Slashdot Mirror


The Case Against Algebra

HughPickens.com writes: Dana Goldstein writes at Slate that political scientist Andrew Hacker proposes replacing algebra II and calculus in the high school and college with a practical course in statistics for citizenship. According to Hacker, only mathematicians and some engineers actually use advanced math in their day-to-day work and even the doctors, accountants, and coders of the future shouldn't have to master abstract math that they'll never need. For many math is often an impenetrable barrier to academic success. Algebra II, which includes polynomials and logarithms, and is required by the new Common Core curriculum standards used by 47 states and territories, drives dropouts at both the high school and college levels. Hacker's central argument is that advanced mathematics requirements, like algebra, trigonometry and calculus, are "a harsh and senseless hurdle" keeping far too many Americans from completing their educations and leading productive lives. "We are really destroying a tremendous amount of talent—people who could be talented in sports writing or being an emergency medical technician, but can't even get a community college degree," says Hacker. "I regard this math requirement as highly irrational." According to Hacker many of those who struggled through a traditional math regimen feel that doing so annealed their character while critics says that mathematics is used as a hoop, a badge, a totem to impress outsiders and elevate a profession's status. "It's not hard to understand why Caltech and M.I.T. want everyone to be proficient in mathematics. But it's not easy to see why potential poets and philosophers face a lofty mathematics bar. Demanding algebra across the board actually skews a student body, not necessarily for the better."

908 comments

  1. Burn those algebras ladies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Or just show them to us!

    1. Re: Burn those algebras ladies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The reasoning is kind of weird. Even at the college level, statistics is extremely abstract. Statistics did not start making sense until I took it as part of my masters degree. The same is true about almost everyone I know. What you learn in the bachelor's level course is just theory, with no partial applications. What is the Poisson distribution for? When to use the Xi-squared curve?

      It's not until you get into more advanced statistics classes that things start to come together, which is the same situation as algebra and calculus. I'm a mechanical engineer and, to me, calculus is like second nature because I went through all the advanced practical courses in college. Won't the same be true for stats?

    2. Re: Burn those algebras ladies by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What I wonder is how the dear professor intends to teach statistics without referring to the many statistical formulae which are written in - algebra.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    3. Re: Burn those algebras ladies by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      It's not necessary to make all school math 'practical' but to explain it in terms that are observable in the world around us. Poisson distributions ('bell curves") are all around us if we care to look. And before getting bogged down in the fine points of l'Hôpital's Rule, explain derivatives as the rates of change that we see around us (resting object, moving object, falling object...).

    4. Re: Burn those algebras ladies by TraumaFox · · Score: 1

      It's an interesting observation. Statistics was one of the last math classes I took in college and the first to ever give me any real difficulty. Everything math-related up to that point, including calculus, was smooth sailing, yet it seemed that most of my peers who traditionally struggled even with algebra had an easier time of statistics than I did. Maybe the practice of memorizing things to punch into a calculator just to scrape by with a passing grade worked better for them while I stumbled trying to make sense of the theory (which conflicted unrelentingly with everything I thought I understood). I certainly couldn't calculate the probability of my anecdote happening as a matter of coincidence.

    5. Re: Burn those algebras ladies by tommyjcarpenter · · Score: 1

      Aren't Gaussian distributions commonly referred to as "bell curves"..?

    6. Re: Burn those algebras ladies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Statistics was one of the last math classes I took in college and the first to ever give me any real difficulty. Everything math-related up to that point, including calculus, was smooth sailing,

      Ditto the sentiments. Please don't take calculus away from the children. It is a monument to mankind's ingenuity.

      Lets face it. STEM is not for everybody. If one can't stand the heat there will always be English majors. Please don't mess with maths.

    7. Re: Burn those algebras ladies by Jhon · · Score: 1

      So are unusual shapes to which knowledge of the surface area and volumes would be handy...

    8. Re: Burn those algebras ladies by evilRhino · · Score: 1

      Under the proposal in TFA, students will still take pre-algebra and algebra I.

    9. Re: Burn those algebras ladies by TheReaperD · · Score: 2

      I think the problem that they are referring to is that Algebra 2 and Calculus are being required for most non-STEM degrees, such as an English or philosophy major and the average person seems to be wired for one or the other, few can do both well.

      --
      "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
    10. Re: Burn those algebras ladies by MillerHighLife21 · · Score: 2

      I would tend to agree with you here. While I do completely agree with removing those courses as hard requirements for all of the described reasons - particularly calculus...maybe not algebra 2 and trig...replacing one kind of complex math course with another semi-hard to graph math course that many people won't use isn't going to help much.

      IMO - right idea, wrong solution. Replace that course with an intense personal finance class...that seems more like applied math that should be required.

      --
      "Don't teach a man to fish, feed yourself. He's a grown man. Fishing's not that hard." - Ron Swanson
    11. Re: Burn those algebras ladies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. But there are more kinds of bell curves than the Gaussian curve. e.g. if you take the square of the Gaussian curve, it's still a bell curve. Skewed distributions are bell curves too.

    12. Re: Burn those algebras ladies by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      IIRC, probability = the area under the distribution curve = numerical or analytical calculus.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    13. Re: Burn those algebras ladies by GLMDesigns · · Score: 2

      " the average person seems to be wired for one or the other, few can do both well."

      True. I, by nature, am more into philosophy than math. Interesting I loved logic; and from logic I got into programming; and from programming I picked up math.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    14. Re: Burn those algebras ladies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is because of how the books/subject are written. Those I took statistics with had a similar outcome. Those that were right brain oriented/specialized did very well in statistics, while those that were left brain oriented/specialized had a difficult time.

      The complainer about math being difficult had also failed to realize that it is not the math itself that we need but the logic skills that it develops.

    15. Re: Burn those algebras ladies by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      It's not until you get into more advanced statistics classes that things start to come together, which is the same situation as algebra and calculus.

      I'm not sure sure I can agree that algebra doesn't come together until you get into more advanced classes because even junior high algebra made complete sense to me almost as if it were an operation of logic. I also can't agree that only mathematicians and engineers use advanced math unless algebra isn't advanced math in which case why did they mention it.

      My brother will tell you working at the water plant where drinking water comes from, algebra is must in his everyday job. Algebra is my bread and butter and I'm not an engineer I'm just a tech and coder.

    16. Re: Burn those algebras ladies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      College isn't for everyone. Maybe they should get a focused trade degree if they can't hack being well rounded.

    17. Re: Burn those algebras ladies by bwcbwc · · Score: 1

      A similar situation exists for other "practical" math. People need to be able to understand compound interest if they want to avoid getting ripped off in daily life, but the formulas for compound interest involve exponentiation. So you have to wade through a lot of algebra 2 just to get to that. On the other hand, compound interest could be useful tool to demonstrate these concepts in a way that show practical use.

      Another item that concerned me is the idea that coders don't need advanced math classes. Apart from financial calculations, anyone doing 3d graphics is likely to need matrix math and trigonometry. Either that or we have to treat them like electricians vs. EEs where the EEs know the formulas and define industrial standards and building codes and the electricians mainly do their jobs by following the standards.

      --
      We are the 198 proof..
    18. Re: Burn those algebras ladies by harperska · · Score: 1

      The general populace would be very well served with a basic overview of statistics in their education. What would be very useful is a basic introduction to how probability works. Teach just the basics of normal distribution, and concepts like how if a fair coin is flipped heads five times in a row, the sixth flip still has only a 50% chance of heads. Probability is very counter-intuitive to someone who doesn't understand it, yet probability is encountered in just about everybody's daily lives. People make decisions regularly based on their belief of the likelihood of a particular outcome, and a misunderstanding of probability often leads to very bad decisions.

    19. Re: Burn those algebras ladies by kheldan · · Score: 1

      The reasoning is kind of weird.

      I'd say it's rather myopic. It's advocating lowering the bar instead of inspiring people to work harder to succeed. Pushing your mental limits has a positive effect on your cognitive abilities, just like pushing your body has on your physical abilities. Lowering the bar just promotes lazy brains.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    20. Re: Burn those algebras ladies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not necessary to make all school math 'practical' but to explain it in terms that are observable in the world around us. Poisson distributions ('bell curves") are all around us if we care to look.

      Er, it appears that Andrew Hacker's wish has come true - math/stat is not being taught. A Poisson distribution is not (except as an approximation in some special cases) a bell curve.

    21. Re: Burn those algebras ladies by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Exponentiation isn't Algebra 2.

    22. Re: Burn those algebras ladies by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      True, though I don't think he was suggesting eliminating all algebra, just advanced algebra or algebra II - whatever that means.

    23. Re: Burn those algebras ladies by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Depends on the statistics course. At the graduate level you are taking advanced level statistics. So no it would not make more sense. I believe he is arguing for a practical course or applied course in statistics, which there are plenty. Those would be more accessible. But people who have issues with math will still have problems with statistics.

    24. Re: Burn those algebras ladies by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Then you didn't learn anything. Statistics requires critical thinking, which I guess *you* could avoid with Calculus. Odd since areas of Calculus are more than rote memorization.

    25. Re: Burn those algebras ladies by TheReaperD · · Score: 1

      I agree, anyone can learn given time and/or create solutions to learning (like learning something related first). It just a question of whether we want to force college students to do four years of advanced math for fields that don't use it. Everyone should have basic algebra and geometry but, for non-technical, non-math fields that should be it and maybe basic statistics.

      --
      "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
    26. Re: Burn those algebras ladies by TheReaperD · · Score: 1

      Being well rounded includes basic math and algebra, maybe geometry. Calculus is on a whole other level and is not useful for non-STEM fields.

      --
      "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
    27. Re: Burn those algebras ladies by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      The algebra 2 and calculus required for non-STEM degrees is a watered down version anyhow.

      'Business calculus' got about as far as taking derivatives of polynomials and simple trig functions. Memorize and regurgitate with no understanding required.

      For lack of an exam room, my Calc 2 final was in the same room with a buisness calc 2 final. They had all the formulas they needed on the blackboard. If they could 'plug and chug' they passed.

      Stats is also just memorize and regurgitate until after you complete calculus. You can really understand stats without a solid calculus background.

      English is not the same as philosophy. Any philosopher that can't handle math needs to find another major. (S)he is too stupid for philosophy. The last thing the world needs is any more 'post-modernists' philosophers.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    28. Re: Burn those algebras ladies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My college grad friends all seem remarkably less well rounded than those of us who went to trade schools or jumped straight in to blue collar work after high school. None of my college grad friends can maintain their own cars and homes, or weld or do anything of the sort...and those of us who get our hands dirty for a living aren't suffering the immense debt of higher education (some of us actually have savings!).

      Nevertheless I'd have liked to have gone to college. Unfortunately it's terribly expensive and there are far more practical ways to get paying jobs.

    29. Re: Burn those algebras ladies by reboot246 · · Score: 1

      One of the wisest teachers I ever had said that if you were limited to just two courses beyond basic reading, writing and arithmetic, those two courses should be geometry and Latin. Latin for understanding and a command of the English language, and geometry for understanding the logic used in proofs.

      I took both, actually four semesters of Latin and two of geometry. I guess in my case it didn't work as planned, but I'm still a lot of fun at parties.

    30. Re: Burn those algebras ladies by Bengie · · Score: 1

      I use algebra just to manage my debt. Anyway, who plans on doing 4 years of statistics? At least when I went to school, we were done with Algebra 2 at the end of 8th grade. Still got 3 more years of required math classes. Or do what I did and transfer schools and retake the same math classes but under a different name. Took Geometry and Algebra 2 at the same time. Slept through the classes and got over 100% in both. Yay, extra credit test questions. Great way to boost your GPA.

    31. Re: Burn those algebras ladies by fropenn · · Score: 1

      You can do lots of statistics without referring to a single formula or equation. Further, our modern calculators and software make actually computing many statistics trivial. What students need to learn is interpretation (which is an essential skill for living in a society where statistics are used to argue political causes).

    32. Re: Burn those algebras ladies by pr0fessor · · Score: 2

      This guy is a political scientist I don't think he knows how much math is really used or in what fields. I would hate to think a Doctor or EMT wouldn't know how to figure out how much of a medication they could give over an amount of time vs body weight.

    33. Re: Burn those algebras ladies by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      When I was in school, Algebra 2 was a requirement for college prep track and Calculus was freshman level college. But that's simplistic. Even people not going into STEM can make use of both Algebra 2 and Calculus. Even English majors can and do learn those subjects, since the problem is one of expectations ("oh no, math is hard!") rather than ability. When people struggle with arithmetic they are told they're not very good at math, even if they might otherwise be very good at abstract thinking and excel at algebra 2.

      This is more of the dumbing down of America. Every time we get more evidence that the US ranks very low in the world in education we panic and dumb it down even more. Everyone wants a short cut.

    34. Re: Burn those algebras ladies by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      but the formulas for compound interest involve exponentiation.

      Not necessarily. You can do them iteratively, though it's more cumbersome.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    35. Re: Burn those algebras ladies by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Even at the college level, statistics is extremely abstract. Statistics did not start making sense until I took it as part of my masters degree.

      Hate to break it to you, but I don't think it made sense to you even then - or you wouldn't be drawing a conclusion based on a sample size of one.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    36. Re: Burn those algebras ladies by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Of course it's useful for non STEM fields. Everything is useful for everyone, except those who's goal in life is to learn the minimum necessary to become an office drone. Of course you're talking about minimum requirements for academic credit, which is not the same thing as saying what is and is not useful in someone's life or career. Most universities provide for a breadth requirement of graduates, meaning that they have to learn something not directly related to their major while in college. Society should value a well educated populace, and the fact that the US always seems to be aiming for the minimum necessary requirements means it has its priorities screwed up. We should aim to do our best rather than just squeaking by.

      The difference here is that we have a math-phobic political scientist advocating getting rid of algebra 2 in favor of basic statistics, statistics that are far too basic to be used even in political science. If your career or field makes use of statistics then you NEED algebra 2 and calculus! It is all about that fear of math, which gets instilled early on merely because someone isn't good at a arithmetic which has almost nothing to do with aptitude with mathematics. And even if it is hard, what's so wrong with struggling to get through a class? Builds character, builds a better brain, builds a better person. Isn't that what we want schools to do?

      And yes, I think the math and science whiz at high school should also be required to take classes in literature, sociology, history, P.E., and music.

      Did Jaime Escalante get numerous awards and named best teacher in America because he encouraged his students to only do the minimum necessary to get a job flipping burgers?

    37. Re: Burn those algebras ladies by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      This reminds me too of physics in high school. Which I didn't take, it was only offered every other year, the same with pre-calculus. But that class was all memorization of equations, only algebra was needed. When I got to college and took physics it was all about mathematics, deriving those equations from scratch, and it was impossible to do any of that without calculus.

      Statistics in high school is just the same. Even statistics in college outside of the math department is all about memorizing and regurgitating. If you learn biology you just want to know when to apply chi-square tests, and plugging in the numbers. We had a stats class for biologists, a stats class for psychology and cognitive science, a stats class for sociology, etc. But you're unable to do much beyond applying formulas if you take those classes.

    38. Re: Burn those algebras ladies by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I think everyone needs to learn something that they hate, something that they are forced to struggle with. It is much better exercise for the brain. What decent physical education teacher tells the struggling student "ok, you can just sit down on the bench and watch, you'll never amount to much anyway"? We require some effort to improve the body so why are we perfectly fine with students having flabby brains? Society has decided that being healthy physically is important but for some reason thinks that when it comes to the brain you only need the minimum necessary to get a job.

    39. Re: Burn those algebras ladies by thoughtlover · · Score: 1

      I wonder how students are going to be expected to code when it's heavily-reliant on mathematics.

      --
      No sig for you! Come back one year!
    40. Re: Burn those algebras ladies by KGIII · · Score: 2

      What gets me is this:

      It's not hard to understand why Caltech and M.I.T. want everyone to be proficient in mathematics. But it's not easy to see why potential poets and philosophers face a lofty mathematics bar. Demanding algebra across the board actually skews a student body, not necessarily for the better."

      Err... We educate to a certain standard because of societal needs. We, as a society, do not need (nor can we afford) more poets and philosophers. They're both noble and worthy things and great to have but you should probably have a day job. Unless, of course, you're going to be a "Philosopher of Mathematics."

      Having said that, I'm sort of inclined to agree with the guy. The average person will never need Algebra II. They might need Algebra I and I think that's a fine point to stop - as mandatory goes. Obviously, Algebra II should be an option. One might even say that it should be a mandatory option, if such a thing exists.

      So, what to fill that space with? How about a real Computer Science course but an entry level one? No, I do not mean programming. I do not mean learning to use an office suite. I don't even think computers should be a part of this course, at least not in the initial, basic, mandatory level(s). It should include things like safe hex, basic principles, history, vocabulary, and things like that. A high school graduate should understand the concepts of a firewall well enough to configure one, know what TCP/IP is, understand what an ACK is, know who Knuth is, know about Colossus, know about Babbage, know what binary is - and how it is used, understand protocols such as HTTP and FTP, understand the concepts of data storage and manipulation, what an OS is - and the choices between them, as well as having an understanding of the actual function of the hardware components that comprise the average desktop.

      There's a lot more to add to that list, it should have a basic and advanced option, it should keep going into further levels, and it should be vendor agnostic. I'm reasonably sure that there are people here who are smarter than I and are able to refine the list of requirements. In this day and age, the concepts of things like data and computer security are essential knowledge, safe hex is important. Hell, we could go so far as to include some concepts on netiquette and privacy - again, not pressuring but to ensure that the options are known as well as the risks and rewards are known.

      There's no reason for a graduate to not know how to configure a router from *any* vendor and be able to find and use the security settings. There's no reason for them to not know how their computer works. There's no reason for them to not understand the concepts of networking and the terminology associated with it. There's no reason for them to not know the typical file-types and what they're referencing. There's no reason for them to not know the history of computing and to understand the concepts of data processing, from CPU to RAM to storage. None... These are essential knowledge in today's world and we'll be better for it as a society.

      Again, it shouldn't be programming nor should it be learning how to use a browser. Office shouldn't enter into it, nor should LibreOffice or OpenOffice. It should have jack squat to do with making a web page - but they should understand what (really) a page is - and how to go learn how to make one, as well as why they work and what markup (for example) means. No, they shouldn't be learning about how to use JavaScript libraries, but they should be learning what one is. They should be able to use something like uMatrix and know what the connections are, what they're doing, what risks are associated, and how to make an informed decision about what code they allow to run on their system.

      I hate to use the word because of the connotations with the verbiage but they should be, in every sense, empowered. They should be empowered to utilize the freedoms associated with informed consent. They should be enabled to underst

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    41. Re: Burn those algebras ladies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And calculus like the density functions. Anyway, universities of "higher" learning will have advanced degrees in basket weaving, if her idea goes through.

    42. Re: Burn those algebras ladies by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Poisson distributions ('bell curves")

      It looks like you need to take a course in statistics. Say hello to Carl Friedrich Gauss.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    43. Re: Burn those algebras ladies by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1

      You're looking at statistics from its mathematical/conceptual foundation, like its calculus. The authors probably just want to teach a functional competence in statistical math for non-mathematicians (be able to understand how basic formulas are applied, and how their results support conclusions expressible in the physical world). A huge amount of risk analysis, scientific/medical breakthroughs, and (especially) public policy is expressed in statistical terms, and we're producing a generation of citizens (always have, in honesty) who cannot really grasp the basis for the conclusions derived by basic application of statistical math.

      No kid being instructed in general high school physics is expected to apply calculus to calculate a trajectory from Earth to Mars and determine time & rocket fuel consumption using Newton's laws of motion. But it can be useful to teach eventual adults how a newfangled invention is a fraud, or how a car is much more deadly hitting you at 50 km/hr rather than 10 km/hr. (What I don't quite understand is how you can skip some topics in algebra II that could be applied in a basic statistics course.)

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    44. Re: Burn those algebras ladies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly, we don't need more poets and sports writers. We need more engineers who understand algebra like the back of their hand.

    45. Re: Burn those algebras ladies by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      If you don't know the formulas, interpretation is a lot harder and you can miss some of the games being played. Modern technology does mean you don't need to hand-work the math, but I can assure you that using a computer or calculator to do it requires you understand the math. (If nothing else, that and basic coding skills make it possible for you to knock together a program to do it if you need to do so.)

    46. Re: Burn those algebras ladies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is there to had, but, it's just one more nail in the coffin of higher education.

      Makes me sad to see someone say that the problem couldn't possibly be the education system that is obviously failing and so in answer his response is to just dumb down the rest of it.

    47. Re: Burn those algebras ladies by mcswell · · Score: 1

      One can understand that at an intuitive level without being able to do integration by parts, or the reverse chain rule, or integration using trig identities, or any of the other arcana that I had to learn when I took calculus...and yes, forgot in the nearly fifty years since then, precisely because I never had to use it, or even think about it, after the final exam.

      Statistics, otoh, I see all the time.

    48. Re: Burn those algebras ladies by mcswell · · Score: 1

      > you have to wade through a lot of algebra 2 just to get to [exponentiation]

      No, you don't; in principle, you can multiply 1.02 (the 2% inflation rate of a post above here) by itself 35 times; no algebra 2 required. But these days you just plug it into a calculator.

      "Another item that concerned me is the idea that coders don't need advanced math classes. Apart from financial calculations, anyone doing 3d graphics is likely to need matrix math and trigonometry." I do coding all the time, but I don't do 3d graphics, and I'd bet most coders don't. And even if I did, I'm pretty sure the algorithms are already available in libraries. At best I'd need an intuitive idea.

    49. Re: Burn those algebras ladies by mcswell · · Score: 1

      "Statistics are an important thing to understand (and I don't even know some of the more advanced statistics information) but I'm not sure that they can't be covered in some sort of critical thinking course - well enough to be functional and not needing to spend a whole year on the subject." I think you're right that critical thinking should be part of the curriculum (although I suspect it would indeed take at least a year).

      But there are some statistical concepts that IMO should definitely be covered in such a course. Tests of statistical significance would probably be up near the top of my list; is a x% improvement (or "deprovement") important, or just random noise? You can't tell unless you have a measure of statistical significance, and it requires a bit of statistics to understand that concept. And you should also understand the limits of statistical significance measures, particularly where you throw a bunch of potential dependent variables into the mix and see which of them passes the statistical significance test: a no-no.

      Also modeling: making explicit assumptions, and knowing how to test for their effects. For example, I've heard a lot of talk about declining SAT scores over the years. But unless you can model the effect of increasing participation (higher % of students taking SATs), you can't tell whether that decline is caused by poorer teaching/ less prepared students, or simply increased test taking by students at the lower end of achievement.

    50. Re: Burn those algebras ladies by mcswell · · Score: 1

      "replacing one kind of complex math course with another semi-hard to graph math course that many people won't use isn't going to help much." I guess it depends on what you want to help. If help = increasing the number of people who pass math, I think you're right. But if help = giving people a tool that will actually be useful/ important for the rest of their lives, then my vote is for statistics.

      Finance, yes, but statistics has IMO an almost equally broad and important impact. (And fwiw, I found algebra, calculus, trig etc. easy, but probability and statistics comparatively hard. So I'm not saying this because I liked statistics, au contaire!)

    51. Re: Burn those algebras ladies by mcswell · · Score: 1

      That calculation requires absolutely no algebra, just plug the # into the formula. Figuring out the formula did, of course, require some algebra (perhaps even calculus, since the rate of absorption varies over time). But the nurse or EMT or pharmacist doesn't need to derive the formula, just use it. (At least in the US, doctors probably don't even use the formula, they let someone else do that.)

    52. Re: Burn those algebras ladies by mcswell · · Score: 1

      At the risk of starting a flame war (not with you, with someone else), one place a misunderstanding of probability comes up is biological evolution. I've heard calculations of the probability that our DNA arose by chance which are wrong on so many levels. I've also heard the "it's too improbable that we arose by chance" argument, without any calculations. The next time I hear that, I'm going to ask them what the probability is that there will be at least two people in a room of 23 people who have the same birthday...

    53. Re: Burn those algebras ladies by KGIII · · Score: 1

      An intro into formal critical thinking might take a year, I agree. I think it might be something that could be compressed *IF* it were taught in pieces as they aged. "Why do you prefer the color read?" That sort of thing and all the way up through to understanding fallacies and, perhaps, some of their formal names.

      As for statistics, I'm thinking we can absolutely benefit from some. I'm not going to say that I'm skilled enough to suggest where that line should be drawn. I simply don't know. However, in reading that paragraph and the one below it - I'm forced to ask this: Are you suggesting that they need it or that we need to do it?

      Your examples make me wonder if I'm not understanding you properly. Your examples seem things needed by those who make administrative choices as opposed to things that benefit the students. It could just be that the examples you've given are just that, examples. It could also be that you think those are specifics that a graduate needs to know.

      Just to be clear, I am not suggesting that I'm qualified to decide where the lines should be drawn. I am, on the other hand, suggesting that we review where the lines are currently drawn and have a good, honest, open discussion about where the lines should be drawn if we want to do what's best for our youth. I can throw opinions and ideas out there but I'm not necessarily qualified to make authoritative suggestions. Then again, I don't know how to do surgery but I can tell a doctor that something hurts and needs to be looked at.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    54. Re: Burn those algebras ladies by mcswell · · Score: 1

      Maybe I need a course in critical writing...

      All seriousness aside, I do believe that understanding things _like_ (not limited to, of course) the concept of statistical significance is important for everyone. That is, we see things all the time like "the percentage of people in favor of candidate A went up by 0.5% last week," but there is often no indication of whether that change is statistically significant, and for most people I'd bet there's no understanding of what it means if the statistical significance is given. Same thing with climate research: "Year X was the Nth warmest year ever recorded"; but the statistical significance is seldom given, and if it is, most people probably ignore it. (5th warmest probably encompasses a range from 8th to 3rd at some level of significance; even "warmest" really means somewhere in the range of 3rd or 4th to 1st)

      But IANAS (I Am Not A Statistician), so take my ideas for what they're worth. I just think such things are much more important for most people than knowing how to do integral calculus. And I think that probability and statistics are (or ought to be) fundamental to most real world debates these days.

    55. Re: Burn those algebras ladies by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      Knowing how to plug those number into a formula and understanding how it works is still required, granted someone else did all the research to find the average that is filled in for some of those variables that itself requires careful testing, data and math but does not invalidate the position of the EMT.

  2. Ban math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Math should be banned and replaced with something more practical in the USA... like watching reruns of Seinfeld, or learning on how to turn off the ceiling fan if the batteries in the remote die.

    1. Re:Ban math by Scarred+Intellect · · Score: 2

      Math should be banned and replaced with something more practical in the USA... learning on how to turn off the ceiling fan if the batteries in the remote die.

      That can be done?

    2. Re:Ban math by idontgno · · Score: 1

      We could ask the Chinese. They likely designed and built the thing.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    3. Re:Ban math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      or learning on how to turn off the ceiling fan if the batteries in the remote die.

      This is when the second amendment becomes useful.

    4. Re:Ban math by Pseudonymous+Powers · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We could ask the Chinese. They likely designed and built the thing.

      Great idea. In fact, I think you've hit upon a workable solution for this whole issue:

      "Thanks, Mr. Chin, you're a lifesaver. That thing was shining in my eyes all night and keeping me cold all winter. Hey, while I've got you on the phone, can you help us a little with our space program? It's like, all "polly-nomials" and stuff. It's so stupid, I don't see why we have to learn this shit. I'm like, I just want to go to Mars--I don't need to hear about, like, Pythagoras or Edison or whatever. I mean, I've got plenty of street-smarts. And I've got people skills. That's what's really important."

    5. Re:Ban math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but they speak Chinese. How will that help?

    6. Re:Ban math by PPH · · Score: 1

      Ban it! Math is a religion.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    7. Re:Ban math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just get scissors and cut the wires, simple.

    8. Re:Ban math by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

      Lies, I say. Lies!

    9. Re:Ban math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Math should be banned and replaced with something more practical in the USA... like watching reruns of Seinfeld, or learning on how to turn off the ceiling fan if the batteries in the remote die.

      At a certain level, I agree with this. In school, aside from Algebra, I had things like Trigonometry, Geometry, Calculus, complex numbers, logarithms and so on.

      Once I graduated, I never used ANY of those in real life. Not even in Computers. What might make sense would be to replace those theoretical subjects with Boolean Arithmetic and Logic - Binary, Octal & Hexadecimal math, AND, OR & XOR logic, Karnaugh maps, and build from there. The other things - advanced Algebra, Geometry, Calculus et al should be something that starts getting taught in a Masters and PhD levels

    10. Re:Ban math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I discovered after my studies and a little of work, that a very important thing was the first thing I learned : praying the godfather for the forgiving of our sins, and to receive bread, and no tentation, and being delivered of evil. This is advanced mathematics. Thank you for your attention.

    11. Re:Ban math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Learn a few words.

      'I need some help.' is 'Do Leh Lo Mo'.

    12. Re:Ban math by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Sorry your carrier turned out to be pure bean counting. Better luck next resurrection.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    13. Re:Ban math by gweihir · · Score: 0

      Math should be banned and replaced with something more practical in the USA... learning on how to turn off the ceiling fan if the batteries in the remote die.

      That can be done?

      Just apply enough violence. A very American solution...

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    14. Re:Ban math by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      Can you make a mean latte? No place on mars for those without service skills and a bright winning smile! ; )

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
    15. Re:Ban math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what the FBI wants. "Wahhhh! People are doing math and eluding our ability to spy on them. Make it stopppp!"

    16. Re:Ban math by lhowaf · · Score: 1

      Turning it ON again is a bit more tricky.

    17. Re:Ban math by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      During the cold war, especially after Sputnik was launched, the US panicked and decided that the education system needed immense change lest we be beaten by those Godless commies. And it worked, science programs improved and got larger budgets, math was given priority, and even outside of math and science there were improvements, you could learn one of several foreign languages for example, music programs abounded. Then it started petering out again once there was no competition. We're down to one foreign language offering (Spanish) if you're lucky, music programs are being dropped, and people are pushing to drop the math and science as inappropriate to tomorrow's service industry. The US has given up on being competitive, it's like we'll be happy asking the Chinese to come over and build stuff for us.

    18. Re:Ban math by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      And yet I see those fields being used all the time. Maybe not for you (lemme guess, IT help desk?). Graphic theory with network routing or circuit routing, calculus with EE, antenna design, number theory all over the place computers if you're using floating point numbers or cryptography, computability theory if you're designing EDA tools or writing compilers, and so forth. But if you're content to be the least that you can be, then you must be very happy.

    19. Re:Ban math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know right.. I mean having the ability to think in virtual terms and see the cause and effect of values within large formulas shouldn't be useful to anyone say doing a common task like driving down the road....?

      Really?

      We want dumb people who don't think past lunch, apparently.

    20. Re:Ban math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Almost, but your narrative is wrong because it leaves out the critical factor of demographics - namely the students then were older than standard returning servicemen from ww2 and the korean war. That's why math and science saw the "jump" followed by decline once those older students graduated. There is a mismatch fueled by false narratives like the one you told, but reality and history show the truth.

    21. Re:Ban math by gavron · · Score: 1

      They'll be too busy doing math to help.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    22. Re:Ban math by hucker75 · · Score: 1

      Why not learn Maths instead? Why do Americans only learn one? Maths is PLURAL. There are many types of Maths.

    23. Re:Ban math by mcswell · · Score: 1

      Go down in your basement and trip all the circuit breakers. Or if you can wait longer, don't pay your electrical bill for six months.

      Turning *on* the fan if the remote's batteries die...that's harder.

    24. Re:Ban math by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      No, it can't. I mean, you can try to teach them, but they won't learn.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  3. flunked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    something tells me mr Hacker flunked his math test

  4. I agree.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ..because yes, what the world needs above all else is more sports writers.

    1. Re: I agree.. by TheReaperD · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't know. Several more Hunter S. Thompsons could be fun.

      --
      "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
    2. Re: I agree.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh HELL no! I hate his movies and someone really needs to send the cops over to his house. Have you seen Angelina lately? The bitch is starving to death! A lot of those photos look like she's covering up a black eye or two as well. Screw that guy! Did you see World War Z or Inglorious Basterds? He fucked those all up. I didn't think you could make a Tarrentino film suck but he did it! Hunter S Thompson can go suck a bag of baby dicks!

