Science and Business Management. Actually football is more important than those two.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  93. Models by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How are you going to understand what compound interest is without algebra? How are you going to understand what a spreadsheet is doing without algebra? More generally, any model of the world is going to involve putting symbols to something in the world and then calculating with those symbols. If you know no algebra then you can't do that, but more importantly, you won't even understand the concept of making a mathematical model and then deriving conclusions from the model. Simple things like compound interest and spreadsheets are examples of modeling, but so is complicated science like physics and global warming. If you don't know what a mathematical model is, you won't even know what it means when someone says that scientists are predicting global warming - you will no idea about how anyone could predict such a thing even in principle. The author is suggesting replacing algebra with concrete applications of math, the problem is that if you don't understand algebra, how are you going to understand anything else related to mathematics beyond arithmetic?

  94. Trades need advanced Maths as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A stairway has a 8" rise for a 5" run. Lay out (on a length of 2x10) a stringer to support a stairway that rises 10 feet. Hint: use trig to compute the length of the stringer, given a Y value of 10, and a ratio Y:X of 8:5

    A plumbing run must drop 1" for every 6' of run. How much pipe will you need for a 20' run?

    And so on.

    1. Re:Trades need advanced Maths as well by pruss · · Score: 1

      I've wondered for a while how people can do things like carpentry without trigonometry and the like. Yet obviously they can, and can do really well. Maybe some people are good at scale drawings--you can do a lot with good scale drawings (both on paper and, say, in Inkscape). Or really good at holding up one part to another, marking up where to cut, etc. Or even really good at eyeballing.

  95. Education content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To "quote" a maths teacher I had in Highschool (1982, so memory may be a bit off):

    "Tell me the job you will do when you leave school, guarantee you will get it, and I will design a course of study to suit. In the mean time, you can continue with Trig."

    Now, in a job I had never considered at the time, I use trig directly or indirectly most days of my work week.

  96. So a professor of lying... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is asking us to trust him?

  97. memorization by drwho · · Score: 1

    Damn it, the ability to memorize boring data IS important! Sure, you have this Internet thing in front of you that puts a lot of information at your fingertips, but that doesn't excuse you from having to remember boring facts! When one is in high school and elementary school, much of what students are expected to learn may seem boring to them. They may not think it's important to know that Ben Franklin was older than George Washington, or that Napolean was defeated twice. They don't think it's important to know the difference between kilowatt and kilowatt-hour. The first time a teenager depends on knowledge which he had recently obtained, which had seemed useless to him at the time of their instruction, a light should dawn in his mind and some respect for schooling by thus obtained. The first time that he realizes that the skills which were acquired in order to learn the 'useless trivia' of their schooling have prepared him for more rapidly acquiring, for instance, the nautical terms describing his beloved boat, then we should hope that respect for the SKILL of learning increases.

  98. Well CS / 4 years is not needed for most IT jobs by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    Well CS / 4 years pure class room is not needed for most IT jobs.

    IT needs more more of trades / tech school like class room learning and an apprenticeship system.

  99. Re:I want my banker to be an astrophysicist too by fido_dogstoyevsky · · Score: 1

    If my banker ISN'T "doing all that algebra" she isn't doing her job (at all, let alone properly).

    --
    It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
  100. Individualized education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Education should be custom tailored to enhance the strengths of individual students. We should focus on supporting each student's strengths and vision of their future.

  101. How about probability and statistics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gambling or more generally making decisions in uncertain situations is very common in life. While few solve equations, many play the odds. I argue that knowing a little probability is far more useful than knowing a little history.

  102. someone needed to be published this quarter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I read the article. I believe that he needed an additional publication this quarter. Several of his premises are incorrect, specifically the one about Toyota in Mississippi, and also the comparison to the German educational system.

    But, hey, he's employed and at least one person thinks he knows what he's talking about.

    IMNSHO

  103. Dumbed down by amightywind · · Score: 0

    The American curriculum has been dumbed down to pass increasing numbers of ignorant minorities. Eventually we'll have a completely unqualified President who majored in Black Studies. Oh wait...

    --
    an ill wind that blows no good
    1. Re:Dumbed down by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1

      The American curriculum has been dumbed down to pass increasing numbers of ignorant minorities. Eventually we'll have a completely unqualified President who majored in Black Studies. Oh wait...

      Yes, you'll have to wait (unless "we" refers to something other than the United States), as the United States doesn't currently have a president who majored in Black Studies.

  104. Suggested research... by matunos · · Score: 1

    Professor Numbnuts should go check out Nate Silver's blog sometime and he might learn the value of algebra to his own discipline.

  105. Make up your mind by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

    First we (US media, etc.) say that we are falling behind other countries in education, then we turn around and say it's too hard, then we do No Child Left Behind, then we try to raise test scores by various means, and now we question if any learning if necessary.

    Shouldn't the emphasis always be on raising standards?

    --
    Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
  106. The real question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is Political science necessary? Is it even a science ie. is it just a human created knowledge as opposed nature intrinsic knowledge?

  107. Algebra prof asks: Is political science necessary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and attempts to answer in the negative. While the physicists sneer at everyone. News at eleven.

  108. We need to stop teaching it right away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We need to stop teaching people algebra right away. Among other things, it causes people to hesitate at the prospect of paying compound interest. It also instills in them a desire for compound returns. With so many people knowing algebra, the current Fed policy of low interest rates might actually continue to draw fire. With algebra out of their pretty little heads, it'll be much easier to convince them that a doubling of their stock portfolio with a 3% yield and a falling dollars is a good thing for the next 20 years, as opposed to a constant price and an 8% yield with a strong dollar.

    After all, there's not much difference between 3 and 8, right? Don't listen to that guy who tells you to raise 1.08 and 1.03 to the 20th power and compare them. That's a lot of nerd talk.

  109. This is where I stopped reading by cowtamer · · Score: 2

    The toll mathematics takes begins early. To our nation’s shame, one in four ninth graders fail to finish high school.

    Why is finishing high school a goal in and of itself? I thought the fact that you finished was supposed to mean something -- if not, let's relax the requirements of History, English, Science, etc. and graduate students solely based on attendance! Of course, if we did that, such enlightened minds might start asking why we are wasting billions of dollars on an education which teaches nothing.

    I believe an advanced society _should_ have the goal of educating every citizen to his/her full capacity. If this is not possible, however, it may be better to divert some students to trade schools where they only learn what they need. Even if this were the case, however, not giving future voters a basic grounding in Science, History, and Math virtually guarantees that they will eventually elect morons who revel in their ignorance.

    1. Re:This is where I stopped reading by rhalstead · · Score: 1

      I think your first paragraph just described the current, public educational system.

  110. education system over does it in some areas by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    The education system over does it in some areas and gives people BIG skills gaps while being a big time sink.

    We need to more away from the on size fits all ideas and get rid of the ideas of 4+ years when you can learn alot more skills needed to do the job at a 2 year school.

    And the higher up you go in the education system the more filler and fluff that you get (some areas).

    Some math is fine but not all jobs need high levels of it and there is lot's of other stuff that needs to go ART history? Music? PE? swim test?

  111. Algebra profesors ask: by hobarrera · · Score: 1

    Are politicians really necessary?

  112. Reality vs. Idealism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nearly every person in here assumes that by just forcing a student to take a course that they'll just absorb the material and gain whatever benefits that are said to be derived from said subject matter.

    There are certainly programs of study where certain subjects are integral parts and thus should be considered non-negotiable. I'm not arguing that point. If you are taking Computer Science and can't make it past Calculus then you're probably better off with a MIS degree.

    However, when looking at the entire population as a whole, you'll see a distribution of abilities. Algebra itself isn't a "higher math" by most people's definitions, but it is more dependent on IQ than say, history or art classes for success.

    If someone's intellectual abilities limits them to being a chimney sweeper or a painter, then what's the point in making them take a class that they're going to struggle with, barely pass (maybe after a few tries and a lot of tutoring), and probably forget soon thereafter? Do you seriously think otherwise?

    I laud people for wanting to bestow upon people opportunities to climb the socioeconomic ladder.

    But reality must reign here: if we had limitless resources to educate, tutor, and mentor kids to the fullest extent, we would still have "average" people doing "average" jobs and we'd still have people who are not fit to do anything but menial and low/unskilled labor. This isn't a slam against these sorts of people; we rely on them in everyday life. However, this is an inequality that is part of life.

    Most of us here are fairly bright and probably have >=120 IQ. However, what is keeping us from being the top of the top? Is it because we didn't have enough education? Would we have been smarter had we simply took more classes?

  113. old new college student here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just got an A in my summer term college algebra class but most of the people in the class either ended up failing or they quit showing up after 3 of the 4 chapter tests. I am 33 and when I started college again I hadn't done any kind of algebra since my junior year of high school way back in 1995. I started off at the lowest remedial math class MAT0020, then intermediate algebra MAT1033, then college level algebra MAC1105. I knew the challenge I was in for so I set out to prepare myself properly. As a student I observed some major mistakes by my fellow students: 1) They underestimated the difficulty of the classes (even remedial classes) thinking they were in for high school level algebra. 2) They didn't have the dedication/time to study a difficult topic along with other classes. 3) They failed to acknowledge the fact they no longer remembered algebra they learned in high school so they didn't take remedial (noncredit) math classes to ease themselves into college level algebra. 4) For my summer term the students failed to acknowledge the accelerated pace of the class. My personal motto is that anything less than an A in a remedial class should be a failing grade, that's how I prepared myself. I would be willing to be required to take more math classes but honestly I will not need it. Since I will not use it I would probably forget most of the material anyway. Allowing students to advance to college level algebra without *absolutely* mastering basic and intermediate algebra is totally unreasonable. I'm trying to say that students should be expected to get no less than an A in remedial classes in order to register for a college level algebra class. Students should also be permitted to retake math classes as many times as they need to and not be denied financial aid for it. Math isn't like other undergrad subjects. Math heavily builds on previous knowledge and if you forget one little seldom used fact the whole tower-o-math comes crashing down. Math really does deserve to be treated differently than other types of classes, at least where undergrads are concerned.

  114. Don't try to teach a pig to sing! by anwyn · · Score: 1
    It wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    apologies to RAH.

    Egalitarianism is killing achievement in our culture!

    Some people are not capable of learning advanced math. They should be given a calculator and a shovel so they can go dig ditches.

    We should stop holding back our best minds with the stupid idea that everyone can do it. They can not.

    We need our Einsteins.

    We need to put proof back in Geometry class. If some can not handle it, let them go learn basket weaving or something.

    Our civilization depends on our best minds. We need to stop holding them back with the stupid idea that everyone can do it.

  115. Math = philosophy by clawsonb · · Score: 1

    Yes, math creates a difficulty for students of all ages and backgrounds. That includes the engineers, computer scientists, and physicists of the world. It is not as if we have had a free pass at mathematics because of the way our brain is wired. While it may have been simpler, I do not know anyone for whom calculus came easily at first. We all were forced to think, and to think hard, to come up with some reasoning for higher mathematics that makes sense to us. The whole point of studying mathematics beyond the basic principles is to exercise that part of our minds that must stretch to grasp a concept that is not present in day to day activities.This is why our first mathematicians were not mathematicians at all. They were Philolosophers.

    --
    One day, we will have robot dogs. Until then, my wife and I can maintain separate hobbies.
  116. History by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it. Witness the death of the former CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC - not democracy - known as the USA.

  117. Algebra? WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Algebra is EASY. Looking back, who on earth thinks algebra was hard? Seriously? It might have been hard fro you at the time, in 7th or 8th or 9th grade whenever you took it. But come on, it's basic stuff.

    Algebra is just a conceptual thing. The reason people think it's hard is that people learn the concept at different rates. I do agree that some schools push through it without giving disadvantaged kids or kids having difficulty more time to learn it. Once you've got it, it's really hard to forget it.

    Hell, I think Algebra should be taught EARLIER in school. There's no reason a kid in 5th or 6th grade can't learn it.
    Computer programming helps with this alot... lets kids understand variables, functions, iteration, scales, graphing etc.

  118. Knowledge is the wealth noone can take from you by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

    Having at least a toehold in a field of study, be it poetry or physics, means the door is open to you to learn more and thus have access to the wealth humanity has amassed in that field. Not teaching the foundations is a form of impoverishment.

    Besides, "Education is what remains after you've forgotten everything you learned in school".

  119. No! Algebra isn't needed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Political scientists don't need algebra and since that profession is the most important in the world, it must also be true that nobody else needs algebra either. Pollsters don't need algebra and neither do people that understand statistics. We know this since almost every poll is fixed to show whatever the paying organization wants shown.

    All those word problems are ... like ... hard. Solving them can't possibly be useful.

  120. Oh my by KernelMuncher · · Score: 1

    This is the dumbest article on the internet

  121. Doors closed to stupid people by ZombieBraintrust · · Score: 1

    The article is talking about people who fail freshman Algebra and then drop out of college. Were talking about people who are kind of stupid when it come to math. They won't be taking physics. The article is asking why we are preventing stupid people from getting majors in poetry, politics, or history?

    1. Re:Doors closed to stupid people by peteypooh · · Score: 1

      Hmm... I was focused more on the idea of not teaching it in high school. I can see your point. My counterargument is that a Bachelor's of Arts/Science should connote some base level of proficiency in all basic fields, as well as deeper study in the area of concentration. I concede that my viewpoint is not universally accepted, though.

  122. Everything is hard. not just algebra. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    Let us say you design a curriculum designed to teach logic, critical thinking, problem solving skills etc. Further you require that at the end the students should learn these skills at a fairly significant levels. No matter what you subject you teach to instill the students with these skills, it would be difficult and most students would struggle with it. These skills are highly non-intuitive. These are not skills needed to survive in a jungle or semi arid desert with hunter-gatherer life style. Nature would not endow us with these skills through evolution. They have to be acquired with lots of hard work and dedication. Blaming algebra is stupid. Even if you use "How I met your mother" episodes to teach these skills, to take it to the level algebra takes you to, it would have become painful drudgery most students will fail.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  123. No by Bensam123 · · Score: 1

    I think when it comes to higher levels of math or system is simply outdated for the majority of students. Like 99% of them will never use in their lifetime and it sincerely does not help them better themselves as individuals. Maybe the classes still should be offered as advanced classes for students that truly enjoy it, but the level of math being offered compared to how often it is being used is atrocious.

    It really does come down to 'doing what's always been done' in my opinion. Math can get quite advanced compared to all other subjects and it's been taught up to that level for centuries, so teachers continue to do it.

    Besides basic and rudimentary math courses I could see a money management class, a basic programming class, a basic technology class (learn how to do basic troubleshooting of todays gadgets) being much more helpful. Hell I took tech-ed in junior high for two years because it was required, yet I never used any of it as it was part of carpentry.

    Technology isn't going away. Software isn't going away. MONEY will not go away. This may make quite a few people angry as this steps on their jobs. But schools at the basic level should prepare students for day to day life and not teach them niche subjects that are outdated and not relevant to any part of their life. If people want to learn more about a specific area then they go to college or tech school. But I just remember how pointless math classes seemed back in highschool as I had no interest in going further into them. Some math classes can simply be replaced with programming too, as programing is a more hands on approach to math in a lot of cases.

  124. Oh the Irony... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does anyone else find it ironic that a political science professor is complaining about colleges wasting people's money? I thought that political science was one of the most worthless degrees.

  125. Goodbye to a liberal education by Quila · · Score: 1

    A liberal education is supposed to produce a well-rounded individual who has had exposure to a broad range of disciplines. Algebra is basic to the math discipline in a college education.

    So, yes, algebra should remain in a liberal arts curriculum. If it is a stumbling block to someone getting a degree, then it appears that person should be stumbling. If he can't grasp basic algebra, then he doesn't deserve a degree.

  126. Yes, but when does it do so efficiently? by wanax · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Of course math changes the way you think, and often to the good. The real question, left unaddressed in the original article, is when and how do we start teaching math?

    There is a body of experimental evidence, mostly from upstate NY in the 20s and 30s (see [PDF] here) that the main problem in early education is that math, with its many abstractions of notation and convention, is brought in far too early. Instead, rigorous verbal and written exercises could cover the necessary conceptual bases for math to be added onto later, while not losing huge amounts of time creating arti-factual stories to get 7-year-olds to learn division, which may then interfere with their later understanding of the actual basis.

    Another method that's been suggested, also with a body of experimental evidence (see for an overview), takes the opposite tack, and says okay, we can teach everything the first time in a way consistent with later fundamentals, but to do so, we have to recognize that many apparently simple steps are actually 5-7 'micro-steps' and we need to break out and teach these explicitly.

    Given that much more rigorous levels of math education don't seem to cause mass dropouts or lack of bachelors attainment in many other countries, I think the emphasis should be on fixing the way we teach math, rather than further devaluing (and yes, the ability to jump through hoops is important for successful employment.. and also, this guy thinks he can do rigorous statistical inference without a rock solid understanding of modern algebra?) high school and college degrees.

    1. Re:Yes, but when does it do so efficiently? by ShakaUVM · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >the main problem in early education is that math, with its many abstractions of notation and convention, is brought in far too early

      This is a myth from our child development overlords.

      My wife, who grew up in Hong Kong, was learning algebra in elementary school. Kids are capable of learning algebra much younger than it's taught here in America. When she immigrated, she literally didn't learn any new math for four years. It's not a mistake we're ranked so poorly in the world math standings.

    2. Re:Yes, but when does it do so efficiently? by Aryden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My great-grandmother could do trig and calculus with a slide rule because that's what they taught her in primary school in the back woods of Tennessee. I think we are by far, less educated than our previous generations and it would be extremely detrimental to us to reduce the learning that students have to do today. When I moved to Georgia from Tennessee, the Georgia schools were 2 years behind in subject matter in the ADVANCED classes. There needs to be a national level of education in this country. I want to know that my daughter would learn the same subjects at the same level regardless of whether we lived in NY, TN, CA, OR or anywhere else.

    3. Re:Yes, but when does it do so efficiently? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the emphasis should be on fixing the way we teach math, rather than further devaluing (and yes, the ability to jump through hoops is important for successful employment

      This is part of the problem - thinking anyone should be content jumping through hoops for 'successful' employment. My current job is entirely about jumping through hoops at the expense of any meaningful career development and with dubious benefit to the company despite the protestations of the spreadsheet masterbaters of both genders within the organization.

    4. Re:Yes, but when does it do so efficiently? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The question is this: was she actually learning, or was she simply memorizing? That is one of the problems for public (and private) education in many countries, not just the US. They don't know how something works, why it works, or when it's used; they just memorize mathematical formulas and are expected to do well on a test. That is not true understanding. That's something that desperately needs fixing.

    5. Re:Yes, but when does it do so efficiently? by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      and it would be extremely detrimental to us to reduce the learning that students have to do today.

      I wouldn't say that. I'd say it would be helpful (there would be fewer distractions) if you wanted them to learn what they actually needed to learn. Combine this with actual teaching, and not simply teaching to the test and rote memorization, and they'll probably fare better. Teach people what they really need, and do it well.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    6. Re:Yes, but when does it do so efficiently? by sydneyfong · · Score: 1

      A lot of maths (esp. high school level algebra) is just shuffling of symbols with some particular rules of inference.

      I mean, do I "understand" (a+b)^2 == a^2 + 2ab + b^2? I can't say I really do.....

