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 ."
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)
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'm pretty sure if I wrote that paper, the resulting Slashdot headline would be "Engineer Asks: Is Political Science Necessary?"
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 ).
... is High School necessary?
An engineer asks - how is that?
A physicist asks - why is that?
A polisci major asks - would you like fries with that?
Is political science necessary?
YES! If political science majors studied things like engineering or computer science instead, then who would sell me coffee?
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.
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 !
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.
Touch everywhere, even when inappropriate.
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.
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)