    3. Re: I agree.. by TheReaperD · · Score: 1

      Umm... Hunter S. Thompson is a deceased writer. He was primarily a sports writer but was famous for articles that called out the government. Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is based of him. A really colorful individual.

      --
      "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
  5. Difficulty? by JBMcB · · Score: 5, Informative

    A decent statistics class isn't any less difficult than an algebra class.

    --
    My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    1. Re:Difficulty? by digitig · · Score: 5, Insightful

      More to the point, how on Earth are people going to be able to do statistics without a good grasp of algebra?

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    2. Re:Difficulty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what I was thinking. In fact, if I recall correctly (it's been more years than I'd like to admit), my statistics class was heavily reliant on differential equations, which I seem to recall came after algebra, algebra 2, trig, calc 1, calc 2 and calc 3.

    3. Re:Difficulty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stats uses calculus, even when you're starting out in the subject. WTF are they going on about?

    4. Re:Difficulty? by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      But statistics is only really useful if you want to misrepresent your data

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    5. Re:Difficulty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had algebra in 8th grade. Statistics should be available from 7th to 12th grade, not just the last two years. It's hard to squeeze it in with calculus, physics, foreign language, programming, aviation, and research writing.

    6. Re:Difficulty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Forget algebra, how can you teach stats to someone with zero exposure to calculus? Probability theory can't be described without limits and infinite summations, i.e. you can't comprehend it without calculus.

    7. Re:Difficulty? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It sounds like they only want to replace the higher level algebra stuff, so the base would still be there as a necessary foundation for studying statistics.

      This sounds like a great idea. Statistics are regularly, routinely abused to mislead people. As a life skill for the general population, statistics is going to be much more useful than advanced algebra or calculus.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re:Difficulty? by vtcodger · · Score: 5, Insightful

      AFAICS, most people who think they understand statistics don't. What they understand is how to apply some rote rules to data that all too often shouldn't have those particular rules used on it. If we're going teach anything in that domain a survey of probability would likely be a lot more useful.

      It's been half a century and perhaps I misremember, but I think a course built around Darrell Huff's "How To Lie With Statistics" might be a lot more useful to most High School Students than a standard mathematical treatment. And it'd certainly be a lot less mind-numbing.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    9. Re:Difficulty? by Flavianoep · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's also useful to detect how someone's data is misrepresented. Can anyone lie with statistics to a statistician?

      --
      Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
    10. Re:Difficulty? by ZecretZquirrel · · Score: 1

      And algebra should a prerequisite for any decent statistics course. You can't avoid using algebra in stats.

    11. Re:Difficulty? by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      "More to the point how are people going to grasp statistics without a good grasp of Calculus?"

      You reframe the material it to the audience.

    12. Re:Difficulty? by superdude72 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He suggests dropping Algebra II as a requirement. The first two statistics courses I took in college had only Algebra I as a prerequisite. This wasn't "statistics for poets," either, they were the same courses taken by math majors.

    13. Re:Difficulty? by digitig · · Score: 4, Interesting

      According to the description, he's advocating scrapping the teaching of logarithms. Will the kids be taught that everything has a rectangular distribution?

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    14. Re:Difficulty? by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      No they're all in cahoots

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    15. Re:Difficulty? by tsstahl · · Score: 1

      5 out of 4 stathitist say yor dum.

    16. Re:Difficulty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Oh I don't know if it's such a grand idea. Statistics is ridiculously easy to abuse unwittingly even by trained experts. Maybe a better grasp of statistics might help, but if we can't properly teach calculus and algebra, then why do we suppose we can suddenly teach at least as tricky statistics?

      And I think that this inability to teach is much more problematic than the particular field where the failure to teach happens. So it's a good question to ask. Why are calculus courses so reviled? It's useful stuff if you are handy with applying it, but apparently "most people" never really get there, having learned only for the exam and forgotten all about it afterward. Who says that won't happen with statistics just as quickly?

      In fact, a ridiculously useful skill is where you have a problem, make up some reasonably sounding numbers, and do a back-of-the-envelope calculation to gain some insight in the problem. Then you toy with the numbers a bit, or start a serious investigation, or whatever. Notice how calculus and statistics both can help you deal with "imprecise" numbers! But the point is that even that simple guesstimation skill is not something the average pupil will pick up from even highschool math courses. That's well before we get to either pre-calculus or introductory probabilities.

      And so the question is, why are we so totally failing to teach math-as-a-tool? Should we teach with math tools better suited for this sort of applied math, like the slide rule maybe? Because that thing is a much better fit to doing "oh this is about the size of it" calculations than the everything-but-the-CAS computing apparatuses fashionable in math class these days.

      And math is, when you come right down to it, supposed to be a useful skill, not a vehicle to "be modern".

    17. Re:Difficulty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are 91% as difficult, on average.

    18. Re:Difficulty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      which is all any one wants to do with numbers any how.

    19. Re:Difficulty? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      I had the same thought, in college I took statistics before I had a good grounding in Calculus and did terribly... it was only after I finished a few calculus courses that the statistics stuff really flowed for me.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    20. Re:Difficulty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Statistics only misrepresents data to those who have a very weak grasp of statistics.

      The root cases are always the same: faking or messaging data, adjusting graphs to present visual clues of significance (starting a 0 based axis at 5000, to highlight a decrease from 5200), using graphs that over or under represent data based on presentation qualities (in the previous example, if you want to highlight the change over time, do a delta graph), representing values as absolute measurements (as opposed to estimates of the true measurement with error), believing in a mean or average without consideration of the data spread, etc.

      Basically, if you don't know how to measure, sample, or make conclusions with numbers the statistics provides a wonderful tool for your future manipulators to keep you in the dark while adjusting their objectives. I find this personally morally bankrupt, and I strongly believe that everyone should learn statistics

      However, it is ridiculous to consider learning statistics until you have both calculus and algebra. How are they going to do statistics when the first encounter a smooth curve without Calculus? The whole world is not discrete, and occasionally you need to know how to transition between dimensions of data. Derivatives remove dimensions and Integration adds them. Without them, you only have an even more-than-necessary crude approximation of the relationship between speed and distance, or acceleration. And the world is more than the "car" examples, when did a policy change affect the measured metric? Better know how to find a point of inflection, perhaps a bit about data smoothing, and a bit more about how to accurately interpret the results.

    21. Re:Difficulty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it depends how mean do you want your deviation , I mean would your average politician really want the average joe 6 pack to be able to challenge them when they just make shit up?

    22. Re:Difficulty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rather than difficulty it may be better to focus on usefulness. I would advocate a statistical literacy class instead.

      Simple algebra is something that many people can use later in their lives and it's a helpful base to understand many other topics.
      Advanced algebra and calculus are useful to a much more limited range of people.

      Statistics, as it's taught now, is also of limited use to most people. I've seen that most people who don't already have a reasonably strong background in mathematics don't end up understanding anything. They memorize the formulas for the normal distribution, the mean, and the standard deviation and maybe they regurgitate how to find a p-value but they don't really understand any of it.

      Instead most students would benefit more from statical literacy. We expect that if a high school graduate reads a newspaper article that they can summarize it, point out problems with the article, put it into context, etc. We should expect the same when that article contains statistics.

      The course I imagine would mostly consist of case studies. The final exam wouldn't ask the student to recite formulas, it would be a set of statistics and claims by a statistician and the student would be asked to answer questions like; "What claims do these statistics make?", "What concerns do you have about their methodology?", "Do the statistics support the claims? Why or why not."

      At the end of the class when someone says "65% of people support X" the student's first reaction should be, "How did you get that number?". And if they answer is, "I asked my friends on Facebook." they should react with, "Stopped reading there."

    23. Re:Difficulty? by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 5, Interesting

      He suggests dropping Algebra II as a requirement. The first two statistics courses I took in college had only Algebra I as a prerequisite.

      As someone who actually taught Algebra II in high school (years ago), and who taught it one year in a lower-class mostly minority school district, I'll offer a few observations:

      (1) I think a stats course would be a great alternative for many students compared to a second year of algebra.

      (2) Algebra II was in fact a barrier for many students. There was a high rate of students failing and dropping the course. (At that time, in the state I was teaching, it wasn't strictly required for graduation -- but it was strongly recommended.)

      (3) However, the problems with algebra II often start with teaching in algebra I. The algebra I and "pre-algebra" classes tend to be the "dumping ground" in many school districts for less qualified teachers. Teachers with real math degrees often were required to take stuff a lot more complicated than high school, and they often find it barely interesting to teach calculus or pre-calculus. So, in most places the qualified teachers who understand math often teach those upper-level courses, and the random coaches and people who barely passed the math certification test end up teaching algebra I. (There are serious teacher shortages in many places in the US, particularly for secondary math and science.)

      (4) As an algebra II teacher, I was confronted with many students who had had a substitute teacher in algebra I for a large portion of the year. The district simply couldn't find qualified teachers to fill those classrooms. The students knew nothing. The previous algebra II teacher (a really smart woman) quit in the middle of the year, because she recognized this and wanted to either (a) send the students back to algebra I since they shouldn't have passed in the first place or (b) require many of the students to come in for mandatory tutoring outside of school hours. She wanted to help the students and was willing to take her own personal time to fix this problem. But the administration said neither was possible under state law, since the students already "had credit" for algebra I. After fighting the battle for a while, she quit.

      (5) In many states, algebra teachers are forced to make stupid curriculum choices due to state-mandated curricula. I haven't looked at the new Common Core approaches and what they require, but I can tell you from my experience that we often were required to spend a ridiculous time on stuff that might have been useful for scientists and engineers headed for college in the 1950s, but these skills were much less relevant with modern calculators and computers.

      (6) In general, most state curricula have tended to emphasize symbolic manipulation over real-world application (which often comes with true understanding). I was forced to spend many weeks going over how to put conic section equations into standard form, but there was nothing in state guidelines asking teachers to spend time on much more relevant real-life stuff, like applications of basic exponential equations to calculating loan terms or mortgages, investments, etc. When at some point I realized that only 2 of the 140 students I was teaching that year knew what the term "compound interest" meant, I actually abandoned the state standards for a couple weeks because I thought it was my moral responsibility to teach these kids some actual skills that could be useful in personal finance -- this would likely be the last class that many of them would ever take in their lives.

      (7) Given the poor teaching and introduction to basic abstractions like variables that students receive in pre-algebra and algebra I in many schools, the only way to "teach algebra II" is learning stupid abstract algorithms for symbolic manipulation, which are generally forgotten a few weeks later. The understanding of basic algebra is often so poor that you really can't teach algebra II on a deep level

    24. Re:Difficulty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here is what Europeans think of the US high school curriculum:

      Can't you keep both the algebra and the calculus, and ditch the History of Dinosaur Riding in favor of statistics?

    25. Re:Difficulty? by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      It's been half a century and perhaps I misremember, but I think a course built around Darrell Huff's "How To Lie With Statistics" might be a lot more useful to most High School Students than a standard mathematical treatment. And it'd certainly be a lot less mind-numbing.

      Agreed. Is our goal to teach abstract symbolic manipulation poorly to students who don't care, or should we instead focus on actual numeracy and conceptual understanding that could be applied directly to the real world?

      This sort of revolution has been happening a bit in high-school physics curricula already, with the "conceptual physics" movement that started about 25 years ago. The idea is NOT to "dumb down" physics, but rather to focus classroom time on ideas that will be most useful to certain types of students. For those who are bound for college in math, science, engineering, etc., the numerical rigor of "traditional physics" is important in high school.

      For other students, the conceptual approach focuses on clear logic and empirical thinking, rather than getting bogged down in algebra. There's still math and certainly a lot of data collection in hands-on experiments, but the math is kept to rather simple equations -- with a strong emphasis on making sure students thoroughly understand how the equations work, rather than just doing exercises in symbolic manipulation.

      I taught conceptual physics courses in high school for a couple years (along with standard physics and AP level). I was skeptical of the idea at first, but now I believe it's a great alternative for many students. And the rigor level can be quite high: the kinds of problems I often gave on tests would have likely stumped students taking a more traditional algebra-based physics course -- because they focused on deeper understanding of certain concepts in a completely different way.

      Anyhow, if our goal is to produce high school graduates with numeracy and an intuitive understanding of mathematical concepts, we might be better off having "conceptual statistics" be an alternative path in high school for some students. I know most of us here "think in math" (and particularly abstractions like algebra, calculus, algorithms, etc.) pretty fluently, but most people don't -- but that doesn't mean those people can't often develop good intuition about how numbers work in the world.

    26. Re:Difficulty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or...you know....do positive things, like develop sound policy.

    27. Re:Difficulty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He suggests dropping Algebra II as a requirement. The first two statistics courses I took in college had only Algebra I as a prerequisite. This wasn't "statistics for poets," either, they were the same courses taken by math majors.

      No it wasn't.

      I took statistics for business majors and it was calculus based.

      Unless it was a 100 level survey class. Then maybe.

    28. Re:Difficulty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People with a strong mathematical background often forget what statistics ultimately are.
      They are a set of summaries of data.

      Sure you can't derive OLS or analyze violations of the Gauss Markov assumptions without a good bit of linear algebra and calculus but there's still a lot you can do with just basic math.
      Arithmetic mean is a powerful tool and it's fairly easy to understand. So is the median. It's fairly easy to explain both of them, show them graphically, and see how they change in response to different distributions, especially if you include graphical representations.

      You can also teach people a lot about research methodologies. It's not difficult to understand that if you ask a bunch of conservatives how they feel about gun control you'll get different response than if you asked a bunch of liberals or the entire US. It's also easy to see how asking a very small number of people can give you unreliable results.

      Even without a lot of math you can extend these concepts so that students can get an intuitive feel of other problems that can make statistics unreliable or misleading. And knowing that would be a valuable tool for many students, not just those that go on to study advanced statistics.

    29. Re:Difficulty? by null+etc. · · Score: 1

      You are obviously off your meds. Can you tell us what kind of meds you use, so we can chip in and buy you some?

    30. Re:Difficulty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was a wonderful screed. Sure, it is only tangentially related to the topic at hand, but don't pretend that the movements he's alluding to don't exist in our educational system and aren't a major problem. The campus warriors he's barbecuing need to be roasted - they are causing immeasurable harm to our society. Lampooning their views in an absurd way is a perfectly acceptable method of countering their polemics.

    31. Re:Difficulty? by ldapboy · · Score: 1

      Thank you for posting this. It is most interesting and enlightening piece I've read on the subject. After spending a year teaching a coding class in middle school, I realized that nothing anyone says about education is worth a cent unless they have actually tried to teach the material they're proposing messing with.

    32. Re:Difficulty? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      When I was at school we were taught logarithms as part of the statistics class. It wasn't until post-school that we looked at them in any other context, but then again that was age 16 for me which is still school age for US kids.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    33. Re:Difficulty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've made a completely fabulous post. I wish I had mod points to assign.

      I've got a toddler that I've been much concerned with given the current state of education in the US.

      I've spent hours looking at math (and other) education books on Amazon. I'm having difficulty determining which books teach real subject matter and which are common-core sell-more-books material.

      Given your apparent depth of understanding in this topic, care to recommend any books for teaching pre-k through 12th mathematics topics? Even if you could recommend specific book authors it would be helpful.

    34. Re:Difficulty? by MrKrillls · · Score: 1
      Thanks for supporting a suspicion I've had for a long time, that the difficulties students have in math are at least partly because unqualified teachers are jammed into "teaching" algebra.

      I was lucky. I had two good teachers at the algebra level, and then a pair of inspirational calculus and physics teachers, all by the end of high school. Even the physics teacher integrated an excellent mini calculus course snuck into a corner of the physics class to make better sense of newtonian physics. That was wonderful. ("integrated" pun not intended)

      While I do not use algebraic or higher math for work - I'm an artist / designer - I don't regret the math I took in middle and high school, not for a moment. Rather, I'm grateful. It showed me a form of beauty I might never have known. I still enjoy reading up on math, have a big pile of math books and have recently started learning linear algebra, just for the heck of it. On an unrelated note, linear algebra is the hardest math I've ever run into. Maybe the first time I have ever found math to require hardscrabble work to grok.

      --
      Don't step on the baby.
    35. Re:Difficulty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      99% of statistics is means, variance, std deviations, probability and binomials. No calculus necessary. As to comprehending it, come on now, we're talking about statistics.

    36. Re:Difficulty? by Cytotoxic · · Score: 4, Interesting

      AFAICS, most people who think they understand statistics don't. What they understand is how to apply some rote rules to data that all too often shouldn't have those particular rules used on it.

      This is undoubtedly true. I can completely get behind the author's notion that more people need to understand statistics. When I was in basic bio-medical research it was appalling how often statistics were not properly applied. Mostly it was "run a student T test and look for P values of .05 or less" with no further analysis. It was not at all uncommon to do a paper at journal club that had serious problems with their data, but had nice looking numbers supporting statistical significance.

      I include myself, of course. I had enough statistics to know how to apply the formulas and to spot some basic issues, but until I collaborated with a real PhD statistician I had no idea just how bad it was. She basically showed me that I had no idea what I was doing, even though I was following the industry standard protocols. And she showed me just how awful the statistics were in most of the work I was reading. At least I think she did. I don't know. Most of what she was talking about I had to take on faith..... because, you know.... my knowledge of statistics isn't that advanced.

    37. Re:Difficulty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, why not? The alternative is what we have now where the math they learn can't be applied at all. To limit oneself to rectangular distribution will still be a better option than the current one.

      I don't think there is anyone that thinks that it is reasonable for everyone to learn everything that has been discovered. I don't think many argues that it even is possible in a lifetime.
      With that in mind we can't just say that they should learn everything. If one thing is added something else has to go. The question is what is most useful.

    38. Re:Difficulty? by DoctorNathaniel · · Score: 1

      I don't see how changing to stats would change this substantially. As the original poster stated, a stats course that covers more than "average" is going to be just as difficult for students as algebra, if not more so.

      The problem here seems to be insufficient resources for teaching, not the curriculum.

      To be honest, I don't think any of this material is really hard; anyone should be able to master it, given sufficient support and motivation. The latter two are always the problem though.

    39. Re:Difficulty? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Try taking the blue pill, you will feel much better.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    40. Re:Difficulty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can agree with a fair bit of this. My first Algebra teacher was terrible and had no clue HOW to teach. the result was that when I went into A-II I was COMPLETELY lost.. I took it upon myself to both go back into an algebra-I class with a GOOD teacher and really LEARN the in's and out's. after that I scooted through A-II and the later classes having a now solid foundation of understanding... Now 18 years later I find myself trying to undo the damage that the Common-Sore shit is doing to my son and daughter...

    41. Re:Difficulty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think her point is that statistics has more practical use in most Americans lives whereas Algebra 2 and Calculus are only commonly used in science and engineering fields which are not most Americans.

    42. Re:Difficulty? by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 2

      I don't see how changing to stats would change this substantially.

      It won't. In fact the main point of my post is that a shift to stats won't make things better, unless we fix other things. I didn't really get around to explaining why I think stats would be a good alternative class to offer for SOME high school students rather than algebra II, which is a separate issue. (Basically, there I agree with many other posts here that some intuitive understanding of statistics is really important to make sense of any real-world data, which people are more likely to encounter on an everyday basis than the need to solve a logarithmic equation symbolically for example.)

    43. Re:Difficulty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably not. They will build a watered-down version of stats which takes a high-level approach, where the kids might learn the word "logarithmic" but understand it as an advanced calculation method, the low-level details of which are irrelevant, but that typically has this kind of a shape.

      If our goal is to give kids what they need to succeed, then this is probably a wise move. And further, introduce classes that teach body-language reading, diplomatic conversation skills, and emotional intelligence. These skills are much more impactful to a person's success than his math knowledge.

      Geeks sometimes resist this fact, because it does not suit their preferences. But it is still a fact.

    44. Re:Difficulty? by Matheus · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the great comment.. such a rarity on /. these days.

      It's been a long time since I was in High School math and even 1 year after I graduated they had completely transformed how the course flow / requirements are so I don't even know how my own High School does it these days BUT at least when I went through I was in a group of advanced studies kids who were all promoted in middle school to be ahead by a year or two from the regular curriculum. SO for Algebra II we were in a class mostly filled with the 'normal' track kids from the grade above. After that we were the rare group who even got exposed to Calculus and for senior year we didn't even really have a class.. it was called "Advanced Topics" and honestly turned into a study hall since the only teachers qualified to teach high level math were forced to retire during a budget crunch.

      All that being said: Algebra II was easy for us BUT watching the normal-track kids struggle the Algebra wasn't the problem. Our "Algebra II" class was actually "Algebra II / Trig / Pre-Calc". Some kids had trouble with the Trig part just because it's a lot of memorization which not everyone is good at but the real killer was the Pre-Calc part. The students who were clearly not headed towards a mathematical career couldn't even grasp the basic concepts let alone the real meat of the course. Converting that class to more of a "Algebra II / Stats / Applications of Math" class would probably do them a lot of good. The biggest issue I see with math is the real-world connection that just isn't made by a lot of math teachers. The Meme of "High School Math was terrible because I never use Algebra in my daily life" is so widely believed yet nearly everyone uses Algebra at least indirectly every day of their lives. Spending some time in that class connecting those dots would go a long way towards giving those students the drive or even interest to know the material. "Oh hey... I'm actually going to use this stuff!"

      Leave the Pre-Calc / Calc / etc for those of us who are headed towards fields that need that level of math. I'm an engineer and I can't remember the last time I did even a basic derivative or integration or differential although at least I know that a lot of what I do came from someone doing such math in the past :)

    45. Re:Difficulty? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      That's what I was thinking. Statistics without Calculus would be a major advancement. It's the kind of things the Muslims would come up with in the dark ages, or the Europeans in the few hundred years following--you know, when we marked major eras of human societal advancement by what new math we invented and what kind of engineering that allowed us to accomplish.

    46. Re:Difficulty? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Ditching Algebra isn't the answer.

      I've been working on education in my spare time (my major hobby is poverty), and the best way to improve education is via intellect training. Mnemonics, mental mathematics, executive functions, study skills; the things people think of largely as toys are key. We need to generalize from "use an imaging system to memorize the order of a deck of cards" to "integrate visualization, reflection, and mnemonization into study to maximize the rate and success of retention while minimizing the time and mental effort put forth in studying."

      In short: there are techniques we can learn which allow us to learn newer things to greater effect with less time and less effort. My two hours of study per day will teach me math or history or Japanese in a year; your two hours of study per day will teach you the same information in three years, and likely with less of a firm grasp on the topic. We should fix that.

    47. Re:Difficulty? by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      I suspect he's talking just about conceptual education. Permutations, combinations, explanation of distributions by histograms and heat graphs.

      If you ever took HS Physics and compared it to AP Physics, I suspect that's what he's driving at. HS Physics teaches F=ma, it teaches some basic 2D mechanics calculations. It doesn't really explain the relationship between acceleration, velocity and position rigorously.

      Basic high school statistics has value. But I still think Calculus has more value.

    48. Re:Difficulty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Partially true. Infinite summations and limits are more of a "pre calculus" construct. In NYS, most high schools have a "pre calculus" course which teaches these mathematical constructs but does not get into derivatives and integrals

    49. Re:Difficulty? by dcollins · · Score: 1

      No, CUNY administration right now actually wants to get rid of even the most basic elementary algebra -- and even arithmetic! Check out the bottom of this page here for CUNY's current "List of Learning Objectives" required for all students: exponents, radicals, scientific notation, variables.... This is what they want to get rid of. Because only about 50% of open-admissions graduates from NYC high schools can pass a test on those subjects. See the sample tests on that page for the specific questions currently tested.

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    50. Re:Difficulty? by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      You'd probably enjoy this. If you don't know of it already.

    51. Re:Difficulty? by drew_kime · · Score: 1

      You've explained the "why" of the problem really well. I'm seeing a lot of comments, though, from people who still don't think there is a problem.

      I have a daughter struggling with algebra now. When helping her with homework I've tried to explain what it's actually useful for, not just symbolic manipulation. And I've come up blank more often than not.

      Do a search for "algebra practical application" and see how many people are trying and failing to explain in concrete terms how (for instance) factoring polynomials solves anything in the real world.

      We should be teaching finance: interest, investing, credit cards, mortgages; demographics: mean vs. median incomes, quintiles; health: risk factors and probabilities, absolute vs. relative risk, etc.

      --
      Nope, no sig
    52. Re:Difficulty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Basic day-to-day stats don't even require a complete handle on algebra.

    53. Re:Difficulty? by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      LMOL - take a stats course. Jesus you people are fucking morons. You don't need calculus to take Statistics. It might help in understanding the foundations of the distribution theorems but not in the actual statistical model used.

    54. Re:Difficulty? by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      We shouldn't stop teaching Calc, we just shouldn't require it for people who will never use it and never need to use it.

      It has value, but the level of difficulty is such that the value it has for the general population is overshadowed entirely by the fact that it causes a high rate of failure.

      We're not talking about dropping the quality of the US population's educational readiness for jobs. I've worked in computing for almost 20 years and never so much had to use or even code a differential. I know there are jobs in CS where that happens all day, every day, but the point is that even in more technical roles, it's not used.

      If your goal is to produce a better citizen, I could agree that a good basic stats course is probably more useful than Calc will ever be. Things at the size and scope of the modern USA tend to be best described by statistics.

    55. Re:Difficulty? by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      It may not make it easier, but the value might be higher for the work put into it.

    56. Re:Difficulty? by I'm+not+god+any+more · · Score: 1

      A decent statistics class isn't any less difficult than an algebra class.

      Agreed. I wonder how many students can even wrap their head around the simple Monty Hall probability problem?

      I think the Bertrand paradox would make most students go crying back to calculus for its relative simplicity.

    57. Re:Difficulty? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Nobody said you needed calc to take stats. You need calc to _understand_ stats.

      How many people who only take pre-calc statistics even consider what distribution they are looking at before blindly applying formulas?

      When all you have is a memorized formula, all distributions are normal.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    58. Re:Difficulty? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Linear algebra doesn't get really interesting until after DiffEq. You might be putting things in the wrong order if you want to 'grok' it.

      It's like stats, you get a simplified version first, than later you get the attempt to 'grok' it version.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    59. Re:Difficulty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they weren't. Math majors are typically required to take a course in Prob/stats that requires Calculus I (and maybe Calc II, I don't remember). At least that was the case at my Bachelor's institutution, as well as the Uni I went to for grad school.

    60. Re:Difficulty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "(3) However, the problems with algebra II often start with teaching in algebra I. The algebra I and "pre-algebra" classes tend to be the "dumping ground" in many school districts for less qualified teachers. Teachers with real math degrees often were required to take stuff a lot more complicated than high school, and they often find it barely interesting to teach calculus or pre-calculus. So, in most places the qualified teachers who understand math often teach those upper-level courses, and the random coaches and people who barely passed the math certification test end up teaching algebra I. (There are serious teacher shortages in many places in the US, particularly for secondary math and science.)"

      Algebra was a required class in high school for me (many years ago). However, I learned little if anything in that class. The "teacher" was the basketball coach, and he didn't know much if anything about the subject. We were assigned reading and and problems to solve in class, while the coach talked with a constant stream of basketball players in the back of the room. The coach never answered questions or explained anything at all. I admit that math was never my best subject, but I managed to get passing grades in college algebra 1 classes at an electronics school, and later a local community college.

      Being an electronics technician, and Ham radio operator, I have used a little algebra from time to time. Still, I think that the average person has little if any need to know more than the most basic algebra, and for the most part not even that.

      Algebra should be an elective course in high school, not a required course. Even in college, not everyone should have to take algebra, it should depend on one's course of study.

    61. Re:Difficulty? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      They'll have trouble following a decent statistics class (i.e. relevant to things like voting) without knowing things like logs.

      Also, Americans don't do logarithms until the end of high school and then call it advanced algebra??

    62. Re:Difficulty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm... just to piggyback... I'm someone who has taught stats and math at the university level to a lot of the same individuals being referenced in the article, and who does stats and math research for a living, and I agree with you. My first reaction was something like "WTF" but then after realizing they were discussing algebra II, I calmed down.

      Honestly, I'm not sure how much algebra II has helped me, and as I said, I'm a quant researcher. Calc, sure, plenty, and *some algebra*, but algebra II was more like mental exercising than learning. Maybe I would have struggled more in calc if I hadn't had algebra II, though?

      People also don't really understand stats and probability, even people in STEM fields. It seems fair to me to at least give people the option. If anything, I think allowing people to go through HS and college in the sort of algebra->calc sequence without stats reinforces an unrealistic idea that reality isn't stochastic. E.g., that "real" STEM doesn't need stats, because it's less than ideal or something.

    63. Re:Difficulty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Experience says, that many statisticians can lie to themselves with statistics. That said, it is harder to lie to someone who has been taught to recognize the common techniques used to mislead people with statistics.

    64. Re:Difficulty? by g01d4 · · Score: 1

      how (for instance) factoring polynomials solves anything in the real world

      Factoring polynomials is an example of one of the earlier practices to further the student in complex problem solving. They may not be part of the show but they're critical to the performance.

    65. Re:Difficulty? by Marginal+Coward · · Score: 1

      AFAICS, most people who think they understand statistics don't.

      Exactly right. In fact, nearly 110% of people who have taken a statistics class fall below the 105th percentile.

    66. Re:Difficulty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can tell you from my experience that we often were required to spend a ridiculous time on stuff that might have been useful for scientists and engineers headed for college in the 1950s,

      I realized that only 2 of the 140 students I was teaching that year knew what the term "compound interest" meant

      I find this to be a bit more practical: http://jacquesricher.com/NEETS... compared to much school curricula.

    67. Re:Difficulty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FALSE!!! Statisticians are failed mathematicians.

    68. Re:Difficulty? by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      As a current biomedical PhD student, we really don't get enough stats education. Part of the problem seems to be that biology - to some extent - attracts people who want to do science but weren't that strong in math. There are plenty of exceptions, of course, but there are a shocking number of people in the field who really don't care about doing the right stats, modeling things properly, etc.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    69. Re:Difficulty? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Actually, it is a lot more difficult, because quite a bit of statistics is very counter-intuitive. Algebra and calculus is just complicated, but mostly intuitive or neutral in that regard. Incidentally, for any reasonable statistics-course, you need a solid foundation in calculus.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    70. Re:Difficulty? by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1
      Monty Hall was confusing to me until I read this explanation:

      An intuitive explanation is that if the contestant picks a goat (2 of 3 doors) the contestant will win the car by switching as the other goat can no longer be picked, while if the contestant picks the car (1 of 3 doors) the contestant will not win the car by switching.

      It's a weird one though, and a great explanation for why statistics is important, because "common sense" often leads people astray.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    71. Re:Difficulty? by MrKrillls · · Score: 1

      I'm still a ways from differential equations. Darn. Thought I had grokked something and now I find it's a faux grok.

      --
      Don't step on the baby.
    72. Re:Difficulty? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Mnemonics are tricks for party games. A few are helpful, but you can't base your mind on them.

      Mental mathematics are traditional, and need to replace the garbage that's being taught in US public school math classes today.

      Executive functions. What on earth are you talking about?

      Study skills - turn off the damn phone / radio / TV / music player / etc.. Sit down and do your homework. Take a look at the overall form of what you're trying to learn and then work out the details. Done.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    73. Re:Difficulty? by MrKrillls · · Score: 1
      Even if I'm missing a great deal, linear algebra has opened up and illuminated subjects I never thought it would.

      I mess with math just for fun. I don't have the chops to go far at all, but linear algebra has been a fascinatingly different view into all sorts on areas. Just looking at complex numbers from another angle was a revelation.

      --
      Don't step on the baby.
    74. Re:Difficulty? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      How many people who only take pre-calc statistics even consider what distribution they are looking at before blindly applying formulas?

      Having taken both non-calculus and calculus statistics, I'd say that they're about the same. Both taught that you had to look at the data and play with it's representation a bit in order to find the best match. They gave us a lot of tools to look at the data in varying ways, in order to figure out what sort of distribution it was. Standard? Long Tail? Normal? Etc...

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    75. Re:Difficulty? by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      What I take from your comment is what I myself experienced. Not at all mathematically inclined, I had rubbish teachers and consequently struggled through most of secondary school. Suddenly, with a better teacher who was dedicated to his task of teaching both the gifted and lame, I managed to do reasonably well at the end. Another thing that helped a lot was technical drawing. i.e. I actually drew some of the complex forms described by (to my mind) seemingly meaningless equations. Mathematics is generally poorly taught and little appreciated by the majority. It is unfortunate. How about putting some effort into demonstrating how it is a fundamental part of everything we experience in life? Especially the fun stuff.