      --
      Don't quote me on this.
    7. Re:Yes, but when does it do so efficiently? by Hodr · · Score: 1

      I learned Algebra in the 4th grade and progressed through to Calculus my sophomore year of highschool as part of our regular, public school carriculum right here in the good ole US of A.

      Apparently even some 'Mericans forget this is a big place and whats true in NY isn't always true in CA.

    8. Re:Yes, but when does it do so efficiently? by WillAdams · · Score: 1

      Argument for the latter case (that math should be taught early and well and rigorously in small chunks) would be the game DragonBox:

      http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2012/06/dragonbox/all/

      William

      --
      Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
    9. Re:Yes, but when does it do so efficiently? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I say that reality sits in between these two extremes.

      Every child is different. Some children won't be able to handle algebra before high school. Some children can learn it in elementary school.

      The same applies for any subject.

      Some will understand grammar sooner. Some will never get it. Some will understand physics easier. Some will be lucky to remember gravity exists. Some will be able to tell you what you're sick with before they can even pronounce it. Some will think everything's a cold. Some will be able to rebuild an engine by 6. Some will try to put the gas nozzle in the wrong side of their car.

      And of course having trouble with grammar won't keep you from being a writer. Having trouble with calculus won't keep you from being a scientist. Having trouble with diagnosis won't keep you from being a doctor. Humans are so adaptable we have all kinds of ways of adapting models we do understand to systems we don't fully understand.

      Quite simply, an education system that establishes one way to teach every child with an end goal of making them all the same is so ignorant of reality it's pathetic. The best education system would evaluate what each student is capable of and what they are interested in, and teach them the best path they are capable of to the goals they want to reach.

    10. Re:Yes, but when does it do so efficiently? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Posting anon because I've modded. That rule is just the definition of exponents, with the distributive property applied twice 3 times. The distributive property makes sense if you remember that multiplication is repeated addition (more or less), If you don't understand it, might I suggest trying to solve it without using that rule? Rules like that are shortcuts to be used once you understand what's going on. Unfortunately, many bright people develop mental shortcuts for all sorts of things and then try to teach students the shortcut without teaching them the concept first. As an example from another field, speed readers recognize words as a whole without breaking down into letters, but teaching students to recognize words without teaching basic phonics makes them struggle with new words.

      (a+b)^2
      (a+b)(a+b)
      (a+b) a + (a+b) b
      aa + ba + (a+b)b
      aa + ba + ab + bb
      a^2 + ba + ba + b^2
      a^2 + 2ba + b^2

    11. Re:Yes, but when does it do so efficiently? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      According to my Mom who runs the computer lab at a low scoring public elementary school in California: students are exposed to the concepts of Algebra starting in kindergarten and expected to be able to solve basic algebra by 5th grade these days. As for myself, my first opportunity to learn algebra in school was in the 6th grade, although I had already taught myself many of the basic concepts when I taught myself programming 3 years prior. The sad part of it all was the middle school I went to only had 1 algebra class and refused to let me sign up for it since I was not enrolled in the AP English course and they were "reserving" the class for AP students only. I didn't end up getting to take algebra until my Sophomore year (grade 10) of high school because they required anyone that didn't take Algebra in middle school to take a pre-algebra course before they could take the regular course. 4 years of wasted learning opportunity, so I started taking night classes at the local city college to get around the limited course offerings of high school.

    12. Re:Yes, but when does it do so efficiently? by johncompsci21 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "My wife, who grew up in Hong Kong, was learning algebra in elementary school. Kids are capable of learning algebra much younger than it's taught here in America. When she immigrated, she literally didn't learn any new math for four years. It's not a mistake we're ranked so poorly in the world math standings." American children are introduced to algebra in the first grade http://www.corestandards.org/the-standards/mathematics/. As a teacher for 10 plus years I can honestly say the problem with the american education system and math education is parenting, politicians and professors. Not all students are capable of higher order thinking and advanced mathematics. In the US our school system seeks to educate each child to the same level, regardless of the individuals intelligence level or health disability. We spend boatloads on children who can not learn. The rights of the incapable is put higher than the right of the capable. Would a baseball team spend 4 times as much on a 5 foot 2 inch overweight, uncoordinated person vs a 6 foot 4 flame thrower. The us education system does. Federal and state mandated require it to do so. 1) Parents. Many american parents do not value there child's education. First, They do not check there child's homework and notes. If your parent does not care you don't care. I have students in my class that show up with no homework, no notebooks and no pencils on a daily basis. Second, Parents think all learning goes on in the classroom. The students in my classrooms that struggle at algebra due to lack of real world experiences at home. Since algebra is a way to describe the world around us, if we do not know much about the world around us we have no reference point. There is not enough hours in the day for a teacher to teach every day activities. I have 7th graders that have no idea what the concept of unit price is thus struggle when the concept of calculating the unit price is introduced. 1) Professors have to published paper after paper. They do studies on a narrow population and then profess the next great solution. One such solution is heterogeneous classrooms that contain students of various intelligence levels. This holds back the mathematically gifted, the average student and the less intelligent students at the same time. Children learn at different rates. My experience has shown that mixing the students creates major problems. The quick responses of strong students ruins the confidence of the weaker. It also provides cover. If someone answers quickly, you do not have to think about it yourself. "An idle mind is the devils workshop" When a student can't keep up or is so smart he finishes at, that students talks and becomes disruptive. 2) Politicians . Politicians are more interested in doing something, anything no matter if it really makes sense or not. There has been 5 different math curriculums in nys in the past 10 years. Large schools have been closed, multiple small schools put in their place. Charter schools opened and closed etc. Strong schools have been forced to take low performing students. TOUGH STANDARDIZED TEST hold back the gifted. The passing grade is so low that unqualified students get passed on to the next level without mastering the earlier level. And the single biggest crime is that special education student get passed to the next grade based on an IEP which sets a far lower level that the student must score on the test. Many of theses students know the game and don't even try. Without a parental push they flounder year after year causing distractions to other students.

    13. Re:Yes, but when does it do so efficiently? by cartman · · Score: 1

      It's not a mistake we're ranked so poorly in the world math standings.

      This claim is often repeated, but it's not true. The US actually ranks reasonably well in world math standings. There are a handful of countries which rank substantially better (South Korea, Finland, Hong Kong and Switzerland are a few examples), and many which rank far worse, but the US ranks fairly high.

      In the PISA test almost all large industrialized countries rank between 483 (Italy) and 529 (Japan), out of 600. Even the vaunted Japanese educational system does not produce far higher results. China ranks at 600, however they are cheating and "cherry-picking" students.

      It does not appear that there are large differences in average outcomes between industrialized countries. There are a few notable exceptions, like Finland and South Korea, but almost all industrialized countries are clustered fairly close together.

    14. Re:Yes, but when does it do so efficiently? by cartman · · Score: 2

      I think we are by far, less educated than our previous generations and it would be extremely detrimental to us to reduce the learning that students have to do today.

      You're definitely wrong about this. The current generation is better educated than any previous one. Levels of education have continuously improved in this country, and everywhere in the western world, for the last 100 years. This improvement is apparent using almost any consistent and objective measure of educational achievement.

      Not only that, but intelligence has also improved. IQ scales have been continuously revised upwards as people have grown smarter, at a rate of almost 1 point per year for a few years during the 1960s. The average adult in 1900 would score less than 85 on an IQ test today, which would make them borderline deficient.

      Granted, the rate of improvement has slowed down considerably, during the last few decades. However your great-grandmother's generation was definitely not better educated on average than the current one.

    15. Re:Yes, but when does it do so efficiently? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not age. It's the symbolism itself at any age. I innately understand very advanced concepts, and I understand math better than many very advanced mathemeticians...but I can't learn their way. All they understand is symbology. Usually, after learning the ACTUAL CONCEPTS, I can work my way back and figure out how their perverted minds represent it with the symbology, but it is so completely unnatural to me, and many others no doubt.

    16. Re:Yes, but when does it do so efficiently? by uniquename72 · · Score: 1

      the main problem in early education is that math, with its many abstractions of notation and convention, is brought in far too early.

      I learned to program from books in 4th grade (and I'm no genius) well before I learned any actual algebra in school. As a result, when I finally did get to algebra in 7-9th grade it was ridiculously easy.

      The idea that children can't handle these abstractions is ridiculous. It reminds me of the idiot education major in college who tried to explain to me that children can't begin learning a second language until around age 12, ignoring my friend sitting next to me who moved to the U.S. at 8 and spoke better English than either of us.

    17. Re:Yes, but when does it do so efficiently? by uniquename72 · · Score: 1

      I think part of the "we're less educated" argument stems from the fact that our grandparents and great-grandparents had a lot more practical knowledge that most people today. Read Popular Mechanics from the '40s and you'll see advanced electronics (for the time) and do-it-yourself projects that assumed a high level of engineering and mechanical skills -- something most of us sorely lack today.

      A lot of this is a result of the wars and the economic woes at the early part of the 20th century. People learned to build things and fix things out of necessity. Today, even poor people just buy stuff and throw it away when it breaks (not least because there are "no user serviceable parts inside.")

    18. Re:Yes, but when does it do so efficiently? by uniquename72 · · Score: 1

      I just hope kids today are learning how to create line breaks in HTML instead of posting massive blocks of text and thinking someone somewhere might be able to slog through it.

    19. Re:Yes, but when does it do so efficiently? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why does there need to a national standard in education? A person living in Kentucky SHOULD learn differently than a person living in California. That's why we have the government we have. If you want a different education move somewhere else or vote for better schools. If you want ignorant children lining the streets defending Creationism and earning $3.45 and hour, vote for it. This is your country. There is no reason Kentucky can't have university level education for everyone who wants it. It's your choice.

    20. Re:Yes, but when does it do so efficiently? by Aryden · · Score: 3, Insightful

      1869 Harvard entrance exam

      Take a look at that. Now keep in mind that the best you had at the time would have been a slide rule and paper. You say that we are more educated today than the previous generations, I would argue that the majority of kids these days most likely could not answer any of those questions. Hell, I took Algebra, Calc, Trig, Geometry, 6 years of Latin and speak or are familiar with 11 languages and I can barely answer many of those questions.

      You say better educated, and I would disagree. I think more people are educated than previous generations and I think that current generational knowledge extends to more subjects, but definitely not better.

      Granted, the rate of improvement has slowed down considerably, during the last few decades. However your great-grandmother's generation was definitely not better educated on average than the current one.

      Between the article itself and personal experience with educating kids these days, I can guarantee you her generation would run circles around these kids in math, grammar, vocabulary and probably foreign languages. Hell my 71 year old (at the time) Great -Grandmother was able to help me with my Latin lessons 20 years ago and again, she was raised in the back woods of TN where they really only gave a damn about agricultural knowledge.

    21. Re:Yes, but when does it do so efficiently? by swalve · · Score: 1

      I suspect we are averaging out. There may be fewer illiterate and innumerate people out there, and the very top end is also being challenged in ways the top end never was, and so by those metrics we are all "smarter". But the big fat "middle-class" on the scale of education is not being as rigorously educated as they once were. Lets just say someone who has received a basic high school education. I think that education is not as good as it was in generations past. Certainly not in my experience. And I think that is why we are seeing failures- there isn't enough intellectual rigor in education. The lessons don't stick. So when little Fauntleroy enters Algebra II, he doesn't remember dick about Algebra I. Because it isn't being taught as a system or with any context. Simply as a series of lessons to memorize and vomit back onto a test.

    22. Re:Yes, but when does it do so efficiently? by swalve · · Score: 1

      Teachers have to be able to cope with bad or uninvolved parents. If parents were good at educating their own children, we wouldn't have invented schools and teachers. What do you do when an orphan shows up in your classroom? Throw up your hands and proclaim the child unable to be educated?

      And why should standardized tests hold back the gifted? Can't be all that gifted if they can't pass a standardized test.

    23. Re:Yes, but when does it do so efficiently? by Alan+R+Light · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, some of us just can't do algebra. I've taken plenty of classes, had tutors, understood every step of the problems ... but when I put those steps together, they never come out right. Never.

      On the other hand, I frequently astonish people by doing simple math in my head, and by figuring out the math I need from scratch when I need it. When I took geometry, I didn't have to memorize the axioms because they were second nature to me.

      I know I would have been a good engineer for almost every purpose, but I never got to the practical stuff because I did so poorly at algebra.

      So - is it really helpful to demand that every student know every branch of every field well? Or would we be better served to allow students more latitude to develop their strengths without regard to their weaknesses, and to use their time wisely by learning what they are capable of learning rather than what someone else with different strengths thinks is appropriate for them?

    24. Re:Yes, but when does it do so efficiently? by smellotron · · Score: 1

      I mean, do I "understand" (a+b)^2 == a^2 + 2ab + b^2? I can't say I really do.....

      Here's a geometric interpretation which may actually help your understanding. Start with the equation area(rect) = w * h. That is, the area of a rectangle is the product of its two dimensions. Trivially, the area of a square is w*2. Now, take a square and cut it along both axes at the same distance from one side, and you should have two squares and two rectangles, with symmetry across the "hypotenuse" of the original square.

      Now call the width of one square a and the width of the other square b. That means that the rectangles are each a x b. The area of the four rectangles is a*a + 2*a*b + b*b which is the same as the area of the original square, (a+b)*(a+b).

      It's easier with a picture; or better, a piece of paper so you can crease the "hypotenuse".

    25. Re:Yes, but when does it do so efficiently? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>the main problem in early education is that math, with its many abstractions of notation and convention, is brought in far too early

      >This is a myth from our child development overlords.

      Two counterpoints: one anecdotal, one not.

      1) Elementary-school arithmetic is typically taught to students in the US over the course of six years. Studies have shown that a motivated adult can pick up the same education over the course of a single day.

      2) I went to a public school, and learned math at the normal pace. My youngest brother was home-schooled under the "unschooling" philosophy. He was able to do basic addition and subtraction of five-digit numbers in his head by the age of six (a game he played: he would tell our mother what the grocery bill would be, to the penny, before the cashier rang it up), and that's where his learning stopped for the next few years. Then, when he was 15, a discussion he was having with some friends produced a question he couldn't figure out the answer to, so over the course of the next three months he learned the rest of arithmetic, algebra, numerical geometry, trigonometry, and some integral calculus, so he could figure it out.

    26. Re:Yes, but when does it do so efficiently? by RobbieThe1st · · Score: 1

      Of course, to make a good argument, I think we should also look at the stuff learned /before/ algebra - She may have been taught more background before algebra than you did, despite having it at a younger age.

      Personally, I think we'd all be better off with a more customized and compressed curriculum; customized for several different learning styles, and compressed into less time.
      I'd also like to see paid work programs being part of high school, to teach people more about the real world, possibly tied in with classes to teach how some of this stuff applies in the real world. (versus the usual psuedo-real questions from books)

    27. Re:Yes, but when does it do so efficiently? by Aryden · · Score: 1

      I think there needs to be a national standard of education because I want to trust that if my job moves me from Maryland to Kentucky, my daughter would get the same level of education. I want to know that she is going to be prepared for real as well as for college. A great deal of that is my job and I accept that responsibility, but there is a finite amount of time that I can spend with her to educate her. I whole heartedly believe that there should be a national level of education because in the countries that DO have it, the students tend to be more educated and more prepared. People like to complain in this country that foreigners are coming in and taking all the good jobs. Well, to an extent it is true. India happens to be one of those countries that has a national level of education and so far, in my experience, it has worked damned well for them.

      A person living in Kentucky SHOULD learn differently than a person living in California.

      Why? Arithmetic is arithmetic, science is science, language is language, why should someone in Kentucky learn these things at a slower pace or not at all. Why would you willingly want to place people lower on the knowledge scale? I would posit that no one in Kentucky would tell you that they want their children to be less educated than those in California. Given, you will have some issues such as creationism vs evolution, but we're talking about the standards math, language, science (barring the evolution / creationism aspect). I do not live in Kentucky or California but I want those persons who do to have a guaranteed level of education that makes them competitive no matter where it is that they choose to live after their schooling is done, regardless of whether they attend a higher learning institution. Why should anyone ever have to hear: "Well, I'm sorry but we can't offer you this job or this loan or this scholarship because you went to school in state."

      An educated population is a powerful population. It is capable of great things. Capable of learned decision making. Capable of imagining that next horizon and then figuring out how to get us there. I want to know that when I leave this world, the people that are coming behind are better than we were, are smarter than we were and can utilize it to the best benefit of all.

    28. Re:Yes, but when does it do so efficiently? by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      Common Core isn't implemented yet, but it will be in the next couple years.

      Also, wow that's a long block of text.

    29. Re:Yes, but when does it do so efficiently? by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      In the OECD, we're near the bottom.

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/dec/07/world-education-rankings-maths-science-reading

      South Korea, Finland, Switzerland, and Japan are on top.

    30. Re:Yes, but when does it do so efficiently? by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >She may have been taught more background before algebra than you did, despite having it at a younger age.

      Well, I learned algebra in elementary school as well, but point taken.

      Yeah, the way she describes it is that elementary school at her private school in Hong Kong was a lot less "hand painting" and a lot more serious business. Kids have to apply to get into the good primary schools there, and they don't mess around when it comes to an accelerated curriculum. Even their arts program was pretty intensive - my wife won a local radio story contest, and their choir director was like a Mary Poppins from hell.

    31. Re:Yes, but when does it do so efficiently? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a senior in high school, I could have answered all the math questions except #5 (I could answer it if it was re-written in the repeating-decimal notation I learned), #6 (I don't know the conversion between rods and feet), and #10 (I'm not sure what's being requested; I suspect there's been a change in terminology since 1869).

      The "History and Geography" section is interesting in what it implies: it focuses on the history of Ancient Greece and the Roman Republic, while completely ignoring the intervening two millenia, and geography is focused on physical geography, with an emphasis on transportation (prior to the late 1800s, rivers were the world's superhighways). My high-school education focused on "modern" history (the past 400 years or so) and political geography. I couldn't tell you what route the Ten Thousand took (I'm probably unique among my high-school class in having some idea about who, when and where), but I could identify the location of every country in the world and give a brief overview of its history.

      The language section is all Greek to me (sorry), but if they were asking about a language I had studied, I could have answered many of the questions.

    32. Re:Yes, but when does it do so efficiently? by Aryden · · Score: 1

      Excellent, but this would be because you studied these subject in school as opposed to not studying things like the advanced math as the author suggests.

    33. Re:Yes, but when does it do so efficiently? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Half the problem for me was these arti-factual stories. They give a context for the problem that is so ridiculous that it pulls your mind away from the problem.

    34. Re:Yes, but when does it do so efficiently? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having spent 11 years being "educated" in the backwoods of TN, I can assure you that nowadays the only thing schools care about is agricultural knowledge. And football season. My high school was one of the very, very few that didn't offer ANY AP courses; the best we got was partial college credit by taking 101 classes at the local community college (which was easier than some high schools I've worked with since then).

    35. Re:Yes, but when does it do so efficiently? by Kaz+Kylheku · · Score: 1

      I'm looking at that "core standards" website, and I don't see any evidence that actual algebra is introduced in the first grade. What they call "algebraic thinking" is actually just arithmetic.

      When I went to grades 1 through 4 in Czechoslovakia, we learned all kinds of advanced things. Addition and multiplication were introduced using set theory. We used sets to convert numbers from one base to another (binary, ternary). Defintely by grade four, we were well versed in actual algebraic problems with variables. I think we were up to systems of two linear equations with two unknowns.