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
    76. Re:Difficulty? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      In the school I attended, learning things like compound interest were a part of the "general math" class for those in danger of falling off the college prep track ( 8th grade ! ). That sort of stuff is pretty obvious to a bright person and shouldn't be part of classwork for people who will make tomorrow's technology.

      People should be taught based on their goals and abilities.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    77. Re:Difficulty? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      That's my take on it. Algebra II? I hardly use it. Statistics? I encounter those every day.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    78. Re:Difficulty? by clovis · · Score: 1

      Forget algebra, how can you teach stats to someone with zero exposure to calculus? Probability theory can't be described without limits and infinite summations, i.e. you can't comprehend it without calculus.

      You have that backwards.
      You have to learn limits and infinite summations before you can understand calculus, and you don't need to understand calculus to learn those things.
      OTOH, I can't think of a better place in a sequence of math courses to learn limits and series than within a calculus course.

    79. Re:Difficulty? by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      In my high school, Algebra II was a combination of vector math (e.g. for solving systems of equations) and statistics. There wasn't any trig or precalculus, IIRC. That was what the precalculus/"advanced math" class was for. So in my mind, the notion of replacing Algebra II with statistics is almost a non-change. The problem, apparently, is that some schools teach a bunch of stuff in Algebra II that really should be left for a later class, presumably because of insufficient numbers of years to teach the material.

      IMO, the basic ideas of algebra ought to be introduced in first grade, even if it is no more than a basic computer programming class that gives you some notion of a variable as a stand-in for a number. Then use the concepts more and more through the years so that by the time you get to high school, nobody needs to take an algebra class.

      The same is true for statistics. It would be useful for kids to understand statistics by the time they're in junior high school science, and they really need to know it before they start taking high school science. Start introducing the concepts a little bit at a time in the elementary school curriculum, and that problem goes away.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    80. Re:Difficulty? by ilguido · · Score: 1

      This sounds like a great idea. Statistics are regularly, routinely abused to mislead people.

      I beg to differ. Statistics without measure theory (and, depending on what is measured, a lot of other things) is almost useless from that point of view.
      It's like teaching someone to drive a car and then pretending that he can realize that his mechanic is misleading him. A bit of basic statistics is not enough to learn how to set apart bad statistics from good statistics. It could even be counterproductive: people are led to think they understand statistics, when, in facts, they do not.

    81. Re:Difficulty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1 to parent!
      My kids are now in high school. I know for many students, Algebra is huge leap in thinking over Arithmetic.
      Now I have noticed that the schools have taken pieces of Algebra and have tried to plant seeds much earlier. Even down into grade school! This was before the common core was implemented. Common core goes a step further, perhaps too far I'm not sure. But that is where much of the complaints come from. But Common Core is a completely different discussion.

      Algebra II and Calculus are additional leaps above Algebra. I had a very difficult time because with them because my brain wanted the numbers to relate to something. Without that, they were just a random scribble and I could not just follow the abstract methods without visualizing real world scenarios.

      So I agree that Algebra II, Calculus, and Trigonometry are completely useless for 99.99% of people. Logarithms are quite useful though. And could be taught in the statistics class. But in more of a practical way. A "what are they and here are some formulas to use them in" sense instead of a abstract "solve this polynomial with calculus".

      Statistics apply to real world situations that everyone encounters. Not only in marketing and business but also in everyday life. Just think of all the bullshit stats that are in the advertisements and politics you see every day! Understanding statistics empowers people to see through this.

      Another idea is to have a computer science class replace a higher math. (and a good CS class not an "intro" class). Things like programming, algorithms, networks, databases, user interface design. These are actually applicable to modern day jobs! EVERY company is now an IT company.

      -So YES! Ditch the higher math. Perhaps that will also help the gender gaps in IT? Who knows?

    82. Re:Difficulty? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Health is a science / phys ed subject, not a math subject.

      The remainder, except for investing, should combined constitute a week of study.

      Investing is a broad field that requires the ability to understand and compare annual reports, understanding of entire industries, macroeconomics, etc. Except in the most loose and general of terms, it's not a pre-college subject.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    83. Re:Difficulty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And just to be clear: I do think that Algebra is hugely important. If nothing more for introducing the concept that the world around us is run on math.

    84. Re:Difficulty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck, that, the basics of stats is just counting.

      Something happens, you classify the thing, and count that your classification happened. Add one rock to the pile. Then when you are done counting you try to classify your counts of classifications. The equations all come out of this, just count shit and then see what you end up counting.

    85. Re:Difficulty? by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      You mention Mnemonics but it's not necessarily the same as learning. Mnemonics is imposing a pattern on information that allows us to quickly store and recall it, however we don't need to understand the information to do this. Our minds do weird tricks like this but not always in expected ways, like certain smells, sounds, images can be associated with a memory, the smell of bacon makes me think of Saturday morning cartoons.

    86. Re:Difficulty? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Mnemonics are tricks for party games. A few are helpful, but you can't base your mind on them.

      Mnemonics methods such as the Method of Loci or "Mind Palace" allow you to remember lists of things and associate groups of useful information. They're useful for party tricks like memorizing decks of cards and large numbers (all digits of pi); and they're also useful for increasing mid-term memory during learning.

      Consider a strategy by which you store important redox chemistry facts in several rooms on a large oil rig while studying. The mind palace itself reminds you that Oxidization Is Loss; Reduction Is Gain. You also exercise your recall facilities, which are part of remembering: Recording, Retaining, and Recalling; or the three failures of forgetting: Fixating, Filing, and Finding. The mind palace itself is a filing system, and the exercise of encoding to visual imagery improves fixation.

      The most obvious advantage here is the long-term memory benefit of having all this stuff in a mind palace; that's also the least-important advantage, as the mind palace needs constant maintenance or it will decay. The mind palace itself provides the immediate medium-term advantage of recognition and recall: you don't have to flip back through the book constantly as you study, and so you more clearly understand new information hinging on what you've recently read.

      That's as far as most people get with mnemonics.

      Human memory is more complex than that. Beside the three process components of Recording/Fixating, Retaining/Filing, and Recalling/Finding, your memory has the three major operations of Recalling, Recognizing, and Relearning. Memory is associative: the more organized the information, the easier it is to recall. Memory decays: you're essentially guaranteed to lose 20% of what you learned in the first week, and around 60% in the first month. Mnemonics systems leverage these properties.

      A deeper study of mnemonics teaches you to enhance the recording process by fixing on information you need to remember. It teaches you to enhance filing not by the magic of the mind palace and the linked list and all the other mnemonics systems, but by the simple and important acts of visualization (converting and integrating information into images) and reflection (directly associating new information with already-known information). You use acrostics and acronyms, rhythm and rhyme, and pegs and mind palaces as needed; and you carry out the long-term operation of moving your memories from those temporary containers into the natural storage system of your brain in the most efficient and effective manner.

      People don't have bad memories, and people with good memories aren't just using parlor tricks; everyone has the same sort of memories, and some of us learn how to operate them effectively.

      Mental mathematics are traditional, and need to replace the garbage that's being taught in US public school math classes today.

      Tradition isn't a good argument, but the premise is correct.

      Modern U.S. schools rely heavily on a sort of Friendly Numbers System approach for arithmetic, breaking operations into more manageable sets of operations with simple strategies to compute common patterns. This is a great way to approach calculus--see Chain Rule and Integration by Parts, as well as the general derivative rule of multiplying by the post-decremented exponent--but we have *better* systems for arithmetic.

      We mostly eliminated memorization of the multiplication table because we found out faculty education doesn't work. The brain isn't a muscle, and you don't make it stronger by flexing it: learning a language doesn't make your language-learning center more efficient at learning a language. We sort of ignored that learning *anything* gives you a bigger associative pool upon which to attach new memories and from which to devise new techniques, e.g. learning Esperanto will drive you nuts as you realize speaking th

    87. Re:Difficulty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I also taught high school and junior college math, and had the misfortune of being appointed to the state's curriculum committee.

      I discovered a problem with some (not all) academic types on the committee who were university professors. They wanted certain difficult and abstract topics placed into the curriculum not because they thought there was any value in the topics, but rather because they wanted "inferior students" to be weeded out from math before they went on to college. They could not seem to wrap their minds around the fact that the high school math program did not exist solely as a feeder program for university-bound math majors. Either that or they were evil assholes who didn't give a shit about people outside their clique.

    88. Re:Difficulty? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      At high school level everything is dumbed down with the sciences. Just memorize the formulas and then regurgitate for the test. At least with algebra, trig, algebra2, and calculus (if the high schools offers it), you're forced to use your brain to do more than just memorize.

    89. Re:Difficulty? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Odd. Before we had calculators you had to know logarithms just for basic use of slide rules to do arithmetic... The concept at least should be useful for everyone, even if all their do in their life is scrub floors.

    90. Re:Difficulty? by clovis · · Score: 1

      You've explained the "why" of the problem really well. I'm seeing a lot of comments, though, from people who still don't think there is a problem.

      I have a daughter struggling with algebra now. When helping her with homework I've tried to explain what it's actually useful for, not just symbolic manipulation. And I've come up blank more often than not.

      Do a search for "algebra practical application" and see how many people are trying and failing to explain in concrete terms how (for instance) factoring polynomials solves anything in the real world.

      We should be teaching finance: interest, investing, credit cards, mortgages; demographics: mean vs. median incomes, quintiles; health: risk factors and probabilities, absolute vs. relative risk, etc.

      The number/numeral system we use today is entirely based on manipulating polynomials.
      1,665 = 1*x^3 + 6*X^2 + 6*x^1 +5*x^0
      In the decimal numbering system,we set x = 10, and we would say four thousand one hundred fifty three.
      Long division (1665/45) consists of a process for dividing one polynomial (1*x^3 + 6*X^2 + 6*x^1 +5*x^0) by another (4x + 5).
      If your answer has no remainder, then you've also found a factor of the polynomial.
      In this case, it would be (3x + 7), or 37.
      (4x + 5) * (3x +7) = 12x^2 + 15x +28x +35 = 1x^3 + 6x^2 +6x +5 = 1665, using x = 10 in decimal system,

    91. Re:Difficulty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The first two statistics courses I took in college had only Algebra I as a prerequisite. This wasn't "statistics for poets," either, they were the same courses taken by math majors.

      I find this hard to believe. Every college I've been at (and I've worked at several), the College Algebra sequence is really a fancy name for remedial mathematics. Real math class start with Calculus 1 and then, after you've finished the core calculus sequence, consider other topics like statistics, linear algebra, or differential equations. After all, how would you derive the variance of an exponential distribution without calculus?

      I'm sorry, but if Algebra I was the prerequisite, then it was almost certainly was "statistics for poets" (or, as we like to call it here, "Business Statistics").

      -JS

    92. Re:Difficulty? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Memory is the foundation of knowledge: you cannot know what you do not remember.

      People spend a lot of time flipping back through the book to find things they recognize but can't recall. It's a waste of time. A firm understanding of human memory allows you to avoid this: you organize the information to store better, whether by taking specific action such as visualization (making images) and reflection (thinking about how that information relates to what you already know) or implementing highly-structured systems such as acrostics and the method of loci. Doing these things maximizes the impact of your study time: you might remember the mnemonic device, or you might tie the information to other information and remember it in its own right; you'll cover more ground in less time in any case, and more firmly store that information as you revisit it during further study.

      Learning is an enormous, complex process. It is, at its heart, memory; but memory is a tool, and tools produce differing results based on how they're used. Skillful use of a tool accomplishes greater things; blunt use of a tool has limits.

    93. Re:Difficulty? by FirephoxRising · · Score: 1

      Yes it's no less difficult, just different. My degree had a steep maths requirement which I struggled with, this not being a strong area for me. The annoying thing is I never used the advanced maths again after first year and not in my masters as I work in an area that doesn't use advanced maths. I now work with brilliant people who had to take the advanced maths two or three times to just pass and they don't need it either. I remember people who couldn't get it and dropped out, one had high distinctions in all his other subjects, but couldn't pass the maths requirements. The author is correct, if you don't need to use advanced maths, then you shouldn't have to take them. They were a complete waste of time and money for me and made my life very stressful at the time.It's like requiring advanced French to be a doctor. If it's not necessary for your course/career, then it should be optional. You can make the argument that it's good for people to work through it, but some people are not good at some things and I have chosen not to work in those areas, so I shouldn't be forced to do them. I'm good at languages, that doesn't make me better at my job, I can also run fast and far, that doesn't matter either. I hate advanced maths, that doesn't matter either! I don't need it. It has never helped me.

    94. Re:Difficulty? by Tulsa_Time · · Score: 1

      True... but I think the general population would be better served understanding subtleties (and manipulations) of Statistics as opposed to how to factor quadratic equations, etc... As I read the argument, we are talking about Algebra II+, not basic "solve this simple problem for X", which actually does help someone at the grocery store or doing simple construction math, etc..

      --
      5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
    95. Re:Difficulty? by BitterOak · · Score: 1

      I'm still a ways from differential equations. Darn. Thought I had grokked something and now I find it's a faux grok.

      I disagree. I took a two semester linear algebra course in my freshman year of college and didn't take differential equations until my sophomore year. Linear algebra actually helped with differential equations, but I had no trouble understanding linear algebra when I took it. It's a beautiful subject with many applications outside of differential equations. It's when you go on to study functional analysis that those two subjects are united.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    96. Re:Difficulty? by mileshigh · · Score: 1

      It's easier to learn entry-level stats with a cookbook approach than it is to learn advanced algebra or calculus. Especially if the stats course is designed for soft-sciences majors. Just memorize a few formulas and procedures and you'll at least do OK on the exam.

    97. Re:Difficulty? by drew_kime · · Score: 1

      Health is a science / phys ed subject, not a math subject.

      "People who take X mg of drug Y every week are Z% less likely to have a heart attack."

      Does the risk scale linearly with dose? What's the sample size of your study? What's the p-value? If you don't know that understanding health studies requires deep statistical analysis, you aren't ready to have an opinion on that.

      The remainder, except for investing, should combined constitute a week of study.

      Demographic analysis and virtually all of personal finance (credit cards and mortgages are the big items for most people) can be covered in a week? Really? Maybe if you already understand Algebra 2.

      Investing is a broad field that requires the ability to understand and compare annual reports, understanding of entire industries, macroeconomics, etc. Except in the most loose and general of terms, it's not a pre-college subject.

      I'm not saying turn people into day traders. I'm saying teach them enough to decide which option they want when their new job offers a 401.

      --
      Nope, no sig
    98. Re:Difficulty? by occasional_dabbler · · Score: 1
      You make a good point here about the beauty of maths.

      When a friend of mine decided to take the Arbitur exam here in Germany (A kind of high school graduation level) as an adult I volunteered to help her with the maths and promised her I would show her the beauty of it and she would learn to love it.

      I failed dismally because the maths she had to study was all the really dull stuff I had forgotten about: solving triangles, calculating probabilities, quadratic equations... I realised that maths only really becomes beautiful when you get to calculus; before this it's just drudgery.

      --
      "Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs," I said. "we have a protractor"
    99. Re:Difficulty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It baffled me at school that we did stats in the less advanced maths class in the last two years of school. Algebra was pretty trivial stuff at that level - once you had the basics you could pretty much do it by rote while thinking about other things. Stats... I found it moderately difficult then, and now that I have a PhD in machine learning it's still tripping me up.

      To use a sport analogy*: algebra is the situps and pushups you do during training, stats is the ball-skills and tactics. Any lump can do the former: the latter requires actual coordination.

      *sorry I tried to come up with a car one but failed.

    100. Re:Difficulty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of the idiots replying only know about a single path in statistics, but what you took very likely wasn't some mostly impractical probability course but instead likely covered regression analysis. That's the topic that those deluded by the mechanical calculus of probability distributions forget about, but that is much more widely applicable to the real world. I was a math major and took 45 hours (15 courses) in statistics and industrial applications (quality control); only three of those courses required sort of idiot-proof mechanical calculus lionized here. Rather they involved rigorously checking all assumptions, and often included sampling and design of experiments - none of which using calculus methods and were often more complex than triple integrals for simple CDFs.

    101. Re:Difficulty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Follow that recipe mentality in statistics for Psychology as well. Nearly everything is measured on a Likert (ordinal) scale, which is discrete; however ANOVA (I was talking with a student, and her description of the phenomenon was "ANOVA-land") is the generic default for analysing this. A 20 minute search in almost any journal outside of Psychometrika will find this run an ANOVA, compare groups with t-tests for data that doesn't suffice the first assumption of the general linear model (conditionally normally distributed outcomes) compromises both the value of the wald statistics, but also even the calculation of the increasingly popular effect sizes. As someone who got their degrees in psychometrics, I've done a shitload of maths, and have developed proofs and written software. Part of that includes the wonderful idea of boolean logic, first introduce before discrete maths, when I was a high school student. If A -> B, or if assumptions of statistical tests are met -> the probability of these results under the assumption that the true predictive effects of the observed variables is p; ~A -> ~B. The last time I tried to argue this, a professor told me that this wasn't maths class, as her defence of the traditional methodology.

    102. Re:Difficulty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I meant to reply to this post. A lot of the idiots replying only know about a single path in statistics, but what you took very likely wasn't some mostly impractical probability course but instead likely covered regression analysis. That's the topic that those deluded by the mechanical calculus of probability distributions forget about, but that is much more widely applicable to the real world. I was a math major and took 45 hours (15 courses) in statistics and industrial applications (quality control); only three of those courses required sort of idiot-proof mechanical calculus lionized here. Rather they involved rigorously checking all assumptions, and often included sampling and design of experiments - none of which using calculus methods and were often more complex than triple integrals for simple CDFs.

    103. Re:Difficulty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except I guarantee you still don't really understand compound interest. Try reading actuarial science texts.

    104. Re:Difficulty? by MrKrillls · · Score: 1

      I know I would do better in ANY kind of math, because learning some linear algebra on my own forced upon me a level of math discipline I never needed before.

      --
      Don't step on the baby.
    105. Re:Difficulty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your story was far too long and unnecessarily personal to portray your point, therefor I conclude that you are lying.

    106. Re:Difficulty? by righteousness · · Score: 1

      I'm curious, how do you manually calculate roots without using logarithms? Or do you not learn to do that in school nowadays?

      --
      Don't fornicate. Seriously, just don't do it.
    107. Re:Difficulty? by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

      He suggests dropping Algebra II as a requirement. The first two statistics courses I took in college had only Algebra I as a prerequisite.

      As someone who actually taught Algebra II in high school (years ago), and who taught it one year in a lower-class mostly minority school district, I'll offer a few observations:

      (3) However, the problems with algebra II often start with teaching in algebra I. The algebra I and "pre-algebra" classes tend to be the "dumping ground" in many school districts for less qualified teachers. Teachers with real math degrees ... (There are serious teacher shortages in many places in the US, particularly for secondary math and science.)

      How very true. But the STEM teacher shortage is not the result of a lack of qualified individuals. Oh no. It is the "seniority-rank" system that many teachers' unions so vigorously enforce. This means that you can teach wrestling, or you can teach Calculus, and get paid about the same salary. It is human envy driving this false 'STEM shortage'.

      I had a friend who did a two-year 'Teach for America' tour. (For those not in-the-know, it's like the Peace Corps., but in super-troubled US school districts.)

      Anyway, I heard stories from this person, on a regular basis, of the teachers' union refusing to do anything for any teacher with less than five years of teaching experience (and union-dues paying). Back-stabbing by 'established' teachers was rampant against these TFA people who voluntarily took a low-paying job to 'make a difference' in the US educational system.

      This particular person was a Harvard grad, so the envy was even heavier, despite her being an extremely social and nice person, and a super-excellent teacher. That was her downfall, actually. Human envy—she made the vested teachers look bad.

      In summary, there is no STEM shortage, merely a corrupt set of teachers' unions who protect only those who have hung around long enough to merit union protection. Pay STEM teachers appropriately, keep the union off their back, and they will flourish. Otherwise, the only math teachers that high schools will get are random misfits, and the occasional passionate teacher who is willing to self-sacrifice.

    108. Re:Difficulty? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      With a calculator. That was all we did at school level. It wasn't until college level (age 16) that we looked at using logarithms for anything like that.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    109. Re:Difficulty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So I've just read / skimmed quite a few articles from that blog and most of them are boring pieces about the minutiae of teacher pay and why Trump is awesome because he opposes immigration. Thanks for the bloody waste of time.

    110. Re:Difficulty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, quite easily in fact. The trouble is that because they think they know their shit, it's much easier to pull the wool over their eyes. What you need isn't a statistics course as such, but rather something like How to Lie with Statistics, with an advisory note that people who like to lie with statistics have also read the book and come up with new ways of lieing with statistics.

    111. Re:Difficulty? by digitig · · Score: 1

      My problem is with the either/or thinking. Kids either have to do what's in the algebra 2 module or have to do what's in a stats module. Presumably the world would end if a new module were developed that took stuff that's useful in real life from a whole spectrum of maths disciplines. After all, we have to keep the artificial boundaries between disciplines policed, don't we?

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    112. Re:Difficulty? by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Forget algebra, how can you teach stats to someone with zero exposure to calculus? Probability theory can't be described without limits and infinite summations, i.e. you can't comprehend it without calculus.

      some schools try to teach engineering without teaching calculus. (or at least used to). if you think calculus is too hard, try understanding basic engineering concepts without it.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    113. Re:Difficulty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      62.3% of the population would agree with you!

    114. Re:Difficulty? by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      It's also useful to detect how someone's data is misrepresented. Can anyone lie with statistics to a statistician?

      serendipitously, yesterday's news on the debunking of the research debunking psych research. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03... as bad statistics.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    115. Re:Difficulty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see that all the time. "Societies with less guns have less crime with guns."

      Indeed. And Saudi Arabia doesn't allow women to drive, and has zero car accidents caused by women drivers.

    116. Re:Difficulty? by Flavianoep · · Score: 1

      Thank you very much.

      --
      Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
    117. Re:Difficulty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      84% of all statistics are made up.

    118. Re:Difficulty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He suggests dropping Algebra II as a requirement. The first two statistics courses I took in college had only Algebra I as a prerequisite.

      As someone who actually taught Algebra II in high school (years ago), and who taught it one year in a lower-class mostly minority school district, I'll offer a few observations:

      (1) I think a stats course would be a great alternative for many students compared to a second year of algebra.

      (2) Algebra II was in fact a barrier for many students. There was a high rate of students failing and dropping the course. (At that time, in the state I was teaching, it wasn't strictly required for graduation -- but it was strongly recommended.)

      So are you saying Algebra is racist?

    119. Re:Difficulty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Totally wrong. You mistake the concepts of the subject with all the notation, rigor and detailed manipulation of a subject. This is the difference between a business report and an executive summary.

      Also, I very much believe that calculus is more math than 99.99% of all human beings will ever need in their lives. We teach it to millions in a fruitless endeavor to educate them. I had to take it and yet I've never used it outside of the classroom, nor do I believe this will change. And I have a technical career to boot.

      All higher education should be viewed through the lens of opportunity cost. What will this individual not learn, as a result of requiring them to take mandatory subject X? Citizens have a limited time and capacity to learn and yet we lard them up with subjects they really don't need, don't want and won't help them.

      Personal favourite rant? Requiring IT programmers to take advanced math classes. It's a complete waste of time and does not advance programming skills, at all. Yet it's repeatedly put forward that "programmers need to know math" and "it teaches logic." No, a course in logic teaches logic. Trying to teach A by teaching B instead, is like exiting via a window because you don't know where the door is. The answer is to teach where the door is, not to promote windows as a means of building egress.

    120. Re:Difficulty? by barbariccow · · Score: 1

      I took statistics before calculus. It's just like how you can learn geometry before calculus, even though it seems ridiculous memorizing all those formulas once you know how to derive them....

    121. Re:Difficulty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's also useful to detect how someone's data is misrepresented. Can anyone lie with statistics to a statistician?

      Absolutely. Experts on statistics can not only lie to each other, they can even lie to themselves. The history of science is filled with examples.

      There are several problems here:
      1. Statistics is a very broad field, with a great many methods. You also need to understand numerical analysis and numerical methods at a deep level, since we're going to be computing this stuff on a computer, and knowing how the algorithms can and do go astray is important. Few people have this knowledge, and even a specialist won't know everything.
      2. People often make mistakes relating to pre-conceived ideas about how the world works.
      3. Statistics only has value in an applied context. Statistics always come with assumptions. Knowing whether those assumptions are valid requires a deep understanding of the problem area.

      Further, in many areas of life where statistics are applied, such as the social sciences, one must have a deep understanding of not just any given field, but also the subject called 'research design'. Few people even in the social sciences are really good at this.

      This is one of the reasons why the recommendation is misguided. We should be extending high school and have people get exposed to more courses, including several years of social science. Without that background, they simply can't be expected to understand the world around them. Even discussions of basic topics like minimum wage suffer because people do not understand the research design issues and can't pick out fundamental flaws in studies. First one must validate the methodology of a study, and be able to find problems, before it makes any sense to even consider spending time on the statistics.

      A professor of my acquaintance teaches research design. He has graduate students pick apart studies with the names removed, after teaching the students about some of the common flaws. The students are generally stunned to later discover that the studies are by some of the most famous people in their field, people with high reputations whose names appear in textbooks. This is not easy stuff.

      In many cases, these people ARE the experts on particular statistics. They know them far better then a mere mathematician would, because they use them every day in a real context, as opposed to just doing a few simple problems and proofs. But they still make mistakes. A huge percentage of studies are worthless.

    122. Re:Difficulty? by vel-ex-tech · · Score: 1

      Ironically, my estradiol pills are blue.

      Can't undo the damage done. The one thing that can is green and sticky. Goodness knows whether I'll have access to it or decide it's futile and conclude this existence with amputating the already mutilated genitals that were forced on me.

      Yeah, I was whining about doing that as an act of protest a couple months back. The cisfemale hacker I'd found is interested in sewing now! Normally, I would have no judgement about that. Is not sewing a form of hacking involving equal parts intellect and creativity? Alas, the TERFs and SJWs have forced my hand! I am clearly a rapist who doesn't think women can handle tasks of creativity and intellectual engagement such as sewing and programming!

      Who else is there? There's the cisfemale I was able to introduce to the basics of programming before she launched her management career. I think she'll be quite successful in that career and I support her 100%, but she's not a programmer, so I'm supposed to FEEL GUILTY!

      Face it, the more that cisfemales decry maths, the worse this diversity issue in tech is going to be. You folks want to blame me? Personally? For your own shit when it comes to educating cisfemales who could otherwise be upstanding examples of the Amazon potential there?

      I'd rather flip burgers and smoke weed. At least my fantasy world includes intelligent women instead of dumbing shit down.

    123. Re:Difficulty? by vel-ex-tech · · Score: 1

      Oh, you want me to believe I'm some kind of authentic woman programmer, but you will never grant me legitimate authenticity as a woman.

      You won't go that distance! You won't give me the limb to stand on!

      Actually, you've reminded me. The doctor has me on a 12 hour schedule for taking the blue pill. /me noms the estradiol!

      What is up with this hatred? Previously, on the red site, I was role playing a fucking Chinese Amazon for a good half a year before I realized how fucked up it all was.

      What will you do about the TERFs? What will you do about the assaults on your cisgendered hunnies as you attempt to engage in some ridiculous argument that I am all-men?

    124. Re:Difficulty? by vel-ex-tech · · Score: 1

      Seriously, what gives you the right to judge me as all-men? Your operatives have been working since I was 7! They even admitted that I was "just as well behaved as a girl" but that I would need to be punished because it would be unfair to the other boys if I were pardoned for something I didn't fucking do.

      Where do you think I got the red pill from? Maybe I FUCKING GOT IT FROM BEING JUDGED A RAPIST AND SEXUAL ABUSER, by yourself nonetheless, OVER AND FUCKING OVER AGAIN.

      At some point, one grows tired of you and your cisgendered hunnies.

      Give me a path to a legitimate existence as a cisfemale, and I might be of some utility to your cisgendered hunnies when there is rioting in every major city after BRICS switches away from the US dollar.

      You won't though. You think it serves your best interests to encourage cisfemales to value being baby mommas. You can't even imagine any higher intellectual path.

      And what will it fucking matter when the bombs fall?!

    125. Re:Difficulty? by Tinned_Tuna · · Score: 1

      Statisticians are still people, and people are susceptible to lazy thinking, confirmation bias, framing effects, and a host of other problems.

      But yes, assuming we manage to overcome our inherent limitations when looking at problems and claims, statistics is a necessary skill for a human bullshit-detector. Statistics by itself does not confer the ability to analyse a claim and place it in the proper context.

    126. Re: Difficulty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point is that stats would actually be useful for someone on a non engineering/science track.

    127. Re:Difficulty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had one of those crappy teachers for algebra I. Yes he was a coach. But in algebra II it all came together and I was a top student in math in my school thereafter. I will say that taking two weeks to teach "real world" applications would have been perceived as a waste of my time. It shouldn't take more than a few minutes to explain compound interest.

    128. Re:Difficulty? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I say this out of genuine concern. You should think about getting some professional help. Just someone to talk to. You are obviously very angry at what has happened and how you have been treated.

      I did it myself years ago. Didn't think it would help, but it did.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    129. Re:Difficulty? by Asteroid+Miner · · Score: 1

      AthanasiusKircher said: "I can tell you from my experience that we often were required to spend a ridiculous time on stuff that might have been useful for scientists and engineers headed for college in the 1950s, but these skills were much less relevant with modern calculators and computers." Without algebra, you can't figure out which new car to buy. Mean time between overhauls is proportional to the cube of [engine weight divided by horsepower] We are living in a technological civilization. Each citizen needs to be mathematical enough to at least vote rationally. In a technological society, all citizens need to know a great deal of science. Notice how many people get the wrong answer on nuclear power because they haven't studied the science and math. [The correct answer is that nuclear power is safer than wind or solar or any other source of electricity.] All high school students should be required to take 4 years of physics,4 years ofchemistry,4 years ofbiology and 8 years [double classes] of math. Probability and statistics should be included starting in the third grade. Yes, there is a book on probability for third graders. In college, Everybody, regardless of major, should be required to take the Engineering and Science Core Curriculum [E&SCC] plus a laboratory probability and statistics course plus more physics lab courses plus one course in computer programming. Even teachers' colleges should require the E&SCC. One of the problems with your school is the teachers, as you said. E&SCC = 2 years of calculus at the college level, 2 years of physics and 1 year of chemistry. All engineering and science students are required to take the E&SCC in their freshman and sophomore years. Most people, including people with college degrees in subjects other than science and engineering, use their emotions [emote] when they should be doing math. Most people are afraid of nuclear power because they do not understand it. Nor do they know how to think rather than emote [have emotional reactions]. "To think" means "to do math."

    130. Re:Difficulty? by mcswell · · Score: 1

      There is this thing called a "calculator." And before that there were things called "tables" inside other things called "books."

      As for the description, of course it can be described without calculus, at an intuitive level. Someone needed calculus to fill in the tables, or to program the calculator; but you don't need it to use the calculator or tables.

    131. Re:Difficulty? by mcswell · · Score: 1

      Wow, and this dates all the way back to Noah: after the flood, he built a table out of logs left over from the ark, so the snakes could climb up on it and sun themselves, and thereby get warm enough to reproduce. That's right: Noah knew that even an adder can multiply if you give him a log table!

    132. Re:Difficulty? by mcswell · · Score: 1

      Won't it? How much algebra do you really need to understand and work statistics problems--the kind of statistics problems that have real world relevance?

      BTW, I think I agree with everything you said in your first post (well, I don't know enough to agree or disagree with some of it, but it certainly sounded convincing). And I agree that it would be better to fix those other things; but I was just hopeful that one could understand stats without much algebra.

    133. Re:Difficulty? by Asteroid+Miner · · Score: 1

      The real universe is based on probability and statistics. Certainty is wrong. Anybody who is absolutely certain is a liar. The Universe just doesn't have certainty. The Physics Prob&Stat course is transformative: It makes you into a different person. There is no going back. Absolute certainty exists only in the minds of people who do not understand.

    134. Re:Difficulty? by vel-ex-tech · · Score: 1

      I am at the moment. A psychologist combined with the sticky icky once saved me when I literally had a knife against my jugular. I remembered the mindfulness in which he had instructed me, and I took a hit off a bong. I went to somewhere fantastic. They called us mages and sorceresses in that reality, those of us who understood very deeply how to program the nanomachines. I was a princess waiting for Prince Charming in a wood on a hill while the sun was setting in roughly the 11th century in our timeline when nanotechnology had become ubiquitous. I remember that it was sunset, and I was fearful that he wouldn't come. (The calendar year was much greater, and it counted from a time forgotten since the burning of the Library during the rise of Christianity.) In that reality, Hypatia had lived on to be a hero and soundly defeated Plato in the arena of ideas. I never found out whether Prince Charming arrived or not to Sorceress Princess Gwyneth in that alternate timeline.

      Gwyneth is a name that the Goddess gave me during an earlier experiment with shrooms. The Goddess told me to protect a field of flowers, but at present, I only desire to watch it burn.

      I am not certain a psychologist alone can save me again. We'll see, I suppose, but who cares, eh? If I kill myself, that's one less all-men keeping your cisgendered hunnies out of programming careers!

      I do not want to live in a world where the cisgendered hunnies override my every concern. I do not want to live with mutilated genitals knowing full well I cannot possibly afford to mutilate them to my desire. The world owes me nothing, but likewise I owe the world nothing in exchange.

      I was only a princess in that reality because I had mastered (mistressed?) a complete comprehension of nanomachine programming and perfected a transformation spell for myself.

      I will soldier on until I get to Colorado, even if I go homeless and have to amputate my genitals in the end when I am starving in a gutter. At least I'll be high as a kite and in my fantasy world where I'm one of the cisgendered hunnies as well!

      What dreams may come?

      To be, or not to be, that is the question:
      Whether 'tis Nobler in the mind to suffer
      The Slings and Arrows of outrageous Fortune,
      Or to take Arms against a Sea of troubles,
      And by opposing end them: to die, to sleep
      No more; and by a sleep, to say we end
      The Heart-ache, and the thousand Natural shocks
      That Flesh is heir to? 'Tis a consummation
      Devoutly to be wished. To die, to sleep,
      To sleep, perchance to Dream; aye, there's the rub,
      For in that sleep of death, what dreams may come,

    135. Re:Difficulty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. I took mathematical statistics and I couldn't even get into it until I took Calc III. Oh you mean the "Business Stats" class. Never mind. Might as well brew beer and call it Chemistry...

  6. As long as.... by Rogue974 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I will agree to this as long as they remove foreign language requirement for engineers! The accountants and poets don't like high end math, I don't like foreign language requirement (and I am fluent in more then 1 language and an engineer)!

    1. Re:As long as.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...as long as they remove foreign language requirement for engineers...
      ??? (scratching my head)
      what foreign language requirements? I have a BS engineering in the US. No foreign language required. I did not pursue a PhD because I (incorrectly) was informed that a foreign language was required of any PhD. Once corrected, I earned a PhD. No foreign language required.

    2. Re:As long as.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      than

    3. Re:As long as.... by Rogue974 · · Score: 2

      Most colleges require you have foreign language credit that you either took in high school or you take it while in college.

      So you can get a BS Eng without taking foreign language in college as long as you took it in high school.

    4. Re:As long as.... by Destoo · · Score: 2

      Might as well ban local language. Just code!

      --
      Nouvelles de jeux et technologies en français. TC
    5. Re: As long as.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you think future scientists and engineers are going to read their textbooks without first learning English? Nowadays a large fraction of the literature, journals and conferences are international and thus in English. In some countries, even lectures are in English. Foreign languages are not optional in higher education.

    6. Re:As long as.... by CastrTroy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The amount of a language you'd learn in a single class, or even taking a single course every year in high school isn't enough to get you be fluent, or even passable in a second language. There are millions of Canadians as hard data that show you can put students in plenty of classes in a second language without actually learning anything. Unless you have an immersion program where people are forced to use the language, then people aren't going to learn the language at all.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    7. Re:As long as.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most colleges require you have foreign language credit that you either took in high school or you take it while in college.

      So you can get a BS Eng without taking foreign language in college as long as you took it in high school.

      I don't recall even that much being required when I got my engineering degree several years back.

      And yes, it was a factor in me choosing to pursue engineering over other STEM degrees.

    8. Re:As long as.... by jellomizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is the focus on grades, which is preventing us from learning.

      I had an argument a while back about this.
      Me: College Requirements for graduation should have more Advanced Math classes, as Math teaches you valuable problem solving skills.
      Education Major: Not everyone is good at Math, so they shouldn't be forced to take the classes and hurt their GPA
      Me: Well I am not good at English classes and they are hurting my GPA so I shouldn't have to take them?
      Education Major: No you need to take these classes, They offer valuable skills for understanding people and society.
      Me: But Math offers valuable problem solving skills.
      Education Major: But not everyone is good at Math. ...

      The problem is with our grading system, we reward people who already know the answers, and not on what is learned. For Liberal Arts, you many can BS their way a good grade on a paper. Approaches include a war of attrition where you give so much words that it is impossible for the grader to really grade correctly. Play to the graders ideology You can twist the topic around to support what ever cause the grader feels strongly at. It is difficult to BS in math. If the answer is correct or not, that is where the hatred of math is.

      Math isn't about working hard, it is more about doing it right. So people make mistakes and they can't make it up by just doing more. So they feel like they suck at math because where they may be an A+ student they get Cs in Math. Because Math Grading is normally very mechanical.

      However from my experience classes I got a C in are the classes I have learned the most in, the ones I got in A in was because it covered topics I already knew a lot about.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    9. Re: As long as.... by miwaku · · Score: 1

      If your language program sucks, maybe. I learned quite a bit of Arabic in a year, Russian in another, and Bosnian in three months.

    10. Re: As long as.... by TheReaperD · · Score: 2

      You can, but few people do. It's a question of efficient time and resource use for education.

      --
      "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
    11. Re:As long as.... by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

      At the rate the United States is allowing H1-B Visa holders to replace local technology employees, I would dare say that a foreign language requirement for engineers and IT staff in general needs to stand.

      Hindi would probably be your best choice to make it easier to train your replacement :|

    12. Re:As long as.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Math teaches you valuable problem solving skills for solutions which have a very specific and definite answer.

      In real life, that's not how it works except for things you can directly apply math do. In other words, for a machinist, math is very important. If you are trying to solve whether or not you you should look for a new job, or even something as simple as whether or not you're interested in buying cheerios instead of corn flakes, math is only a small component, perhaps even completely insignificant. And you can problem solve without advanced math. Don't believe me? Ask your psychologist how many people's problems he's helped solve. Now ask him how many times he used a math equation doing that. Ask your local police officer how many crimes he solved with a math equation. Your local daycare provider, how many children they've brought up using math. Those are all careers your college teaches.

      Making it a requirement for everything college is idiotic. There are many college courses where math is a small component.

      And, frankly, while math and computers go hand in hand, advanced college math isn't even necessary to have a decent, rewarding career in IT. I've been a sysadmin for 2 decades and I particularly detest math, having just barely scraped through it in high school. I spent half that time at the biggest cellphone manufacturer in Canada. Guess what... ...nobody EVER gave me shit for not knowing math. And I never had any issue completing any work that came my way, including problem solving. Then again, I never finished college either. :P

      Making advanced math a requirement is just a way to filter out people who are good at what they do. I suppose in the end, it doesn't matter, because if there's one thing that life taught me: College is a waste of time if all you want is to start a career, unless you legally need that paper to work in the field. If you're any good at the job, the gates will open.

      BTW: The English classes are necessary because people are tired of speaking with others that can't actually write a thought down on paper well. The issue is that the English classes they teach today focus on teaching you how to read old books and form opinions on them. Which is rather pointless, I agree. If they focused on just improving technical/business writing skills, there would be much more value in it. Fortunately, my college realized this (I went, I just dropped out when I realized it wasn't providing enough value for me) and they didn't put any such classes in as mandatory. Instead, the mandatory classes were literally "business writing" where we learned to write letters that made sense. Yeah. It was that long ago. Paper letters. I expect things have gotten shittier, not better, since then.

    13. Re:As long as.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But remember, get C's in college and you'll get kicked out, won't matriculate, or can't get into that prestigious honor society.

      Thanks to universities tightening drop dates and GPA requirements, our students have become so risk averse that they won't attempt anything outside of their comfort zone. The student who graduates as valedictorian with a perfect 4.0 is just "Least likely to take chances" in my book.

    14. Re:As long as.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I spent half that time at the biggest cellphone manufacturer in Canada. Guess what... ...nobody EVER gave me shit for not knowing math."

      Yeah, I don't think Blackberry are doing so well.

    15. Re:As long as.... by Kierthos · · Score: 1

      Back when I got my Mechanical Engineering degree (in 1996), the university I attended required foreign language classes. But you could scrape by with the bare minimum in the way of those classes (101, and 102).

      Whereas, for the Computer Science undergraduate program, you had to take at least 200-level foreign language classes. So, I ended up having to take 201 and 202 when I got my second degree. (Oddly enough, Comp Sci required a technical writing course, where Mech-E didn't. Go figure.)

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    16. Re:As long as.... by Kierthos · · Score: 1

      *snort* I knew three people in college who had straight A's. One of them, I met because she was taking Electrical Engineering 221 (which at the time was the 'make it or break it' course for engineers in that particular university system), not because she needed to take the class (she was a Math major), but because she thought it would be fun.

      The professor teaching that class, an ex-Naval Academy instructor, was highly amused by that. Of course, the fact that she (the student) ended up with an A in the class surprised no one. EE221 is nothing but symbolic math.

      As for the other two straight A students I knew, you couldn't really describe either one as being 'adverse to risk'.

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    17. Re:As long as.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (and I am fluent in more then 1 language and an engineer)

      English isn't one of them.

    18. Re:As long as.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      English is quite fine for dealing with your Indian coworkers. Many Indians do not speak Hindi at all, but one of the many other languages spoken there. Ever notice that many Indians speak English to each other? That's because it's the mutually known language between the two.

      But you know, don't learn anything about people.

    19. Re:As long as.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As an engineer, all English literature did was drag down my GPA. Required college courses are more about protecting turf and ensuring department funding than they are about education.

    20. Re:As long as.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I moved from a French school to a French Immersion program.. and I wouldn't hire the french immersion kids for any French language work (Written/Spoken/Read)

    21. Re: As long as.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And where I work they speak Hindi to each other, which is annoying and isolating. But I'm thankful for that and other bad behaviors, like extreme game-playing, because they eventually fall prey to bad karma, thus slowing their influx.

    22. Re:As long as.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >and I am fluent in more then 1 language and an engineer

      The irony..... but off course you are right. I'm an engineer and hated the language requirements, especially my first/native language. Maths weren't mandatory during my high school years and I took classes that kind of required them with some idiots that didn't have the needed math basics, hilarious.

    23. Re:As long as.... by kria · · Score: 1

      In contrast, my college required all engineering degrees (literally, with engineer in the degree name), I believe, to take technical communication and write a huge paper, while I as a computer science major did not. (I did, however, have to do a team senior project with a real company that went from requirements definition to creating training documents and having a fake trade show.)

    24. Re:As long as.... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      I will agree to this as long as they remove foreign language requirement for engineers!

      When I was looking at college catalogs in the early 1990's, some colleges allowed substituting a programming language for the foreign language requirement. My problem wasn't with the foreign language requirement, but the biology with lab requirement. The last thing I wanted to in college was to dissect a frog. I managed to talk a counselor into substituting an electronics with lab course for that requirement. I prefer my experiments to blow up in smoke rather than splatter in blood

    25. Re:As long as.... by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Unless you have an immersion program where people are forced to use the language, then people aren't going to learn the language at all.

      That worked for me as hunger is a great motivator to learn the language. I attempted to learn Spanish in middle school and high school and was told that I should probably stop taking them because I would likely fail the next class, it was pretty obvious even to me before that. I then took a year of Spanish again in college to meet my foreign language requirement, the phrase Cs get degrees comes to mind. I didn't actually learn a foreign language until, with my previous job, I ended up living in Paris for 3 months. While I wasn't fluent I could at least have a conversation and read a paper (with a little help from a french to English dictionary). I don't begrudge the French for wanting people to speak their language when in their country. If one really tries to speak the language and puts effort into it they are much more accepting. The only problem is that now when I am in a country that speaks a romance language my mind ends up defaulting to French, even if the language is Spanish, Portuguese, or Italian.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    26. Re:As long as.... by houghi · · Score: 2

      The only way to learn a language is exposure. The way I learned English was:
      1) Subtitles. That means all movies have subtitles, so I could read and hear at the same time.
      2) Speaking it. During my English classes, I had a stupid teacher who allowed us to do anything in class. Even talk among our selves, as long as we did it in English.

      We were soooo smart and that teacher was soooo stupid as we were not following his lessons at all. Ha, we showed him. Yes, if we ade an error, he corrected us, but we were still aloowed to NOT learn anything. Oh man, how we showed him. Stupid little smart fucker.

      In hindsight that was the bestest teacher I have ever had. He is responsible for the best co,pliments I get, which is people calling me stupid for my language, because that means it is good enough to be thought to be coming from a native speaker.

      And it is only my third language.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    27. Re: As long as.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It isn't efficient to do it in high school. Much more efficient to do it very early when people are still learning language. 1st and 2nd grade.

    28. Re:As long as.... by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Depends on the student. I think there are fewer students in college in engineering, math, or science courses who if they are straight A students who are people that can't learn. The critical thinking they got in their other courses helps out a lot. The hardest course I took was one called "Computer simulation of physics problems" as it fulfilled a the requirement of a non major 400 level science course. The problem was that I was the first non physics student to take the course in 15 years so while the requirements for the course were stated as needing a year of calculus based physics and some programming knowledge it had really become you had 3 to 3.5 years of physics education and you are taking this course in your last 2 semesters. I spent a couple of hours a week in the professors office getting the physics knowledge I didn't have so I could do the actual work for the class. I learned a ton. On the other hand in one of my public speaking courses I was paired up with a speech major who was so glad that she didn't have to take calculus because she just wasn't good enough at math and college algebra was really hard.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    29. Re:As long as.... by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      I will agree to this as long as they remove foreign language requirement for engineers!

      No need, just declare Math to be a foreign language. It's called the "language of science" and many people consider it foreign.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    30. Re:As long as.... by DavidHumus · · Score: 1

      "..I am fluent in more then 1 language and an engineer..." Evidently not.

    31. Re:As long as.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having mastery of the material is having mastery of the material, regardless of whether you learned it in the class or knew it previously. By your logic, we should give the highest marks to the stupidest people, because they probably learned the most. Regardless of whether they can do the work the best.

    32. Re:As long as.... by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      That is the problem is the thinking that grading is a reasonable expression of intelligence.
      Classes should still be Pass/Fail Where the Pass criteria is much higher than it is today, but Grades from C+ - A+ really don't mean much. The C+ student usually had learned the material, however it didn't fully click until after the test. While the A+ student knew the information beforehand.

      But the education system has this competitive success factor GPA, where there is a simple number to say you were smart or not. There is a complex set of issues of how the education system bills students and having sometimes pointless class prerequisites. We should find a way where if the student isn't getting the data say after every couple of weeks they can go back and take those classes again until they get it right. Without having the student go bankrupt and making it nearly impossible for classes to be handled.

      I am not giving an easy solution, but the education system is still suck in victorian values.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    33. Re:As long as.... by dcollins · · Score: 1

      I agree with everything you wrote there, except for the claim "the problem is the focus on grades".

      Thought experiment: Let's remove grades and just replace it with an honest pass/fail system about whether you've mastered the skills or not. Now the education majors are all flat-out failing all their math courses. And now they're surely even more upset, right? The problem is not really the grades per se, it's that the math/science courses are where there's an unavoidable demonstration that U.S. education majors are perennially the dumbest people going to college. And those people are then the ones in charge of teaching broken math to our elementary-school students, in a repetitive cycle. If anything, the grades (polite C's and D's to the weak students) are serving to mask how completely broken at math the education majors are; the fact that those same students are so confused as to think it's a GPA-number issue is just a Dunning-Kruger type effect.

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    34. Re: As long as.... by TheReaperD · · Score: 1

      That starts several years even before head start so unless you have the money for a preschool that teaches 1-3 year olds a second language, it's not going to be very valuable.

      --
      "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
    35. Re: As long as.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More than*

    36. Re:As long as.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So we're creating a society of bullshit artists with bad problem solving skills.

      Yep, sounds about right.

    37. Re:As long as.... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Never argue with an education major. It's a waste of time, better off arguing with a rock.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    38. Re:As long as.... by gweihir · · Score: 1

      I do not think that is a good idea at all. Learning a second language teaches you a lot about your first one and about how to describe things. As an engineer, you will need to describe technology, give presentations, etc. If you are fluent in at least two languages, you will be able to do a much better job.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    39. Re:As long as.... by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Very, very insightful. Same here.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    40. Re:As long as.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am fluent in more then 1 language and an engineer)!

      Are you sure it's as many as one language?

    41. Re:As long as.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutely...I took 5 years of French through middle & high school, got fantastic grades, and still would have been unable to take part in an everyday real-life conversation.

    42. Re:As long as.... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Unless you have an immersion program where people are forced to use the language, then people aren't going to learn the language at all.

      I learned english in school and do just fine with it.
      However my teachers (and the school system!!!) found that having more than 5 spelling errors per page was not worth more than a grade of 5. (5 of 6 where 1 is the best and 6 is the worst). Honestly, a high ranked worker in a french ministry would not pass the simplest test in "french" in a german school. The schools in Germany, or the ministry defining language skills, are just idiots.

      So ... I'm likely one of the best english speakers of my school class, and because of stupid rules regarding written skills I had the worst grades and was close to drop out of school (because my latin was bad, too).

      I really doubt I "improved" my english beyond school level except for more vocabulary.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    43. Re:As long as.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Countries like India claim that huge percentages of their population (15-30%) speak English, based solely on the fact that English language classes are required in school. Likewise for many other countries.

      American students, teachers, and parents hear about this and wonder why Americans don't speak foreign languages as fluently as students in other countries. Some people use this as evidence about how insular Americans are. But the dirty secret is that the vast majority of those students in other countries can't speak English at all, let alone fluently. They're as fluent in English as your average high schooler is fluent in Spanish. I.e. not at all, even after 3 or 4 semesters. In India, the real conversational fluency is closer to 2%. (But India is huge, which means there's more than 20 million fluent English speakers there. That's also roughly the size of the upper middle class in India, and those are the people who will be traveling around the world.)

      Europe is a slightly different story. English and other school-instructed languages are often used regularly outside of class. People learn a good deal without even taking any classes.

      There's also a selection bias. A friend had to learn to read and write French and German as prerequisites for his Ph.D program. He claimed that learning them was easy. I said, good for you, but most people find it difficult to learn new languages without extraordinary effort. He said that he had plenty of other friends who speak foreign languages fluently. But that's a selection bias. People who don't pick up a language aren't going to participate in groups where people speak those languages, or other languages generally. I've worked all over the U.S., and traveled all over the world. I've met plenty of people who, despite being immersed with a language for decades, can hardly speak a lick of the local tongue. My office janitor is from Hong Kong, has lived in San Francisco for over 30 years and raised a son, yet both his English comprehension and speaking skills are horrible. But he's just as intelligent as the next guy, if not more so. And I've met plenty of people like this, both in the U.S. and abroad. Bottom line: learning language is _difficult_. Especially for adults, both neurologically as well as the fact that adults (especially working class adults) do not usually have the luxury of dedicating the necessary time and effort.

    44. Re:As long as.... by Rudisaurus · · Score: 1

      Most colleges require you have foreign language credit that you either took in high school or you take it while in college.

      So you can get a BS Eng without taking foreign language in college as long as you took it in high school.

      To most engineers, English is a foreign language.

      [disclaimer: I is one]

      --
      licet differant, aequabitur
    45. Re:As long as.... by FirephoxRising · · Score: 1

      You shouldn't have to take the English classes. You've already passed high school, it you're at uni you should already be able to write essays. I had to do English and communication subjects where I learned basically nothing. I just wrote the three assessment essays required, got distinctions in both subjects and got on with my course. They could have been electives and I wouldn't have done them as I didn't need to do them. Waste of time and money.

    46. Re: As long as.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Q: What do you call someone who speaks three languages?
      A: Trilingual.

      Q: What do you call someone who speaks two languages?
      A: Bilingual.

      Q: What do you call someone who speaks one language?
      A: American.

    47. Re:As long as.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sigh. This seems to be a common misconception. The best classes I ever had in high school did NOT necessarily result in skills which come in useful in everyday life. The resulted in sharper thinking, and an adaptive brain, and those allowed me to function more efficiently (smarter) in everyday life.

      Math teaches logic and critical thinking skills.

      English teaches communication skills.

      Second language classes are like a special combination of both, communication + critical thinking. They teach about how our abstract thoughts (which underlie and precede spoken words) relate to words, and how words and ideas shape each other.

    48. Re:As long as.... by Leuf · · Score: 1

      "It is difficult to BS in math. If the answer is correct or not, that is where the hatred of math is.... Math Grading is normally very mechanical." I think that's a big problem with math grading. You are taking a test on a concept of calculus and you did all the calculus correctly but made a minor arithmetic mistake. You simply get a red slash through your answer and zero points. By their nature essay type answers, while BSable, inherently force the grader to try to determine whether the student understood the concept rather than just whether they got the right answer.

    49. Re:As long as.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (and I am fluent in more then 1 language and an engineer)!

      Are you sure about that?

    50. Re:As long as.... by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      The problem is the focus on grades, which is preventing us from learning.

      I had an argument a while back about this. Me: College Requirements for graduation should have more Advanced Math classes, as Math teaches you valuable problem solving skills. Education Major: Not everyone is good at Math, so they shouldn't be forced to take the classes and hurt their GPA Me: Well I am not good at English classes and they are hurting my GPA so I shouldn't have to take them? Education Major: No you need to take these classes, They offer valuable skills for understanding people and society. Me: But Math offers valuable problem solving skills. Education Major: But not everyone is good at Math. ...

      The problem is with our grading system, we reward people who already know the answers, and not on what is learned. For Liberal Arts, you many can BS their way a good grade on a paper. Approaches include a war of attrition where you give so much words that it is impossible for the grader to really grade correctly. Play to the graders ideology You can twist the topic around to support what ever cause the grader feels strongly at. It is difficult to BS in math. If the answer is correct or not, that is where the hatred of math is.

      Math isn't about working hard, it is more about doing it right. So people make mistakes and they can't make it up by just doing more. So they feel like they suck at math because where they may be an A+ student they get Cs in Math. Because Math Grading is normally very mechanical.

      However from my experience classes I got a C in are the classes I have learned the most in, the ones I got in A in was because it covered topics I already knew a lot about.

      as usual, people assume that the way things are is either the way things have always been, and.or the way things should be and have always been moving towards. the fact, of course, is that our modern system of education is a relatively recent artifact of the industrial revolution, and reflects the concept of an assembly line mass production approach to education, with a product that would similarly be a standardized replaceable widget suitable for large business concerns. and it's clear that the education industry is one of the worst in society judging by the rate of failures produced; and worst of all, because these are human beings, not ball bearings or ICs. whereas, of course, the method of education for most of humanity has been and still is something along the lines of apprenticeship, which is how an individual picks up individual skills to suit an individual career and future. note that advance education, grad school, etc, still follows this model, by and large. the mass education model does seem to work for a lot of basic things; reading and writing, for instance. not perfect there, though. bottom line, any education system that produces people who look at donald trump and say "i wanna invest money/future in that" is a failure.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    51. Re:As long as.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You dont seem to be fluent in English if you misspell "than" as "then".

    52. Re:As long as.... by rasmusbr · · Score: 1

      The simple solution now that high school is practically mandatory is to have a handful of tracks that students can take:

      1. STEM - basic curriculum plus advanced math and other subjects that prepare you for a STEM degree.
      2. Social science - basic curriculum plus courses that prepare you for degrees in law, government science, etc. Enough math that you have a fighting chance in STEM if you change your mind later.
      3. Art, creative writing, music - basic curriculum plus courses that prepare you for life as a struggling artist. Students should make sure to be rich, or hot enough to marry rich.
      4. Sports - basic curriculum plus lots of sports. Students should make sure to be good at sports. Once injured, the student should switch tracks to...
      5. Trade skills - basic curriculum plus training in a trade skill of the student's choice. The student will probably need additional trade school after graduating high school. Front end web coding and backend web coding should be two of the trade skills.

    53. Re:As long as.... by Asteroid+Miner · · Score: 1

      Now that computers can translate languages fairly well, let's drop foreign languages entirely.

    54. Re:As long as.... by Asteroid+Miner · · Score: 1

      Our problem is with education majors. She could be a female chauvenist. Chances are good that it is a woman you are talking about, so I assume so. A female chauvenist sees men as security objects, so she doesn't want to do anything difficult, like engineering. A liberal arts degree is a certification of having avoided the hard work. What is being complained about is having to work hard. A liberal arts degree was good enough in the 18th century, but not any more. An educated person is a person with a degree in engineering or the real sciences, excluding the social sciences.

  7. Same goes for all other skills by mwvdlee · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There are plenty of good arguments to be made for moving the math curiculum to statistics, combinatorics and other areas, but "making more people pass the exam" isn't one of them.

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    1. Re:Same goes for all other skills by chispito · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There are plenty of good arguments to be made for moving the math curiculum to statistics, combinatorics and other areas, but "making more people pass the exam" isn't one of them.

      It is if your job is to "improve education."

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    2. Re:Same goes for all other skills by Shortguy881 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Don't worry. Next on the docket is English Comp I and II. People don't read and write anymore. A practical film education class would be more useful.

      --
      Brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.
    3. Re:Same goes for all other skills by pr0nbot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Up to a certain age, I'd say education is about giving kids a good all-round level of knowledge.

      If it turned out that in my Perfect Education System, the class requiring students to learn to juggle 19 balls was causing a lot of people to drop out, I might reflect on whether it's really a necessary skill for most people. That seems to be the spirit of the story.

      On a related matter, I do often reflect how much more useful it would have been for me to learn to cook, tile, plumb, repair electricals, etc. Sure, I can learn all that now as an adult, but equally I could read up on the Tudors or plate tectonics now if I really wanted to.

    4. Re:Same goes for all other skills by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of good arguments to be made for adding to the math curiculum statistics, combinatorics and other areas

      FTFY

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    5. Re:Same goes for all other skills by Flavianoep · · Score: 1

      I think that what the OP meant was that the same people that flunk in calculus and algebra will flunk in statistics and combinatorics as well.

      --
      Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
    6. Re: Same goes for all other skills by TheReaperD · · Score: 1

      The problem is that our current system of evaluating knowledge learned is utter crap. The hard-on for standardized testing is because it fits neatly into a spreadsheet, not because they're good measures of success. They're all but worthless for their stated goal. The problem is that if you ask 4 educators the best way to evaluate learning, you'll get 5-8 different and mutually exclusive answers.

      --
      "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
    7. Re:Same goes for all other skills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are plenty of good arguments to be made for moving the math curiculum to statistics, combinatorics and other areas, but "making more people pass the exam" isn't one of them.

      It is if your job is to "improve education."

      Changing "education" to "indoctrination" is a more accurate statement.

    8. Re:Same goes for all other skills by Kjella · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of good arguments to be made for moving the math curiculum to statistics, combinatorics and other areas, but "making more people pass the exam" isn't one of them.

      I think there's a big difference between general education and specialized education. I mean if you gave that high school test to fifth graders and they mostly flunked you wouldn't say they're too dumb and should be held back you'd say the test was too hard. In a general education you put what the general population of average intelligence and with average effort can understand and adjust your expectations accordingly, flunking should really just be for those that don't really try, have given up, are borderline mentally challenged or otherwise are showing little to no results from being in class.

      Specialized education is a different story, you must understand this much math to become a structural engineer. You must understand this much medicine before we let you become a doctor. You must understand this much law before we let you become a lawyer. And if you have to lower the expectations, well you have more of a gap to cover. Or that it's some form of elective that those who want to go into that branch should take or else they end up with extra classes just to get to the starting line. There's good reasons to have "weed-out" classes in specialized education, but unless you want people to just give up and start flipping burgers at McD I don't see any reason to set arbitrarily high standards to create dropouts in general education.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    9. Re:Same goes for all other skills by HalcyonTimes · · Score: 1

      Why is it a bad thing that more people can get a college degree?

    10. Re:Same goes for all other skills by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      It has been quite a while since I had Algebra 2/Trig, but I do remember a large number of people not grasping it at all in high school. Some people just aren't ready for it at that point in their education. It would be sad to eliminate it, but maybe an essential math for non math people is part of the answer. Maybe "using a calculator II" is a better class as long as people learn (or are exposed to) the basics. Not a huge reason for most people to understand HyperCosines and the like.

    11. Re:Same goes for all other skills by ImprovOmega · · Score: 1

      Combinatorics is extraordinarily abstract. It's a senior level college math class at best, and I actually took a year of it in graduate school. I mean yeah, it's nice for explaining why the lottery is a scam, but it's very difficult for average folks to grasp. It doesn't feel intuitive at all.

    12. Re:Same goes for all other skills by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      A practical film education class would be more useful.

      I was misdiagnosed as being mentally retarded due to an undiagnosed hearing loss in one ear. I spent eight years in special ed and we had a film every afternoon. I graduated the eighth grade with fifth grade writing and math skills. The only reason I had a college-level reading comprehension skill is because I read everything I could get my hands on to relieve my boredom in class and at home. That permitted me to skip high school to go to community college and get an General Education associate degree in four years (two years for remedial, two years for degree).

    13. Re:Same goes for all other skills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People write more than they have in decades. Between Facebook, Twitter, email, and text message people are writing much more than the pre-Internet generations. Also with the ebook/digital publishing revolution more books are being written and read as well.

    14. Re:Same goes for all other skills by dcw3 · · Score: 2

      Why is it a bad thing that more people can get a college degree?

      Because the bachelors degree of today, is already the equivalent of a H.S. diploma from forty years ago. Do we really want to shift that up to a Master's?

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    15. Re:Same goes for all other skills by Shortguy881 · · Score: 1

      I need to work on my \\sarcasm tags

      --
      Brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.
    16. Re:Same goes for all other skills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The most compelling case for trigonometry is that it is extremely useful for sailing a ship, and using celestial navigation. You can make calculations assuming a flat Earth but it's far more sensible to treat it as spherical.

      So I would support removing this from curriculae.

    17. Re:Same goes for all other skills by sjames · · Score: 1

      Only if the exam actually reflects the state of a student's education.

    18. Re:Same goes for all other skills by armanox · · Score: 1

      It's bad if it is by lowering the standard, because it makes the degree less valuable. In some ways it's bad in general because too many people having the degree lower's it's actual value (that, and I am tired of all the job postings that require a degree when the degree has nothing to do with one's ability to do that job).

      --
      I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
    19. Re:Same goes for all other skills by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      Sure, I can learn all that now as an adult, but equally I could read up on the Tudors or plate tectonics now if I really wanted to.

      I wonder if that is true. Since younger people have more brain plasticity, it might make sense to teach them more difficult, academic subjects. It might be that if we teach them cooking, tiling, plumbing, and electrical repair, that they will not be capable of learning Algebra at age 30.

    20. Re:Same goes for all other skills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it turned out that in my Perfect Education System, the class requiring students to learn to juggle 19 balls was causing a lot of people to drop out, I might reflect on whether it's really a necessary skill for most people. That seems to be the spirit of the story.

      The spirit of the story is - unambiguously - that instead of 'juggle 19 balls' or FAIL it should be 'juggle 3 chainsaws' or FAIL.

      If there is a lesson to be learned, perhaps there ought to be a set number of core areas - like 20, a couple math, a few science, a few history, a few literature/language, one physed, maybe home-ec or shop - and graduation ought to require minimal mastery of say ... 15 areas (more for younger students wanting a quick route to college, less for older students that need to be nudged along).

      In this sense, one can be a miserable failure at 25% of the subjects but still pass by showing sufficient competency in other areas like communication, history, tech, et cetera.

      Imagine a college requiring all 20,000 students to meet the same core requirements to get a generalized degree, BG.