      When I came to Canada, grade 5, it was back to arithmetic. The teacher was surprised how well I could perform division.

      The examples from your "core standards" look about the same. For example, here are the "algebraic" objectives ascribed to grade 5:

      * 5.OA.1. Use parentheses, brackets, or braces in numerical expressions, and evaluate expressions with these symbols.

      * 5.OA.2. Write simple expressions that record calculations with numbers, and interpret numerical expressions without evaluating them. For example, express the calculation “add 8 and 7, then multiply by 2” as 2 × (8 + 7). Recognize that 3 × (18932 + 921) is three times as large as 18932 + 921, without having to calculate the indicated sum or product.

      Good grief!

    36. Re:Yes, but when does it do so efficiently? by darronb · · Score: 1

      > The idea that children can't handle these abstractions is ridiculous.

      Exactly. Algebra should be mandatory for everyone, period. Abstract and critical thinking skills are IMHO massively important tools to transform a person from a child to an adult.

      I am highly skeptical of the idea that "some people just can't think abstractly", and I believe that's simply a failure to find ways to teach the least prepared students. Seriouse extra effort needs to be spent to reach these people... the effects on society of too many non-abstract, non-critical thinkers to just too horribly damaging.

      My personal view is that someone without these skills is simply not a mentually adult human being, and they should be treated as such. IF it was possible to concretely define what adequate mastery is (which would probably be quite difficult to do absent singificant bias), I'd go as far as saying a person so handicapped should not be able to vote and would need competent but non-binding counseling on any major life decision (especially the financial ones).

    37. Re:Yes, but when does it do so efficiently? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't answer questions you weren't prepared to answer? His point must be entirely irrelevant.

  127. Thoughts from a Math Certified Teacher by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have an antiquated view of trade schools. I am Math certified in two States, as well as Computer Science, IT, Vocational and industry certs. To say that a carpenter does not need to know geometry in building or algebra in estimation is absurd. In my "trade school", all students in all disciplines are required to learn and use math. We do realize, however that certain professions require varying levels of proficiency. We rely on ACT workkeys data to determine that level.

    http://www.act.org/workkeys/charts/

    http://www.act.org/workkeys/assess/math/levels.html

    While even the highest levels do not reach college math, our students consistently recognize their importance (we collect data). Students also appreciate our assistance in helping them learn the basics (that we used to assume that they already had). Not everyone will need calculus, but students going into some fields do. That doesn't mean that all students need to take the same coursework.

    Perhaps we should stop focusing on teaching "Subjects" and instead focus on teaching "Students". Pushing all students to reach their individual potential should be the goal of education, supported by pretest and posttest data, interest surveys, educational development plans, computer based training, hands on experience, and other useful tools.

  128. Calculus and Shakespeare by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Mathematics is the language used to describe how the world around you works.

    I'd go further. It used to be that in the UK everyone going to university had to have a maths O'level which required _simple_ calculus. After all if I had to study Shakespeare before I could do a physics degree shouldn't those studying english study the basic maths developed by Newton to describe the same world that Shakespeare described with his plays?

    1. Re:Calculus and Shakespeare by hierofalcon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You shouldn't have to study Shakespeare to get a physics degree.

      That is exactly the problem with our university system in the U.S. and evidently other countries as well. I went through two B.S. degree programs in four years. The combined program that did that only required 18 hours of miscellaneous garbage - the equivalent of six courses. One of the courses had to be economics and one had to be business law. That left four non-core courses in the entire combined program. There were still many courses in math and science, but we were spared the bulk of the absolute garbage that most schools require.

      If you want to study a foreign language or two, that is what you should be able to concentrate in along with history of that part of the world. If you want to study math, you should be able to study math. If you want to go into science or medicine you should be able to concentrate in those fields without having to everything else just to keep the professors employed. If you want to study engineering, that is where you should be able to concentrate. If you don't know what you want to study you should wait to go to college until you know and not waste everyone's time dabbling here and there in some broad based curriculum

      I know that it would be hard to do 100% engineering or 100% science courses, but the breadth required in many schools is absurd. You've got the rest of your life to read classics, study history, and attend the gym to work out. There's no reason to pay college tuition rates to do that. . You won't regret the college loans if you haven't had to subsidize a bunch of teachers who instruct in courses which have no bearing on your life or career.

    2. Re:Calculus and Shakespeare by swillden · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I disagree.

      I spent a fair amount of time once with a man who was educated in the fashion you seem to think is appropriate. In his case, he'd started out working on the factory floor at an IBM manufacturing facility in Texas (30 years ago when they still made stuff in the US), and had qualified for and taken a technical math and computer science education culminating in a master's degree. IBM's "school" was accredited and his degree was a real one, but it included only technical subjects; no liberal ed at all. Prior to his IBM education he had barely graduated from high school -- and I'm not sure how he did, frankly.

      He was a highly intelligent man, very articulate and perceptive. However, as soon as the discussion left technology his utter lack of education became instantly apparent. He was even ignorant of basic principles of physics -- he knew a fair amount about electronics, but in mechanics he understood less than most high school dropouts I've known. His ability to understand politics was nonexistent because he didn't know any history, or even understand basic civics. And don't even attempt to talk about literature, philosophy, etc.

      Now, obviously, a big part of his ignorance was due to his own utter lack of interest in anything outside of computer science. You can't obtain a MSCS without being able to read, and anyone who can read can educate themselves. But the point was that the difference between him and the typical college graduate -- even though he was almost certainly smarter than said typical graduate -- was stark and obvious, and it wasn't in his favor. His lack of general knowledge wasn't just a problem when socializing, either, it often caused him to make dumb decisions that affected the business, and you simply could not put him in front of customers, because unless the discussion was laser-focused, he'd eventually say something that made him look like an idiot.

      After my experience working with him, I decided I wholeheartedly agree with the liberal education philosophy. The worst part about it was that his deep, narrow knowledge and utter lack of knowledge outside of a single field made him believe, quite firmly, that there really wasn't much to know outside of his field. It's often said that that the primary purpose of a BA/BS is to teach the student the breadth of his own ignorance. Well, this guy never learned that.

      We don't all need deep knowledge in every area, but an introductory course in each of the major areas of human knowledge really does add significant value. It makes us more rounded, teaches us some much-needed humility and, well, educates us. That education is what differentiates a university degree from a vocational certificate, and the former is more valuable than the latter.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    3. Re:Calculus and Shakespeare by dbIII · · Score: 3, Informative

      You shouldn't have to study Shakespeare to get a physics degree.

      It's to improve communication skills, not paticularly hard anyway and has the benfit of showing people that there is more to English than correct spelling. A lot of people on this site (eg. every grammar nazi) could benefit from it.
      I may have done 100% engineering and science courses back in the 1980s, but I did have a reasonably solid high school English background before it which I am sure helped.

    4. Re:Calculus and Shakespeare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      .... an introductory course in each of the major areas of human knowledge really does add significant value ...

      But that should be purpose of school: Not to teach children how to be a minimum-wage slave. Teachers talk a lot about critical thinking but logic and philosophy is not in any school curriculum. It also takes some rudimentary knowledge of a subject to realise what assumptions are being made in an opinion piece.

      The first problem of with 10 years of normal education is that students are capable of abstract thought in the last 2 years only. That's not much time to teach teen-agers the basics of modern society while they are also learning to drive a car, hold-down a job, play sport (competitively), socialize and fuck.

    5. Re:Calculus and Shakespeare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The introductory and advanced general knowledge courses on all aspects of human condition and the surrounding world such as history, biology, geography, philosophy, psychology, literature, music etc. belong in high school. By the time you enter university you should already have all the general knowledge needed to maintain a reasonably intelligent conversation and after that in university you concentrate on your chosen field and a side topic or two of your choice, but nothing you're not interested in and that couldn't possibly help your academic career. For example writing history essays does indeed help you with critical thinking and expressing your thoughts, and that's why everyone has to do it in high school to prepare for university. It's pointless to prepare once already IN the university! That is how the system works here in Finland.

    6. Re:Calculus and Shakespeare by Black+Gold+Alchemist · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I agree with both of you and the GP. I agree with the GP that such classes are annoying and largely useless to the specific discipline that the person chooses. I agree with the parent that you need to look beyond your discipline. A little background: I'm currently a college student (becoming a sophomore) at a big-name university, studying robotics. At this university, we have general education requirements of the following: Humanities, Social Science, Language, Natural Science. We also have a mandatory writing class and "Intro to the humanities". The goal, obviously, of these requirements is to make students well-rounded. This sounds good in principle, but in reality it fails.

      Before I explain why, I must note that there are different types of students who respond differently to attempts to make them well-rounded. The first type, I call "robots." Robots essentially drag themselves through a fixed course in life - birth, elementary school, middle school, high school, college, career, marriage, kids, retirement, death. What kind of robot you get depends on the school you attend, but essentially they are all the same person. You get people who are insanely good at some subject (chemistry, biology, etc.) but not so good at everything else. Or so you'd think. What you actually get are people who have no intrinsic motivation, but are good at anything they have to do. That means they'll learn what they need for their career and they'll do well in these sort of general education classes if they have to get a degree. But, there's a problem: they'll never apply that knowledge to anything else. For example, if you have a robot who studies neuroscience and takes a required philosophy class, they won't consider the impact of neuroscience upon moral philosophy. Basically, requiring these students to take these sorts of classes is like programming an industrial welding robot to play a violin. While it might seem like you've done something, all you've really done is make a weird demonstration that doesn't really do much after it quits.

      The second type of student here is the party animal. These students just party through college - they're not here for academics really, they're here for the connections. They are here for a variety of reasons - legacy, decent test scores, athletics, etc. As you might expect, they take a "C's get degrees" attitude to required courses. They don't gain anything from such courses but at least they push down to curve for the rest of us. Or you might assume. Actually, they take up valuable resources including TA and professor time, ask basic and banal questions and worst of all annoy the course staff and make them angry at the student body as a whole.

      Lastly, there are some students who are truly intellectual. They actually integrate the ideas from the various disciplines together and create better ideas as a result. These students don't actually need much help being well-rounded. They'll read articles and get ideas from other fields on their own because that's part of there personality. They may take non-major related classes out of interest (I'm doing this with physics, chemistry, and maybe biology) for entertainment. The only benefit they may receive from these classes is a little push on the envelope (which they may hit anyway). The disadvantage is that they take required classes, which are bad because forced education is an inherently bad process. Students who don't want to learn are a pain to teach. This annoys professors that take that anger out on the student body. They also force professors to dumb down the course, in turn causing students who are actually engaged to be bored out of their minds. This bordem in turn causes them to become disinterested. Essentially, the entire thing fails for everyone at the same time.

      So, to recap, required courses fail for each group of students for different reasons. Robots learn the material and then fail to apply it. Party animals flunk the classes. Intellectual students become disinterested in the basic classes and disconnect

      --
      Responsibility is an addiction
      Virtue is a temptation
      Community is a cartel
    7. Re:Calculus and Shakespeare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed

      The courses one feels they dont need help more then you realize if your stop complaining and focus on the class. They are there to introduce you to ideas that are foreign to your way of thinking. I found myself having to take Sociology courses for my CS degree and in the end was very thankful. It opened my eyes greatly in regards to user interface design. All the courses I took in the end have made it easier for me to relate with the users. I can explain things in ways they can relate to and design functionality to work how people of said field expect to see things.

      I didn't enjoy those classes but I am more then glad I had to take them.

    8. Re:Calculus and Shakespeare by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      So, you attempt to refute an argument by presenting a single anecdote? Math, you fail at it.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    9. Re:Calculus and Shakespeare by JakartaDean · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you want to study engineering, that is where you should be able to concentrate.

      I did that, 25 years ago. Recently I returned to my alma mater (UWO in Canada, if anyone cares) and 6 of us were invited by the fairly new Dean to discuss what they should be doing to improve the curriculum. While lab methods had changed a lot in 25 years, most of the core curriculum hadn't -- which is probably the right thing. Anyway, when he asked what we didn't get at university, but should have, we came up with two: project management and English.

      Project management is an obvious skill for an engineer, and should have always been there. When he was surprised that we mentioned English (specifically a writing course) we all said that a lot of our work since graduation has included writing reports, and learning how to write well early on would have been a great advantage. I have forgotten an awful lot of math in 25 years, and learned a lot of English writing.

      By all means learn the math and physics. I think you cannot possibly do anything worthwhile in economics or finance without calculus, and even political scientists must need to know about trends and statistics, both of which are built at least partially on calculus. But to do only, e.g., calculus, leaves one poorly equipped for life.

      --
      The subject who is truly loyal to the Chief Magistrate will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures (Junius)
    10. Re:Calculus and Shakespeare by SoulNibbler · · Score: 1

      You are requesting tech schools, they exist here in German speaking Europe. It was never intended that everyone complete a BS/BA program, these programs are an opportunity to grow as a person and honestly broaden one's viewpoint in a variety of fields. The goal of higher education is to teach how to teach one's self, to do that one must have an idea of what one must learn. The undergraduate, and many programs graduate programs are designed to expose people to a variety of viewpoints in order to provide a framework for future thought. This provides flexibility in thought, you wouldn't tell someone to study only vacuum tubes, because you know that those have become a technological dead end, by advocating a zero breadth curriculum you are basically telling people to bet the farm on a single topic. Sure, you can go back to school, but I studied with a number of older students in my physics program who HAD to go back to get more breadth and exposure and I learned that its very difficult to attend full time college with a mortgage and a full time job.

    11. Re:Calculus and Shakespeare by svick · · Score: 1

      I think that says more about the quality of his high school education than about what universities should be teaching.

      Here in Czech Republic, universities teach only the subject you're studying (so you don't need to study any history, literature or physics to get a CS degree). But that's because all those subjects were already taught in high school. And I believe if done right, that's more than enough.

      University shouldn't be about general education, that's what the earlier stages are for.

    12. Re:Calculus and Shakespeare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disagree.
      When I did my MSc in computer engineering we had a certain number of free electives.
      The only requirement was that they were not courses from your major.
      Many people choose stuff like extra english, or some management or law stuff, and thats great.
      One person I knew even switched his major to law because he liked it more.
      But I just did more technical courses, but only from a different major namely control theory, because I found that interesting too.

      If a person isn't interested in the least in history, it doesn't matter if you force him to take a class in it.
      He will either fail miserably, or pass and forget everything afterwards.

    13. Re:Calculus and Shakespeare by LF11 · · Score: 1

      Remember that most people do not engage in a career linked to their college majors. When they graduate, they pick up whatever jobs they can find.

      If they are not reasonably well-rounded in their education, this becomes much harder. Why would you want to lock someone in to their youthful decisions, perhaps made without a full understanding of what is actually needed in the world?

      cej102937

    14. Re:Calculus and Shakespeare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The introductory and advanced general knowledge courses on all aspects of human condition and the surrounding world such as history, biology, geography, philosophy, psychology, literature, music etc. belong in high school.

      For the benefit of those unfortunates who are not English, Roger W Moore referred to O levels a few layers up. One normally does those at the age of 16.

    15. Re:Calculus and Shakespeare by hierofalcon · · Score: 1

      While I agree concerning the mastery of English or your primary native language and English for any Engineering or CS curriculum, this instruction really should be taken care of during high school. At the college I attended, you wrote an essay during freshman orientation. If it was deemed sufficiently well written, you got to skip the English course. All engineering and CS courses required basic physics, chemistry, organic chemistry for dummies, and their associated labs along with many math courses as they should. It was particularly gratifying to get an A in Chem Lab with all the psychotic pre-meds around. Even 30 years ago, we had to take an upper level CS course where we did a complete project in a team environment.

      I don't have problems with courses that are going to be useful for your major, even if in other university divisions. I certainly think you should have time in your schedule to explore any other field you wanted. I chose courses from the classical studies department covering Egypt and Greece, and also took a course on the history of nuclear energy and a few others. The breadth should rarely be required to graduate though.

    16. Re:Calculus and Shakespeare by hierofalcon · · Score: 1

      This is why I suggested that if they didn't know what they wanted to do, they take some time and find out first before investing the money in a degree they could not use or did not enjoy. Realistically, if they focused more on their major, they might find it easier to get that job in the first place and wouldn't be picking up whatever job they could find.

      Clearly, part of that process is knowing what the industry demand is. I think that there is a major failure on the part of high school guidance departments in this regard.

    17. Re:Calculus and Shakespeare by LF11 · · Score: 1

      I guess I didn't state fully what was in my head. Sorry!

      The head of the Bio department at my school has a clearly-stated, emphatic opinion that college is NOT "job training." She is frustrated that many students, and their parents, seem to think that college is "job training." I think she is right. The knowledge you learn at school is absolutely horrible "job training."

      In my field (programming), 4 years' professional experience will land you a job much faster than a B.* in Computer Science. My current employer actually discards degrees in favor of even short-term professional experience. This doesn't seem to be unusual.

      Vocational schools are job training. Universities like North-Eastern that do work-study programs are kinda job training. Apart from that, it is the job of the university to turn you into a well-rounded individual, with enough breadth of education that you can make your way socially and economically in a variety of fields.

      I guess I'm saying, don't go to a university for job training, because that's not what they are about. The flip side of that is, don't complain when they want you to take a wide breadth of courses, because that IS what they are about.

    18. Re:Calculus and Shakespeare by hierofalcon · · Score: 1

      I'd agree with your comments in general. CS happens to be a discipline where you can learn on the job or in a trade school environment. People who can do the work are favored over those who have the courses for entry level positions. I would suggest that in any large company, those who have the degree are generally promoted to higher organizational positions over those who can do the work. The degree does indicate a certain level of discipline and follow through.

      But there are many degrees you can get at college that have no on-the-job or trade school equivalent. This would certainly include engineering, sciences, and math. Others provide the basics for those going on to higher degrees in medicine or law. There are also degrees or chosen professions where a gunshot approach with a narrow focus in a few courses is best. You're striving to be well rounded. These might include diplomatic or political careers. The people planning for a career in politics generally realize this and don't complain about the breadth requirements.

      I think that your Bio department head is wrong though. If a person wants to excel in biology, that person should be able to do that with a view to getting a job in the field. Only the very, very rich can afford to go to college with no view to an eventual job. To try to imply that college should not be preparing the vast majority of students to work in a particular field is myopic. Long gone are the days of well rounded college students going off to government posts or to run a business while everyone else went to trade school to learn a craft. I think she's about a century behind the times.

      I do agree that most courses in the specialized fields aren't meant to equate directly to jobs, but they do provide background knowledge that anyone hiring for a position expects the student to have. In this sense, while not job training, they are definitely job preparation. The more courses you have to take to make you well rounded, the less time you have to be adequately prepared. If I was an employer, I'd be much more interested in whether my new chemist could balance equations than whether the individual had gotten an A in "Studies of the American Cinema in the 21st century". That these types of courses are even available and taught for credit and to fulfill somebody's graduation requirements I think makes my point that universities are broken today.

    19. Re:Calculus and Shakespeare by fatphil · · Score: 1

      An O Level with calculus would be a *long* way back, I'm sure. I didn't do calculus until I studied for an AO level in maths. (However, I did do my O level a year early, perhaps I'd have learnt it as part of the O level course in that final year. But the question then would be why my AO class retaught the 6-th form guys a year above me calculus if they'd done it the prior year?)

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    20. Re:Calculus and Shakespeare by RandCraw · · Score: 1

      Almost all of the engineers I know (~ a dozen) fall into the stereotype of showing little interest outside of tech, as do many computer scientists (I know dozens). Interestingly, few of the biologists, chemists, physicists, or mathematicians I know (I know dozens) are major geeks. So not all techies are interested only in tech subjects. Techmeisters are not a monolith, and probably neither is the origin of their passion for tech or dispassion for non-tech.

      I think the disinterest in non-tech subjects from techies should not be blamed on the school system any more than can the disinterest in tech subjects from non-techies. Passion for tech sometimes can be nurtured but usually it comes from nature. Tech and math appeals to boys more than girls, and non-circumspective geeky boys still more. Changing our schools isn't going to change that.

      Earning a tech degree means you're suited to doing tech work, not sales, marketing, or managing people. Employers need to hire the right skills for the job. For most jobs outside academia, just having a college degree is not enough. You're hiring a person, not a degree.

    21. Re:Calculus and Shakespeare by Monoman · · Score: 1

      You seem to think the university systems were specifically created to educate people in a chosen field so they may join the workforce.

      There was a time not so long ago when people went to college/university to become well rounded in many areas so then they could determine what their interests were.

      --
      Keep the Classic Slashdot.
    22. Re:Calculus and Shakespeare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think the "party animals" are bad now, wait until you get out into the workplace and find that they become the CEOs, business owners, investors, etc. If you think they are destructive in college, wait until they buy your company, cancel your project, sell your company's IP, and lay you off, all while fattening their pockets. I'm guessing you consider yourself in the intellectual group. Do yourself a favor, and find out how fast you can chug a six pack of cheap beer. Spend the rest of your college career trying to improve on that time.

    23. Re:Calculus and Shakespeare by hierofalcon · · Score: 1

      I realize that that is true. I wish that it could still be done for a reasonable price. Sadly, there are few low priced public colleges around. A few community colleges can still be said to be reasonably priced and should probably be used to serve this purpose. This is particularly true if you can live at home and reduce your costs further. But most universities are very expensive for most people. I suspect that in future years college will become even more expensive.

      I think the latest statistics on debt for education in the US was around 1 trillion dollars. Granted it wouldn't be so big a number if it were adjusted for inflation. Yet it is still a massive number and a real drain on many individuals.

      As far as why they were created, I suppose that depends on how far back you go in history.

    24. Re:Calculus and Shakespeare by swillden · · Score: 1

      It's called a counterexample, and in mathematics it's a way to instantly demolish any conjecture :-)

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    25. Re:Calculus and Shakespeare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Little boxes on the hillside, Little boxes made of tickytacky
      Little boxes on the hillside, little boxes all the same
      There's a green one and a pink one and a blue one and a yellow one
      And they're all made out of ticky tacky and they all look just the same.

      And the people in the houses all went to the university
      Where they were put in boxes and they came out all the same,
      And there's doctors and there's lawyers, and business executives
      And they're all made out of ticky tacky and they all look just the same.

      And they all play on the golf course and drink their martinis dry,
      And they all have pretty children and the children go to school
      And the children go to summer camp and then to the university
      Where they are put in boxes and they come out all the same.

      And the boys go into business and marry and raise a family
      In boxes made of ticky tacky and they all look just the same.

    26. Re:Calculus and Shakespeare by Ren.Tamek · · Score: 1

      Lastly, there are some students who are truly intellectual. ... They may take non-major related classes out of interest (I'm doing this with physics, chemistry, and maybe biology)

      Emphasis mine. You've conveniently split your peers up into 3 categories - two 'bad' categories, complete with cutting descriptions, and a third that you happen to belong to. It's human nature to value your own worldview above other peoples, but I think it's worth pointing out what we're all reading here.

      You go on to say that those other people are binging you down and making education worse for you. But I say those other points of view are quite valid, and the world doesn't revolve around your needs and desires. We need to come to terms as a society that formal education is just for getting letters in front of your name, and to stop expecting so much from it.

      Here is my personal philosophy: the best we can hope for is to introduce someone to a topic that sparks their interest. The best work will come from personal study, no professors or classmates required. And if someone wants to have a beer and watch football instead, there is nothing wrong with that either.

      --
      "If you want a vision of the future, Winston, imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever." - George Orwell, 1984
    27. Re:Calculus and Shakespeare by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · · Score: 1

      Not much to disagree with in your posting. However I would add this - it seems to be increasingly common to find that people treat thinking as actively painful. I'm not often left speechless but I'll give you an example of a time when that was my reaction.

      I was a member of the governing board of an organization which held about $2 million in assets. All the board positions were unpaid but had legal liability attached. I had the following conversation with the treasurer:

      ......
      Her: I don't like talking with you [about the affairs of the organization].
      Me: Why is that?
      Her: Because you keep challenging my beliefs.
      Me: Well is it possible that at least some of the time I am right?
      Her: Oh you usually are.

      --
      The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
    28. Re:Calculus and Shakespeare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The truly intellectual may have broad interests, but not always broad enough to explore some of these areas on their own. A friend (he even ended up a Rhodes Scholar when all was said and done) wouldn't have found his current career without a course that he took to fulfill GenEd requirements. Where we go wrong with GenEd is the purpose-built courses designed to satisfy the requirements shallowly - "General Math" aka math for poets, shallow, "for non-majors" history courses or literature courses. A better approach which my alma mater used was to require us to explore something in the broader social sciences, humanities, natural sciences, history, etc. I took a class on Viking literature and Business in Literature to satisfy my Arts and Lit requirements. I learned a lot about Norse culture, the origins of much of modern western Fantasy conventions, and got an appreciation for the socialist/objectivist mindsets and views of the business world. If I had had complete freedom, I probably would have taken some chemistry or more math courses, but I think it helped round my education to be required to explore other areas, much as I may have resented it at the time.

    29. Re:Calculus and Shakespeare by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Anecdotal evidence. Look it up.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    30. Re:Calculus and Shakespeare by Black+Gold+Alchemist · · Score: 1

      Emphasis mine. You've conveniently split your peers up into 3 categories - two 'bad' categories, complete with cutting descriptions, and a third that you happen to belong to. It's human nature to value your own worldview above other peoples, but I think it's worth pointing out what we're all reading here.

      True. I appreciate your cynicism. It's a strange form of enlightenment to apply cynicism to yourself.

      You go on to say that those other people are binging you down and making education worse for you. But I say those other points of view are quite valid, and the world doesn't revolve around your needs and desires.

      I never said it does. I said that these groups of people need different things and need different experiences and I never really said that they were good or bad, although I could easily see you my terminology could cause you to believe that. Further, I do not claim (although did not explicitly state) to be part of the intellectual group, although I strive to be a part of it. I do however believe that the goal of promoters of general education wish to transform the "robots" into intellectuals and I believe that their approaches are not working well. The other groups do not bring quality down, the failure to tailor education has brought down quality.

      We need to come to terms as a society that formal education is just for getting letters in front of your name, and to stop expecting so much from it.

      I agree that formal education has become that, but as a student, I am trying to get the most out of my education. I figure, if I'm paying so much for it, I ought to milk it for all that its worth - connections, ideas, experiences, everything. So it's not a matter of expectations but a matter of personal ROI optimization that you're seeing here.

      Here is my personal philosophy: the best we can hope for is to introduce someone to a topic that sparks their interest. The best work will come from personal study, no professors or classmates required. And if someone wants to have a beer and watch football instead, there is nothing wrong with that either.

      Agreed. I wish we as a society could reach an agreement on these issues, but we will not. The reason is that fundamentally your statement is a statement that it is ok to "slack" in life - it's fundamentally a statement about the purpose of life. That's a question that philosophers have argued over for basically all of history.

      --
      Responsibility is an addiction
      Virtue is a temptation
      Community is a cartel
    31. Re:Calculus and Shakespeare by Black+Gold+Alchemist · · Score: 1

      In essence a quick summary of why I will never join a publicly traded company. And why being a consultant and a bootstrapping oriented entrepreneur is a good idea.

      --
      Responsibility is an addiction
      Virtue is a temptation
      Community is a cartel
    32. Re:Calculus and Shakespeare by swillden · · Score: 1

      I'm a mathematician, not an actuary.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    33. Re:Calculus and Shakespeare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for that; it's a very interesting perspective.

    34. Re:Calculus and Shakespeare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If what you want to improve is communication skills, it would be more effective to do improv, teach psychology of communication and psycholinguistics, and practice body language reading.

      Shakespeare is taught because Shakespeare has been taught for a long while. It's decent literature, but it's mostly of interest as a way to have a common cultural reference work - in English speaking countries, this is to a large degree Shakespeare. In my country (Norway), it would more commonly be the the Bible and Ibsen.

      It's debatable whether having a set of common cultural reference works is worth the cost of teaching them. They used to be very widely referenced, and all of "fine culture" needed them; but as culture has broadened, they're less and less referenced and may be worth less and less. The fact that you end up with arguments that add in alternative explanations of why they're there seems to indicate that they've outlived their usefulness.

    35. Re:Calculus and Shakespeare by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I've noticed on this site over the last few years that many recent graduates that are native English speakers from the USA have an obsession with spelling and grammar but appear to have read very little, and I'm using Shakespeare as an example because I see their likely reaction to a quote would be to correct the spelling instead of getting some meaning from it.
      The other reason I've brought it up is because it's not difficult to read and it's effectively part of popular culture anyway, so it's a very low bar to jump. I agree that there are a lot of far better ways to teach communication.

    36. Re:Calculus and Shakespeare by Lando · · Score: 1

      Be careful about falling into the third group btw. Undergrad is a place to get a degree, not an education. Taking courses that interest you, or even god forbid challenge you can cause your GPA to fall and other education rules nastyness. Might not for everyone, but I know I've screwed myself a bit because of taking courses outside the required courses and it's caused me a few problems. Pretty important to know how the education system works at your school, even the "unpublished" rules that they point out later that because you didn't look at subsection 123.73.1.b in the revised edition of the student guidelines you aren't eligible to take any classes that semester.

      Pain in the butt, but in my opinion for undergraduate work, your likely better off strictly following the course guideline the school gives you and not taking interesting or challenging classes until you hit graduate school and perhaps not even then.

      --
      /* TODO: Spawn child process, interest child in technology, have child write a new sig */
  129. Aldous Huxley and the Brave new World by sinan · · Score: 1

    I didn't see anybody mentioning that this is a very clever spoof on Brave new World. The fact that the equation is wrong is a dead giveaway. Kudos to prof Hacker.

  130. I'm awful at math, and even I think it's necessary by TheSeatOfMyPants · · Score: 2

    Of all the articles I've seen questioning whether one subject or another is useful (let alone "necessary"), that one's the absolute most idiotic yet. Even though I have dyscalculia (my mind scrambles the numbers despite my best efforts) and basically struggled my way through math from first grade onwards as a result, I find algebra itself vitally important in average day-to-day life. Without grasping how to set up a simple algebraic formula, how could I figure out the true cost of items at the grocery store to know which is a better value, scale ingredients for a recipe to match what I need or if I'm low on one ingredient, or figure out amounts/measurements to use if instructions I'm following to create something will result in the item being the wrong size?

    Sure, no doubt people could theoretically find an app for their smartphone (if they have one -- I don't yet) to figure that stuff out for them, but that would waste so much extra time over making up a simple equation that it's really not funny.

    In addition to that, algebra is where math finally starts to make sense, and trains a kid's mind to deal with abstractions. How is some kid supposed to know that they'd love physics, chemistry, or other algebra-dependent fields if they decide not to take algebra because they hated basic math? How are they to handle programming computers, regardless of how interesting it sounds, if they haven't already trained their mind to work easily with variables or similar abstract notions?

    I was actually discussing this with my father & unofficial stepmother last night, in fact... I was very annoyed as a teen that I had to "waste time" by taking any class other than English or biology, and only did so because high school & California public colleges/universities required it. I'm very glad I did, as it exposed me to so much more about the world -- including math/algebra-related things like how home loans work, physics, programming, astronomy, etc. -- that made me better at my preferred fields but that I never would have paid any real attention to or even considered trying on my own.

    --
    Now mostly at Usenet:comp.misc & SoylentNews.org (it's made of people!)
  131. Yes, Those Are Better Questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not so certain the summary and title are really so off-target having read the editorial, but I think you do pick up on a much better line of questioning with respect to this issue.

    Makes me think about the discussion in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance about the usage and probable non-necessity of college for most people.

  132. Learning Algebra by kbreak · · Score: 1

    I am terrible at math. I use it constantly. I "get it" that algebra can use some values to find unknown values. I "get it" that geometry can be useful to find square footage. I failed 2nd year algebra/calculus twice before I got a passing grade in college. This cut me right off in fields I was interested in, such as "fighter pilot", "astronaut" "spy-satellite photo-interpreter" and so on. Now I work as a photographer, and I use ratios, square footage, the inverse square law, and many of the things I had trouble with in math in college, I can use the "calculator" function in Google... have you seen that lately btw? I would have loved to work on spy sat photos for the CIA but instead I shoot photos of sexy women. dammit.

  133. Calcules would have avoided the financial crisis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If people would have known how to analyse the rate of change in their loan, we would have not been in this financial predicament. Yes people, Calcules is the study of how numbers change.

    What we need to ask ourself, is not how we should drop a subject that is so vital to our humanity, but how can we get more people to understand the uses of it. It does not help when even the math teacher does not know the use of Algebra.

    By the way, I can not spell Calcules because I found English (with its grammar and stupid rules) very hard, so I propose we drop it from our curriculum as well because I am duing just fin within it.

  134. Dumbing down by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The way I see it the ultimate aim of the author of TFA is to dumb down the future generations

    The dumber future generations get the easier they can be manipulated to do the dirty things that the elites themselves do not want to do
     

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Dumbing down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The way I see it the ultimate aim of the author of TFA is to dumb down the future generations

      The dumber future generations get the easier they can be manipulated to do the dirty things that the elites themselves do not want to do

      Not only that, but you have to ask within this context specifically: do we want more politicians that are actually incapable of balancing a budget?

    2. Re:Dumbing down by jc42 · · Score: 2

      ... you have to ask within this context specifically: do we want more politicians that are actually incapable of balancing a budget?

      Apparently we do; we keep voting them into office.

      (Though I'd have to admit that the logic behind this conclusion is probably inaccessible to those who can't handle basic math, which means most of our high-school graduates now. ;-)

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    3. Re:Dumbing down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a point when there is too much dumb. We probably went hurtling past that point somewhere in the 80s.
      Which is interesting because, if elitists dumb down fellow humans to do the stuff they don't want to to, then clearly the elitists don't want to do anything whatsoever.
      I've noticed that generally people that aren't willing to do necessary survival stuff are usually tagged as dead weight. Making people so dumb that they fail to recognize when they are being taught how to survive, in my perspective is treason against humanity.

    4. Re:Dumbing down by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      do we want more politicians that are actually incapable of balancing a budget?

      Well that's summed up the state of mathematical education in a nutshell.

      Anyone remotely numerate would be able to work out that the number of those is already at its maximum.

      Say what? You weren't after a silly answer? Well try this cynical one for size: They're quite capable of doing so, but why would they bother when it's not their money?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    5. Re:Dumbing down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, dirty things like math.

      Oh wait.

    6. Re:Dumbing down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The way I see it the ultimate aim of the author of TFA is to dumb down the future generations

      The dumber future generations get the easier they can be manipulated to do the dirty things that the elites themselves do not want to do

      The way I see it the elite need educated people to work in there global companies, it doesn't make sense to dumb down deliberately as countries survive economically through the educated, not the uneducated. This seems to be more Politically Correct bullshit from the loony left not the Politically leaning right.

  135. Seriously? by LocoMotives · · Score: 1

    First, calling "political science" a science is an oximoron. That said, mathematics, when taught properly, teaches a student to break problems down and solve them, logically. I'm afraid that the methods used in classrooms today do not aproach mathematics in a way that allows many students to gain that primary skill.

  136. Newton's Laws by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

    Newton's three laws are physics, not, as you seem to imply, math. Also, I don't live in Quebec, so why should I care about the Régie du logement?

  137. math is primarily the ability to think logically. by porky_pig_jr · · Score: 1

    IMHO, understanding math is inseparable from the ability to think logically. If you can reason, you can get through math. If you can't, well, may be you can find the carrier in arts or something like that. But the kind of science which does not need math - well, I would be quite suspicious about it, that's what's called a "soft science", and being soft scientist is primarily to bullshit your way toward advanced degrees, writing papers with no content and no meaning. Duh ...

  138. There's a shirt for that by itchybrain · · Score: 4, Funny

    Actually found this on snorgtees.com:

    "Dear Algebra,
    Stop asking us to find your X.
    She's not coming back"

  139. Political Science Professor by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They don't teach you mathematics because you'll need to calculate the area of triangles at work, they teach it because it forces you to use logical thinking to solve problems. Critical thinking and logic are essential to solving problems in the real world, no matter where you are.

     
    I am not a bit surprised to see a Political Science professor suggesting the dropping of Algebra from high school curriculum
     
    After all, the objective of political science is "Controlling", and students who never get to learn Algebra (and other logic-based subjects) may grow dumber, and dumb people are easier to control
     
    Do you know that they _ARE_ doing similar things in England?
     
    In England, in some schools, students do not received grades, and they do not know how they fair inside their own class - because, according to those so-called "experts", they do not want to "hurt the feeling of those children who aren't doing well"
     
    In other words, they _are_ doing everything they can to dumb down the future generations to the lowest common denominator
     

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Political Science Professor by PyroMosh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, political science isn't about controlling people any more than zoology is about controlling animal populations.

      It's a study. It's no more unified than politics is, because that's what political science is: the study of politics, government, and state.

      Also, I'm sure some fringe school somewhere does what you say, but the UK has a standardized uniform grading system that is widely used:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_grading_in_the_United_Kingdom

      I think this guy's idea is dumb too. But your assertions don't seem grounded in reality.

    2. Re:Political Science Professor by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 2

      Do you know that they _ARE_ doing similar things in England?

      In England, in some schools, students do not received grades, and they do not know how they fair inside their own class - because, according to those so-called "experts", they do not want to "hurt the feeling of those children who aren't doing well"

      In other words, they _are_ doing everything they can to dumb down the future generations to the lowest common denominator

      This is completely beside the (ridiculous) point of the article.

      Does knowing how one is fairing relative to immediate classmates actually provide any benefit to the student? Do we think that constantly telling them how poorly (or how well) they are performing is going to actually adjust their final performance metrics?

      Grades are not an education. Telling students how they perform against a nebulous average doesn't accomplish anything.

      The grand realization of the Kahn academy has really been that the best performance metrics are when we test students against themselves and challenge them to improve their own accomplishments. And that depending at the point in time someone looks at the students, the struggling student may have just had trouble with one key concept, but then usually catches up quickly.

      For someone so incensed by the idea of control, you should perhaps consider why "divide and conquer" is so highly regarded throughout history.

    3. Re:Political Science Professor by Compaqt · · Score: 1

      James Q. Wilson (heard of him?) starts out his book on polisci with a definition of "power", namely the ability to get people to do things.

      So, yeah, polisci is concerned with how to get people to do things.

      --
      I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    4. Re:Political Science Professor by Brickwall · · Score: 4, Funny
      "how they fair inside their own class"

      "Does knowing how one is fairing relative to immediate classmates "

      While I don't know how either of you are doing in the real world, it's a pretty fair bet that neither of you would fare very well on an English test.

      But I bets both of you can al-jabber with the best of them!