      And yes, for most of us, it didn't matter then and it won't matter now but if we're trying to save a few of the worthwhile flakes from melting, then this is a possibly worthy approach.

    21. Re:Same goes for all other skills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most people are going to learn to cook anyway, out of necessity, and it doesn't take too long to become reasonably proficient. School is there to teach people what they should know as citizens and voters. A cooking class is a waste of time from that perspective since they'll learn it anyway, the time saved when they're adults will be spent watching reruns of Seinfeld, and it won't help in their development as responsible citizens.
      I'm not saying the current curriculum is flawless. It manifestly isn't. But the job of the school system isn't to give people more spare time.

    22. Re:Same goes for all other skills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the truth comes out. You are scared of a future where your value as a person will drop because your precious Master's is a basic requirement of McDonald's employees. Perhaps you should base your self worth on something else.

    23. Re:Same goes for all other skills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Up to a certain age, I'd say education is about giving kids a good all-round level of knowledge.

      Most misleading. Advanced skills can only be proficiently learnt at a younger age, which should not be wasted in shallow matters, because that age is when you basically have the opportunity to go in-depth.
      (Was it J. J. Thompson to have said of some students "So young, yet they accomplished so little"?)

      The "Tudors or plate tectonics" are, to a certain extent, "all-round level of knowledge", they are not advanced skills like Math. Replace 'History' with 'Politics', 'Game Theory', 'Jurisprudence'; replace 'Geology' with 'Methods of Science'...

  8. Logic? by MindStalker · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How about a course in logic, particularly Boolean logic? I agree, very few people really need to understand logarithms or even polynomials. But learning how to think, and solve problems is important.

    1. Re:Logic? by dosius · · Score: 3, Interesting

      We used to have a 3-year state-designed mixed course, where I (9th grade, usually) was mostly algebra, II was mostly geometry and III was mostly trig - but there was other stuff thrown in and the beginning of II was a unit on Boolean logic.

      --
      What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
    2. Re:Logic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A course on boolean logic? How do you figure? That would boil down to about a 1 week class tops... an introduction ( covering basic principles, AND, OR, NOT ) would be the only thing worthwhile for the general public. Anything else is algebra ( associative, distributive properties etc ).
      Boolean logic won't teach you squat about how to solve problems unless your problem is "I have all these transistors and I want to make an ALU"

    3. Re:Logic? by Drethon · · Score: 2

      This! Strongly this! In college I had a course in Boolean logic and general logic as a math course. It formed the basis I use as a programmer. As a teacher I'm finding that the students are lacking an understanding of problem solving and mathematical logic, which I wish the school would address.

    4. Re:Logic? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      How about a course in logic, particularly Boolean logic? I agree, very few people really need to understand logarithms or even polynomials. But learning how to think, and solve problems is important.

      My favorite high school class was geometry, and not because I ever had any great need to measure the elements of circles, lines and polygons. What I took to was the idea of formal proof, and what I didn't know at the time was that it was pointing me to a career in software development, a field whose very existence very few people were aware of at the time.

    5. Re:Logic? by belthize · · Score: 1

      I don't know about focusing particularly Boolean logic but I've been a proponent of at least a one year logic course for a long time.

      I'd focus on more practical aspects of logic, the kinds that you see poorly displayed on places like Slashdot every single day. e.g. paradoxes,inductive vs deductive logic, false equivalences, predicate logic, propositional logic, forms of cognitive bias. For the latter I mean things like selection bias, confirmation bias, though I know it would be an uphill fight as folks wanted to turn it into a 3 month seminar on specific forms of gender and racial bias.

      Frequently people conflate logic with 'what kind of sort of makes sense to them at the time or sounds ... you know ... right'.

    6. Re:Logic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First of all, I'm not sure if I'm fond of the Common Core. Not sure if there is a corporate agenda in it or not. But anyway...

      I think it was pretty much Algebra I (8th grade for me, probably 9th for others, and probably 7th more now-a-days), Geometry, Algebra II, Trig, then Calculus when I was in school. With I think two years of math required. I think it's more now. Maybe I'm misremembering.
      While I do think Algebra II should be required (was a math major, so maybe I'm biased), I'd be open to the notion of having various options for graduation requirements.
      So, one path would be what I mentioned above. Another path might be...
      Semester of Algebra II followed by a semester of Proofs and/or Axioms class. Then a year of Trig. Then a semester of Calculus followed by a semester of Stats.
      If someone is on a college path, it probably only does financial harm to just take Calculus (again, sort of) in college.
      But as for graduation requirements, I would say Algebra II or the alternative idea of Algebra II/Proofs&Axioms as options.

      Any thoughts you have on this?

    7. Re:Logic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about a course in logic, particularly Boolean logic? I agree, very few people really need to understand logarithms or even polynomials. But learning how to think, and solve problems is important.

      I disagree that few people need to understand logarithms. Perhaps they don't need to understand them deeply and rigorously, but the natural world is inherently logarithmic. I'd argue that many commons errors of intuition stem from the fact that most folks are taught and learn only to think linearly, but natural phenomenon tend to be overwhelmingly logarithmic in nature.

    8. Re:Logic? by pr0nbot · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I did the International Baccalaureate (a European curriculum for high schoolers), in which you got to choose the subjects you wanted to study, within some constraints. However, there was one mandatory class called Theory of Knowledge. This was a combination of logic, ethics and philosophy, and was by far the most interesting class I ever took at school.

    9. Re:Logic? by Zak3056 · · Score: 2

      Are you from the State of New York? I remember that curriculum, and the books (Integrated Mathematics I, II, and III--the red, blue, and green books) that went along with it. I actually enjoyed that particular path, and thought they were great books--I actually still have copies of them somewhere, and I'm a bit disheartened that you say "used to." On the other hand, I also remember hearing recently that the New York Board of Education is working on seriously devaluing the regents diploma as a means of boosting self esteem, so I guess it is to be expected.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    10. Re:Logic? by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      How about a course in logic, particularly Boolean logic? I agree, very few people really need to understand logarithms or even polynomials. But learning how to think, and solve problems is important.

      I was never any good at math. But I did really good in logic. I guess all those numbers just confuse me, in logic at least there are only 2 numbers so I got to focus on the algebra and reasoning components!!

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    11. Re:Logic? by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > But learning how to think, and solve problems is important.

      Concur 100% as does Paul Lockhart's A Mathematician's Lament agree with you: (I've included an exert)

      The first thing to understand is that mathematics is an art. The difference between math and
      the other arts, such as music and painting, is that our culture does not recognize it as such.
      Everyone understands that poets, painters, and musicians create works of art, and are expressing
      themselves in word, image, and sound. In fact, our society is rather generous when it comes to
      creative expression; architects, chefs, and even television directors are considered to be working
      artists. So why not mathematicians?

      Part of the problem is that nobody has the faintest idea what it is that mathematicians do.
      The common perception seems to be that mathematicians are somehow connected with
      science -- perhaps they help the scientists with their formulas, or feed big numbers into
      computers for some reason or other. There is no question that if the world had to be divided into
      the "poetic dreamers" and the "rational thinkers" most people would place mathematicians in the
      latter category

      By concentrating on what, and leaving out why, mathematics is reduced to an empty shell.
      The art is not in the "truth" but in the explanation, the argument. It is the argument itself which
      gives the truth its context, and determines what is really being said and meant. Mathematics is
      the art of explanation. If you deny students the opportunity to engage in this activity -- to pose
      their own problems, make their own conjectures and discoveries, to be wrong, to be creatively
      frustrated, to have an inspiration, and to cobble together their own explanations and proofs -- you
      deny them mathematics itself. So no, I'm not complaining about the presence of facts and
      formulas in our mathematics classes, I'm complaining about the lack of mathematics in our
      mathematics classes.

      If your art teacher were to tell you that painting is all about filling in numbered regions, you
      would know that something was wrong. The culture informs you -- there are museums and
      galleries, as well as the art in your own home. Painting is well understood by society as a
      medium of human expression. Likewise, if your science teacher tried to convince you that
      astronomy is about predicting a person's future based on their date of birth, you would know she
      was crazy -- science has seeped into the culture to such an extent that almost everyone knows
      about atoms and galaxies and laws of nature. But if your math teacher gives you the impression,
      either expressly or by default, that mathematics is about formulas and definitions and
      memorizing algorithms, who will set you straight?

      The cultural problem is a self-perpetuating monster: students learn about math from their
      teachers, and teachers learn about it from their teachers, so this lack of understanding and
      appreciation for mathematics in our culture replicates itself indefinitely. Worse, the perpetuation
      of this "pseudo-mathematics," this emphasis on the accurate yet mindless manipulation of
      symbols, creates its own culture and its own set of values. Those who have become adept at it
      derive a great deal of self-esteem from their success. The last thing they want to hear is that
      math is really about raw creativity and aesthetic sensitivity. Many a graduate student has come
      to grief when they discover, after a decade of being told they were "good at math," that in fact
      they have no real mathematical talent and are just very good at following directions. Math is not
      about following directions, it's about making new directions.

    12. Re:Logic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about a course in logic, particularly Boolean logic? I agree, very few people really need to understand logarithms or even polynomials. But learning how to think, and solve problems is important.

      Boolean logic should be introduced as part of Alg I or Alg II, depending on the specific curriculum.
      You need at least a basic understanding of logs in order to have a decent understanding of geometry.
      And if you actually understood polynomials, instead of just knowing how to do some basic manipulation with them, you wouldn't say that "very few" perople need it.

      Frankly speaking, very few people really even NEED a high school education at all. You don't NEED anything past the 8th grade to work in the Service Industry, or build houses, or dig ditches, or fix cars, or any number of jobs which make up the core of our economy. But the less education people have, the less mobile they are and the harder it is for them to switch professions when the job market changes.

      As for College, people whining about Calc, etc. need to either shut up and study, or admit that they really ought to be going to a Trade School instead of pursuing an actual Degree.

    13. Re:Logic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why limit the logic to Boolean? View of different logic systems, expressiveness and basic things like proofs, completeness and soundness would be a good start for many things, just like algebra is. Who knows, a decent but appropriately light introductory course on mathematical logic with applications might get a new set of students exited about the related fields.

    14. Re:Logic? by dcollins · · Score: 1

      As a math educator, I wish I could upvote this past the 5 maximum.

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    15. Re:Logic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, the Sequential I/II/III math curriculum covered pretty much everything. Put a solid introduction to the fundamentals in the previous grade (usually 7th or 8th) to cover tools and methods and you're all set. Sadly, it sounds like they've dumbed things down since then. I can't imagine anyone actually wanting to be a teacher in the current environment, so I guess they need to simplify the instruction to compensate. Basic education is now left to colleges...

    16. Re:Logic? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      If you have to make a full course about boolean logic, then you are teaching the dumbest of the dumb. We had 2 weeks on boolean, and then moved on to first order and higher order. There was also a nice course on half-order temporal logics I took.

      You can do a full course on set theory though, and that necessarily includes an introduction to boolean logic.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    17. Re:Logic? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      As soon as you are advanced enough in a topic: everything is an art.

      The art of making love comes to mind ... or a simple tea.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    18. Re:Logic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here in the USA, knowledge about anything that isn't brightly colored, or doesn't have tits, is boring and useless. The corporations tell us that thinking is hard, and we shouldn't have to do anything that's intellectually challenging. Give us something to consume. Here's my cash. You figure out how much change to give me.

    19. Re:Logic? by dosius · · Score: 1

      I am indeed from NY.

      They changed the system after I graduated, I think.

      --
      What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
    20. Re:Logic? by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      You know, I never thought about it that way but I think you're right. I've been (unsuccessful) trying to think of a counter-example and just can't.

      Hell, even trolling can be an art form (as anyone who spends any amount of time on the 'net, sadly, soon finds out.)

      I guess this because we have the specific techniques (concrete) versus the general principles (abstract).

    21. Re:Logic? by FutureRobertOverlord · · Score: 1

      I'm really glad somebody shared this, and that it was modded up.

      I read it for the first time two days ago, and as someone who is currently teaching math, science, and standardized test prep, it really spoke to my experience with my students. Many of them are incredibly bright, to the point where I wonder why they're in for tutoring (my guess is that their parents want them to go from B's to A's or to get a 30 instead of a 25 on the ACT), but they often have difficulty applying skills outside of the narrow area in which they've been taught to use those skills.

      But A Mathematician's Lament is the best thing I've ever read on mathematics instruction, and I've recommended it to probably a dozen people in the past couple of days. Thanks for spreading it around.

    22. Re:Logic? by rakslice · · Score: 1

      I feel Mr. Lockhart's pain here, but this piece has little explanatory value because he goes on for so long without simply stating what the problem is.

      There are some fields that are not aesthetic in any way but where where the work is very creative. These are fields that are technical, but where the work is not just a matter of working out obvious consequences of the premises -- fields where you need inventiveness and lateral thinking because you need to be able to come up with solutions that no one has thought of before.

      Some education systems basically split students into aesthetic and technical paths, and then, confusing aesthetics with creativity, direct all the students who show signs of creativity down the aesthetic path, train the aesthetic students that math (or anything rigorous) is not worth their trouble to learn, and train the technical students that using unconventional, creative approaches to solving problems is risky and should be avoided. These education systems might accomplish many good things, but one thing they don't accomplish is producing people who are going to publish the next major groundbreaking proof, build revolutionary new algorithms, etc.

    23. Re:Logic? by rakslice · · Score: 1

      Actually, belay that... Lockhart argues for elegance as aesthetics and even rants against schematic arguments. I'm not sure that anyone cares about the point this guy is trying to make.

  9. I bet they will end up using a spreadsheet by jfdavis668 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As soon as you replace a number it a calculation with a variable like cell A1, you have jumped into algebra.

    1. Re:I bet they will end up using a spreadsheet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, spreadsheets - the shit version of algebra.

    2. Re:I bet they will end up using a spreadsheet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If only algebra could make the leap to procedural logic, it would be infinitely more useful.

      Functional programming only goes so far.

    3. Re:I bet they will end up using a spreadsheet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not algebra II or calculus though. It's a little bit more than just "ooo look, letters instead of numbers". We definitely need basic algebra but the advanced stuff? Calculus? No way. This is coming from someone with a degree in computer science.

    4. Re:I bet they will end up using a spreadsheet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if you ready anything beyond the headline before rushing to post a meaningless comment that is moronically modded insightful you would know they aren't talking about basic algebra. Algebra 2 or higher.

    5. Re:I bet they will end up using a spreadsheet by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Plugging and chugging formulas is not algebra.

      They call it algebra in middle school to feed the little monsters egos. But it is not algebra.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  10. I agree but not for the reason stated above by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't claim how mathematics is taught in other nations, but I don't think mathematics is taught at all.
    What's being explained is how to use mathematics. You can see it when you see what branches of mathematics are being taught.
    Those are the exact branches that are useful in physics, biology, economy, etc...

    All the rest are ignored and are not explained at all.

  11. Polynomials and logarithms are now "lofty math"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "What happens if I multiply numbers with themselves a few times and add things up?"
    "How many digits does a number have?"

    Yes, yes, really lofty. Now even my humble European mind gets how Trump keeps winning ...

  12. Algebra is good by johnsmithperson123 · · Score: 1

    First of all: Relavant xkcd https://xkcd.com/1050/ Second: The reason math is so crucial is not because many of us use abstract math in daily life but that it is such a good determinator of other skills. If you are bad at math you are probably bad at CS and engineering as well. It is in fact a basic skill, and a crucial part of a good education for any person in what they call STEM. And where if matters, college, you don't have to take math if you don't want to. Getting rid of Algebra II is good though, Trig/Elementary Caculus should be the high school standard. Taking Algebra II recently gained me nothing anyway.

    1. Re:Algebra is good by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      Math has almost nothing to do with CS or programming beyond a few rudimentary topics, like expressing big-O notation for algorithm complexity or understanding basic Boolean logic. It typically is only involved in whatever you happen to solving with your programming. The amount of math you'll need as a programmer is completely dependent on what sort of applications you'll be working on, and just gives you another tool to work with if needed.

      In my line of work, which is videogame programming, at least a basic understanding linear algebra is crucial, as it's the foundation for 2D and 3D drawing and transformations. I can't imagine how linear algebra would be at all useful in a typical line of business application - probably a knowledge of accounting and statistical math would be more useful.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    2. Re: Algebra is good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's take that a step further. If you are bad at math. You are bad at any technical field, science or anything that requires any sort of abstract thinking or even being able to understand technical documents even though they may be written in your native language. Your peers who have a grasp of even basic algebra, geometry and trigonometry but did terribly at English, something you may have excelled at, will far exceed you in any such field if you don't get math.

    3. Re:Algebra is good by Nartie · · Score: 1

      Math and CS, even just programming, are very closely related. Both require the same sort of thinking, you have to be very clear, very precise, and not miss any details.

    4. Re:Algebra is good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... are you a tester?

    5. Re:Algebra is good by Script+Cat · · Score: 1

      Sure, if you're just flashing lights on the screen. Here, this robot has an encoder on each of its two drive wheels two feet apart. Now navigate the robot to several given positions on the floor. Good thing it's CS so don't need any of that Math stuff. CS is not just reinstalling windows all day.

    6. Re:Algebra is good by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      CS is not about programming, that would be the AAS in software development offered at the local Voc-Tech (a great place to learn specific skills that I do take advantage of). I had 3 programming specific courses in my CS degree, well 4 if you could that one physics class, while the rest were focused on theory with projects and assignments that may involve programming. Yes there is Big-O, Boolean logic, and in your case linear algebra, but there is also statistics (used a lot in AI), formal proofs (I use these a lot), calculus (we have a bunch of people where I work who need this). A proper CS education is best described as applied math and it wasn't until I started taking my 400 (senior level) CS courses when I finally saw that. The CS program at the school I went to actually had a math minor built into it and you were only 3 math classes away from having a dual major in math and CS.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    7. Re:Algebra is good by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      Sure, it requires some of the same mindset and attention to detail - no question about that. But I can code with almost no knowledge of any advanced math. The fact that I taught myself to program at age 10 when I had no appreciable advanced math skills tells me that advanced math is simply not a prerequisite for programming. Rather, it's a tool that allows a programmer to solve math-related problems using programming techniques - nothing more than that.

      I'm not sure why programmers have such a hard time with this concept. I think it's because CS and engineering (and therefore math and engineering) are so closely tied together in the education system that most programmers simply never question it.

      I think it's an easier concept for me for two reasons: 1) I learned how to program LONG before I learned any advanced math, and 2) I'm not very good at advanced math, so it's fairly clear to me that you don't need to be a math whiz to be a (hopefully) good programmer.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    8. Re:Algebra is good by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      Robotics programming is a particular application domain that obviously requires advanced math skills, similar to videogame programming. If you're writing an accounting software package, it obviously requires advanced knowledge of accounting rules. It makes no more sense to say that programming requires advanced accounting knowledge. Math just happens to be useful for a LOT of different applications - engineering, graphics, videogames, scientific fields, etc, etc. That doesn't mean it's a prerequisite for ALL programming.

      Oh, and "just flashing lights on the screen?" "Reinstalling Windows all day?" Really?

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    9. Re:Algebra is good by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      You're correct that there's more of a distinction between proper Computer Science and a career as a programmer, even though many professional programmers have CS degrees. Math is much more a part of CS than it is as a part of my day as a working programmer. I should probably have made that more clear.

      Again, though, people keep bring up things you do with programming languages rather than programming itself. And again, I'm not saying that math isn't useful, but at it's core, there's very little math in the task of programming itself - that just happens to be one of the many things that general-purpose programming languages let you do.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    10. Re:Algebra is good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah -- you'll never solve a linear equation when doing financial math or use an exponent or logarithm while applying statistics or have to understand what a floating point number is as a programmer, so let's drop Algebra II entirely! No quadratic equation could possibly be useful for figuring out how to price a good, so why would every business ever need to have anyone who can do any kind of economic reasing?

      As for computer science, clearly no applied math is involved at the hardware level. It just works like.. um... anyway, say no to Algebra! Boo!

      Except for the things I personally use math for, it couldn't possibly be useful!

    11. Re:Algebra is good by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Programming is a tool, so is math.

      Your job doesn't require you to work on hard mathematical problems. It's not unusual. At least 50% of programmers basically do nothing more complicated than bean counting with databases.

      But there are programmers that use floats everyday. Not having any advanced math will limit you.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  13. Thanks. What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, lower the bar on higher education. Got it.

    Thanks, I'll take it under advisement.

    Could you explain your meaning with regard to the heating and cooling of an individuals character? I've never seen annealed used in this way. Perhaps you shouldn't use such big words.

  14. Math doesn't suck, you do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=math

    1. Re:Math doesn't suck, you do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This should have been modded Insightful. (Although granted, it was funny too.)

  15. Okay, so it makes some Americans feel bad... by ausekilis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So many here get their underwear riding up because they have to solve an abstract math problem?

    Okay, say we do drop Algebra and higher from the common curriculum. Then we're going to go even lower in the list of math rankings by country. Perhaps it's because of the way it's taught, not because of the material. I distinctly remember hating word problems because they were always so inane. "If the flag pole is 10 feet tall and the sun is at a 30 degree angle, how long is the shadow?". I also remember having the teacher assign 50 problems in one night (2 through 100, evens only since the answers to odds were in the back of the book). Now, with this common core nonsense (no idiot left behind), we are just cramming more of this crap down kids throats.

    What was lacking for me was the true application. I hated math growing up, and ended up being an engineer. It wasn't until I started to realize the cool things I could do that required math, such as tinkering in OpenGL, that I really started to latch on to it.

    I'm curious, how is it taught in other countries that routinely get higher rankings in math/science? Is it a matter of teaching? a matter of culture? How do the Japanese view math? The Germans? Chinese?

    1. Re: Okay, so it makes some Americans feel bad... by johnsmithperson123 · · Score: 1

      I agree- some word problems were absurd and anyone with actual logic would have qaushed them. Example: Q. Ally has a rowboat that costs 10 dollars plus n dollars a month. If Ally paid 200 dollars and Bob rented the boat for 12 months, how much did Charlie pay a month for his rowboat? A. Sorry but your question is illogical, and I can't say how much Charlie pays because of inadequate information. Grade. 0, did not comprehend question. This, gentlemen, is how math educators teach in America today.

    2. Re:Okay, so it makes some Americans feel bad... by arth1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      distinctly remember hating word problems because they were always so inane. "If the flag pole is 10 feet tall and the sun is at a 30 degree angle, how long is the shadow?"

      Those are the best kind of problems, because they test understanding. Using those instead of rote formulas is what other countries do and is one reason why they score so well.

      In your example case, it's not about whether you use the "right" formula, but whether you apply your knowledge to get a correct answer.

      The thought process could go something like:
      The flag pole, ground shadow and line from the end of the ground shadow to the top of the pole forms a triangle. The pole is 10', and the angle at the end of the shadow is 30 degrees.
      sine(30) is 0.5[*], so the flag pole height is half of the hypotenuse (distance between end of shadow and top of pole). So the hypotenuse is 20'. The cosine of 30 degrees is about 0.866[*], so the ground shadow will be about 0.866 times 20, or about 17.3'
      (Or alternatively, if not remembering what a cosine is, deduce that the opposite angle must be 60 degrees, and use sine(60) instead)
      Then the litmus test - does the answer seem reasonable? 30 degrees is the sun being rather low, so shadows are long. It seems reasonable that the shadow is almost twice as long as the height of the pole.
      No x, y, z needed. By all means, use them, but you should be able to calculate stuff like this in your head, at least to get an approximate answer.
      That's where we fail - our students memorize, they don't *understand*, so they can't apply the knowledge to real life. So you end up with ramps that are too steep for a wheelchair, or extend into the street, because someone didn't understand simple trig.

      [*] At least the 30/45/60 degree sines should be memorized, because they crop up so often. Much like pi and the square root of two, knowing the first couple of decimals comes in very handy. But even if you don't, there are sine tables, slide rules, calculators and computers.

    3. Re:Okay, so it makes some Americans feel bad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you assuming the pole is planted on a flat earth?
      Is the pole even on earth?
      What about a marble 1 cm in radius floating in space?
      How close are we to the sun? Radius of the sun?
      etc... etc...

      THAT is the problem with word problems. It becomes a test of 'guess what the author was thinking' when you formulate the question.

    4. Re:Okay, so it makes some Americans feel bad... by kwoff · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Meanwhile, apparently the number of American teens who excel at advanced math has surged... Not to mention, considering algebra and trigonometry "advanced" is just ludicrous.

    5. Re:Okay, so it makes some Americans feel bad... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      What was lacking for me was the true application.

      It's the same true application as art, music or writing. Sure they can be used for practical things, like selling shit and filling in forms, but that's not why we do them.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    6. Re:Okay, so it makes some Americans feel bad... by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Math rankings don't mean anything. What really matters is if students are learning USEFUL things, not just so you can maintain some highly dubious ranking. I went to Engineering school myself and most of the stuff I learned was non-useful.

    7. Re:Okay, so it makes some Americans feel bad... by pj2541 · · Score: 1

      The problem is not how math is taught in America, but by whom. At most k-12 levels, it is necessary to have a degree in teaching, rather than an understanding of the subject. And how do you get a degree in teaching? Generally by flunking out of every other curriculum that requires you to learn something. I know this does not apply to every teacher, there are some good ones out there, but the system is rigged to reward the incompetents, so it's full of them.

    8. Re:Okay, so it makes some Americans feel bad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Art, music, and writing are done because people enjoy it. You're going to have to do a lot of convincing to get anyone to believe that people do math because they enjoy it.

      Math is a means to an enjoyable end. Artistic endeavors are an enjoyable end (and they frequently require math).

    9. Re:Okay, so it makes some Americans feel bad... by arth1 · · Score: 2

      If you think there are reasonable assumptions, write them down in the answer.
      If you don't think they are reasonable assumptions, like, for instance, you don't think it's reasonable to assume that the ground is flat, then write that down too, and provide as many answers as you can for those situations.
      If you can't determine what would be reasonable assumptions, you aren't ready for the classes you're taking.

      In this case, it should lead to extra points for stating something like:
      Assumptions:
      This is a flag pole on Earth.
      The tip of the flag pole, base of the flag pole, and center of earth are on a line, or close enough to it not to affect our calculations to a significant degree.
      The sun's distance is so great that the rays are parallel enough to not affect the calculations to a significant degree.
      From this, it can also be assumed that the 30 degrees will not deviate whether measured at the flag pole or the end of the shadow.
      The height of the flag pole compared to the radius of the earth is insignificant enough that the curvature of the earth doesn't affect the calculation to a significant degree.
      The ground is assumed to be flat enough to not affect the calculations to a significant degree.
      1: The ground is assumed to be at a 90 degree angle to the flag pole.
      calculations follow
      2: The ground is assumed to not be at a 90 degree angle to the flag pole, but a variable x > 0, x 90.
      calculations follow, or a statement that this is beyond the understanding of the student or the current syllabus.

      To be able to not only make assumptions but articulate them is a rather important skill, and very much required for any engineering type problems.

    10. Re:Okay, so it makes some Americans feel bad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think, what GP meant by inane was that the problem did not mention practical application for the problem statement. Instead, a problem could be stated as: "Strong winds in Chicago typically cause rain at 30 to vertical. Windows are 54" tall. How far should a ledge extend to keep window sill dry. Ignore storm conditions and splash radius."

    11. Re:Okay, so it makes some Americans feel bad... by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

      I have also had people who are experts in their field and are terrible at teaching it. That's the problem, you need to know the subject AND how to teach it.

    12. Re:Okay, so it makes some Americans feel bad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sheesh, thanks for mansplaining the solution to a trivial trigonometry problem for us. We were all head-scratching over how to approach that one.

      they can't apply the knowledge to real life

      In fact, anyone can use a protractor and pencil to make a scale drawing, without knowing cos from sin and without knowing any algebra. This is a really bad example of why trig and algebra are needed in real life. We do scale drawings like this in about 4th grade.

    13. Re:Okay, so it makes some Americans feel bad... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You're going to have to do a lot of convincing to get anyone to believe that people do math because they enjoy it.

      Indeed, the idea of maths has become so perverted that people don't even seem to believe that it is an enjoyable activity in its own right. It's so far perverted that despite a rich history of people doing maths for curiosity and fun, you still find it unbelievable even though evidence abounds.

      Maths for its own sake dates back to the Babylonians, who pretty much invented maths.

      Math is a means to an enjoyable end.

      It is, and always has been also an enjoyable end in itself. Here are some quotes by Hardy:

      "A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas."

      "I am interested in mathematics only as a creative art."

      "The mathematician's patterns, like the painter's or the poet's must be beautiful; the ideas, like the colours or the words must fit together in a harmonious way. Beauty is the first test: there is no permanent place in this world for ugly mathematics."

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    14. Re:Okay, so it makes some Americans feel bad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is that word problem inane? Are you the idiot?

    15. Re:Okay, so it makes some Americans feel bad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, I get your answer and all, but isn't that assuming a flat-earth model?

    16. Re:Okay, so it makes some Americans feel bad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those are the best kind of problems, because they test understanding.

      The problem isn't the kind of problem, it's that they use crap which is so dry, boring, and far removed from the kids' daily life.
      Here's an illustration, a bit over the top of course, but it demonstrates the point.

      Boring version:
      Mike owns an investment firm, and has purchased a property asset which has 1,000 units for a price of $532,000. If he splits the assets into 15 individual packages, how much does he have to sell them for to get a 20% return?
      Bonus: If there is a 5% drop in market value, how much more would he have to sell each asset bundle for in order to make the same return?

      Fun version:
      Larry has a pound of weed, which he purchased for $1,238. If weighs his sacks out at three grams each, how much would he have to sell each bag for in order to make a 10% profit?
      Bonus: If he removes the large stems and seeds, reducing the weight by 2%, and it loses an additional 1% weight due to the buds drying out, by what percent does that reduce his profit?

      I guarantee that you will see a bunch of kids who are 'bad at math' more than willing to work feverishly to solve the second problem. But presented with the first one, they'll just give up and tell you "I don't need to know this crap."

    17. Re:Okay, so it makes some Americans feel bad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. It's developing the practice it takes to turn a plain language description of a problem into the necessary math. It's about creating the formula. If all people want to learn is how to crank numbers through a formula on a calculator that won't do any good in the real world where the formulas aren't written on the side of the flagpole.

    18. Re:Okay, so it makes some Americans feel bad... by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      I would say it also helps if they are passionate about teaching the subject. The 2 best teachers I had in high school were very passionate about their subjects. One taught European history and the Humanities courses, the other taught the computer programming courses and geometry. Both had PhDs in their primary field, CS and humanities, and really loved teaching the subjects and were wonderful classes.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    19. Re:Okay, so it makes some Americans feel bad... by orgelspieler · · Score: 1

      First of all, your example of a bad word problem is actually a good one. It gives you enough information to answer the problem, and it's actually something you can apply to the real world. I've measured a tree using it's shadow before. You are right that there are a lot of word problems that don't make sense, and it is getting worse.

      It's not just due to Common Core, though. Texas is not using Common Core, but their math curriculum has seriously gone down the tubes. My personal favorite is when they ask you "How did you come up with your answer?" When it is something trivial, like "Jimmy has 4 apples. Sarah has 2 apples. Jimmy says he has more apples than Sarah. Is he right? Why or why not?" WTF?! How do you even answer that: Yes, 4 is more than 2. The problem is, my kid is so smart that these ridiculously inane "explanations" are too simple for him to fathom bothering to write down.

    20. Re:Okay, so it makes some Americans feel bad... by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      Interesting commentary, and congrats getting a Score 5. Regarding word problems in algebra classes are tricky worded of some kind of puzzle. Maybe they should use examples like we have in the real world. Did you know all math begins as a word problem, i.e. the boss wants you to do something (analyze certain things, deliver a comparison table). Many schools like to use timed tests (aka "drill and kill") because they are easy to prepare, easy to implement and grade. I met this teacher where she likes to teach math using different shapes of jars and glasses to fill with dried beans (shows proportions).

      One thing that turned me on about math is graphs. These were cool, I can do all kinds of analysis of all kinds of stuff. And have fun making pretty pictures with the colored pens. Dammit, why didn't they give us that in elementary school?

      One thing that Americans have totally sucked at math including math majors is practical finances. Everybody has to get a job. Everybody has to pay for housing, food, gas, medical, taxes, whatever. OK there are some who don't or homeless, or figured out how to game the system, or simply choose crime for a career. But generally if they have good understanding of math for finances they can better see if they are living beyond their means, taking a loan they no way be able to repay, or they're about to be screwed by a huckster or financial advisor.

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    21. Re:Okay, so it makes some Americans feel bad... by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Sheesh, thanks for mansplaining the solution to a trivial trigonometry problem for us.

      You're a feminist? How cute!

      In fact, anyone can use a protractor and pencil to make a scale drawing, without knowing cos from sin and without knowing any algebra. This is a really bad example of why trig and algebra are needed in real life. We do scale drawings like this in about 4th grade.

      What part of "you should be able to calculate stuff like this in your head, at least to get an approximate answer" did you miss?

      This isn't about the problem itself, but being able to find a correct solution to this general type of problem. Sure, you can use a protractor, ruler, paper, pen and flat drawing surface, but there are situations where you don't have that handy. You have your brain though, despite your petulance against using it.
      And what do you do when a measured twice-scaled result won't be accurate enough where higher precision is needed? Unless you understand trigonometry or other mathematical ways of calculating a higher precision answer, you're going to be lost.

      Knowing essential mathematics and how to apply it shouldn't be considered arcane knowledge that people
      don't "need". I fully agree with Lazarus Long.

    22. Re:Okay, so it makes some Americans feel bad... by slashping · · Score: 1

      I assume the cow is spherical.

    23. Re:Okay, so it makes some Americans feel bad... by lgw · · Score: 1

      You're going to have to do a lot of convincing to get anyone to believe that people do math because they enjoy it.

      You have perhaps confused math for accounting? (Heck, I know people who enjoy that, too)

      Math - the abstract solving of problems, not the tedious adding up - is a thing of beauty and wonder. Of course people enjoy it, starting with almost all math professors, everyone who buys math-themed puzzle books, the million-and-a-half people who subscribe to Numberphile on YouTube.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    24. Re:Okay, so it makes some Americans feel bad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're going to have to do a lot of convincing to get anyone to believe that people do math because they enjoy it.

      This statement is beyond ignorant. Plenty of people enjoy math.

    25. Re:Okay, so it makes some Americans feel bad... by lgw · · Score: 1

      The primary "useful" thing one learns when getting an engineering degree is the Engineering Mindset. Mastering a bunch of abstract math is a core part of that. Doesn't matter if you use the math itself, the point is to teach abstract problem solving (which is a key component of practical problem solving).

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    26. Re:Okay, so it makes some Americans feel bad... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      I'm german.

      For all teachers I ever had, the math teachers and physics teachers where the best.

      I never did to do any homework or anything: they explained it, and that was it.

      I passed my minor in physics in university (3 years after finishing school) without doing more than reviewing the formulas and making a plan what I can take into the test.

      That was 25 years ago, and now I in fact have lost a few things in my mind.

      Those teachers where the best because: they cared, and they where good at teaching. I luckily had a lot of them, but particularly my math and physics teachers excelled at it.

      My math teacher in "high school" even invited our math class to her "pre"-wedding party ... I guess she was a little bit proud about us.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    27. Re:Okay, so it makes some Americans feel bad... by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      I distinctly remember hating word problems because they were always so inane. "If the flag pole is 10 feet tall and the sun is at a 30 degree angle, how long is the shadow?".

      That sounds like a great question! I cannot help but start to solve the problem just as soon as I read it.

      What was lacking for me was the true application.

      But that example was application! Perhaps the problem is that you wanted application in your area of interest? Maybe you liked skateboarding, so you wanted a skateboarding problem. For me, I liked video games and graphics. So math got really interesting for me when someone said "Make me a starfield where it looks like the stars are coming at you" and it didn't look right until I learned how to calculate perspective. Then projections... then matrices... then linear algebra... The problem is the textbook can't give you applications in your field. Another example is "If I shove you out of this second story window, how fast will you be going when you hit the ground?"

      But how do you make a textbook that is interesting to everyone? I think that's what teachers are for. Or maybe parents.

    28. Re:Okay, so it makes some Americans feel bad... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      When I was in college, there was a large (leftist) push to make sure all courses were "relevant". No-one thought to ask "relevant to what?"

      If the stuff you learned was "non-useful", the fault is almost certainly yours.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    29. Re:Okay, so it makes some Americans feel bad... by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      distinctly remember hating word problems because they were always so inane. "If the flag pole is 10 feet tall and the sun is at a 30 degree angle, how long is the shadow?"

      Those are the best kind of problems, because they test understanding. Using those instead of rote formulas is what other countries do and is one reason why they score so well.

      In your example case, it's not about whether you use the "right" formula, but whether you apply your knowledge to get a correct answer.

      The thought process could go something like: The flag pole, ground shadow and line from the end of the ground shadow to the top of the pole forms a triangle. The pole is 10', and the angle at the end of the shadow is 30 degrees. sine(30) is 0.5[*], so the flag pole height is half of the hypotenuse (distance between end of shadow and top of pole). So the hypotenuse is 20'. The cosine of 30 degrees is about 0.866[*], so the ground shadow will be about 0.866 times 20, or about 17.3' (Or alternatively, if not remembering what a cosine is, deduce that the opposite angle must be 60 degrees, and use sine(60) instead) Then the litmus test - does the answer seem reasonable? 30 degrees is the sun being rather low, so shadows are long. It seems reasonable that the shadow is almost twice as long as the height of the pole. No x, y, z needed. By all means, use them, but you should be able to calculate stuff like this in your head, at least to get an approximate answer. That's where we fail - our students memorize, they don't *understand*, so they can't apply the knowledge to real life. So you end up with ramps that are too steep for a wheelchair, or extend into the street, because someone didn't understand simple trig.

      [*] At least the 30/45/60 degree sines should be memorized, because they crop up so often. Much like pi and the square root of two, knowing the first couple of decimals comes in very handy. But even if you don't, there are sine tables, slide rules, calculators and computers.

      the thing is that there are lots of people with language problems rather than math problems, who could do the math in that problem if they could translate it fro the english; but for whatever reasons can't parse out the language to write down the equations they have to solve.
      the net effect is the same, but the problem isn't math literacy, it's dyslexia of some type.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  16. algebra is beautiful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    pansies.

  17. Robert Heinlein said it best... by VAXcat · · Score: 5, Funny

    Speaking as Lazarus Long "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."

    --
    There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
    1. Re:Robert Heinlein said it best... by smooth+wombat · · Score: 0

      While I can't remember that particular quote, let's go with the sentiment. At what point is one considered to be able to cope with mathematics? I took algebra in high school and a single stats course for one of my bachelors yet never use any of it in daily life. Even my programming classes (which I despised) had no use for maths.

      Can I determine the load limit on a bridge? Maybe. Give me the formulas and I'll take a shot at it. Is that considered coping or cheating because I don't know the formula off the top of my head?

      As to quotes from Heinlein and his works, I much prefer the following:

      Gwen, my love, if one tolerates bad manners, they grow worse. Our pleasant habitat could decay into the sort of slum Elli-Five is, with crowding and unmannerly behavior and unnecessary noise and impolite language. I must find the oaf who did this thing, explain to him his offense, give him a chance to apologize, and kill him.

      What a wonderful place it would be if this could be true. Civility would be at hand.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    2. Re:Robert Heinlein said it best... by Grog6 · · Score: 3, Funny

      If you can't set up a differential equation in 3d, you wasted the math classes you did take.

      Everything else is prep for that.

      Everything can be described as a differential equation, even if you don't know all the terms.

      --
      Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
    3. Re:Robert Heinlein said it best... by fyngyrz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I took algebra in high school and a single stats course for one of my bachelors yet never use any of it in daily life.

      Your understanding of daily life is no doubt better, though. You understand, probably intuitively, how things relate to one another better than you would without having been walked through these windows on the world.

      I won't go as far as the offered snippet does, but I am pretty confident that the more math you know, the more likely you are to gain an improved understanding of the world around you. I think that's entirely a good thing.

      Same thing for the scientific method. I'm not too worried about how much data you know about any one area of scientific endeavor, but if you actually have been taught and have understood the scientific method, the world is much more of an open book to you -- because you then have an open window on objective reality. You can draw the appropriate distinction between a baseless assertion and experimentally validated results; you're a lot less likely to be taken in by various scams, religions, and superstitions.

      Same thing for history. It isn't about preparing to repeat the battle of Hastings. It is about developing an overview of human nature. If you have a good overview, you can be more effective for yourself, for your family, as a positive force within your society, etc. If you don't, as the old saw says, you're probably going to just be repeating mistakes, or supporting others who are repeating mistakes.

      Learning isn't just about collecting facts and learning procedures. It's about building a big picture that actually represents the world you live in. The closer you can get to that, the more effective you can be, the more your choices can actually bring you closer to your goals, the better you get at winnowing the wheat from the chaff at every level.

      Finally, learning does not have to come from schooling. You can pursue it yourself. The autodidact can easily become better informed than the person who has been through a rote process designed to fit the average student. Most people aren't really comfortable in that role, but for those who are, the world can be a truly open book.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    4. Re:Robert Heinlein said it best... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Everything can be described as a differential equation, even if you don't know all the terms."

      No, you're wrong, sorry.

      There is a lot of mathematics beyond what you have stated.

      And in addition, it's perfectly easy to set up systems of DEs that are then impossible to solve.

    5. Re:Robert Heinlein said it best... by stanjo74 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Where are those mathematicians who wear shoes, bathe and keep a tidy house? This hasn't been my observation.

    6. Re:Robert Heinlein said it best... by all204 · · Score: 1

      I wish I had some mod points for you, alas I don't so I'll reply. I could not agree more with what you said about knowledge helping you understand the world. I have a CS degree, but my interests are much broader than that. I wound up minoring in history, have music classes, sociology, psychology and extra math under my belt in addition to all the normal mandatory classes a degree requires. It has helped me tremendously in that I have context for what is happening now in the world, and understanding people/behaviour. I would not trade that for anything. Even if I have forgot most of my calculus now haha. I wish more people would be open to this, too many have blinders up, often forced by attitudes within their own faculties. My academic adviser even questioned me on my choices of extra classes as it was not 'CS' enough. Still got my degree, I am good at what I do professionally, but I know more now than I would have if I would have listen to them... Although I know this is a big topic of debate, especially with some of my engineer friends haha.

      Cheers!

    7. Re:Robert Heinlein said it best... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Everything can be described as a differential equation, even if you don't know all the terms.

      Is e + pi transcandental?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    8. Re:Robert Heinlein said it best... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The biggest reason for pushing for higher standards in high school, is that these people are going to start voting and helping decide public policy. Lack of a solid, all-around education in math and science is how we end up with a lot of stupid shit. Without at least some exposure to those subjects, and some critical thinking skills, people end up believing all kinds of stupid shit because "some smart guy" told them it was true.

      Think about it like this. We are going to have an election coming up soon in our country. Many of the people who will be voting, will be doing so based on promises the candidates have made, even though a large portion of those promises are not even within the power of the President to deliver. Many people have little or no ability to actually read laws, or understand foreign policy, or how basic finances work.
      Know why we had a Housing Bubble, leading to the "Great Recession?" A bunch of crooked assholes took advantage of people who were too stupid to use basic math and figure out that no, you can't expect to make your Mortgage payment on a $200,000 house when you're only earning $45k a year, no matter what your 'credit score' says or the Mortgage Lender tells you.

      It doesn't matter if you're going to spend the rest of your life flipping burgers at McPuke's, you still need to know enough and think critically enough to call people out on their bullshit. If all we're going to teach in high school are "skill needed for jobs" then there's no point in even having high school for most kids- after the 8th grade ship them off to a trade school for a year and put them to work.
      But we've already seen that society, it ends up with two Castes - the Rich and Educated, vs. the Poor and Uneducated, and it becomes harder and harder for people to 'move up' in life.

    9. Re:Robert Heinlein said it best... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      For computer people. Math problems start getting interesting when they are 'impossible to solve'.

      We are not (all) mathematicians. Approximate solutions are useful. LP solvers are very useful applied math, even if I wouldn't want to write one myself.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    10. Re:Robert Heinlein said it best... by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Eternal wisdom. Right on the mark. Sure, advanced mathematics is something else, but very basic stuff like non-abstract algebra, elementary set-theory, boolean and 1st order logic, one-dimensional standard-space calculus, etc. should be within the grasp of any halfway smart and educated person.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    11. Re:Robert Heinlein said it best... by Grog6 · · Score: 1

      I only worry when I end up with infinities or zeros; that's where all the fun happens. :)

      Most of the equations I deal with is of the form:

      It this is happening, what would these things have to be?

      Said another way:
      The answer is 42; but what exactly is the question?

      --
      Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
    12. Re:Robert Heinlein said it best... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      If you don't see how your statistics course helps you understand the news, when there's a report of a poll that mentions "margin of error", something's wrong.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    13. Re:Robert Heinlein said it best... by bertramwooster · · Score: 1

      This post is insightful?

      Firstly, where is your evidencce that mathematicians don't wear shoes, bathe or keep a tidy house?

      Secondly, the quote in question says that "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." Not that a person who can cope with mathematics needs to wear shoes, bathe, and not make messes in the house.

    14. Re:Robert Heinlein said it best... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where are those mathematicians who wear shoes, bathe and keep a tidy house? This hasn't been my observation.

      He meant mathematicians that aren't house trained, of which I've met a few. Most are too the equation that's now on it's 50th page stuck on the wall to be bothered by simple human things, like using the toilet or going outside.

  18. School isn't job training by jbmartin6 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It only works if one assumes that this level of school is merely job training. Some could argue that education is about broadening knowledge and exercising the brain, not just 'how am I going to use this in real life?'

    --
    This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    1. Re:School isn't job training by Rogue974 · · Score: 2

      School is both and anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something.

      The problem is knowing when it changes. You initial schooling is gets you the broad range of knowledge and expands your mind so you can hopefully function better in society no matter what you do. At some point in time, school stops being about broadening your mind and becomes job training.

      So you have to know what school is being used for and when. Sometime in the high school time frame it when it starts transitioning into job training. Counselors start talking about are you on the college career path, ok, you need to take these classes to meet college requirement. You are not going to college, here are the requirements for a diploma, let's find where your interest lie so you can take classes.

      By the time you hit college, if you haven't transitioned to it being job training by Junior year, you are wasting time and money at that point. It really should be sooner than junior year in college in my opinion that you transition more towards the job training, but college is too expensive to not be talking about the return on investment of going.

      Education is great and expanding out mind and knowledge is wonderful and should be the life goal of every human being their entire life in my opinion, but there is a point when you stop paying high dollar to sit and listen to someone and you continue the pursuit on your own while working because the bills have to get paid.

    2. Re:School isn't job training by lbmouse · · Score: 0

      Ironically this is being proposed by a Poly Sci major.

    3. Re:School isn't job training by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This. I would not have been exposed to Algebra and Trig if it wasn't for the nuns insisting we learn it as part of our education. I finally found something I excelled in. -T

    4. Re:School isn't job training by sdoca · · Score: 1

      And your statement could also be used to argue that everyone should have music, art and drama in their curriculum all the way through high school. When I was in high school, calculus was a separate, optional course which I didn't take (but I did do art and music). I barely made it through the regular algebra/trig course. But I excelled at the stats courses I took in university and I learned logic in a philosophy course (which I think should be mandatory for everyone).

    5. Re:School isn't job training by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some could argue that education is about broadening knowledge and exercising the brain, not just 'how am I going to use this in real life?'

      That is fine if people did not need to work after graduation or dropping out. However, the public money should not be used to pay for education that has no practical use. Everything from reading skills to knowing history to even understanding philosophy to the point of basic debate skills has great practical value.

      The point of establishing an education system is to have an educated population. A standard minimum for thinking and communication for existing in society.

      But unless you are seeking a terminal or education degree the citizens in public education are not being trained to stay in the education system. You, I and our children are expected to go into the job market. That requires an even higher standard of skills in writing, the scientific philosophy and civics. In some places possibly even art, creativity or language. But certainly math.

      The world works on money. Accounting, the process of tracking money, is all math and often algebra. So a man or woman who don't know math don't know money. Historically people who don't know money are quickly and easily parted from theirs.

      To quote a pro-choice advocate here on Slashdot, if it can't do algebra it ain't yet human.

    6. Re:School isn't job training by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Job training is something you do at your job.
      If you're going to university with the mentality that once you get out you know everything there is to know about your prospective job, you will be in for a rude awakening. At best you will have some idea of where to find information. Maybe if you specifically find some job that requires you to calculate the exact terminating resistance needed to prevent reflection for some non-standard cable that will be the case.
      But if job training is what you want, you're better off going to work straight away.

    7. Re:School isn't job training by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And your statement could also be used to argue that everyone should have music, art and drama in their curriculum all the way through high school.

      You already are, you're just given a lot more choice in which specific ones you want to pursue. Music and Drama fall under the 'Performing Arts' category, and things like Painting, Drawing, and Sculpting fall under the 'Visual Arts' category. Shop (wood, metal, etc.) and other similar courses fall under the 'Practical Arts' category.
      And technically speaking, 'Athletics' falls under the broader category of 'Martial Arts', although that term doesn't get used because too many people assume it means doing Bruce Lee shit and punching stuff.

    8. Re:School isn't job training by DrJimbo · · Score: 1

      It only works if one assumes that this level of school is merely job training. Some could argue that education is about broadening knowledge and exercising the brain, not just 'how am I going to use this in real life?'

      I fully agree with you that school should be about broadening minds. I think that a statistics class like the one discussed in the fine article (which uses a real-world hands-on approach) would broaden minds much better than a class in algebra or calculus. I honestly think the world would be a much better place if more people had even a vague understanding of Bayesian probability and statistics. This really is much more important and relevant than algebra or calculus. It is not about job training, it is about perceiving and understanding the world around us.

      The fine article also discusses the underlying problem: math is often taught by people who don't understand or enjoy math. Teaching statistics poorly will be no better than teaching algebra or calculus poorly. Although the worst of the problem IMO is the teaching at the elementary school and middle school levels. When I was in 6th grade I was taught that the set of no apples was distinguishable from the set of no pears.

      There is also a problem with the teaching of calculus in college by math professors and grad students who are not interested in calculus. It seemed to me that if you didn't learn calculus in high school then you were screwed (at least at the university I attended). Years later when I was a grad student, some of the physics grad students ended up being TAs for the intro calculus course. The grades of the students shot way up. I think the reason was that calculus is extremely relevant to all physics grad students but is not of much interest to most math grad students.

      --
      We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
      -- Anais Nin
    9. Re:School isn't job training by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      By the time you hit college, if you haven't transitioned to it being job training by Junior year, you are wasting time and money at that point. It really should be sooner than junior year in college in my opinion that you transition more towards the job training, but college is too expensive to not be talking about the return on investment of going.

      You exhibit the assumption that GP argues against, i.e. that education should be job training.

      Granted, modern education is too expensive to devote solely to mind broadening educational pursuit for its own sake (for most). However, that is begging the question of the purpose of education all over again. Its only a "waste of time" because the cost has skyrocketed, and that is because it is being sold as an "investment" in future income.

      The problem is that job-training focused education actually de-values education generally by de-emphasizing exploration and discovery and stampeding students from one supposedly lucrative field to the next.

    10. Re:School isn't job training by Pfhorrest · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Poli". Not "poly". Short for "political science". Not "many sciences".

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    11. Re:School isn't job training by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      Really excellent points! Except, the set of no pears is in fact distinguishable from the set of no apples. They have different names. Ok sorry, dumb joke. Anyway, thanks, I am reconsidering my initial reaction.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    12. Re:School isn't job training by jenningsthecat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Granted, modern education is too expensive to devote solely to mind broadening educational pursuit for its own sake (for most).

      I agree one hundred percent. And I would ask "Why is it so expensive?". The professors I know don't make all that much money. Yes, the facilities are costly, and so are up-to-date equipment, books, etc. But it still seems to me that higher education costs MUCH more than the mere cost of keeping the institutions running.

      However, that is begging the question of the purpose of education all over again. Its only a "waste of time" because the cost has skyrocketed, and that is because it is being sold as an "investment" in future income.

      Yes. And instead of being viewed as an investment in future income, it should be viewed as an investment in future society, and therefore should be more heavily subsidized by society. Perhaps in return for that societal investment, students fresh out of college of university could spend a year or two 'giving back' in some capacity that would both extend their education and ease their transition into real-world paying jobs.

      The problem is that job-training focused education actually de-values education generally by de-emphasizing exploration and discovery and stampeding students from one supposedly lucrative field to the next.

      This probably is the result of our skewed aspirational values. We either conflate 'standard of living' and 'quality of life', or we judge the former to be somehow superior and more desirable. I think the increasing corporatization of society, (and of education), is largely to blame for these attitudes.

      --
      'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    13. Re:School isn't job training by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

      It only works if one assumes that this level of school is merely job training. Some could argue that education is about broadening knowledge and exercising the brain, not just 'how am I going to use this in real life?'

      YES, yes, a million times yes.

      Robots, computer, and computer-automated systems take over more and more jobs as time goes one.

      An education is preparation for a person to be an informed, independently thinking adult. It's necessary for any voting-based governance model to work over the long term.

      HS graduates are not going to get jobs in sewing-machine sweatshops. The educational system, with its organization based on preparation for factory work, is outmoded by decades. If young HS graduates expect jobs, but can't find one, they will become disenfranchised.

      Better, brig back the arts, music, debate, gym, and other 'non-essential' types of courses that have been eliminated in favor of high schools churning out code monkeys. The future has no place for kids educated in this manner. Change their expectations, and their personal valuation of critical thought, self-expression, or athletic competition—or else we are all in for a big(ger) problem in a couple of decades.

  19. No one needs algebra... by NReitzel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Nobody needs algebra. There are plenty of jobs at McDonald's and algebra is just a waste.

    --

    Don't take life too seriously; it isn't permanent.

    1. Re:No one needs algebra... by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

      I bought something at McDonald's and the total came to something and 35 cents. I gave the cashier the bills, a quarter and a dime. She insisted on giving me a nickel back as change. She insisted that a quarter and a dime added up to 40 cents. I finally took the nickel just to end the conversation.

    2. Re:No one needs algebra... by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      You let me know when the typical job at McDonalds provides a living wage, m'kay?

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    3. Re:No one needs algebra... by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Doubtful. At McDonalds all the change is returned by the change machines, not the cashier. This is to reduce fraud and mistakes.

    4. Re:No one needs algebra... by jfdavis668 · · Score: 2

      When I give her a quarter and a dime, and she types 40 cents into the machine, it will say return 5 cents.

    5. Re:No one needs algebra... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You let me know when the typical McDonalds job is worth a living wage, m'kay?

    6. Re:No one needs algebra... by danbob999 · · Score: 1

      Yeah or Verizon. Oh wait...

    7. Re:No one needs algebra... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is a living wage. Five people in an apartment plus government benefits (The Walmart subsidy).

    8. Re:No one needs algebra... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they want a single living wage then they should learn algebra. Fast food is not for living on, neither nutritionally or financially, but you can absolutely live on the wages if you live with 3 other people who are also working there.

      While advanced algebra may not be particularly useful in your day to day life (though I have used it more than a few times) it is still a very well defined, logical process. It's really not hard people just see math and say they can't do it without even trying. If you can't figure something like that out you aren't really useful in advancing the world. You're primary purpose it to provide support services for people who are smarter or more driven. You are not entitled to a comfortable life or living alone just because you're alive. In fact, as harsh as it might sound, the world doesn't even need you at all since it's over populated and you are easily replaced..

    9. Re:No one needs algebra... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps the change is returned that way at the few McDonald's you may frequent, but the ones in my neighborhood do not have "change machines".

    10. Re:No one needs algebra... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You let me know when the typical job at McDonalds provides a living wage, m'kay?

      How is he supposed to calculate what he needs for a living wage if he can't solve a fucking story problem?

    11. Re:No one needs algebra... by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      I bought something at McDonald's and the total came to something and 35 cents. I gave the cashier the bills, a quarter and a dime. She insisted on giving me a nickel back as change. She insisted that a quarter and a dime added up to 40 cents. I finally took the nickel just to end the conversation.

      This isn't necessarily a math problem per se, since you guys use arbitrary names instead of "10 cents" or "5 cents". The quarter is somewhat more tolerable, but even that might cause problems here. Remember those school problems like 1/4 + 1/10, wouldn't you rather do 0.25 + 0.10 when you're stressed out in work?

      BTW, in Europe we don't even have a "quarter" denomination, the smaller coins are 50, 20, 10 and 5 cents for even easier math.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    12. Re:No one needs algebra... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently you would benefit from a course in basic logic...

    13. Re:No one needs algebra... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That doesn't require algebra, that is basic math and should be learned by age 6.

    14. Re:No one needs algebra... by lgw · · Score: 1

      You let me know when the typical job at McDonalds provides a living wage, m'kay?

      Many people manage. Not on what they pay in the first year, and not living alone on only that pay, but it works. Sucks having to live with roomates and only being able to afford the basics, but it's not starving in the street.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    15. Re:No one needs algebra... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      The wages pay the rent in your shared apartment. The dumpster provides your food.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    16. Re:No one needs algebra... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This won't matter in a few years when they all get replaced by automation because of the moron millennials demanding $15 an hour for flipping burgers. Now instead of six people being employed for $8/hr, five of who don't understand math, the one guy who does understand math will be the single human employed to keep the automation running.

  20. Hard things by discojohnson · · Score: 1

    We should probably also dump gym since most students are not going to be in the NFL. While we're at it let's drop learning some Shakespeare, practicing arts, learning world geography, and hearing history. Mike Judge really is the prophet!

  21. Needed by arth1 · · Score: 1

    "We are really destroying a tremendous amount of talentâ"people who could be talented in sports writing or being an emergency medical technician, but can't even get a community college degree," says Hacker. "I regard this math requirement as highly irrational."

    I would prefer EMTs to be able to think mathematically, and be able to extrapolate in the head whether it's safe to administer emergency medication based on prior intake, or whether emergency evacuation is needed, or a boatload of other stuff that depends on understanding maths beyond adding numbers.

    Sports writing? Similar. You should at least be familiar with statistics, and how asymptotes work. But I'm not as fired up about those being math-stupid as an EMT being so.

    1. Re:Needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      EMTs don't administer meds (with rare exception, and in those cases it's pretty straightforward using autoinjectors,etc.), though EMT scope varies by state. Generally, you have to be an EMT-A or Paramedic to do IVs and advanced meds. When I was doing my semester-long 8 credit hour EMT training at one of the top schools in the country for it, they were about to drop advanced math from the paramedic program because they thought it wasn't needed and the time would be better spent on classes like cardiology. Drug dosages are pretty simple, it's multiplication based on estimated bodyweight in kilograms. Pediatrics is more complicated and precise.

      Unfortunately, paramedics don't get to do critical thinking as much as you would think, as there's a large contingent of lazy ones -- firefighters for example, who become paramedics for career advancement and don't use the advanced skills enough to be proficient -- who fight the against it. Protocols (standing orders from a doctor to paramedics saying "when this, do this") are all too often narrowly written. Personally, I would like to see paramedics become out-of-hospital/field nurses with BS degrees, but there's too many who don't want to progress and are happy delivering life-saving treatment for McDonald's wages and becoming obese due to horrible nutrition and hours.

    2. Re:Needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm in a paramedic program right now.

      It scares me knowing how many of the people (many just kids) can not do medical math. Simple calculations, like "given the mass m of drug x in v volume of solution y, give the concentration in mg/mL", "calculate the drip rate...". It isn't even algebra or trigonometry, it's simple grade school multiplication and division.

      What is scariest is that it's the understanding of a given situation (if you have a mass m of a drug in v volume of a solution and you need to administer it over t time using a drip set where 10 drops is 1mL, how many drops/min do you need to administer?) that most of my fellow students don't have and then can't apply the proper problem solving skills.

  22. Stop passing on the hate by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The only reason why maths is hard is adults keep telling children that it's hard.

    --
    Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
    1. Re:Stop passing on the hate by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      Just as not everyone can pick up a pen or brush and draw well, and not everyone is physically coordinated, and not everyone is spiritually inclined, not everyone can manipulate mathematical abstracts comfortably or well.

      We're not all the same. We're not all special butterflies either, but we sure don't all have the same intellectual resources.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    2. Re:Stop passing on the hate by Gazzonyx · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Indeed; after I dropped out of college I worked full time where I did my internship during college. One day I had a geometry problem that I was writing code for and I couldn't recall too much from my last geometry course but I still had the book. I was at the office most of that night tearing through the book and it hit me like a ton of bricks; math is really a lot of fun! I've been meaning to email my high school geometry instructor to tell her about the event since I was probably her worst student and she'd get a thrill out of the story.

      I guess like one of the central themes of Tom Sawyer, if you are told something is hard work, it will be. Conversely, if you're told it's fun, that also rings true. For instance, most games these days are endless grinds sold as fun and we pay for the novelty of getting another chore in life. I actually hate most games until I buckle down and try to make the grind fun. What in the world is wrong with me?

      --

      If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.

    3. Re:Stop passing on the hate by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 2

      The only reason Math is hard is because if you don't grasp the early concepts, you'll be forever lost in the advanced ones.

      If you want the kiddos to do well in Math, you need to make sure they understand the basics early on. Put the effort it early, and the rest will fall into place
      much more easily.

    4. Re:Stop passing on the hate by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's a given, but a lot of kids are primed to think maths is hard before they even start.

      --
      Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
    5. Re:Stop passing on the hate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "... probably her worst student and she'd get a thrill out of the story."

      No, she wouldn't give a shit. You were were just another punk in a long line of meaningless annoying children. Move on.

    6. Re:Stop passing on the hate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only reason Math is hard is because if you don't grasp the early concepts,

      The problem is that we start schooling with number theory. The right thing to do would be to start with group theory.

    7. Re:Stop passing on the hate by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 1

      That's great to hear. I have a friend who remembered being bad at mathematics, but he recently went over his old school reports and found out he actually did okay in maths. He's now on his way to a PhD decades after. Working at it and becoming good at maths eventually is very rewarding.

      Personally, I don't recall ever being told maths was hard. It was expected of me that I would work at it until I got it and that it was never out of my reach. So I never really thought of maths as hard. It's just something that needed to be worked on and for me was no different from learning a musical instrument or learning how to play a sport

      --
      Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
    8. Re:Stop passing on the hate by Gazzonyx · · Score: 1

      For what it's worth, her son graduated with me and we played soccer together. She was also a neighbor of mine. I didn't really expect someone to so much emotional investment in the least important part of the story. You must be a math teacher.

      --

      If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.

    9. Re:Stop passing on the hate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So she's a family friend then. Much more than a teacher, and so yes, obviously she'd love to hear from you.

    10. Re:Stop passing on the hate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plus certain Anglophones insist on making children learn more than one of them.

    11. Re:Stop passing on the hate by chihowa · · Score: 1

      Much of that comes from the fact that math is hard to the teachers who end up teaching the very first math classes that kids take. They may not explicitly tell the kids that math is hard, but they project it very clearly. Thankfully, my mathematician mother taught me much of what I needed to know before I "learned" it in school.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    12. Re:Stop passing on the hate by FrankSchwab · · Score: 1

      This is the most cogent argument of the bunch.

      I'm a really good engineer. Math and practical computer science comes easily to me, as do many of the word arts. But I spent years trying to gain proficiency at several different musical instruments (and by proficiency, I mean playing recognizable melodies at reasonably consistent tempos, not even necessarily reaching the level of "bad bar band") , and never could. My brain was incapable of it. Physical Chemistry in college was another killer for me - I got my D and was ecstatic.

      Algebra seems to be that breaking point for a percentage of the population - they can be reasonably successful at math up to this point, but fail utterly here despite working hard to understand. Should they be relegated to "High School Dropout" as a result?

      --
      And the worms ate into his brain.
    13. Re:Stop passing on the hate by MrKrillls · · Score: 1
      But!!!!! So what? Another point of view is that math may be the first place in someone's life where a bit of hard work is the only way to get through a problem. One of my best teachers in high school, an Aussie, put it directly that of course, the problem you don't get will be like hitting a brick wall, and only perseverance will get you through.

      Work.

      Bless him. He was the first, most honest teacher I had, regarding powering through problems I didn't get. The difficulty isn't the issue, it's getting the message through to students that sometimes with math (and other things) total failure is just the first step to mastery.