      --
      What was once true, is no longer so
    5. Re:Political Science Professor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Which English schools are these? Everyone gets grades.

      Care to quote your sources.

    6. Re:Political Science Professor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My sisters went to an alternative high school that did not have grades, and combined what you need to learn into something fun, such as a horror fiction class for english where they spent most of their class time watching horror movies. From comparing their experiences to mine, I feel like they were actually pushed a lot harder than I was in a more traditional setting. Instead of just getting the C for instance for not turning in a homework assignment, you would just fail and have to take the class over. Most of the kids coming out of this school are more independent thinkers and less likely to be controlled, having taken a more active role in their own education.

    7. Re:Political Science Professor by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      "how they fair inside their own class"

      "Does knowing how one is fairing relative to immediate classmates "

      While I don't know how either of you are doing in the real world, it's a pretty fair bet that neither of you would fare very well on an English test.

      But I bets both of you can al-jabber with the best of them!

      I don't know what you think you've uncovered here. The OP made a statement, I referenced the statement accurately. Scandalous.

    8. Re:Political Science Professor by Candyban · · Score: 1

      Do we think that constantly telling them how poorly (or how well) they are performing is going to actually adjust their final performance metrics

      Erm, yes. That is one of the major points of a grading system.

      Grades are not an education

      Agreed, but that does not mean it is not important measure for education.

      Telling students how they perform against a nebulous average doesn't accomplish anything

      Although comparing to the average is not the greatest of measures, it may give several indications. If the person is deviating from the mean (better measure than average), it usually is an indication that there is a problem.

      • Maybe the person is lacking interest
      • Maybe the person is lacking mental/physical capabilities
      • Maybe the person is not sufficiently challenged (too smart)
      • Maybe the person is plain lazy

      They are all indications that this person should be reoriented. Mind you, the purpose of an education is to be a more productive member of society.
      At the moment education focuses too much on economic productivity and there should be more time for social productivity too (phylosophy, compassion, being a better spouse/parent, ...)

      the best performance metrics are when we test students against themselves and challenge them to improve their own accomplishments

      And how is this different from the current system? If you used to have a 60%, or a C, or whatever grading system you use and then you go to 70% or a B-, you have improved your own accomplishment too.

      why "divide and conquer" is so highly regarded throughout history

      Because it is simple and effective? It abuses a primal function in our brain (self preservation and perceived value in scarcity). Math and logic are a higher brain function and therefor harder to abuse/control. Dumbing down is a proven way to control people, just like greed and pride.

      We live in a changing world and this requires us to learn different skill sets. Teaching people how to read/write and solve analytical problems have proven themselves crucial time and time again. Just like many old sayings have proven themselves: "measure twice, cut once", "the proof of the pudding is in the eating" and "don't judge a book by it's cover".
      I am not saying we should not try new ways of education, but I will not subject my child to these kinds of "experiments" until they have been proven to be more successful. I like my child too much to gamble with her future.

      To come back on topic, math is integral (pun intended) to any decent education. It teaches us that most problems have a certain patterns and can be solved or optimised easily while others are impossible (e.g. human flight).
      Logic, pattern recognition and problem solving are key survival strategies

    9. Re:Political Science Professor by Brickwall · · Score: 1
      I don't know what you think you've uncovered here.

      Here's a clue: a "fairing" is a piece of equipment on the leading edge of certain vehicles designed to improve aerodynamics. One sees them on airplane engines and motorcycles.

      And my sharper point is that people who are only good at English disparage math and science, while people who are only good at math disparage English (and all the humanities), while people, like me, who are good at both, despair at the two intellectual solitudes that have been created.

      --
      What was once true, is no longer so
    10. Re:Political Science Professor by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      You know I think I've been writing it that way for a while and never previously been corrected on it. Thank you.

    11. Re:Political Science Professor by itsdapead · · Score: 1

      Do you know that they _ARE_ doing similar things in England? In England, in some schools, students do not received grades, and they do not know how they fair inside their own class - because, according to those so-called "experts", they do not want to "hurt the feeling of those children who aren't doing well"

      In Engand, Narnia, maybe (No, really, The Silver Chair actually featured such a school... 1953 called and it wants its education debate back.)

      While you might get a few numpties not wanting to upset kids by giving them an F, your comment sounds like a smear job on Formative Assessment in which the emphasis is on providing critical feedback rather than a summative grade. To put it simply, if you give someone an "F" it doesn't help them much, while if you give most students a 'B' they'll say "great, sorted" and move on rather than go back and see if they could make it an 'A+'. The surprising thing shown by the research is that if you do the "common sense" thing and give feedback and a grade then many kids just look at the grade and ignore the feedback.

      In England, Real World - as in the US - the struggle is that the government and/or school management are so obsessed with assessment and progress tracking that the kids never learn to do anything other than answer test questions. For the sake of "reliability" and easy grading these tend to be broken down into step-by-step processes so each stage can be marked against the curriculum. At worst, instead of "Solve this quadratic equation" - you'd see "(a) Factorize this quadratic , (b) Hence solve the equation" - not to make the question easier to do, but to make the question easier to grade and link to the curriculum. (And, of course, in the US it would lilkely get turned into a multiple choice). Actually having a problem that could be solved by using quadratics but which doesn't say "Quadratic Equation" on the tin? Heven forbid, ther ecould be an alternative, valid method - how would we score it?

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
    12. Re:Political Science Professor by KillaBeave · · Score: 1

      I do personally feel that knowing how one is doing relative to their peers is important. Why? Because in life you want to do BETTER than your peers! Everything that matters in life is based on competition. (OK, not everything ... everything that isn't the subject of a Beatles song or 50.) Competition is the basis for earning scholarships, jobs, promotions etc. You've got to be better than the next guy to get ahead, it's just a (somewhat sad) fact of life.

      Knowing that you are "setting the curve" is a good feeling. It lets you know that you're doing a good job, and that you're doing it better than everyone else. In the later grades, it lets you know you're likely to get into better schools than the average Joe. In college running at the head of your class is a pretty good indication of how likely you are to get the best job upon graduation (or any at all).

      If you're not one of those kids setting the curve, don't kid yourself into thinking you'll end up better off than those who do. You won't get the scholarship, job or promotion ... they will. (Statistically controlling for character defects and nepotism of course.)

      Letting our kids pretend they aren't in FIERCE competition with everyone around them isn't doing them any favors. Sure it may extend childhood a bit which is nice, but life will bitchslap them later on.

      I'll be raising my daughter and son that's on the way to know that Johnny So-and-so did better than them on the test because they worked harder. That they lost the game because the other team practiced harder. That if they want to win next time they need to work harder. If they don't want to put in the effort they can't expect the rewards. It actually makes me quite sad, because it would be easier and more fun to just smile and say they're special and unique and blah blah blah ... but that won't prepare them for life.

    13. Re:Political Science Professor by jimbolauski · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This may sound cold, but education prepares you for the real world, everyone does not get stickers for trying. In the vast majority of jobs, you are evaluated against your peers, that is how the world works, if someone has certain skills that are more valuable they will get paid more and move up quicker. Not all people are cut out for being paid by merit and that is why there are unions for those people to work in and get paid to do the bare minimum.

      --
      Knowledge = Power
      P= W/t
      t=Money
      Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
    14. Re:Political Science Professor by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      In England, in some schools

      Yeah yeah, got that from the Daily Fail did you?

      My children go to normal state schools and we know how well they are doing. And I'm fairly certain that when my eldest takes GCSEs she will get a grade for them.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    15. Re:Political Science Professor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, political science isn't about controlling people any more than zoology is about controlling animal populations.

      It's a study. It's no more unified than politics is, because that's what political science is: the study of politics, government, and state.

      Ahhhh. Then the application of Policital Science is "Political Engineering"?

      Funny, don't seem to see that area in the couse catalog

    16. Re:Political Science Professor by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      I do personally feel that knowing how one is doing relative to their peers is important. Why? Because in life you want to do BETTER than your peers! Everything that matters in life is based on competition. (OK, not everything ... everything that isn't the subject of a Beatles song or 50.) Competition is the basis for earning scholarships, jobs, promotions etc. You've got to be better than the next guy to get ahead, it's just a (somewhat sad) fact of life.

      Except most of the time you're not in clear direct competition with your peers.

      Perhaps more importantly, almost everyone is going to be worse then someone. There's a lot of people in the world, a lot of factors affecting the definition of success - how exactly does one judge their own success? How should they?

      Plenty of people the world over considered the big house to mean "they'd made it" and look where that ended up - plenty of people saddled with debt they probably shouldn't have taken on. But it did make them clearly ahead of someone - for a time.

      Most of the time in life - there's no clear direct competition. Or, if there is, then you're in a losing game to start with, since for the vast majority of people, diversity in skill or availability is going to be what determines their fiscal compensation - not how "good" they are at their job.

      With 6 billion people in the world, no matter how hard you work at one specific thing - statistically there's going to be someone better then you - probably a lot of people.

    17. Re:Political Science Professor by malkavian · · Score: 1

      And to study anything, you need a grasp of how math functions, otherwise you don't really grasp the path on how to gather correlations.
      Removing algebra means you can look at things, and draw wild conclusions with no basis in reality or logic (and make wildly impassioned stories around it, which seems to constitute "talent" in politics), without actually understand what you're doing, or looking at, or what it really entails.

    18. Re:Political Science Professor by Reziac · · Score: 1

      I can tell you that when I was in school lo those many years ago, the single best motivator was how well we'd done compared to classmates; in other words, peer pressure based on expectations of one another. If you were used to getting A's, it was embarrassing to be seen getting a B. And that was motivating for the next time. So yes, it did us good to know how we fared compared to our classmates. Everyone wanted to be comparable to the better students, not to the worst ones. Oh, and there was no bogus "protection of self-esteem" or "avoid hurting someone's feelings" crap either. If you did poorly, you were *supposed* to feel bad about it, so you'd work harder next time!

      Now get off my lawn!

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    19. Re:Political Science Professor by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · · Score: 1

      It's not just England. IIRC the schools in my province do not assign letter grades for the first several years of school. The teachers also actively resist standardized testing. How nice - a job where it isn't possible to tell whether or not you are doing it.

      Perhaps coincidentally this attitude seems to have grown alongside the "let's not point fingers" attitude that refuses to assign responsibility for failure - at all ages. After all it's disruptive to "the team" and teamwork and all pulling together to harness our efforts blah blah blah retch...

      --
      The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
    20. Re:Political Science Professor by St.Anne · · Score: 1

      Not all people are cut out for being paid by merit and that is why there are unions and trustfunds for those people to hang around and get paid to do the bare minimum.

      There fixed that for ya...

    21. Re:Political Science Professor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "No, political science isn't about controlling people any more than zoology is about controlling animal populations."

      You obviously left out the power of mass media in your explanation.
      By publishing such research there will be many politicians that will use this research as an excuse to degrade the literacy of people.
      This publishing will shift the general political scene a little more to the side of keeping people educated just enough to fullfil their duties to society.
      You fail to see the big picture of such publications.

    22. Re:Political Science Professor by PyroMosh · · Score: 1

      I've not heard of him, but looking over his Wikipedia entry, many of the books he's written ring a bell.

      As for his definition, yes it *can* be. And it certainly is sometimes. But to say that that is what it is implies something else, that this is the exclusive, or at least main point of it.

      In practice most people who would identify themselves as political scientists are closer to historians / sociologists.

      But even "controlling" or "influencing" people isn't always necessarily nefarious. The League of Women Voters has political scientists. Their primary concern is how do they increase the amount of information available to voters and maximize voter turnout. They also are jealously non-partisan.

  140. To quote Roger Bacon by Albinoman · · Score: 1

    "If in other sciences we should arrive at certainty without doubt and truth without error, it behooves us to place the foundations of knowledge in mathematics."

  141. Dropouts in the 40% range! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Come on USA, you idiots can do better than that. You should at least be able to have a majority of your God Fearing offspring so stupid that can't make change at the Mini Mart...

    By all means, get rid of any academic rigour you have left at all, one less competitor for the rest of the world to worry about. Or wait, you already make very little... never mind, carry on then!

    No, really? Get rid of math because it's hard? You've got to be kidding!

  142. Not education by eviljav · · Score: 1

    If you can't handle basic algebra, you're not really getting an education.

  143. The real problem by ocratato · · Score: 1

    is in the teaching of algebra, not the need for it.

    The TFA starts by complaining about how so many students fail the subject, but by the end is describing all sorts of scenarios where maths is a requirements. It would appear that the problem, then, is to find a better way of teaching the subject.

    The best results that I have seen come when students can work together to explain stuff to each other, and where the maths is related back to real world problems. A student that has just grasped some concept is better able to explain it than someone for whom that concept is second nature. Some practical use can make the subject seem more real and can aid in the understanding - I never really understood matrices until I started doing some 3D graphics stuff - the classes never related them to anything solid - they were just an abstraction.

  144. Stupid is as stupid does by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One time when I was checking out at my doctor's office, one of the receptionists tried to calculate my copay. The total bill for the visit was something like $159.83. She said my copay was 10%. She could not figure out 10% in her head, so she asked the other receptionist to do it. That receptionist was busy so she handed the calculator to the first receptionist. The first receptionist entered in 159.83 * 10% and got the result of 15.98. While all this was happening I kept thinking $15.98 over and over again while I tried to send the result to the first receptionist through telepathy. That did not work. I kept thinking how stupid this woman was. How do some people make it through the day when they cannot figure out basic math problems?

    As it turned out, my copay was actually 15% so I had to pay even more after I got the bill from my insurance company. If the receptionist could not figure out 10% in her head, she never would have been able to figure out 15% in her head either, even though that is the typical rate to tip waiters in the United States.

    But the point is, mathematics is just as important as every other traditional field of study. I use algebra in figuring the sales tax I pay the state once a quarter from my business since the sales tax I charge my customers is implicitly included in their payments to me (x=y+y*0.06 where x is what my customers pay me with sales tax implicitly included and y is my income so sales tax at 6% equals y*0.06 or x/1.06*0.06). Doing proofs in advanced math not only improved my thought process but gave me confidence in problem solving. Dumbing down the education system is not the answer. Getting people to think in different ways and to succeed in education is the answer.

  145. What's the aim of studying politic and governments by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

    political science is: the study of politics, government, and state

     
    What's the use of studying politics, government and state if it isn't related to finding better ways to "influence" (subjugate) the population?
     
    Just like Zoology - it's a study of the animal kingdom - but what's the use of studying the animal kingdom if there isn't any step further - like improving / changing / experimenting on the animals (all the way to the genetic structures of the animals) ?
     
    Political science is the study of politics, but the aim of political science is not only to understand, but to improve upon the process
     

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  146. Don't dumb down **universities** by perpenso · · Score: 2

    My Uncle, and cousins run a very successful business with revenue in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

    Advanced math is used in business. I was shocked and pleasantly surprised by the scientific and mathematic techniques used in a New Product Development class, a marketing class, in business school. If business people were more proficient and more frequent users of such approaches the business world would probably be less screwed up.

    In 20+ years of software development I have rarely used math beyond the most basic forms of algebra. Using your logic you could probably argue that computer science majors don't need to take much math. However having had the math doors were opened. When someone needed to write the 3D rendering library for a molecular visualization project I was able to step up and do so. When Dow Chemical asked my employer if we could move some legacy code from mainframe to PC I was able to step up and communicate with world class chemists about how their software analyzes a polymer structure. Did these chemists expect me to understand polymer chemistry, no, they just expected me to be scientifically and mathematically literate. We got the contract.

    A buddy was a history major in college. In high school we both took the same college prep and AP math and science classes. Seems a waste for the history major huh? Except in the last month, and against all expectations we had back in the day, he has just advanced to candidacy for a PhD in economics and public policy. He specialty, the civilian space industry. He currently advices politicians on how not to screw up this nascent industry. So yes, in a **university** environment history and poly sci majors should be scientifically and mathematically literate too.

    The preceding demonstrates why, in a **university** environment, people should be expected to take math and science classes that are not strictly necessary. The point of a **university** is to prepare you for these more advanced situations you never expected.

    That said, I have worked with many highly skilled and talented programmers who were not university trained. I would be happy to work with many of them again. A university education is nice but not required.

    1. Re:Don't dumb down **universities** by cartman · · Score: 1

      Advanced math is used in business...In 20+ years of software development I have rarely used math beyond the most basic forms of algebra.

      This has been my experience too. I'm a programmer, and I've found that I have less occasion to use advanced math than businessmen.

  147. 2+2=3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    As political science is about lying, twisting facts and truthiness math only stands in a way.

  148. Defective thinking by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

    Hmm ... "Defective Thinking"

    In what way "thinking" becomes "defective"?

    At which juncture we can say "thinking" starts to be 'defective"?

    And no, this are not trick questions --- I'm merely curious
     

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Defective thinking by Johnny+Loves+Linux · · Score: 3, Interesting
      For me thinking becomes defective in several ways. The first way thinking can be defective is when thinking about evaluating a boolean statement and incorrectly applying the rules of logic to evaluate the statement. Here's an example:
      1. pancreatic cancer if left untreated leads to death.
      2. Sooner or later everyone dies.
      3. ?!?!
      4. Therefore if someone dies it must have been from pancreatic cancer.

      The first 2 statements are true statements about the human condition. The third is a fallacious deduction made by incorrect application of logic. The most you could say logically without additional data is that "if someone dies it may have been from pancreatic cancer."

      Another way that thinking can become defective is situations involving the reality of the universe in which an individual rejects valid observational data that contradicts their assumptions about the universe. To give you an example of defective thinking consider individuals whose religious beliefs require them to believe that the universe is no older than a few thousand years old, that the world was created in 7 days, that every word in the bible is both divinely inspired, literal, and infallible. When such individuals are presented with fossils of species that no longer exist, that can be dated by various techniques involving radioactive decay rates to be thousands, or even millions older than the supposed creation of the earth, or when the individuals are presented with an explanation of the General theory of relativity, the gravitational red shift and its implications for how far away some objects truly are in both time and space such as billions of years light years away and billions of years ago, such individuals reject the observational data as obviously incorrect or misunderstood, because the data contradicts their religious beliefs. That ability to hold onto assumptions about the universe in spite of the fact that valid data that contradicts those assumption is what constitutes defective thinking.

    2. Re:Defective thinking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Affirming the consequent?! :-) LOVE this in Philosophy/Logic, too... How odd for an OT on the merits of Algebra trickle down into so many other fundamental concepts as well...

    3. Re:Defective thinking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For me thinking becomes defective in several ways.

      The first way thinking can be defective is when thinking about evaluating a boolean statement and incorrectly applying the rules of logic to evaluate the statement. Here's an example:

      1. pancreatic cancer if left untreated leads to death.
      2. Sooner or later everyone dies.
      3. ?!?!
      4. Therefore if someone dies it must have been from pancreatic cancer.

      The first 2 statements are true statements about the human condition. The third is a fallacious deduction made by incorrect application of logic. The most you could say logically without additional data is that "if someone dies it may have been from pancreatic cancer."

      You could also correctly say that if the person never dies, they did not have untreated pancreatic cancer. Don't underestimate the daily usefulness of the contrapositive!

    4. Re:Defective thinking by Dareth · · Score: 1

      "The most you could say logically without additional data is that"

      it may be because the Doctor was bad at math.

      --

      I only look human.
      My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
    5. Re:Defective thinking by hazah · · Score: 1

      Other than the very obvious... what are you saying?