      --
      Don't step on the baby.
    14. Re:Stop passing on the hate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as we can all agree... some of us are indeed special butterflies.

    15. Re:Stop passing on the hate by kheldan · · Score: 1

      Anything truly worth doing is hard, and avoiding something because it takes effort just promotes overall laziness. We don't need more people in this world with lazy brains, it's bad enough that there are so many people with lazy bodies.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    16. Re:Stop passing on the hate by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      I've been meaning to email my high school geometry instructor to tell her about the event since I was probably her worst student and she'd get a thrill out of the story.

      Stop putting it off and do it! She might be retired or gone before you know it and you'll lose your chance.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    17. Re:Stop passing on the hate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maths is hard

      On the other hand, Englishes am much difficulter for you.

    18. Re:Stop passing on the hate by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      The only reason Math is hard is because if you don't grasp the early concepts, you'll be forever lost in the advanced ones.

      If maths isn't hard, then it's not maths, it's cranking the handle. If you're finding it easy, then you're just doing mindless churn and should move on to something more interesting!

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    19. Re:Stop passing on the hate by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      The only reason why maths is hard is adults keep telling children that it's hard.

      You have two choices:
      Math is hard.
      Maths are hard.
      You can't have your cake and eat it too.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    20. Re:Stop passing on the hate by dcollins · · Score: 1

      More specifically: U.S. elementary-school teachers are the weakest at math, and the most hateful about math, of our entire college-going population. This suggests that we really need math-specialist elementary teachers like every other modernized country.

      MadMath: Who Has the Math Anxiety?

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    21. Re:Stop passing on the hate by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      That is actually true with so may things. For example gravity. Gravity only sucks because everyone says it does. If we all agreed that it didn't it then we would fly right off the face of the Earth!

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    22. Re:Stop passing on the hate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mathematics are a religion, like any others :-)
      When you will grew older, you will connect the dots, and get the large view.

    23. Re:Stop passing on the hate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So I have zero artistic ability because I was told as a child that drawing is hard? Probably explains why I'm so bad at plumbing to huh.

      Genius.

    24. Re:Stop passing on the hate by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Well learning the basics is kind of a bitch as so much of it is boring and wrote memorization. With my oldest so that he gets them I have been practicing the basic addition and subtraction and just doing the basic math facts generates more outrage from him that one would expect. Yet instead if I do a much longer, number of additions and subtractions wise, simplified one time pad decrypt or encrypt this message problem he will happily do it and won't bitch at all.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    25. Re:Stop passing on the hate by orgelspieler · · Score: 1

      No, the biggest reason math is hard is because math teachers are forced to use really stupid curricula that their parents don't/can't understand. My son got counted incorrect for answering a word problem "3 x 5 = 15". The teacher would only accept "5 x 3 = 15". This is not an exaggeration. He ended up missing 3 of 8 problems that way. I got a perfect 800 on the math SAT, graduated with honors with a minor in mathematics, and use calculus and difference equations on a regular basis at work. But I would have about a B- in my son's math elementary school math class.

    26. Re:Stop passing on the hate by orgelspieler · · Score: 1

      Before I get any smarmy comments on my grammar: "their parents" = "the parents of their students". It is common for teachers to call the children their children (or kids), and the children's parents their parents.

    27. Re:Stop passing on the hate by chihowa · · Score: 1

      That's a very enlightened message that you'd expect from someone who has found some level of mastery of math. However, the very first math teachers that you're expected to encounter are quite likely not among that set. Overcoming poor teaching at the early stages requires a spark of insight or very good follow-up teaching. Hard work along the wrong trajectory may get you a passing grade, but doesn't gain you an actual understanding of the subject.

      If your first few teachers insist that learning math is just a matter of memorizing a huge number of cryptic and arcane rules (or worse, actual numerical answers like multiplication tables), and they even treat arithmetic and basic algebra like that, you're going to have a hell of a time gaining any appreciation for how math actually works.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    28. Re:Stop passing on the hate by lgw · · Score: 1

      Kids also need to learn that they can succeed at hard things, so maybe that's OK.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    29. Re:Stop passing on the hate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been meaning to email my high school geometry instructor to tell her about the event since I was probably her worst student and she'd get a thrill out of the story.

      No doubt, she'll love to learn how she's such a terrible teacher she can't even motivate her students to work at something they would find fun.

    30. Re:Stop passing on the hate by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      That is actually much more insightful than the +5 gives you credit for.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    31. Re:Stop passing on the hate by irrational_design · · Score: 1

      I think this is really true. I'm good at math and I come from a family of engineers, doctors, physicists, scientists, etc. My wife on the other hand is not so good at math (after she flunked the remedial math course in college three times they tested her and labeled her math disabled and gave her a pass). Some of our kids do great at math, others can't solve an equation to save their life. Likewise, some of the kids are great artists and writers and musicians, and the others not so much. I've learned that not everyone can be proficient at everything. Unfortunately trying to help the math-disadvantaged with their math homework is a painful experience.

    32. Re:Stop passing on the hate by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 1

      Not everyone is American. Maths in the UK and Australia is a singular noun, not a plural. You similarly don't say "mathematics are hard".

      --
      Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
    33. Re:Stop passing on the hate by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      So breathing isn't worth doing?

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    34. Re:Stop passing on the hate by MrKrillls · · Score: 1

      Yes! A good foundation is everything.

      --
      Don't step on the baby.
    35. Re:Stop passing on the hate by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

      The only reason why maths is hard is adults keep telling children that it's hard.

      Talking Barbie told me that "Math is hard!"

    36. Re:Stop passing on the hate by kheldan · · Score: 1

      Only for you, apparently; I suggest you stop doing it immediately.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  23. While we're at it... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 4, Insightful
    ... let's remove history and literature classes as well. As an Engineer, I found those humanities-oriented subjects to be too difficult to master and I have no use for them in my engineering career now.

    .
    Why even bother having school at all. It would be a lot easier to just play throughout your childhood.

    1. Re:While we're at it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then after some time I prayed God the Father to bring me back to childhood. And he did it. Thank God the father.

  24. A view I've held for long time by khakipuce · · Score: 2

    Apart from algebra being an intellectual hurdle to be jumped which may help separate people academically I have thought this for about the last 30 years, and no I didn't "flunk" maths. As a matter of course we don't teach people medicine or geology or Latin, these are specialisms which people with an interest study as they refine their possible future choices. So why algebra? I am an engineer in an advanced engineering company writing engineering software and I "do maths" about once a year at most. Yes there are people here who do a lot more than me but there are also people who do a lot less so why does the average Joe need to know about quadratic equations?

    The suggestion to study statistics seems very sensible, it might help people understand when the politicians are lying...

    --
    Art is the mathematics of emotion
  25. The case for a more competent school system! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Algebra II, which includes polynomials and logarithms [...] drives dropouts at both the high school and college levels.

    This is more a testament to a rotten school system than to the inherent difficulty of the subject matter or to the stupidity of the students.

    Don't get me wrong -- I'm all for discussing the necessity of this or that subject, but at the end it doesn't matter that much. Learning must be *fun*, *more fun* and *even more fun* and make an effective use of the student's (very precious at that age) time. The "what" is secondary (it's about learning learning anyway: the world's going to change at an ever crazier pace anyway. Statistics? Pfeh. Deep neuronal networks today. What'll be it tomorrow? No clue!).

    We fucking owe that to our kids. It's the least we can try, since we're leaving the world in such a dire state to them :-(

  26. When I picture theend result of this... by VAXcat · · Score: 3, Funny

    I picture Justin Long playing the doctor from the movie "Idiocracy"....

    --
    There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
  27. Math is important. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Math standards must already be dropping of polynomials aren't covered until Algebra II...

    Apparently what I was learning in 7th grade is now the standard for high school (granted my math education was from left over text books that were part of a university of chicago educational experiment that pushed more complicated math earlier by focusing more on new material and less on review, which just meant that the majority of high school (out side of geometry) was review... and the placement tests for what math class I got in high school wasn't even based on math...

    But I've used systems of equations (or linear algebra) in my job, I've used boolean algebra and had to explain the concept of a karnaugh map to my co-workers at we defined logical restrictions to identify valuable data in large datasets.
    I made months worth of work for co-workers take hours because I understood the math to turn the problem into one of mathmatics and then solve the mathematics rather than using trial and error, and how the data feels to figure out what is right and what is wrong...

    That said I rarely use calculus in my day to day job, I've rarely come across a need for it (though as I type this I can see the need for optimization in some of the projects I've under taken, perhaps that level of understanding for both the math and the problem were beyond me.)

  28. Calculus is poorly taught by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I teach calculus as an adjunct, and am completely convinced that AP calculus should be Li,tied to 5% of high school,students, as what AP teaches is not the calculus, but a set of increasingly difficult card tricks that gives you the magical sequence to get an A in the class and a 4 on the test, but how the hell do you understand the calculus without limits. On the other hand, without a basic understanding of the words exponential. Linear, logarithmic, and some more complex ideas like inversely proportional, you end up with fucking idiots in congress who have no tools to understand the world around hem. Go ahead and understand finance without a decent understanding of exponential functions. Hell, even statistics aren't statistics without understanding enough integral calculus to understand probability distributions.

    1. Re:Calculus is poorly taught by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are so right. Indeed the limit concept is subtle, very important, and not emphasized. It should be introduced in pre-calculus. You should not attempt to apply rules of differentiation without understanding how they are derived, at least a little.

  29. Just what America needs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More poets and philosophers. I heard Donald Trump talking about this just the other day.

    1. Re:Just what America needs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More poets and philosophers. I heard Donald Trump talking about this just the other day.

      Actually, it was Nancy Pelozi that advised all Americans to go on welfare (government dependency) and become writers and poets. Because all good liberals know that what we need, more than anything, is more misspelled crap bereft of any grammar and / or punctuation whatsoever, flowing out of America's basements.

    2. Re:Just what America needs by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      More poets and philosophers. I heard Donald Trump talking about this just the other day.

      Actually, it was Nancy Pelozi that advised all Americans to go on welfare (government dependency) and become writers and poets. Because all good liberals know that what we need, more than anything, is more misspelled crap bereft of any grammar and / or punctuation whatsoever, flowing out of America's basements.

      These days its called 'blogging' and apparently its a career path.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    3. Re:Just what America needs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it was Nancy Pelozi that advised all Americans to go on welfare (government dependency) and become writers and poets. Because all good liberals know that what we need, more than anything, is more misspelled crap bereft of any grammar and / or punctuation whatsoever, flowing out of America's basements.

      These days its called 'blogging' and apparently its a career path.

      Yeah, a "career path" to complete obscurity, insecurity and total poverty. Brilliant.

  30. I see the argument, but its deeper than just math by nimbius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    disclosure: Im a systems engineer, and have never had trouble with basic algebra.

    in the US at least, we seem to have this fever-dream mentality when it comes to education and employment. Namely, that we presume so long as everyone can "code" and learn maths, that they can one day successfully achieve gainful employment and become a productive member of the workforce to lead a meaningful life. We assume little johnny needs to code because thats what his employers want, but it couldnt be further from the truth. Most businesses want a few engineers, but they dont want to spend a lot of money on them. They want the nuts-and-bolts sorted out so that reproduceability obsoletes them and permits them to hire cheaper workers because truthfully business is a job-creator as a last resort.

    the issue we need to sort out as a nation is how we value work in general, whichs seems to have gone off the rails since the early nineties and NAFTA/CAFTA. Cooks, carpenters, welders, EMT's, and auto mechanics are all incredibly important --and in some cases in high demand -- professions for people to consider. However the pay and hours in these fields is a form of misery not seen since the old testament. You cant raise a family on any of these careers, and for some of them retirement isnt really an option. we use education as a whipping stick for these careers to insist theyre worth "less" than they really are, or at least so we can justify it to ourselves. If you want to see this self-fulfilling prophecy of underemployment in the real world, just look at the trucking industry. Perpetually understaffed, underpaid long-haul tractor-trailer drivers that get no vacation, sick leave, or retirement fund yet are in such ridiculous demand that most trucking companies like Dart or Swift will pay the driver to finish their CDL education. The demand is so high, drivers with a good record can quit a job and be hired at another in the same day.

    So, If you want to obsolete maths like algebra, I propose we obsolete the puritanical tradition of shitting on trades that dont always rely on it. And while we're at it, lets take a sobering step back and realize that not everyone needs to code to lead a fulfilling life.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  31. Everyone's a winner if the plank is low enough by ugen · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Idiocracy was not meant to be a documentary, nor a roadmap for the future.

    1. Re:Everyone's a winner if the plank is low enough by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      ...And yet, it still is.

    2. Re:Everyone's a winner if the plank is low enough by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Idiocracy was not meant to be a documentary, nor a roadmap for the future.

      I'm pretty sure that "Ass" is actually an Adam Sandler "comedy".

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  32. One-size-fits-all by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 0

    The problem is one-size-fits-all approaches. Humans aren't uniform in interest or ability.

    I took all of those math classes in high school, yet I've very recently used algebra to convert a recipe (volume and percent butterfat in various milk/cream measures) and trig for laying out a fix to a roof leak. Neither are non-useful for daily life nor restricted in usefulness to engineers. To be sure I use probability and statistics almost daily to make life decisions.

    At the same time, nobody should be made to drop out because of an academic hurdle while they have any other knowledge pursuit interests. Learning shouldn't be run on a factory model.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    1. Re:One-size-fits-all by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Exactly. There's no reason for every student in highschool to be learning calculus, algebra, or statistics. When I went to school in Ontario about 20 years ago. We only needed 2 or 3 math courses in total. Same goes for science. There's little point in learning basic science and math if you aren't going to be using them in your future career.

      Here's the current requirements for graduating school in Ontario

        4 English (1 credit per grade) *
        1 French as a second language
        3 mathematics (1 at the Senior Level)
        2 science
        1 Canadian geography (Grade 9)
        1 Canadian history (Grade 10)
        1 Arts credit (any of visual arts, music, drama, dance)
        1 health and physical education
        0.5 credit in civics
        0.5 credit in career studies

      1 English, French second language, or Co-Op
      1 in PE, Arts, Business, or Co-Op
      1 in science, computers, tech (auto, wood, etc.), or Co-Op
      Max 2 Co-Op

      12 Other Credits in whatever you want
      40 hours of community involvement activities

      Basically, we make sure the students are very literate, that they can read and write at a good level in the English Language. Then they get some basic science and math education. And they have a lot of other credits they can use to pursue their interests. If you actually want to go to university to take engineering, you're still going to have to take calculus, algebra, and a bunch of science courses. But for those that want to become accountants, science isn't going to be high up on their course list, and for those that want to do car mechanics, algebra and calculus aren't going to get in their way. We have a good graduation rate, and the students seem to be doing quite well when they get out into the real world.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    2. Re:One-size-fits-all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am also from Ontario. That grade 11 math course you need to graduate, it's about equivalent to Algebra II. There are separate versions of it for kids planning to go to university, to a community college, or straight into the workforce, and it's not seen as a problem because our high school graduation and university graduation rates look nothing like Mississippi's (no, I haven't looked it up).

      It is still sometimes the case that math courses are used as filters for university programs. As important as access is, it's much better to direct a student elsewhere than to take them in and flunk them after two years in the program.

    3. Re:One-size-fits-all by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      40 hours of community involvement activities

      That is so foul. Hey slave, go out and perform 40 hours of government-approved charity work.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  33. Reducing the academic burden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So, reducing the math burden on students is okay, but reducing the liberal arts burden on STEM students isn't?

  34. Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics ... by Anonymous Coward · · 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 A. Heinlein

  35. The case against 'knowledge' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would you go to a doctor who could not understand logarithms and polynomials in pre-med or med-school? Sure, why not? Lets make math an elective - a choice - of math or something like astrology studies. Maybe your doctor knows a logarithm or two, but do you really trust them to read your palm without elective training? Gaze into an FDA-approved crystal ball?

    Heck no.

    I want a MD who knows his leaches!

  36. Solving the problem by ignoring the results. by lorinc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You don't solve a problem by simply ignoring the results or breaking the measuring tool.

    Basic algebra, trigonometry and calculus are not difficult. If the students can't handle it, they are dumb, even if that doesn't please you. End of the story.

    They are dumb, and that's a problem. You're not going to solve the problem by bending reality and saying basic abstract maths are difficult and that they are not dumb. You are just ignoring the problem, which may (will) have unintended consequences in the future. Actually, if you want to solve the problem, you should invest more energy in the process that is failing. That could be more hours, less student per teacher, or researching a new pedagogy that makes the acquisition of such simple and fundamental concepts more successful. Or anything else that doesn't imply lowering the expected outcome.

    It has nothing to do with the jobs they will do in 30 years, simply because nobody can predict that. You are just promoting the race to the bottom.

    1. Re:Solving the problem by ignoring the results. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the students can't handle it, they are dumb

      If a handful of students can't handle it, they're dumb. If so many students fail to handle it that you're seriously proposing giving it up, you're a dumb teacher.

    2. Re:Solving the problem by ignoring the results. by gstovall · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Basic algebra, trigonometry and calculus are not difficult. If the students can't handle it, they are dumb, even if that doesn't please you. End of the story.

      Not difficult for YOU, you mean.

      I love math, and I always aced math classes. I LOVED differential equations in college. I tried to transfer my love of math and science to my children. Two children who are good at math, and they were valedictorians. Another is a high school English teacher. :) I have a fourth child who tested as gifted, but she has extreme difficulty with math at the level of Algebra I and beyond. She repeated Agebra I three times in high school; I finally had to get a variance from the state just so she could graduate. She has taken College Algebra three times and done poorly at it, despite tutoring. She does poorly at foreign languages, failing both Spanish and German. However, she does well in her other classes -- top of the class in other subjects.

      So, she's not dumb, but she has some kind of learning disability in math and language. Perhaps some kind of a trade school that specializes in her talents would have been a better option -- but the career she is shooting for demands a college degree, so she perseveres.

    3. Re:Solving the problem by ignoring the results. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      Basic algebra, trigonometry and calculus are not difficult. If the students can't handle it, they are dumb, even if that doesn't please you. End of the story

      Depends on how bad the teaching is.

      I used to think like you. Then I agreed to tutor a friend's kid as a favour (I was staying as a guest at her house for over 2 weeks). The kid was not dumb, but not clearly one of the mathematically gifted sorts who just figures out the system (no matter how badly it's explained), so in other words, normal.

      The quality of the teaching is absolutely dreadful. The cirriculum see designed to suck any sense out of it at all and replace insight and understanding with rote memorisation of vast numbers of "rules" to be "applied". The way you know which one to apply is to basically be clever enough to know it or guess and hope.

      For example, he had temporarily forgotten well, not exactly Pythagorus' rule, but some bastardised version of it stated in an ugly cod vector notation. So I took him through, "ok, close the book let's figure it out from scratch".

      He was *astounded*. He actually had no idea that figuring out something like Pythagorus' theorum was something that could be done never mind done relatively easily. As far as he knew it was just one of a long list of mindless rules you were meant to apply for some reason or another.

      In fact when it came to maths, the whole concept of figuring stuff out was utterly foreign to him. All he knew of it was you are showed a rule to apply to a certain kind of problem then you apply it a bunch of times and then move on.

      The whole meaning of maths, that is that there are patterns that stem from the basic "sense" of your system and that you can work out things and actually prove them had some how gone missing entirely. In other words his maths education had been completely devoid of actual maths.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    4. Re:Solving the problem by ignoring the results. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget to account for laziness. Often times, the brightest are some of the least motivated.

    5. Re:Solving the problem by ignoring the results. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, you solve problems by throwing money at it rather than determining if the solution is searching for a problem to solve. 30 years ago, was advanced math more useful for the broad swath of jobs? So we should continue on this track on the off chance that 60 years later everyone will need to know calculus? What is the ROI on everyone having to learn calculus? Is it self-satisfaction for mathematicians or is it actually accomplishing something useful and practical for society?

    6. Re:Solving the problem by ignoring the results. by null+etc. · · Score: 1

      Basic empathy, and ability to conceptualize people with dramatically different skills and perspectives than you, is not difficult. If you can't handle it, you are dumb, even if that doesn't please you. End of the story.

      You are dumb, and that's a problem. You're not going to solve the problem by bending reality and saying basic empathy and conceptualization is difficult and that you are not dumb. You are just ignoring the problem, which may (will) have unintended consequences in the future. Actually, if you want to solve the problem, you should invest more energy in self-help books, group therapy sessions, and volunteer work at homeless shelters. There could be a lot more hours of you concluding that you are not the perfectly desirable prototypical human to which all others should aspire. Otherwise, you are just promoting your own race to the bottom.

    7. Re:Solving the problem by ignoring the results. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You don't solve a problem by simply ignoring the results or breaking the measuring tool."
      **Goosebumps**

      Thank you !

      Maybe these young ones will understand in twenty or thirty years, but for now, the fact that some deem knowledge from
      column A not worthy of Student B is worthy of an Idiocracy re-watch.

      Cheers.

    8. Re:Solving the problem by ignoring the results. by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      Anything that's boring, is difficult. And a lot of people find math boring.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    9. Re:Solving the problem by ignoring the results. by MrKrillls · · Score: 1

      Exactly. You are a natural math teacher. First he's ever had. Schools treat math teaching pretty much the same as a soft subject, where expertise and natural teaching ability are not absolutely mandatory. Math should get first pick of teachers and higher pay if needed to get good teachers.

      --
      Don't step on the baby.
    10. Re:Solving the problem by ignoring the results. by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Perhaps some kind of a trade school that specializes in her talents would have been a better option -- but the career she is shooting for demands a college degree, so she perseveres.

      And that's a good thing. There are many ways of succeeding at math and compensating for learning difficulties, and perseverance is one of them.

    11. Re:Solving the problem by ignoring the results. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are probably the same people that would think you're a fucking idiot for not knowing how to fix your own car, and they'd be right.

    12. Re:Solving the problem by ignoring the results. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am not good at this, this, this, or this. Hmm or that. Oh wait, I found something! I can tie shoes really well on Tuesdays when it happens to be 24 degrees C or higher. Phew. Not dumb, then. Good.

    13. Re:Solving the problem by ignoring the results. by gstovall · · Score: 1

      :) That's amusing.

      Let's see -- she's not good at algebra and foreign language. She is okay at geometry. She's good at business math. She's good at art, photography, drama, writing, history, sociology, enjoys science and tech. Good at graphic design and media/communications. I think that's just a little bit beyond your mischaracterization.

      Apparently, too many people in the world have bought into the fallacy that math ability is a fundamental indicator of intelligence. Oh, wait; this is Slashdot. Of course we all here like to pat ourselves on the back for our math skills and our consequent intelligence.

      The senior VP-level software architect in my organization at work is absolutely brilliant; I have never worked with anyone else who is more capable of keeping large amounts of critical design information in his head. However, he kind of sucks at basic math, frequently getting powers of 10 wrong.

    14. Re:Solving the problem by ignoring the results. by eriks · · Score: 1

      This may fall on deaf ears, but I'll give it a go anyway.

      Just because one finds manually-computing equations difficult does not make one dumb.

      I was a straight-A student in math right up to Algebra II, after which point my grades suffered -- I went on to get A's again in geometry, trig, and later stats but later again struggled with my advanced Calc classes and struggled terribly in Linear Algebra, to the point where I ended up leaving college after 3.5 years in a computer science program with a 3.0 GPA (only not a 4.0 because my math grades were mediocre at best)

      I excelled in all my other courses, and ultimately found a satisfying career as a software developer despite my lack of a degree. I don't regret any of my years in school, but I don't doubt that it would have been an even more rewarding experience if it were possible to tailor the curriculum to my specific interests and talents.

      For the most part my difficulties in math all stemmed from my inability to accurately do the algebra *quickly* -- it wasn't that I couldn't do it at all, and in fact I had many epiphanies in math classes while absorbing the concepts being presented -- especially in Linear Algebra -- some of which I find quite useful to this day. I'm sure I'm not alone in this. I'm quite sure I could have done better in most, if not all of my math courses simply given twice as much time to complete my exams -- granted I had the motivation that I actually wanted to learn all that stuff. If I had wanted to become an actor or lawyer, for example, I'm sure I wouldn't have bothered to even try.

      It's possible that I may have had a different experience all the way through if I had had a different Algebra II teacher (she wasn't bad, but I sometimes had a rough time following her methods) though I think it's more of a thing with the way my brain works.

      Am I dumb? I don't think so. I'm a good visual designer, as well as a competent programmer in any language I need to use. I pick up human languages fairly easily, am a decent cook, and have a knack with most machines. I do my own electrical and plumbing work (to code), and am a passable carpenter, welder and machinist.

      My personal experiences aside, it's possible to be a frigging *genius* in one field, and yet unable to find even basic competence in another. I'm sure there are many great composers and choreographers (for instance) considered by not only their peers, but by the world at large to be at the top of their professions, that can't solve complex equations. Does that make them dumb too?

      You're also discounting social intelligence, and the myriad other forms of intelligence that humans (and some other animals) can possess.

      Humans tend to specialize, and even "generalists" like myself are a kind of specialist in a way. The ability to just pick things up and learn practical things quickly is (in my opinion) a form of intelligence. Granted I may be biased, since I seem to have that one.

      We (as a society) need to recognize each other's value: simply as fellow human beings, as well as the specific talents we each possess, particularly when they don't conform to the "curricula" that happen to be in vogue at any moment. The talents to care for the sick and elderly, dance exquisitely or counsel the mentally ill (for just a few examples) are all vitally needed -- and to simply label people who have those important skills "dumb" because they can't reach a particular watermark in an academic discipline that they may, or may not actually need, does them, as well as the world at large a huge disservice.

    15. Re:Solving the problem by ignoring the results. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate to break it for you, but you seem to have a cognitive bias towards your child. Having a "learning disability in math and language" is pretty much the definition of being dumb.

    16. Re:Solving the problem by ignoring the results. by gstovall · · Score: 1

      I hate to break it for you, but you seem to have a cognitive bias towards your child. Having a "learning disability in math and language" is pretty much the definition of being dumb.

      I would not be surprised if I have a cognitive bias. We all have one of some form or another. So let's examine yours.

      What is your justification for stating that someone who has difficulty with Algebra and foreign language is "dumb"? She scored well enough on the ACT to be eligible for college scholarships and to be accepted to every public and private university to which she applied, and she applied to reputable schools. Not MIT or CalTech, obviously. However, that doesn't sound like it would fall under a definition of "dumb". Perhaps we should refine and clarify our terms?

    17. Re:Solving the problem by ignoring the results. by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      At high school age, calculus is about as far as math training gets. Maybe 10% of kids are advanced enough then to take calculus, and even among them many struggle. Perhaps it should be easy for most people to learn calculus by then, but it's not.

      I have no trouble looking back 45 years and saying to myself "calculus at high school level only consists of a few dozen facts, how can learning them be a problem?" But it is a problem for most people; forming the new ways of thinking is difficult.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    18. Re:Solving the problem by ignoring the results. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry you don't want to hear that your daughter is dumb, but she is. "Dumb" IS a learning disability- a handicap. It is one of the levels of intelligence measurement used by our barbarian predecessor scientists. Other levels in the same tree include Idiot and Retard. So you should be happy she's just dumb and not retarded.

      Now, I know you and the other readers are thinking "what an asshole" but I typed all that above to point out to the unwary what exactly you were doing. Instead of acknowledging and working within the limitations of your daughter's circumstances, you played the Special Snowflake card along with the Divert and Deflect card. It's a common combo. "There's NOTHING wrong with my poor daughter! She's SICK! She has an illness! You guys need to change to accommodate HER!" I think America is getting tired of this shit. I know I am. So I typed all of that to let you know that it is YOU who's being an asshole, your daughter just isn't as perfect as you believe (and you should love her for who and what she is), and you need to stop bringing down the kids who move on without her.

    19. Re:Solving the problem by ignoring the results. by gstovall · · Score: 1

      Interesting perspective. Perhaps you'd care to share some references that support it?

      She performs well on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      so there is objective evidence that she is not "dumb", contrary to your assertions.

      Let me be more precise about what happened with my daughter and high school graduation. When she entered high school, we signed her up for "smart core", given her intelligence test scores. We then discovered her inability with Algebra and foreign language. After three attempts to perform well in Algebra, including holding her back a year so she could have yet another attempt, we realized there was no way she'd ever pass Algebra II, which was required for smart core. We signed her up for the common core math classes, which at the time did not include Algebra II, and she did well with them. We then began the process of dealing with the state. After a period of discussion and investigation, the state agreed that she would not be able to pass Algebra II, and they agreed to allow her to be moved from smart core to common core graduation requirements -- Thus, she graduated with the common core diploma, not the smart core diploma.

      The accommodation was in allowing her to change her target diploma to adjust to the realities of her disability, which meant getting the lesser diploma.

      I perceive that you misrepresent my statements, divert from answering my questions, and are attempting to be offensive. You seem to be quite emotional about this. Are you sincere in this, or are you merely trolling me?

  37. Paradoxically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Statistics involves, and requires, quite a bit of algebra -- or it becomes a senseless bag of tricks.

    Mathematics shouldn't be that. This is the reason it's perceived as hard; focusing on tricks rather than putting a little effort in creating that little bit of deeper understanding required to turn the noises of chaos into sweet music.

  38. Idiocracy == Liberal Driven "Edimication" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sixty years of liberal dominated "education" with the result being nothing but abject failure, and these idiots want moar, Moar, MOAR! If a foreign government had imposed this on us, it would have been war. Instead, the passive sheep (with the IQ to go with it) take it even farther.

  39. advanced mathematics requirements, like algebra .. by m00sh · · Score: 2

    advanced mathematics requirements, like algebra, trigonometry and calculus

    That is not advanced mathematics.

    That is just about basic mathematics.

    However, the curriculum needs to be revised with modern tools. Computer algebra systems makes a lot of what is taught in these courses obsolete. Courses that use CAS then start pulling in advanced content to fill up the time.

    This is analogous to what the calculator did. Nobody knows how to even calculate a square root by hand (ok a few people) and nobody does long division. There are so many things in math classes that simply need to just go away like long division.

  40. Central limit theorem by mdsolar · · Score: 1

    May need a calculus workaround for this. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/C...

  41. Statistics but No Civics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not only do they want rid of mathematics, they want to add in Statistics, the great rationality leveller, to make people better citizens?

    Meanwhile, high school students, hell college graduates, have no idea who the local county clerk is or what they do. Have no idea how local/city/state government fucntions. How elections work. Who to write to if X is broken. What the school system is. How the justice system works. For christs sake how does the post office work?

    People need education in civics more than they need mathematics. I say this as a mathematician. I learned nothing, nothing about how my own country functions, and despite being able to follow every and any cock-eyed accounting, fiscal, statistical, and economic modelling argument these people bring up I have little to no idea why it is that the country has broken down so badly and what needs to be done to fix it. No and election every 5 years or so does not help. No there is no way to think of a "smart way" to "fix" things. STEM will never, ever serves as a foundation for a country or a system of government.

    But sure, teach them statistics so they can feel smart when the latest cooked up numbers are broadcast on CNN. Who cares where the numbers come from -- we can find their variance!

  42. Waste of time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    only 10.23% of the populace can pass a stats course, where as 24.67% can pass algebra II and 21.54% can pass calculus

    1. Re:Waste of time by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      jeeez, why couldn't you have just said:

      "the average segment of the population who can variously pass stats, algebra Ii and calculus is 18.81%"

      About 80% of the time, that would have been perfectly sufficient. I'm 140% sure of that, pal.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  43. All kneel before your corporate/govt overlords! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't need math any more, any more than you need biology, physics and Earth science!

    I am VERY happy to see the dumbing down of America proceeds apace. The rot at the center of Empire cannot be stopped! Bwaahahahaha!

  44. Can confirm by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

    I do EE work and barely touch algebra.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    1. Re:Can confirm by AntronArgaiv · · Score: 1

      I do EE work and barely touch algebra.

      E = IR

      Solve for the resistance value needed for 20mA at 5V

      That's algebra.
      How do you do EE without Ohm's Law?

    2. Re:Can confirm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In high school chemistry, our teacher once spent an hour teaching us several different formulas that were really just one simple formula solved for different variables. Needless to say, the class stopped taking notes after the second variant and got a bit recalcitrant after the third.

    3. Re:Can confirm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      E=IR? Shouldn't that be V=IR (volts = current*resistance)?