    6. Re:Defective thinking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A true student of the bible would never argue that every word is literal. See the opening verses in the book of Revelation: presented to John in signs.

    7. Re:Defective thinking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, for instance, many laws are formed to satisfy politically correct notions of behavior which are against a scientific investigation of the subject. E.g. government workers are always telling us that they are optimizing their concern for the welfare of the children (as they break up families), but a study comparing other non politically correct societies would show these societies outdoing us in terms of population growth (more children). By not according their policies to the scientific reality, they are dooming their own society to extinction and being replaced by the other societies.

    8. Re:Defective thinking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Defective thinking? I'd be more inclined to call that "effective non-thinking."

    9. Re:Defective thinking by peawormsworth · · Score: 1

      The example u provided is invalid because "leads to death" and "dies" are not the same thing. Also, ur initial conditional fact contains the word 'if'... and is therefore conditional. Also, u said 'sooner or later' which is hardly factual and more temporal. A different example might have worked better. But still, I reject the concept that 'thinking becomes defective'. I suspect u r referring to the fact that fact that language itself can be illogical and that the English language has lots of examples of it.

      Ur final paragraph going on about religion makes me suspect u r losing ur religion. Did u grow up in a very religious setting? I went through this a few years ago, where all arguements over logic seemed to end in a religious discussion. U will find in a couple years that u no longer need to consider religion or argue about it. That is when u will know that u actually believe wat u r saying and r thinking logically and independantly about the world around u. I mean there is no need to debate anything based on faith... this is a topic for speculation outside of logic.

      Once u reach this point, I suggest u go back and read the bible. With a clear mind and without anyone telling u how to interpret it... it is an entertaining read. There is little logic contained within it and there is little guidance over what to believe and moral direction. It will be apparent that all christian faiths cherry pick wat they want from the bible in order to justify the way they want the world to be. U will see how they focus on some text and reject others in order to self define the division line between good and evil. Which u will know by now, does not exist. I suspect all religions r like this, but im not wasting my life checking. Anyhow, Good luck.

    10. Re:Defective thinking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that the world was created in 7 days

      individuals are presented with fossils of species that no longer exist, that can be dated by various techniques involving radioactive decay rates to be thousands, or even millions older than the supposed creation of the earth

      Oh com'on.

      Use logic!

      If you combine those two facts it's obvious!

      Only seven days! I mean, hey god, sure, but thats damn short. Obviously he copied and pasted a lot from one of his older works. Thats where all those old fossil come from.

      See, it's not that difficult if you think about it.

    11. Re:Defective thinking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      @Johnny, not all Christians believe what you just said about thousands of years,7 days, literal......
      Some of us know the Earth is ~4.6 Billion years old and that 7 days = 7 periods of time (heb. "yom").
      Each yom is at least hundreds of millions of years. We also know the Universe is 13.6 to 20 billion
      years old. What you don't understand is that uncritical thinking can also be wrong. Lots of people
      don't have the Spirit of God (spirit of christ, holy spirit, holy ghost, call it what you will) and so the
      Scriptures are essentially a closed book to them.

      Jesus said, "these words I speak unto you, they are Spirit, they are Life". Without
      the Holy Spirit with the evidence of Speaking in other Tongues, (Mark 16:15-20
      and Acts 2:1-4 +2:37-40), people will not live past this natural life. If you want this
      experience, go to the Revival Fellowship website (www.trf.org.au) or Die in your
      ignorance. Hope to meet you on the way up.

  149. He is not teaching future politicians ... by perpenso · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Not to burst your bubble but this guy teaches future politicians ...

    No, he is a political science professor. The law professors teach the future politicians. The political science professors teach the entry level management trainees for various corporations.

    I am not kidding. I once sat in on a presentation named "Careers for History and Political Science Majors". The presenter had a BA in History and was the branch manager at a local bank. The first thing he told the audience was that they were not going to work in history or politics. Many corporations want to see a 4 year degree attached to their management trainees, they don't particularly care what the degree is in.

    1. Re:He is not teaching future politicians ... by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Another good path for History majors is IT. :)

    2. Re:He is not teaching future politicians ... by DeeEff · · Score: 1

      I want to mod this "+1 Thank you".

      Why do people assume otherwise?

  150. Higher math? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is algebra higher math? Algebra is a tiny bit of math syntax around basic problem solving. If you can't handle algebra, you're probably not cut out for ANY college work. (Outside of BSing, which does come in handy in some classes.)

  151. Competing With Lots of New Subjects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem is that there are many other important subjects competing for the same education time. We may have to trim some of the curriculum to make way for say set theory.

  152. Pattern Recognition by rkraken · · Score: 1

    If you can find a pattern, you can predict the future. If you can predict the future, you win. Most don't understand that algebra at its core is the mathematics for finding patterns. Sounds pretty useful to me.

  153. Re:What's the aim of studying politic and governme by schnell · · Score: 4, Insightful

    what's the use of studying the animal kingdom if there isn't any step further - like improving / changing / experimenting on the animals

    There are hundreds of thousands of people who spent many years studying biology and zoology to become veterinarians and, you know, help animals who will disagree with you.

    The vast majority of people study history to learn from it, not to make it or rewrite it. The vast majority of people who study psychology don't do so because their plan is to control people and then force them into Cybermen suits. Not everything in life is a conspiracy to rule the world.

    Seriously... Slashdot just gets crazier and crazier.

    --
    "95% of all Slashdot .sig quotes are incorrect or completely fabricated." -Benjamin Franklin
  154. The world is not flat by rlseaman · · Score: 1

    "Political Scientist" is a colossal oxymoron.

    Whatever this guy and Thomas Friedmann (and alas! Terry Pratchett) say, the world is not flat. Algebraic equations of degree higher than linear (and even - gasp - other than polynomials entirely) are needed to describe how it works. Algebra is the bare minimum to comprehend how functions work. It is telling that TFA doesn't even mention differential equations - the real basecode of the universe. A grounding in algebra provides the most basic of tools to understand graphical representations of a dynamic multivariate world, even without calculus.

    That a political scientist would emphasize "lies, damn lies, and statistics" as the pinnacle of mathematics is unsurprising.

  155. As a math failure, I disagree... by suprcvic · · Score: 1

    I didn't excel at math in high school and college because I thought "I'm never going to use this." Then live threw me a curve ball and I had an opportunity to buy a small business and get out of a dead end, miserable tech support job. Now I sorely wish I had tried harder at math because I have to do a considerable amount of it being an owner/operator of my little one man shop. A certain proficiency in math should be required for all majors because you never know where life will take you.

  156. Re:I want my banker to be an astrophysicist too by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

    You have very little idea of what a banker is, do you? Or algebra for that matter?

    Have you heard of interest? That's kind of what banks are all about. And it requires algebra.

  157. Why this from Poli-Sci? by skyraker · · Score: 1

    Anyone else perturbed that a Political Science professor is the one who suggests this? What reason would those who study politics need to support removing algebra from any curriculum? Maybe it is so that the populous is dumbed-down and unable to reason properly for a candidate? But in truth, I do not know what this guy is talking about. I took the SAT a couple times (once in high school, once while in the service to try to improve my score), and the math section at the time was not even up to the level of algebra. So how is it that he, and others, believe that algebra is causing people to drop out of school? It is so easy to blame just one thing, and as we all grew up with the 'what will I use this for later in life' question, it is easy to blame mathematics. But in reality, kids drop out of school based on a combination of multiple issues. Drugs, bad parenting, learning disabilities, becoming pregnant, etc. Realistically, if there is a subject in schools that can be toned down, it would be English courses. Do we really need to study poetry in depth? Probably not. Besides, advanced math tends to be an elective, meaning those who aren't pursuing a degree in a STEM field typically do not need to take more of it. In other words, there are so many easily studied counters to his argument that it is almost funny.

  158. I Agree by BBF_BBF · · Score: 1
    Why, Cause I RTFA!

    The OP is not claiming that Algebra is useless in general. He's proposing that for non-analytical students, like fine arts students, the ever increasing Math requirements from Universities is filtering out people who would be perfectly capable of excelling in those degrees and in some ways would be better candidates for those degrees.

    So therefore, I agree.

    1. Re:I Agree by readin · · Score: 1

      Why should universities even offer degrees in fine arts? What good does it do society to create a group of people whose job seems to be creating "art" that nearly everyone hates and another group of people whose job seems to be telling people why they're cretins for hating it?

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
  159. Absurd. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Math in general is necessary. The notion that people, kids specifically are being denied an education because they can't handle the math when it's required is absurd. If you check almost any degree program, you'll find that the math needed for the program is directly related to the amount of math, (and the type) you need to pursue a career in the field that degree prepares you for. Case in point, do you know how much math is required if you want to major in Medieval French Poetry? I think they require Mathematics for Liberal Arts Majors, (A.K.A. "Bonehead Math", in which they teach counting, adding, subtracting, and maybe stray briefly into such esoteric fields as plane geometry and pre-algebra mathematics).

    They require this because someone got the crazy idea that before handing students a piece of paper or sheep's skin or whatever, saying the bearer is educated, that they should ensure a certain level of general scholastic attainment in a variety of subjects. If they didn't, what that person would really be holding is a technical certificate.

    The author of the piece, this "Hacker" fellow, should be modded Score:-1, Troll for suggesting that a world in which there is a lot of math underpinning things, doesn't somehow obligate people who want to succeed to know math. Seems to me this is a case of 'pandering for gold'... by appealing to a large group of people, people whom the methods they use to TEACH math have left them with a bitter taste in their mouths regarding the most fundamental science of all, quantitation, that underpins virtually all other fields of study that aren't limited to staring at clouds and remarking "how pretty". It would be better to spend time and effort coming up with a better approach to teaching the material, rather than what they do now. This sounds like pandering to those who whine... it's too hard... waaaaahhh... too much math... waaahhhh. Suck it up. If it were easy, EVERYONE would do it.

  160. A political science graduates rebuttal... by voss · · Score: 1

    No political science is not necessary...for an engineer. A generalized class in American government and politics would be useful for the average citizen as would be survey classes that included basic practical real world algebra and geometry, consumer math, statistics, and basic logic.

    Requiring a high school student to pass Algebra courses which include quadratic equations to get out high school is as ridiculous, as is requiring high school students to read chaucer. In other words students not going to college are either bored out of their minds or not prepared to do anything practical and with no useful skills.

    Only 30% of adults have college degrees yet we require high school students to take courses like algebra mostly because they are college prep courses. The question is what are we preparing the other 70% for?

    The truth of the matter is I can make a much stronger argument for the revival of vocational education than I can for either political science or algebra. Just because someone CAN go to college doesnt mean they WANT to but they dont see any other choice they can live with.

  161. Some jobs require it by llordreefa · · Score: 1

    Job listings for HVAC companies often state that knowledge of algebra is necessary to be considered for hiring.

  162. Thanks ! by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

    ii Merci beaucoup y mucho gracias !!

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  163. hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The dark side of tenure.

  164. Alegebra Prof asks ... by shugah · · Score: 1

    Is Political Science necessary?

    --
    If you aren't part of the solution, then there is good money to be made prolonging the problem
  165. Utilitarianism sucks. by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

    Because not everything you learn should relate to business or your job after school.

    Education should be about exposure to a lot more than just work. Opening your eyes to new experiences, new information and understandings of the universe and the humanity around you should be priority one.

    I mean, I've never had the urge to shoot my best friend and save him from a lynch mob after he got into some trouble with the locals. So why should I have to read Of Mice and Men?

    The problem isn't that school is hard and we should do away with math. It's that our culture doesn't emphasize knowledge and intelligence isn't respected. There's actually a wave of antiintellectualism that has major states of our nation considering removing key parts of cosmology, biology, geology, etc with NONSENSE.

    I don't expect everyone to go into fields they don't want to. If you don't have the heart to go into the arts, then don't. If you were never exposed to the arts, then that means that's another potential artist lost.

    Same with maths and sciences. We don't know. It shouldn't be this way, but that's the way it is.

    --
    Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
  166. double plus bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If you have no math, you have no basis to do science and prove anything with hard data and numbers.

    So all that is left is public opinion and faith.

    No effort no results....

    It's too hard, I can't do it.
    Prepare to look for the picture on the button, and say " would you like to super size that?"

    Fat, stupid and ignorant is the future.
    until the untimely early end.

  167. Bollocks by JockTroll · · Score: 0

    Algebra is necessary. Political "science" is not. Everything that is even remotely important or relevant is based on maths - including music and sports. Political "science" is not, it's just a bunch of opinions not based on facts thrown around by self-aggrandizing morons. Just like psychiatry.

    --
    Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
  168. hello? can you understand me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just wondering how many (financially) successful people are using complex math on a daily basis,
    but would fail miserably in any standard math test?
    it is because we can all do math IN OUR OWN WAY. what is being tested in schools
    is how good we can speak math in a common "way" with common notation, signs.
    i bet you there are unknown math geniuses out there. they just can't talk to you about it, because they speak it in their own "language".
    - thank god for spell checkers tho.

  169. Re:What's the aim of studying politic and governme by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2

    What's the use of studying politics, government and state if it isn't related to finding better ways to "influence" (subjugate) the population?

    Because the best defence for those who would be subjugated is to know the hows and whys of the would-be subjugators.

    Just whose side are you really on, anyway?

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  170. Availability bias by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Availability bias is what you exhibit when of all the cashiers who CAN in fact deal with being handed $10.01 on a $9.51 purchase, (I've met many), YOU only remember the one or two who couldn't, or maybe you're remembering the same one over and over, imagining her to be several different people, because perhaps she dyes her hair, or wears a different outfit under her blue apron every day. It is just possible that you haven't seen a cashier with any math skills in quite a while because you don't go out shopping much. For you to make that insulting assertion that nearly all cashiers are drooling morons and then not at least assert how frequently you give cashiers a task requiring them to figure, and how many different places you do this at implies strongly that you're talking out of your asshole.

    Also, you imply you somehow knew how "she" felt (very abused) in the alleged situation you probably just made up, so I have to wonder, are you a god? An empath? Or were you just... ass-uming?

    Yeah, that's what I thought.

  171. Algebra needed for all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Arithmetic deals with counting homogeneous objects and calculates the artificially assumed numerical value to each object called coefficients. Thus, cow+cow would be mathematically written as 1 cow+ 1cow. Since cow is the homogeneous object in both instances, just add their default(assumed) numerical values which is 2 (1+1). In programming you can call the object class Cow-class and its instances are cow, cow. What mathematical statements do is to show the relationship between the homogeneous objects and provide an algorithm to calculate the coefficient's value of the objects. If we add another class of objects with their own default numerical coefficients, mathematics allows another statement to combine them and express as an expression. For example, 5 horses + 3 cows where you can create a meta class (super set) such as animal and can ask "how many animals are there" and you just add the coefficients and say '8'. When you assign (in the artificial world objects) with some value say, 5 horses + 3 cows =10,000 ( in English this will be stated as a word problem such as, five horses and three cows cost ten thousand dollars). The point is, Algebra moves from single type of homogeneous sets to hetrogeneous sets and express their relation in a statement. Calculus deals with the continuous objects - water, electricity etc., and express their dependent relationship. Unfortunately, the way the text books are written and the way bad teachers teach those bad books make you hate the subjects. Every thing you learn you form a habit of applying them in your life and then you will realise that the "tools and 1st principles - subjects and the theories there" become part of your life. Without conscientious effort you are using them in one way or other. Carefully write down all your activities - buying coffee, paying for it, travelling, comparing, bargains, shampoo and its harmful contaminants, .... , science, mathematics, finance, health care and so on are hidden in all those activities. Be thankful to your high school education.

  172. Easy answer by aepervius · · Score: 1

    "If you want to understand the world, you need math. If your education doesn't include that, what sort of education is it?"

    The answer is apparentely a political "science" education. Maybe religion education too. Now that I think about it that seems to explain a lot of things about our current political climate...

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  173. *sigh* by Tom · · Score: 2

    Yes, it is. But not in the way that it is usually taught. Mathematics is one of those fields that are more than vital, and yet we haven't figured out how to teach it properly. I'm talking about math, not doing calculations. We have pocket calculators and apps for that.

    Math, including Algebra, isn't about being able to add 15+38 in your head, it's about understanding what the numbers mean when the evening news tell you something about crime rates or the economy.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  174. Flawed logic by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    German was a subject in my school, I even passed it. When do I use it? Very rarely... except... the skill (rusted) is always there. I CAN work in Germany or with Germans. It broadens my potential to find work. Same with English, I am Dutch, why should I be able to speak English? Because English people can't be bothered to learn a second language, and English is a language understood my most people as a second language, it again broadens my potential to find work. Even in companies were the owner speaks English.

    Math isn't there to do, it is there to know how to do it so that when you come across a problem you at least got a clue.

    People can live very happy lives being unable to read or do basic math. But they are also incapable of advancing and become very vulnerable to being exploited.

    It is like knowing how to perform CPR. When do you need it in your daily live? But in that 5 minute gap you MIGHT need it, it is the difference between life and death. I learned how to swim with my clothes, Holland is a country with a lot of water, so all kids used to learn it so they didn't drown if they fell in. I have NEVER fallen into the water in my entire life! Useless lesson then? I think not. About two years ago I saw a little kid on a bike get near a small canal with a not so steep incline loose control and just slide into the water. No real problem, lowered myself in, and pulled the kid out. It was very muddy and more half walk, half crawl swim BUT would I have done it if I never learned how to swim?

    Maybe someone else would have pulled the kid out. Maybe the kid would have been fine on his own. Maybe.

    Math is around us all the time and we use it all time. When calculating how much our shopping is going to be, how much cheaper item X is at store Y. It is simple stuff you do without thinking but you can only do because you were taught how to do it once, long ago.

    School isn't about creating employees perfectly suited to just one task, it is to create well rounded individuals who can adapt to changing environments and demands. This includes being able to do basic math.

    You don't even need to remember HOW to calculate the height of a tree. If you just remember that it can be done, you can always look it up.

    But if you were never shown how to do it, it would remain a mystery to you if you ever needed to work on your house.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  175. Re:What's the aim of studying politic and governme by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

    being a vet is arguably all about controlling or improving. It is important for a vet to understand the nature and handling of animals in order to control and handle them in a safe manner and performing ventinary procedures on them is definitely improving them. changing and improving doesn't necessarily have to be a negative thing.

  176. Political science majors != politicians by dejanc · · Score: 1

    Most political science majors go to academia or become journalists or something completely unrelated. If you were to survey your local senate / parliament / assembly / whatever, you would probably mostly find lawyers, some engineers, doctors, etc. among your representatives, but hardly any poli sci graduates.

    Political science studies political systems it does not train future politicians. Being a politician is easy (all you need to do is make (un)informed decisions) and doesn't require any special training...

  177. prof sould stick to his area by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The author of this piece seems to think that all one does in algebra is manupulate symbols in equations. I think this is nonsense -- IMO, the most important thing one learns in algebra relates to the so called "word problems" -- how does one correctly map a real world problem onto algebra, use available algebraic manipulations to gain insights, and then map the results back onto the real world. One doesn't just manipulate symbols for the hell of it.

    Hopefully, one learns a problem solving continuum which involves these "word problem" kinds of mappings, perhaps involving many "round trips" for a given problem, and which provides real world insights. But the most important skills pertain to learning how to map problems on to and off of mathematical space, which is quite hard, which is very difficult to teach, and which requires much practice. Later on, the mathematical space will become calculus, at which time, the available power increases by an order of magnitude -- but the mapping skills learned in algebra are fully applicable.

    And there are other skills learned as well -- such as understanding both the power and limitations of "rigorous" thinking and "proofs," as pertains to getting answers, while understanding the appropriate level of confidence that one should have in answers obtained. E=mc**2 is simple as hell, except for understanding that the mapping was correct, and that the rigor used justified a level of confidence that was worth pursuing.

  178. Discrete Mathematics by Khand · · Score: 1

    Traditionally, mathematics classes goes from algebra, geometry, trig/precalc to calc, with varying levels of those classes in between. Most schools fail to even squeeze an elective class or semester of discrete mathematics, which helps tremendously.

  179. Dummify to fill the slots by blagooly · · Score: 1

    Colleges/Universities are in big trouble, they need the bodies. Kids coming up can't cut it, so lower the standards. They cannot read either, and have the attention span of a fruit fly. 20 something gets on your nerves? Look em square in the eye and ask "what is nine times seven?" They will blink twice and stare at you. To reach them, communicate that none from their generation knows this, a legacy of the changes in education. It is not their fault. They are not stupid, it was not required.

  180. I think the point is to train your mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are difficult concepts and procedures. They stretch the brain. I guess you could come up with difficult problems that use less advanced tools. But then you deprive the people who will actually "go all the way" from getting exposed to it early.

  181. Ignorant business people are PARASITES by mangu · · Score: 1

    My Uncle, and cousins run a very successful business with revenue in the hundreds of millions of dollars. My cousin is dyslexic and has terrible trouble reading and doing mathematics, but he's sitting pretty on a pile of cash

    That just goes to show how cash is distributed so unfairly in our current society.

    The fact that your uncle and cousins are so rich without knowing anything means they are parasites. They control a great amount of resources which they are unable to use in an efficient way, because of their ignorance. They are probably good only at manipulating other people.

    It shouldn't be like this. I cringe every time I see an elected politician or a successful business leader boasting that he doesn't know math.

    That's the reason why public debt is in the trillions range. That's why there are people who believe they can spend their way out of debt. Ignorance at math is evil.

    People who don't know math shouldn't control anything more complex than some basic gardening tools or something like that, they should be limited by law to the simplest and lowest paying jobs.

  182. Everything is hard because of algebra. by mdsolar · · Score: 1

    It is the success of rigor in mathematics that has pushed for rigor to be part of other subjects. Historians are held to a higher standard than just repeating gossip because of the example set by algebra. Biology advances because of the confidence in inference we gain from understanding algebra. If all we knew is that one and one is two, we'd merely reproduce, and the world would be less wonderful.

  183. Tell kids early "the force" isn't real, but... by RevWaldo · · Score: 1

    “Size matters not. Look at me. Judge me by my size, do you? Hmm? Hmm. And well you should not. For my ally is mathematics, and a powerful ally it is. Life creates it, makes it grow. Its energy surrounds us and binds us. Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter. You must feel mathematics around you; here, between you, me, the tree, the rock, everywhere, yes. Even between the land and the ship.”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcjnbIF1yAA

    .

  184. No but math is by mpsmps · · Score: 1

    I agree the traditional math high school/college math curriculum isn't very worthwhile any more, if it ever was. Just as one example, you'll never use Euclidean geometry again (except the most basic parts that only take a couple of weeks of the standard course), whether or not you continue to more advanced math. Even engineers rarely if ever use the many dry and specialized "advanced integration techniques" that are taught to everyone in calculus.

    However, I would revamp high school/college math rather than discard it. There is plenty of valuable and relevant math (e.g., statistics, logic with application to critiquing claims made in the media) that could be taught today instead of a lot of the more abstruse parts of algebra/geometry.

    FWIW, when I taught calculus to english majors in grad school, I chose one day a week to teach other areas on general interest in mathematics, which seemed to work pretty well. My students performed equally on the calculus final to the other sections, but many more of them signed up to take additional math courses than in the other sections.

  185. Algebra in "Higher Education" ? by moeinvt · · Score: 1

    Who the hell takes algebra in a college/university? I agree, it's a waste of higher education $s because people should have learned it in HS! I'm pretty sure I was taking pre-algebra in Jr. High and went into Algebra 1 as a first year HS student.

    Necessary? Absolutely! I think pre-algebra was where the concept of a variable was taught. That alone is rather essential knowledge. Having a basic understanding of functions y = f(x) is incredibly useful. You don't need to be solving equations on a daily basis to make use of the concept that one variable is specified as a function of one or more other variables.

    Where do they find these erudite idiots?

    If we're going to question what's "necessary", let's consider
    Poetry/Literature
    Creative writing
    Ethnic studies
    Feminist studies
    Athletics
    Art
    Music

  186. Re:What's the aim of studying politic and governme by sydneyfong · · Score: 1

    Seriously... Slashdot just gets crazier and crazier.

    Amen...

    --
    Don't quote me on this.
  187. The equation solving is implicit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We are interacting with our perception of our surroundings in a tight feedback loop. Want to catch a ball? Move until it is not moving laterally -- it is now headed right for you, stick your hand in the way and keep adjusting until it hits.

    To do that effectively your brain has to be handling differential equations, otherwise every response would be first-order and you would almost always miss your target. Your ability to apply the responses and motion compensation that you describe derives from your brain implicitly understanding rates of change, which is actually very easy for analogue systems to do.

    Just because it's implicit and analogue and is not being done with symbolic maths doesn't alter the fact that it's occurring, and HAS to occur. The alternative would be that it uses magic.

  188. Algebra..... by E_Ron.Eous · · Score: 1

    Algebra is needed far more than political science (an oxymoron if there ever was one).

  189. Only if you want to do math by Azathfeld · · Score: 1

    English lit prof asks "is General Relativity really necessary?"

    Chemistry prof asks "is studying a foreign language really necessary?"

    Math prof asks "are supply/demand curves really necessary?"

    1. Re:Only if you want to do math by PJ6 · · Score: 1

      Math prof asks "are supply/demand curves really necessary?"

      Hey, don't knock Game Theory. Microeconomics has lots of interesting math.

  190. Its comming from a political scintist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Has if politics what a science! Sure he tells us maths are wrong, the political wing of society want dump people, they are easyer ton control... when you have no independant thinking what do you get? A herd, and you only need a shepperd to herd them all. So yes kids please drop the calculus and become as stupid as sheeps... then you'll eat in my hand ad stay poor as much in your mind as in your pocket.

  191. Math and CS by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Having done the whole CS and math thing, I have to say that most of the math in everyday usage was pretty useless. I suppose if you got a scientific or hardcore CS job, you might use it some, but for the most part a normal IT job doesn't need it (nor does most of it lend itself to a better understanding of CS really). Binary Algebra and a few other exceptions which are more less directly associated with CS, and were taught by CS profs, not math profs really.

    Courses such as calculus, and linear algebra and the like weren't all that useful after. I think one mathematics course everyone should get however is a basic understanding of statistics. Oddly enough I think that would make the world a better place (if a bit more boring perhaps).

    1. Re:Math and CS by readin · · Score: 1

      Do you ever use the concept of time-complexity or big-o notation? Do you know what it means when an algorithm is worst-case n-^2? 2^n? Would you have been able to learn that stuff without learning algebra first? Withing having gone beyond algebra to other math subjects such as calculus, would you have used your algebra over and over to the point were concepts such as time complexity and big-oh notation are trivial, or would you be digging through your books each time you needed to figure it out again? You mention statistics - how much can you really understand statistics if you haven't done calculus?

      I have to agree with you on linear algebra though. I'm not sure what we were supposed to get out of that.

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
  192. School vs. University by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    That is exactly the problem with our university system in the U.S. and evidently other countries as well.

    I agree with what you say about university - at that level you should be allowed to focus on a single subject without distractions which, generally, is exactly what happens in the UK (or at least used to). However what I was talking about was at school. O' levels were exams taken at the age of 16 in secondary school. I think that it is entirely appropriate that education at this level should be a lot broader because you need to have a grounding in many subjects if for no other reason than to be able to decide which ones you like.

    So I would argue that doing calculus and Shakespeare (and more besides) up to 16 is a good thing and the argument that things like simple calculus are too hard for someone going on to study for an English degree is just wrong. For years the British system used to require it and it worked extremely well. Now standards have fallen considerably - even when I was at school you could see that previous years' exam papers were noticeably more challenging than ours - and calculus us no longer required of all university candidates although they all still have to study Shakespeare!

  193. Algebra and reading are musts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Algebra is so pervasive, it needs to be internalized to function in society. And for most people reading this, it probably is, and that's why some of you think it's not important for everyone. "Not everyone uses it"? Yes, actually, they do.

  194. Rounded Education by Dareth · · Score: 1

    It is called a "well rounded education". The local university rounded a few corners off of my wallet.

    --

    I only look human.
    My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
  195. low achievers like Hacker bore me by peter303 · · Score: 1

    So what if 99.5% of jobs never use algebra. There is more to life than working and money. I have always wanted to know things whether it was free or cost a MIT tuition. And want to to associate with like-minded people.

  196. Nurses use Trig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I had to get a shot at the doctor's office. There was a new nurse. She took great care in lining up and measuring exactly where to inject the medicine. I swear it felt like she was doing trig on my ass. Either that or completing the slope of the crack of my ass. The older nurses just stab you and you are done.

  197. one-size-fits-all education is a joke by PJ6 · · Score: 1

    And I was disappointed that nobody would teach me algebra until 8th grade. They made me wait years because it was apparently an unreasonable burden on the education system, even though the 'tards got one-on-one with specialized teachers all day, every day.

    I don't understand why we don't allow students to specialize at least some of their education to their own proclivities, and I certainly don't understand why we all have to do everything in lockstep.

  198. ok, but ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think he is scratching the surface on the "we need to modernize our education system" bandwagon. That's fine, but removing algebra from elementary and high schools is silly (the reasons: well, just read all of the above posts :) ). If students are having difficulty algebra, take a step back. Are they understanding the logic behind it? Educators should try something new. Mathematics courses have a habit of teaching implied logic instead of the explicit nature of formal logic. It would be interesting if they attempted teaching (a little) formal logic before algebra. It might help. (but hell, even if it doesn't, I think its a better attempt than what that writer suggests).

  199. Heinlein (in this case) had it right... by NotSanguine · · Score: 1

    "Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe, and not make messes in the house." --Robert Heinlein

    --
    No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
  200. Ahh, but consider the source... by rocket+rancher · · Score: 1

    Efforts to de-emphasize curricula that help develop a capacity for critical reasoning in the subject population is to be expected. Rulers want compliant subjects, not critical ones.

    The attack on critical reasoning skills has a long, well-documented history. For a milenia, the Roman Catholic church made sure that relatively few people learned to read, and exerted serious effort to make sure that those who did learn to read were either in the Church already, or were members of the elite with a track record for supporting the Church. When technology (the printing press) bypassed the Church's chokehold on knowledge, the Church ruthlessly suppressed knowledge that was deemed inimical to the Church's interests. The modern neo-Conservative movement in the US adopted pretty much the same strategy, but shifted targets slightly. Instead of targeting reading, they went after something a bit deeper -- critical reasoning skills. The neoCon strategy ultimately resulted in the passage of NCLB in 2001, virtually guaranteeing that the vast majority of the next generation of US voters would be denied access to an education that included training in critical reasoning skills.

    The first rule of power is "hold on to it." In a democracy, the corollary would be "get re-elected." For the neoCons, dumbing down the next generation of voters was a good strategy for a political movement with an agenda that anyone with even minimal critical reasoning skills would reject out of hand. Now we have a political scientist whose politics were relentlessly skewered in Allison Lurie's culture war classic "The War Between the Tates" and whose long time domestic partner flunked basic geometry four times advocating a position that lines up with the current NeoCon strategy to dumb American voters down. And if you need further evidence of Hacker's agenda, his appearance on the Colbert Report should be all you need.

  201. TFA is a mess without substance by wienerschnizzel · · Score: 1

    Read TFA and I find it's argumentation is embarrasingly weak. Here's a summary:

    1) Mathematics causes high dropout rate in the US
    The author goes on a tirade some 6 paragraphs long about how math is that no.1 subject that causes people to fail high school. Great. So what? Suppose we cut math. Then the no.1 drop out subject will be Chemistry (or whatever). Will we continue cutting subjects until we have none that cause students to drop out of schools?

    2) Low drop out rate in other countries does not matter
    In the next paragraph the author addresses the fact that in other countries people don't drop out because of math at such a high rate without sacrificing content. His answer is - it doesn't matter. Not in these precise words, but seriously - look it up in the article for yourself.

    3) Math we learn has no relationship to the kind of reasoning we need at work
    Interesting argument. So what is the proof for that claim? Well, some psychologist said it. Great. Some other psychologist said the contrary.

    4) A mere 5 percent of entry-level workers will need to be proficient in algebra or above
    Again, so what? How many entry-level workers will need to be proficient with history, english literature, chemistry or geography? How about when they will want to move on beyond the entry-level? How did you get that number anyway?

    5) There's no evidence that learning math makes you a better thinker
    Or in his words - " there’s no evidence that being able to prove (x + y) = (x - y) + (2xy) leads to more credible political opinions or social analysis." (no actual citations of studies how math helps or doesn't help thinking are provided). Oh my, this is so wrong! How would you measure the 'credibility of political opinions'? Why would you even want to measure it. Just because your political opinion is credible it does not have to be good! This where I should invoke the Goodwin law and be justified in it!

    6)The doctors and veterinarians don't need math
    This is getting silly. Would you have the educational system only teach the lowest common denominator for all jobs? What would it be? Basic English?

    That's it for his arguments. Now what about all the arguments he didn't address:

    1) Math teaches rigorous thinking. And it's probably the simplest tool to do so - it's very easy to verify and (on a High-School level) it's indisputable.

    2) Math teaches to follow procedure - again - it's a very effective tool for that

    3) Math trains you in critical thinking - teaches you to look for proofs in a controlled environment where proofs exist.

    None of these arguments is properly examined in the article as the author fails to proceed (1) through critical examination (3) in a rigorous way (2).

  202. Reasoning by YaddaMinski · · Score: 1

    Algebra forms the basis for mathematical reasoning. How can you problem solve if you do not know how algebra works? The real problem is how math is taught. It is designed for teachers to teach to a test and formula, not designed for the student to immerse himself in fascination. So once again the problem is the teacher, not the student. Get rid of public education. Love this "It could, for example, teach students how the Consumer Price Index is computed, what is included and how each item in the index is weighted — and include discussion about which items should be included and what weights they should be given. " Really??? Then more Americans would understand how their government is lying about inflation. Understanding that and exponential growth would start a revolution.

  203. Why me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I still remember this from about 10 years ago during my "Introduction to Drama" class:

    Other students and the professor complaining: "Why are students required to take math classes? It's unfair and pointless."
    Me: "Why am I required to take this class? Talk about pointless."

  204. It is non sense, and reveals a low cultural level. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If University is the place where future culture/tech is built, then this afirmation is non-sense. Acording to this afirmation you have to tech what are the current trends in tech, but what will happends if such a trends-topics change. In this case people have to re-enter to the university to be teach again, and again and again. What a horrible educational mistake! What we want is professional that have "ubiquitous" low level tools in order to be prepared for the change! Algebra is per-se the best ubiquitous and most general tool that the human culture have.
    If you ride of "algebra" from Higher education, such an education cannot be called "higher" anymore...

  205. Give up, it's easier than failure.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To me it sounds like the educational system in this country have failed to teach mathematics beyond the basics and this guy, part of the educational system, thinks the best solution is to give up?

  206. Time Machine by iceaxe · · Score: 1

    Algebra may be what separates the Morlocks from the Eloi.

    In the comments on the article itself, someone pointed out that the admittedly difficult leap from arithmetic to algebra is the step from concrete to abstract thinking, and that we really do want as many people as possible to make that leap. It's more generally important than the math ability.

    --
    WALSTIB!
    1. Re:Time Machine by readin · · Score: 1

      One problem is that many kids already face great difficulty with the concrete thinking. Even after learning all the rules for adding/subtracting/multiplying/dividing fractions, you give them a problem like "Bob had a candy bar. He gave half to his sister and then half of what was left to his brother. After doing so, how much of his original candy bar did Bob have" and they have no clue how to begin. Such a person is not likely to enter a technical field. How many years should be spent teaching this person algebra?

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
  207. Everyone should have to learn statistics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.ted.com/talks/arthur_benjamin_s_formula_for_changing_math_education.html

  208. It's About Focus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Subjects such as algebra require a deep, single focus point. Kids no longer want to focus. They are not used to the concept of focusing at all. The nonsense about multitasking as well as instant stimulation from computer games and a host of other factors conspire to screw these kids up. And the system encourages it. Don't want to focus? Drop out and get a GED later. That way you only need the raw basics to get a diploma which no sane employer will accept anyway. But schools save money with huge drop out numbers.
                    Another tactic is public school training that avoids focus. You can go through high school as a food service trainee. That pretty much insures being a wage slave and welfare recipient for most of your life. But you won't know it as comparisons of earnings would require an ability to focus, read and understand materials. But the problem remains. Who will pick up the garbage and clean the toilets if we educate our kids? Better not let them focus. Tell them that pot makes them relax and everybody know relaxation is oh so important. I've been watching the Olympics and I just know those young people don't relax a lot as they focus on their sport night and day. But tell your kids to relax and don't let the teachers push them or the school kick them out if they are lazy.
                     

  209. Some algrebra, but not all by readin · · Score: 1

    I've recently been working with someone who is struggling with math and starting to learn some algebra. After a lot of work the kid seems to do ok picking up on the idea of letters representing numbers and manipulating those to solve simple problems. Similarly after a lot of work he can work with fractions. But getting to the point of using fractions and variables together is proving an extra challenge.

    The fact is that most of use, once we graduate from school, never sit down and solve problems using the most difficult math we learned in school. But learning that highest math has other benefits.
    1. I never find myself integrating, but I understand that concept which helps me understand the news, trends in behavior and stocks, and other phenomena because I have a feel for how these things work together.
    2. I used calculus to learn physics. This reinforced the things I learned in calculus. It also made me capable of understanding trends in computer hardware.
    3. As a computer guy, I use big-O concepts frequently. I couldn't have learned those without algebra. I wouldn't understand big-O concepts intuitively if I hadn't done the calculus and physics.

    Even if a kid isn't going into a technical field, learning calculus will be useful, but it isn't required. And if he's not going on to do calculus, much of algebra won't be terribly useful.

    But some algebra is still necessary. People need to know that symbolic logic exists. People need to understand the concept of functions. While solving a quadratic equation is something they're likely never going to use, learning to do so will reinforce concepts like fractions and variable substitution.

    I can see letting kids graduate from high school without algebra. But if a college degree is to mean anything it should include at least a semester of algebra. I'm not sure it even makes sense to recruit students to a college if they haven't taken algebra.

    --
    I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
  210. Re:What's the aim of studying politic and governme by jc42 · · Score: 1

    There are hundreds of thousands of people who spent many years studying biology and zoology to become veterinarians and, you know, help animals who will disagree with you.

    Hmmm ... I'm guessing that most of those veterinarians also help animals that agree with me.

    After all, they mostly don't even know me, so how could they base their actions on whether or not a given animal agrees with me or not?

    (Weren't we just talking about the usefulness of mathematics for teaching basic logic? ;-)

    --
    Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  211. No, no, he's right! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey you guys, this man is perfectly correct. All you Americans, DON'T teach algebra to your kids. Or calculus, or polynomials, or finite functions or anything ELSE that might make you competent on the stages of world science, or business , or finance. From Britain, that looks FINE......

  212. Going Down... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No.
    Mathemathics is useless.
    In the future:
    Kid: "Mom?! Why is that some elevator buttons have a "-" before some numbers? What does that mean?"
    Mom: "Probably our building, in order to promote efficiency and helping the environment, bought some keys with defects. It is no problem they still work son."
    Kid: " =D Oh I love the environment! Mom you are great!".

    Yup... That is the way to go.

  213. Re:What's the aim of studying politic and governme by hazah · · Score: 1

    It ain't slashdot that's getting crazier. It's just that we get to read more people's minds to see just how fucked up they are to begin with.

  214. Don't send him to the supermarket by whitroth · · Score: 1

    Because he can't figure out, since he doesn't know or want to know algebra, if two packages of meat (pkg x & pkg x+.25_ and a box of Brand A cereal is more than than a larger package of meat (pkg 2x) and a box of brand B cereal.

    And there's a pro-home schooling op-ed in the WSJ.

    Is there an attack on public education? Nahhhh.... and if you aren't currently online, and can study that way, then you and your kids don't deserve an education.

                      mark

  215. Of Course Not! by Somebody+is+Grar · · Score: 0

    After all, a political science professor would know that you don't need statistics to bamboozle the public..just tell them what you think they want to hear, tack on a percentage figure and voila! Who needs math for that? And a poli-sci professor would be clearly against anyone being able to calculate their own tax bill -- why do you think the politicians make it as difficult as possible? If you don't have the money to pay someone to do it, why the IRS will do it for you! Isn't that convenient?!

    --
    Grar II
  216. Re:What's the aim of studying politic and governme by bitt3n · · Score: 1

    There are hundreds of thousands of people who spent many years studying biology and zoology to become veterinarians and, you know, help animals who will disagree with you.

    What animals dare to disagree with me? The roast chicken I ate last night disagreed with me, but at that point I think it was beyond help.

  217. When and How versus What to learn by TheSkepticalOptimist · · Score: 1

    I think the current educational system is in shambles due to the fact they try to shove education down children's throats without realizing they are ever increasingly creating generations of kids (and eventually adults) that do not want to learn and explore for themselves.

    I agree that forms of mathematics and other subject matter are completely unnecessary at early levels of school. Why force a child to learn something boring and unusable in the real world, only to have them score low on a test and be deemed unfit for higher forms of education, with the social stigmatism that poor grades usually are associated with.

    Instead these subjects should be introduced when a student enters an vocational path that will eventually lead to a career that would require those skills. I mean, you would never teach a child how to do brain surgery if they are never intending to become a medical doctor. Why teach a high school student Calculus or Algebra when there is a high chance they will never use those math skills in the future. Why introduce an opportunity for a student to fail by teaching them something they might hate?

    But, you may say, what if you don't introduce a student to some subject mater early enough; they may never want to BE a doctor, even if most don't intend to become a doctor. So instead you cram hundreds of hours of biology, chemistry, math and science classes and thousands of hours of homework, to make them WANT to become a doctor? That idea is ridiculous, but unfortunately is the truth behind of our current education system.

    What SHOULD happen at the elementary and secondary level's of education is to teach a child HOW TO LEARN, rather then forcing them to learn specific subject matter. At the end of high school, you should have learned enough life skills to be a successful adult, which means a solid understanding that most forms of jobs that pay well require additional education, so a student would aim to continue down a path for higher education, and enjoy it. However by learning skills that involve self discovery and exploration of knowledge a person with a high school education should also be just as prepared for success in other ventures.that do not necessarily require a degree or diploma.

    The biggest thing I took out of leaving university and taking a job was finally LEARNING how to LEARN. It sounds crazy but when you switch from an education system where you are lectured to and tested against subject mater to a reality where you explore and learn content on your own, at your own pace, for stuff you love and are keenly interested in, this was one of the most profound transitions I experienced in my life.

    Most adults are so profoundly sick and tired of learning and being tested that by the time they are done any level of school they have "peaked" intellectually and refuse to learn more.

    I believe changing education to focusing on when and how to learn instead of worrying about what to learn will change the way people view education, and instead build a foundation for life-long commitment to learning and growing rather then a life of peaking and settling for a career they hate.

    --
    I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
  218. Stop Counting Monkeys by s1sfx · · Score: 1

    I have recently helped someone through the current maths requirements in the UK to keystage 2 and the ENDLESS counting of monkeys and bananas drove this intelligent child to absolute distraction. Teach proper maths, teach it properly, teach it confidently and it doesn't have to be a "stumbling block." And make a new subject for "life skills" which can include all that other confusing stuff which doesn't belong in trying to get a child or anyone to be confident with mathematics. Seriously.

    --

    Love without logic is insanity. And vice versa.
  219. Math is a filter by photonyx · · Score: 1

    Math and logic comprise a bullshit filter that is quite useful in everyday life, from realization that $994.99 plus tax is way over $1K, to ability to filter out general BS statements such as "spend more to save more", "15 minutes on the phone can save you 15% or more on your car insurance" etc. You need them to figure out that you'll pay double on your mortgage, and that "buy a car, get a baseball cap for free!" is not such a sweet deal. Also, you'll need it to realize that the TFA is bullshit.

  220. how can a man named "hacker" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    not be a computer science major?

  221. Facebook relevancy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At this very moment, there is a muliple choice Facebook question that saddens me:

    5+5+5-5+5+5-5+5x0 = ? (I Bet More People Will Answer It Wrong :P) Give A Try !!

    A) 40 with 83k votes
    B) 0 with 2.1m votes
    C) 20 With 497k votes
    D) 15 with 940k votes

    and I have Programming friends that got it wrong!

  222. Algebra taught badly by RickNorwood · · Score: 1

    The problem with algebra is that it is, in the US, often taught so badly. Read Liping Ma on how math in the US is taught differently from every other country. In other countries the teachers focus on ideas, the US, all too often, on rote memorization. "Don't ask why, just invert and multiply," was one teacher's slogan. A survey of textbooks by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics found that of all the textbooks used in the US, the only one they gave a passing grade to was a translation of a textbook used in Singapore. As a government study of several years back concluded, the US is committing unilaterial intellectual disarmament.

  223. Algebra Prof asks: Is Political science necessary? by CHIT2ME · · Score: 1

    NO!!!!!

    --
    My karma is bad. Don't get too close!!!
  224. Unacceptable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The way I see it the ultimate aim of the author of TFA is to dumb down the future generations

    The dumber future generations get the easier they can be manipulated to do the dirty things that the elites themselves do not want to do

    Not convinced this professor and his book mean to dumb down curricula nor the general population. Ideologues will likely reference it to advance ridiculous claims. He argues the way mathematics curricula is being handled, in far too many educational institutions, effectively causes far too many people to be barred from higher education. That is unacceptable.

  225. Re:Is there a /. department of Ironic Headlines no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exactly. Politics has no business being associated with Science. It's an oxymoron superseded only by it's more idiotic cousin Politically Correct.

  226. Re:What's the aim of studying politic and governme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are hundreds of thousands of people who spent many years studying biology and zoology to become veterinarians and, you know, help animals who will disagree with you.

    I wouldn't want anyone to help animals who will disagree with me.

  227. Mathematics and Art ... Appreciation by Evil+Pete · · Score: 1

    Some people are just not suited to Mathematics at all and find themselves completely incapable of doing it. I think that for those it would be better to have a Mathematics Appreciation subject, like Art Appreciation. Such a subject would give people an understanding about why many people love it and why it is so important and perhaps a taste of its beauty. And you never know, maybe it will act as an incentive for some to learn more themselves, people are much better at learning when they are motivated.

    --
    Bitter and proud of it.
  228. Re:Is there a /. department of Ironic Headlines no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The guy even answers the question in his article when he recognizes that: "It’s true that students in Finland, South Korea and Canada score better on mathematics tests."

    Algebra is obviously not the problem, since people in finland, korea and canada can learn it. Either people in the us are more stupid than people in finland (which i doubt) or the teaching is worse in the us (which is probably the case).

  229. Uncovering strengths. by kilobytemachine · · Score: 1

    We teach math, science, history, language, etc to all students, and in so doing the strengths of each student will be uncovered. Is there any other way to determine what a student's good at without first teaching it to him?

  230. Wholesale Authentic Cheap Jerseys From China Free by wcheapjerseys · · Score: 1

    Wcheapjerseys.com offers you varieties of high-quality wholesale cheap jerseys, including wholesale cheap nba jerseys, wholesale cheap nfl jerseys, wholesale cheap mlb jerseys and wholesale cheap nhl jerseys. You can find the most famous players and the hottest teams’ wholesale cheap jersey here. All is sold at a very cheap price. Having been doing online business for several years, we know fans well that we always supply the high quality yet cheap wholesale jerseys. All the numbers and names and team badges are exquisitely sewn on, making the jerseys you received are of very expensive one, though sold at a cheap price. We also offer the expert customer service and fast shipping service. Even you buy one item, you get a wholesale price. But if you buy enough quantities, you get a best price.

  231. Ah yes, a PolySci weine is a expert on algebra. by a1z26b2y25 · · Score: 1

    Since when does a poly sci dork count in anything ???? Poly Sci, one level below Liberal Arts in the academic evolutionary scale.

  232. Is he joking... by HArchH · · Score: 1

    ...or just a self-serving idiot?

  233. algebra? by gzuckier · · Score: 1

    are you kidding? algebra is hugely useful for every day life. trig, maybe people could live without. heck, if you don't know arithmetic you might be able to survive with a calculator. but most of "teaching algebra" consists of getting kids to recognize that they kind of know how to do the stuff from their daily lives and to formalize it so they can do it when it's not intuitively obvious.
    I'd also make the argument that you need to understand at least the fundamental ideas behind calculus to be educated, but that doesn't cover the entire population.

    --
    Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  234. We are NOT professors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And we never use algebra for anything. For so many years I only used math once at work, to calculate the estimated tree depth and CI/CA sizes for some very old files similar to VSAM-index, using a B+ tree like structure on NEC mainframe. It was pure stupidity because they provided no automatic calcuation for that kind of crap.

    Want to calculate compound interest, get a software. Write once, work forever - the original coder is the only one who needs to learn algebra.

    BTW do you really calculate interest and budgets etc by yourself? Do you know you can write code even in the web-browser you're using now to visit slashdot, assuming there is no other app on your computer?

  235. I read the article... by ToddInSF · · Score: 1

    The author is half right; which makes his argument compleatly wrong.

    The way Algebra is taught is just dreadful; it's as if educators have intentionally sought to obfuscate what algebra IS.

    BUT, if you want to help kids learn, teach them about MORE facets of a subject; DO NOT water-down the subject and reduce it to total fragmentation and abstraction, and stop passing off bits and pieces of it as the actual subject.

    Teach the HISTORY of Algebra, along side with the proofs and theorems. Show students how it is related to Philosophy, how philosophy is related to Reason. Teach the connections.

    This, as opposed to advocating for people to grow increasingly ignorant and micro-specialized to the point that you can no longer teach them anything at all, because you've conned them into thinking that they actually have any grasp of a subject they are woefully ignorant of all but a tiny fragmented abstraction.

    And yeah, it takes more resources to properly educate people by actually making the subject matter interesting and enlightening. But I'd argue, if you're an educator, and you can not or do not already do this, you need to get another job - because you suck at what you're doing now.

    And a word of advice, if you can make a subject more interesting to yourself by simply fucking around on google and searching related terms in wiki, YOU need to be more proactive in your own education, and avoid at all costs educators that are just plain incompetent and lazy, as well as people like the author of the aforementioned article.

  236. He's a poly-sci professor... by ToddInSF · · Score: 1

    I have yet to meet one that wasn't a fucktard, and I am yet to met a Poly-Sci major that wasn't a waste of space.

    I rate them a notch lower than an MBA.

  237. Standards: IB by vuo · · Score: 1

    The American standardized testing is severely infected with political correctness, in the sense it's intelligence testing more than academic testing. But, the International Baccalaureate Organization (IBO) has a traditional "grammar school" curriculum that is uniform across the world. The IB Diploma matches nearly exactly to the Abitur/matura grades, which are national standards for matriculation examinations in many European countries. IB is slightly more demanding than the U.S. high school programme. There are over 1100 public IB programmes in the United States.

  238. It's Defensive Preparation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One of the subtle but important benefits of education is defense. One well-educated is generally better able to defend against predations by others. The uneducated are easily manipulated because they do not know or perhaps do not recognize manipulation based on a fallacy:
    * If they better understood arithmetic, they could calculate the magnitude of the fallacy.
    * If they better understood history, they could recall several prior applications of the fallacy, which failed to achieve stated goals.
    * If they better understood logic, they could detect the unjustified inferences.
    * If they better understood persuasive writing, they could more easily recognize spackled holes in the argument.
    * If they better understood abstract reasoning, they could recognize that the argument does not hold with emotional loading removed.
    * and so on...

    I can't imagine why a *political scientist* would think it was a good idea to make the educated populace less able to defend itself from predations.

  239. Re:Is there a /. department of Ironic Headlines no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would be willing to let the Political Scientists get away without math IF we can let STEM majors not take Political Science and other B.S. classes.

  240. There is no Science in Political Science! by MANDEK · · Score: 1

    Political science majors can't hack it! I'm not surprised by this professors article. But political science courses were the easy classes in college. And individuals were taking these classes instead of advanced math and science electives, for the sake of a higher GPA. Math, science and engineering careers are what drive inovation! But as for political science degrees, this is a pathetic and undeserving degree designation. Of all degrees this one is the most useless one Mr. Hack needs to stay with what he teaches POLITICS, Not Mathematics!

  241. a short course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a short course inn algebra: A=B. That's the basics. :)

  242. Only if you want to be useful by rhalstead · · Score: 1

    I'm retired and I still use math every day. Algebra is about as basic as you can get. If they can't handle that, they probably aren't college material anyway. We could probably eliminate about half the students going to college and the useless degrees. They would have money left, would not be a drag on society, and we could probably eliminate about 2/3rds of needless student loans. There are a lot of students going to college who are not suited for college, nor do they need a 4 year degree.

  243. Education is supposed to expose you to new ideas! by billyhandiii · · Score: 1

    I understand that some people never get it and it can seem useless but even if they only manage to pick up a little it will help them better understand abstract thinking and how to solve problems. Given what poor standards we set for the arguments made by the people we listen to (politicians, pundits, friends, family) the level of mathematics required in school should only be increased or at the very least supplemented with more various branches.

  244. algabra by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes most certainly algebra matters in life! everything is an equation. AND we have got to page page 1 number 1 on google. We are a happy team today here in Manchester in England. jo frazer

  245. Am I the only one who agrees here? by ShipiboConibo · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one who agrees here? At least in that I was a kid that could never grok algebra in grade school, and dropped out of college because of it. I was convinced by school teachers and pears that I was just a math moron with no hope. It wasn't until I started getting tasked with some mathematically intensive software engineering projects, that others couldn't pull off, that I realized all I needed to fully understand the HOWS of math was to have a real world WHY scenario. Not understanding algebra as taught in school forced me to adapt and become a better 'learner' that can assimilate new things more quickly than most of the people I encounter with degrees. Turns out I'm a natural with a lot of advanced mathematics, I just couldn't wrap my brain around it without understanding the applications for the problems. I think we focus too much on teaching kids how to solve every potential problem under the sun, and they never get the more fundamental and simpler 'eureka' type stuff that it all branches from. The feeling of grokking it vs the feeling of being rewarded for remembering rules. But we don't teach kids how to learn new things on their own when faced with an ambiguous problem, we just reward their memorization skills. We have access to virtually the entire collective of human knowledge, I think learning to navigate that effectively and being able to learn concepts on demand is a greater skill than memorizing. But obviously there's a lot of bright people that did great learning the traditional way too. So what do I know, ha. Just that I get a warm and fuzzy feeling when I solve a complex math problem now, instead of the dread and fear school gave me over it all.

    --
    "It seems that when people become desperate they consult the gods, and when the gods become desperate they tell lies." -
  246. Feynman to the rescue, again. by Consistent1 · · Score: 1

    In the "The Relation of Mathematics to Physics" (second part of "The Character of Physical Law") Saint R. Feynman marvelously establishes the irreducible relevancy of the known interrelations between abstractions (known as math) to any scientific endeavor.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kd0xTfdt6qw

    While the map is not the territory, mapping is a territory in and of itself.
    Regardless of the notation, or the map, or the math one uses. Doing away with a good map will leave us in the dark, unless our new map is at least as concise and effective.

    Having said that, there is a lot to be said for refining our ways of equipping young students with a proper abstractions tool-set, so in the near and bright future we may avoid such blunders of poor abstraction being attributed to a Prof.
    BTW, What was that science you said he was practicing?

  247. stumbling blocks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    isn't getting up going to class, studying and taking tests a bigger stumbling block?

  248. People create inventions. by intellitech · · Score: 1

    It is the only subject which was created 100% by humans.

    I know I'm nitpicking a bit here, but people discover knowledge.

    --
    vos nescitis quicquam, nec cogitatis quia expedit nobis ut unus moriatur homo pro populo et non tota gens pereat.
  249. Re:What's the aim of studying politic and governme by avandesande · · Score: 1

    Any occupation is a fight against entropy of some sort.... the OP is really talking about doing things for the good of society.

    --
    love is just extroverted narcissism
  250. Re:What's the aim of studying politic and governme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The vast majority of people who study psychology don't do so because their plan is to control people and then force them into Cybermen suits. Not everything in life is a conspiracy to rule the world

    No, they study psychology because they cant do anything else and it is the easiest way to get a piece of paper. Then they can go about telling everybody how wrong they are and try to destroy mathematics education because they cant add 2 and 2 together.

  251. Logic vs. Chaotic emotions by Jeffrey+Ryan · · Score: 1

    Some may be good with basing decisions on things that may not seem mathematical in nature. The reality is, they often times are. We deduce things regularly. We probably all hated word problems at one time or another. However, we had to think algebraically in regards to how different parts of those problems related to each other, and then line them up accordingly to see the absolutes and come up with a solution. Then if there were unknown variables, we cloud look to see how the other absolutes would produce a consistency with the other parts of the equation, and thus, solve the problem. Math is about problem solving skills. To say this is extraneous and unnecessary and baffling at the least...appalling. Again, we hear the cry to make this easier, cause things are too hard. Let's be lazier, stop solving problems or developing skills that will help us solve 'em. That's the solution. OMG. I'm sure this is too much for political science people, cause political science is an oxymoron, and has little to do with logic at all if what we see in our government is what we get. Keep political science majors in the trenches. We should force even more smarts on 'em than the get already. They're bad enough as it is.

  252. Class is In. by erexx23 · · Score: 1

    College is about providing proof that you have the ability to excel in general studies at a higher level, the highest level. Computer Science is a Science Degree and therefore requires the basic corner stone of a Bachelors of Science degree... and that's Math. What your looking for is a "degree" or certifications in a specialty, vocation or whatever your trade of choice is. You didn't say anything about teaching or obtaining a Masters which demonstrates the highest caliber of ability. Ability that is peer reviewed by the best currently living in your culture and maybe the even the world. If you dont want to qualify for these things then you dont want a Computer Science degree.