    4. Re:Can confirm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      E is initial for electromotive force.

    5. Re:Can confirm by avandesande · · Score: 1

      They are specifically talking about Algebra 2/Pre-Calculus in the article.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    6. Re:Can confirm by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      They are specifically talking about Algebra 2/Pre-Calculus in the article.

      Algebra II seems to be an peculiarly American thing, and contains a weird hodge-podge of random crap. Nonetheless...

      It appears to contain complex numbers, exps and logs, rational polynomials... How do you do EE without those? That covers more or less every filter ever. It also contains the start of linear algebra, as in linear sets of equations and matrices. How do you do EE without linear systems, and so without linear algebra?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    7. Re:Can confirm by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

      Ohms law calculator

      --
      Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    8. Re:Can confirm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do EE work and barely touch algebra.

      E = IR

      Solve for the resistance value needed for 20mA at 5V

      That's algebra.
      How do you do EE without Ohm's Law?

      Ohm's law has been outsourced to an overseas firm.

    9. Re:Can confirm by avandesande · · Score: 1

      Actually I have a somewhat funny story about that- while I do agree any engineer needs a strong math background. Used to work in the chemical industry and every piece of equipment in the place came with charts for heat loads, cooldown rates etc. so the chemical engineers never did any math other than basic arithmetic- they just extrapolated everything from the charts.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    10. Re:Can confirm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh I've seen some EE's that can't calculate a resistor divider without running a SPICE simulator......

    11. Re: Can confirm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where did those charts come from though? Someone had to know how to figure out that stuff. It isn't just charts all the way down...

    12. Re:Can confirm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Constrain yourself to simple 7400-series TTL-style circuits with a 5VDC power supply that far exceeds your requirements. Then all you need is Boolean logic.

      Oh, and when you want the output you just hook the TTL output directly through a LED and a 1k-ohm resistor to get the blinkies going. If you're more adventurous you pipe it through an LCD driver IC that handles all the details.

    13. Re:Can confirm by orgelspieler · · Score: 1

      If you don't at least use algebra, you're probably not doing actual engineering. You're probably just a draftsman and purchasing agent who happens to have a degree. My first "engineering" job out of college was that way. Pushing paper, attending meetings, reading drawings and bills of material, making sure parts were ordered. Boring as hell. I did more engineering as an intern. I got promoted quickly due to a couple of people leaving, and I actually got to design control panels and verify generator protection schemes. So I was lucky. Definitely needed algebra, and even a little diff eq at that level.

    14. Re:Can confirm by orgelspieler · · Score: 1

      This was the problem all the engineers had with microeconomics 101. The prof spent all semester teaching dozens of forms of the same equation, when it could have boiled down to one complicated one that would have made more sense. (That and the legal/history stuff that I missed due to skipping classes to study for my mechanics mid term)

    15. Re:Can confirm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And thats.... algebra. Derp.

    16. Re:Can confirm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He uses Excel!

    17. Re:Can confirm by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Egads. I hope you meant "interpolate", not "extrapolate". Extrapolate in chemical engineering too often is a synonym for "BOOM".

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  45. So much fail! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sports writing is made by algorithms. Philosophers need to understand the basics of quantum mechanics to understand the philosophical implications of modern physics.

    On the other hand, basic statistic and practical percentages are the best tools for the manipulation of the masses.

  46. Al-Jabr is islamic threat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Algebra is Islamic terrorist conspiracy and its practitioners should be thrown into Gitmo for torture ;)

  47. It's not the math... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... it's how it is taught.

    Fix the way math is being taught and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

  48. Ah, consider the source. by Bright+Apollo · · Score: 1

    A non-mathematician that uses statistics is arguing for statistics, not algebra, as a filtering mathematical standard. And, this individual then argues that "coders" (I guess programmers?) won't need things like logarithms.

    Yep, sounds like a poli-sci major to me.

    --#

    1. Re:Ah, consider the source. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Coder (programmer) here... I barely touch anything to do with the more advanced math while coding. All the math I need to do my job is Boolean logic and simple arithmetic. I definitely don't need logarithms.
       
      And no, this isn't because I sucked at math. I did excellent in math in high school, and reasonably well in University.
       
      But understanding statistics and how not to be mislead by stats that leave out information is used daily during a political campaign. I wish the masses understood these topics better so they weren't so easily tricked.

  49. I've learned that there is one universal truth. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You never know enough math.

  50. Getting X alone in the corner by ka9dgx · · Score: 1

    Algebra is easy.. it's all about getting X alone in the corner, so you can find his value. Geometry should go, along with the foreign language requirement.

    1. Re:Getting X alone in the corner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Basic trigonometry and geometry are incredibly, incredibly useful in a wide variety of circumstances. For instance: Most times you want to build, modify, or repair, well, any physical object. You know, things like houses, bookshelves, tables...

    2. Re:Getting X alone in the corner by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Algebra is easy.. it's all about getting X alone in the corner, so you can find his value. Geometry should go, along with the foreign language requirement.

      Without geometry how will you find X's corner??

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    3. Re:Getting X alone in the corner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Geometry's incredibly important for carpentry, quilting, tile laying, and visual arts ("How big a backdrop do I need to paint if the actor needs to be no less than 6 feet from the camera, and the backdrop has to be sufficiently out of focus so the audience can't tell how crappy it is, and the backdrop has to cover the entire field of view of the camera?"). It's also important for cooking. ("This recipe is for a 9x11 pan. I have two 8" round pans and two 9" round pans. What pans should I use to make a round cake from this recipe, and am I going to get thicker or thinner layers of batter in the pans than I would have with the original pan?").

      Geometry definitely shoudn't go.

    4. Re:Getting X alone in the corner by MrKrillls · · Score: 1

      Awww, cmon! That's practically trolling.

      --
      Don't step on the baby.
    5. Re:Getting X alone in the corner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've got a (good quality) maths degree. I've also designed and made various (fairly complex) furniture. I never needed to use any trigonometry or geometry. You don't really need them to know anything about them to (e.g.) use a mitre box to cut 45 degree angles.

  51. STEM? by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

    How do you promote STEM without promoting algebra? There are many things taught in school that many people never use. When was the last time you needed to dissect a frog? Or how about the last time you need to diagram a sentence? Maybe we should go back to just teaching girls Home Ec and boys Shop, because if you keep dumbing down education, that is all that is going to be left to them.

    1. Re:STEM? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry, why are we promoting STEM, when Congress just keeps raising the H1B cap even though there are a ton of engineers under employed or unemployed? What purpose is in teaching people to do something that can be done cheaper by essentially indentured servants or overseas sweat shops?

  52. Re:A view I've held for long time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's the beauty of math....some people don't even realize when they're using it.

  53. Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How exactly do you run statistical equations without using basic algebra?

    1. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Easy, you do it like all the social academics, politicians and media do it: You just make it up to suit your narrative. No icky math needed!

  54. Abstract number systems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What I think people fail to understand is that math is really the study of abstract number systems. Now, why would it be important for everybody to understand abstract number systems? If only I could think of abstract number systems that people have to deal with literally every day. *pulls a dollar out of my wallet* If only I could think of a ubiquitous abstract number system everybody deals with. /sarcasm

    This guy needs to face it. Math is important if for no other reason that financial systems are built on it, and without an understanding of it, you have no hope of understanding money, and if you don't understand money, you're going to have a very rough time in life.

  55. id10t by ole_timer · · Score: 1

    as in what an idiot. only a reporter would suggest we dumb down education. if they are bound for trades or humanities then they shouldn't take math beyond the algebra that is required. in any case one cannot understand statistics without understanding algebra. it's supposed to be hard. solving problems is hard. welcome to life.

    --
    nothing to see here - move along
  56. Classic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This political "scientist" sounds like a true PHB: anything he doesn't understand is by definition pointless and shouldn't be taught. Yeah.

  57. Teach pratical math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In ancient times mathematics use to be practical, just take a look to ancient book of the The Nine Chapters on the Mathematical Art,

        Fangtian - Rectangular fields. Areas of fields of various shapes; manipulation of vulgar fractions. Liu Hui's commentary includes a method for calculation of and the approximate value of 3.14159.[5]
      Sumi - Millet and rice. Exchange of commodities at different rates; pricing.
      Cuifen - Proportional distribution. Distribution of commodities and money at proportional rates.
      Shaoguang - The lesser breadth. Division by mixed numbers; extraction of square and cube roots; dimensions, area and volume of circle and sphere.
      Shanggong - Consultations on works. Volumes of solids of various shapes.
      Junshu - Equitable taxation. More advanced problems on proportion.
      Yingbuzu - Excess and deficit. Linear problems solved using the principle known later in the West as the rule of false position.
      Fangcheng - The rectangular array. Systems of linear equations, solved by a principle similar to Gaussian elimination.
      Gougu - Base and altitude. Problems involving the principle known in the West as the Pythagorean theorem.

    1. Re:Teach pratical math by orgelspieler · · Score: 1

      I misread your subject as "Preach tactical math." Was not disappointed with your post, though!

  58. I actually found this funny by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If imposing math reduces the number of philosophers, sports figures, and poets... I unconditionally support us becoming a lot more focused on adding math requirements.

    Sadly, I don't think it will do anything of the kind.

    But it was still amusing to read. :)

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:I actually found this funny by Flavianoep · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I wonder how can one develop the proper reasoning need for a philosopher without the formal Logic training that is algebra.

      --
      Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
    2. Re:I actually found this funny by Jhon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "I actually found this funny"

      Funny in a very sad way.

      So... our solution to increasing drop out rates is to make the curriculum simpler? Idiocy! (That should be pronounced 'Idiocracy') Its true that I'm not calculating trajectories or finding the surface area of unusual shaped solids defined by funky formulas -- most of that knowledge has been lost to me over the years. I've retained maybe 1/3 of my leet-math-skills(tm). If all we teach is basic algebra and some statistics and there is a SIMILAR loss of retention in students then what will they have left 10-20 years later? I fear maybe barely enough to balance a checkbook. Hell, basic cashiers don't even have to do basic math any more -- they just need to know how to push buttons and read numbers.

    3. Re:I actually found this funny by fyngyrz · · Score: 2, Funny

      the proper reasoning need for a philosopher

      That is what is known as a "contradiction in terms."

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    4. Re:I actually found this funny by Falconnan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Algebra 1 is sufficient for formal logic, though. He isn't saying to eliminate all algebra. Frankly, stats would not be my choice as a follow-up, but rather a combination of critical thinking courses and civics. Society would likely benefit greatly from more people being involved and more capable of separating their emotions from their important decisions.

    5. Re:I actually found this funny by fyngyrz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is also why many people live with crushing debt. They had little -- or no -- understanding of how interest works.

      A little math, a few curves... intuitive understanding of those things should lead any thinking person to run screaming from interest-bearing debt.

      In general, those of us who did understand it before lenders managed to get their hooks into us are capable of, and many are, living completely different lives from those who didn't.

      Math. It's the "big hammer."

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    6. Re:I actually found this funny by Dunbal · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Many people have no understanding, period. Few people realize that the % symbol indicates an exponential function. Then all sorts of allegedly smart people like politicians, economists and even finance people go around tut tutting about "low" growth rates, etc, when these are in the 5% or so range. Heck even 2% inflation scares the beejezus out of me, but (even if it were the real figure) seems perfectly acceptable to others. Even 2% is still an exponential function. In 35 years you had better be prepared to have double the amount of income you think you needed today - just to tread water. And you'll need much more than that, because the 2% is hilariously not real.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    7. Re:I actually found this funny by Coisiche · · Score: 2, Insightful

      but rather a combination of critical thinking courses and civics

      That is a great idea but churches would see that as being worse than teaching evolution. And then have some consideration for the poor politicians... how on earth could they mislead an electorate versed in critical thinking.

    8. Re:I actually found this funny by njnnja · · Score: 1

      In 35 years you had better be prepared to have double the amount of income you think you needed today - just to tread water

      Inflation is the increase in the overall price level of the economy. While you are still working, your income is a price to your employer. So when inflation runs at 2%, then the price of labor goes up by 2% each year as well.

      People misunderstand this because they usually mistake a supply shock for inflation. When the cost of, say, oil, goes up, but the cost of labor doesn't, it is not inflation that causes misery. It is whatever shock is causing the increase in oil prices that causes the misery. So for example, in the 1970's, oil prices increased faster than incomes because of the oil embargoes. Even if inflation ran at 0% during that period, people would have been stressed because the difference in the rate of increase in oil prices would have outstripped the rate of increase in incomes. In fact, at lower inflation rates, it would have been even worse, because a small or no increase in the rate of increase in oil prices would have implied that incomes would have to drop precipitously, so even the constant priced oil would still have been difficult to afford.

    9. Re:I actually found this funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Informal logic is sufficient for formal logic. There is no need for algebra for logic. Elementary school students can be taught formal logic. This said, algebra, trig, calc, and stats are useful for training the brain for other reasons. Need a basic physics class? Calculus and algebra are requirements.

    10. Re:I actually found this funny by AntronArgaiv · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Few people realize that the % symbol indicates an exponential function."

      It does not. The % symbol indicates that the number preceding it is the numerator of a fraction whose denominator is 100.
      Percentages are often used in situations involving compound interest, which IS an exponential function with time,
      but that's not what the % symbol represents.

    11. Re:I actually found this funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. we should all be the same. And by the same I mean more like me.

    12. Re:I actually found this funny by nintendoeats · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As a person with a philosophy degre, I feel professionally obliged to remind you that all mathematics and science...in effect all of human progress...are simply branches of philosophy which eventually became specialized enough and developed enough axioms to seperate themselves. Science was once known as natural philosphy, Turing's "Computing Machinery and Intelligence" whcih essentially defined the computer is a pure philisophical work and Bertrand Russel is dually one of the great mathematicians and philosophers of the 20th century. Any time before 1600 if you asked anybody who engaged with scientific or mathematical problems what they were doing, I give you much better than even odds that they would have said "philosophy".

      I am NOT saying that people should rush out and get philosophy degrees (not on their own at least, it's a great double major). However, if STEM graduates would consider how much funding philosophy departments get against what we have given the species,they might consider refraining from kicking us.

    13. Re:I actually found this funny by tkotz · · Score: 2

      Formal logic should be taught to grammar school students as part of English class. Most of the base concepts involve simple words that children use everyday. There is no reason children can't introduced to a fuller understanding of conditional expressions, the use of 'and' and 'or', the difference between exclusive and inclusive or, common fallacies and arguments. Start at a section formally defining all these terms they use every day( "if", "when", "then", "until", "and", "or", "but", "only", "not") then end the section just brushing up against the concepts of philosophy.

    14. Re:I actually found this funny by tkotz · · Score: 1

      A law class should be a mandatory part of the high school civics curriculum. I find it peculiar that politicians are always pushing more STEM into the curriculum, when many can participate in society just fine with little understanding of science behind what you do. But understanding the law is required for everyone in an "ignorance of the law is no excuse" system. You would think as lawyers they would understand that better than anyone. The conspiracy theorist in me would say it has something to do with their job security or manipulating the masses. Maybe the class could cover actually interacting with some bureaucracy for the experience. In the states that require it, maybe get a firearms ID so they can see exactly how easy it is to legally obtain a firearm. Or maybe come up with a half dozen permits and they can choose what to apply for. Maybe have them to learn some portion of the local penal code.

      Right now the closest thing in most students take is probably Driver's Ed.

    15. Re:I actually found this funny by Koen+Lefever · · Score: 2

      Hi, philosopher here, teaching logic now, have been teaching maths and stats on college level before.

      It is quite possible to teach stats on high school level. Stats is at basic level quite easy and useful knowledge to all: how to deal with a big heap of numbers. Summarize them to a couple of numbers which indicate how spread out they are around different kinds of central numbers. Use the numbers to make some predictions. Some combinatorics and probabilities. Have an idea what the numbers reported in the press actually mean and how reliable they are. This is to most more useful in life than calculating integrals.

      So replacing calculus by stats in high school might make sense. Algebra of course is needed to understand stats (and indeed a good training for logic).

      Dropping algebra for stats would make as much sense as dropping high school physics for string theory.

      --
      /. refugees on Usenet: news:comp.misc
    16. Re:I actually found this funny by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 1

      Or how difficult it can be to acquire a firearm and the cost associated with it, like in Maryland.

    17. Re:I actually found this funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So when inflation runs at 2%, then the price of labor goes up by 2% each year as well.

      price of labor hasn't gone up, wages have been driven way down, even as prices have gone up.

    18. Re:I actually found this funny by demonlapin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I took a class my senior year of high school just for fun. It was called "Finite and Discrete Mathematics", taught by a Case grad (from before the merger with WRU, and don't screw that distinction up). There were two groups of people in the class - about half were filling a math requirement, about half were also taking calculus at the time and thought of it as an interesting elective.

      We covered probability, statistics, formal logic, set theory... it was absolutely glorious. And almost none of it really needed anything beyond Algebra I and an inquisitive mind. My mom called me once when I was in college and asked how to take a square root in a spreadsheet... and I asked "ah, finding standard deviations, are we?" Instant "how-the-hell-did-you-know-that" moment. Probably the best class I have ever taken at any level of education. Made doing all of those things in college a thousand times simpler because I already knew the basics and didn't have to climb a big learning curve.

    19. Re:I actually found this funny by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Look up Logic sometime. It's not algebra.

    20. Re:I actually found this funny by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Every time a physicist/mathematician/philosopher reduces everything else to 'We did that' I want to kick them.

      Navel gazers never did a single experiment. The old philosophically based science held the world back for eons. Granting the development of scientific method was a work of an unusually pragmatic philosopher.

      'Check you work' against reality is antithetical to all 'post-modern' philosophies. You all need to take responsibility for that mess, if you want to take credit for science.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    21. Re:I actually found this funny by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 1
    22. Re:I actually found this funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indicates, not is. In many places where percentages are used, there is indeed a hidden exponential function close by.

    23. Re:I actually found this funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought it was modulo. You know, the remainder of a division problem. As in 15 % 4 = 3, though 15 / 4 = 3 is also true (integer division).

      I'll never get this new math.

    24. Re:I actually found this funny by nintendoeats · · Score: 1

      I am not saying "we did that", though I can see how it comes across that way. I just want everybody to understand that philosophy is not a bunch of post-modern gibberish. there are post-modern gibberish philosophies, but there are also plenty of philosophers who will call thema s they are.

      The scentific method as it stands today has been carefully pruned by philosophers of science and the empiricist branch of philosophy more generally. the "new science" as you might call it is still just as much based in philosophy as the old, moreso in fact. It is simply different philosophy which could not have existed without the stuff which we now consider laughable.

      When a scientist is trying to extrapolate knowledge from data, they need the tools of philosophy to do it. When a mathematician is trying to apply their abstract concepts ot the real world they need philosophy to do it. They may no longer call what they are doing philosophy, but it is in the same way that you use your knowledge of physics to make a sandwich that doesn't fall apart.

      So I suppose that really I am saying "we did that" because in this case we is anybody who pursues an organised and consistent theory of whatever the universe is. People whoa re philosophers and nothing else are only of value if they can help the specialists be better philosophers themselves.

      (By the way, I had to look up Navel Gazing. In four years, it never came up)

    25. Re:I actually found this funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, only if compounded. But that's the practical rub -- nowadays, everything (well, maybe not deposits, but debts certainly) is compounded.

      So if you see an APR/APY, you really need to intuit that that is going to be an exponential.

    26. Re:I actually found this funny by lgw · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of brilliant philosophers, have been in every century. But I fully support a "hard like a math test" hurdle to becoming a philosopher to cull the deadwood in the field.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    27. Re:I actually found this funny by Archfeld · · Score: 1

      What about their distant cousins in the logic gate family ? nand and xor or xnor ??

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Lots of people use calculus in their daily lives without even knowing it. Even more people fail to properly use statistics and don't know it either. More math is gooder, while the proper use of grammar seems to be seen as pedantic.

      --
      errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
    28. Re:I actually found this funny by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I was trying to work out why he thought the modulus operator was exponential.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    29. Re:I actually found this funny by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Algebra 2 however is nearly mandatory for introductory college mathematics or engineering courses. And it's not that hard. Society has been manufacturing a false view of math as too hard for average people, which means everyone goes into those classes assuming they'll be very hard and you end up with a feedback loop. Of course people won't understand feedback loops without algebra 2...

    30. Re:I actually found this funny by Jhon · · Score: 1

      I lack a skill that most people posses -- I find it difficult to "read between the lines" when I'm talking to people. I miss subtext and "unspoken" bits of info. I don't lack that skill when READING.

      You pointed out the exact example (in a different way) that the parent provided (you with compounding interest and the parent with compounding growth). While % itself is exactly what you describe, it is also exactly what the parent described over time which makes sense given the context of his post.

      Basically, the parent left out just two words at the end of his second sentence -- "over time". But that is made abundantly clear by the second sentence.

    31. Re:I actually found this funny by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      2% is linear. 2% per year compounded interest is exponential.

    32. Re:I actually found this funny by dj245 · · Score: 1

      Algebra 1 is sufficient for formal logic, though. He isn't saying to eliminate all algebra. Frankly, stats would not be my choice as a follow-up, but rather a combination of critical thinking courses and civics. Society would likely benefit greatly from more people being involved and more capable of separating their emotions from their important decisions.

      It is truly shocking to me the number of people I encounter who don't understand how tax brackets work. I've had people who hold masters degrees in engineering who complained that if they were paid more, they would actually have less take-home pay because of being "bumped up to a higher tax bracket". That's not how tax brackets work in the USA.

      Whenever there is confusion, there is room for manipulation. And there are a lot of politicians who know that.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    33. Re:I actually found this funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I was in High School, we we made the switch from "Practical Law" with books from probably the 70s to "Civics" from the 90s. They also moved the class from 9th grade to 10th. The school was mediocre and they were too lazy to handle the switch year properly, so I had the please of taking both classes (and missing a History class which would have been better than two civics classes). The Practical Law book was amazing, and really helped me understand the country I live in (US). It was very technical, actually, with little to no bias. The Civics book, however, was pure, unadulterated propaganda. I would be hesitant to say kids need more Civics classes, because they are so easy to inject a bias into.

    34. Re:I actually found this funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If all we teach is basic algebra and some statistics and there is a SIMILAR loss of retention in students then what will they have left 10-20 years later? I fear maybe barely enough to balance a checkbook.

      You don't lose some fixed fraction of what you learned no matter what. You lose what you don't use.

    35. Re:I actually found this funny by Rudisaurus · · Score: 1

      Hah! Beat me to it. Well done!

      --
      licet differant, aequabitur
    36. Re:I actually found this funny by godel_56 · · Score: 1

      "I actually found this funny"

      Funny in a very sad way.

      So... our solution to increasing drop out rates is to make the curriculum simpler? Idiocy! (That should be pronounced 'Idiocracy') Its true that I'm not calculating trajectories or finding the surface area of unusual shaped solids defined by funky formulas -- most of that knowledge has been lost to me over the years.

      A lot of the examples you quote are just plugging numbers into formulas that other people have already worked out.

      In TFA they quote the example of people not being able to get into theater or arts courses at college because they don't have algebra 2. Where's the advantage to society in that?

    37. Re:I actually found this funny by AnalogDiehard · · Score: 1

      The % symbol indicates that the number preceding it is the numerator of a fraction whose denominator is 100.

      That's a partial answer. The number preceding the % symbol is also the 100 times a ratio result from a numerator and denominator, and the denominator is not always the value of 100.

      --
      Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
    38. Re:I actually found this funny by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but percentage is not an exponential function. It's true that compounded percentage IS an exponential function, but the exponential is added by the interaction of multiplication with recursion.

      I do agree that the official rates of inflation are intentional lies, however. But the very concept of a rate of inflation that is consistent across income levels and purchasing preferences is fantasy. Durable goods are quite different from commodities, e.g. So it's quite possible that there is some group within society for which the 2% rate of inflation is accurate.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    39. Re:I actually found this funny by vivian · · Score: 1

      This is exactly the problem.
      Maths is actually pretty easy if you have someone who can explain the rules in a way that makes sense. The hard part of maths is when you get equations and formulas thrown at you that you are supposed to remember, without having enough time or an adequate enough explanation to follow through where those formulas and rules come from - and how they relate to the real world. Until you can derive the rules and results yourself, you never really fully understand maths - but unfortunately too many courses shortcut this and just head straight for a bunch of stuff you have to remember and apply - without really fully understanding where it comes from.

    40. Re:I actually found this funny by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Use the numbers to make some predictions. Some combinatorics and probabilities. Have an idea what the numbers reported in the press actually mean and how reliable they are.

      The math behind stats, and specifically combinatorics and probabilities, isn't actually that important when it comes to understanding the published statistics. Of far more import is causation vs. correlation, sampling (and other) biases, hindsight based correlation discovery, and others.

      In other words, if you know the math, but not how to set up a problem in real life, you'll be more mislead. It's not surprising most people don't know that, because most people don't know how to set up a problem in real life.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    41. Re:I actually found this funny by Wintermute__ · · Score: 1

      I lack a skill that most people posses -- I find it difficult to "read between the lines" when I'm talking to people. I miss subtext and "unspoken" bits of info. I don't lack that skill when READING.

      You pointed out the exact example (in a different way) that the parent provided (you with compounding interest and the parent with compounding growth). While % itself is exactly what you describe, it is also exactly what the parent described over time which makes sense given the context of his post.

      Basically, the parent left out just two words at the end of his second sentence -- "over time". But that is made abundantly clear by the second sentence.

      Almost, but not quite. "2% over time" is still linear. You need a third word - "compounded". "2% compounded over time" is exponential.

      Think of it this way: If I measure a value over a period of time, and calculate a percentage of that value at each point in time and give it a name, that's one thing. If I measure a value and then add a percentage of that value to the original, thus changing the value being measured, that is a very different thing, and has a very different effect.

    42. Re:I actually found this funny by delt0r · · Score: 1

      Slightly OT, but one economist I know gave a great quote "Humans don't understand exponential curves". Current economic models have asserted, just because that you must always have growth. Now a strong argument can be made that the size of an economy is closely tied to energy consumption/production. A finite solar system/galaxy etc cannot support any such growth for very long.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    43. Re:I actually found this funny by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      While you are still working, your income is a price to your employer.

      Bzzzt wrong. Dangerously wrong. Wages are sticky to the low side. If you're lucky enough to get "cost of living" increases these rarely cover the real increase in the cost of living. Have you been missing all the complaints in the past decade about how prices have been going up since the 1990's and wages have stayed essentially the same and even DECLINED in some areas?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    44. Re:I actually found this funny by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Your argument is a bit pedantic. You state that "compound interest" is exponential. Talk to me about economic growth over time. Is that simple interest? Does an economy suddenly stop growing at the end of a year? Does an economy only grow as a percentage of it's first year's growth - forever? No, it follows the "compound interest" formula. Growth is EXPONENTIAL. Any type of growth or decay works this way - as a function of itself: the very definition of exponential. In fact, the EXCEPTION is "simple interest". No one uses simple interest, except for maybe someone who bought a certificate of deposit and spends all his interest.

      Let X = the population of your town, which grows constantly at 5% a year

      Next year's growth = X + (X * 5/100)

      But what if you want to know the growth after 11 years? Well, you could crank through the formula 11 times, or you could do this:

      Recognize that your percentage is constant for each 11 years so let's just call it R and simplify the formula: X +(X*R) which can be rewritten X(1+R) oh dear is this starting to look like something? You can then notice that instead of re-writing this 11 times, you could just substitute n = 11 as an exponent X(1+R)^n....oh dear oh dear this is exactly the formula for "Future Value" given a present value, a rate of interest and a time period. You don't think this is exponential? OK. Solve for n.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    45. Re:I actually found this funny by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      You don't need the word "compounded" when talking about growth. It is ASSUMED. Bacteria, for example, do not suddenly hold a meeting and only let the older bacteria reproduce. They all reproduce. Ergo - compounded. Economies do not grow simply as a function of their first year. Stock prices do not go up only as a percentage of their IPO price. While the traditional saying about assumptions usually applies, there are some things you must assume in order to function smoothly as a human being. Pedantry, as the previous poster pointed out, is only a stumbling block for the pedant. Everyone else seems to manage to make that leap.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    46. Re:I actually found this funny by DeComposer · · Score: 1

      I would think that a decent probability and statistics class would go a long way towards developing and reinforcing (with math!) critical-thinking skills, which would benefit society immeasurably.

      --


      Karma
    47. Re:I actually found this funny by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      By the way I left out the words OVER TIME in the above post. I hope this hasn't made it too difficult for you.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    48. Re:I actually found this funny by Jhon · · Score: 1

      He said growth. Read it on context -- dont just pick words and phrases at random.

    49. Re:I actually found this funny by Jhon · · Score: 1

      "A lot of the examples you quote are just plugging numbers into formulas that other people have already worked out."

      I'm sorry but I just don't understand your point. I drive a car -- which is basically a solution to the problem that somebody already worked out (how to move mass across space quickly). It is a skill I need to have to function in life (living in California, anyway). Just because someone already figured out a "formula" to a given problem doesn't mean that the knowledge hasn't become almost required to survive and thrive.

    50. Re:I actually found this funny by njnnja · · Score: 1

      Wow that is an awfully obnoxious way to show your ignorance. Please review your basic economics about Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and the relationship between GDP, total income of everybody, and inflation. You can't have inflation without income going up.

      Some people will not see increases in wages but that doesn't mean that overall income is flat, just like if the cost of 1 TB external hard drives doesn't go up it doesn't mean that inflation is zero.

      NB "sticky" wages mean that they don't go below zero; rather, people get laid off. It does not mean, as you seem to think, that wages like to stay at zero.

    51. Re:I actually found this funny by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      Since the advent of the scientific method, philosophy is where people go who aren't competent to do actual science.

      Prior to that, yes. Philosophy was all they had, so that's where the smart people went.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    52. Re:I actually found this funny by lgw · · Score: 1

      So people who love science sexually insist, but it's just not true. The scientific method is centuries old, and there's plenty of interesting progress in philosophy in that time. Some of it has branched off pretty recently - computability theory is now often taught by the CompSci department, but I learned it in a meta-logic class. Epistemology may have exhausted the interesting work to be done, but only in the past century. Ethics moves very slowly indeed, but it moves, and may be the most important field of all. Theory if identity remains interesting, more so if we start thinking about minds rendered in software. Theory of language likely has a lot to tell us.

      Each of these fields may only have 1 or 2 breakthroughs in a century, but they're big. That's not that much slower than, say, particle physics.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    53. Re:I actually found this funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if % is applied many times; in your example, inflation but also interest apply year over year. Then you do get a runaway effect.

      It's fun to realize that a 1% increase in industrial output today equals the entire industrial output in 19xx. Have fun: Work out xx, assuming a growth rate of y%. Easily done with a spreadsheet. Be surprised how large xx can be with even a moderate growth rate.

      (Is there a Monopoly variant involving inflation?)

    54. Re:I actually found this funny by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Well, to be fair, it can happen when your company has shitty witholding policies and bad HR drones.

    55. Re: I actually found this funny by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      Funny, a lot of statistics made vastly more sense once I covered the math involved, and algebra has a lot if things to it that can be used on a daily basis...if we still taught them regularly. I could see an argument for shifting the classes towards showing current applications for what you're teaching at all points, such as how to use algebra so you only need to memorize one version of a formula--but yeah, stats are worse than algebra & calculus and I say this as somebody who got top grades in their stats class and loves them...but isn't so into calculus.

      Though, given this person is out of polisci, I suspect that stats isn't their strong point, if they were even required to take it; it's a field where often enough you hire or borrow a statistician, and my aunt quit being a statistician precisely because she was being pressured to...massage the results of her work to support ideology. Odds are horribly good he doesn't know what is involved in doing or understanding stats beyond the most basic parts, and if he did cover ever that it was as an undergrad & is now very rusty knowledge.

      The problem most people have with algebra and calculus is bad teachers--I know I'm good at math, yet I flunked calc the first time because I was expected in that class to memorize everything instantly and do formal proofs...every time, from the first weekly quiz on. (I wish I exaggerating.) I passed the second time, under a teacher who let us use notecards so we could gradually & naturally memorize things through use, and didn't demand formal proofs except for once, mostly so we could show if we knew how.

      I don't think common core is actually going to improve how math is taught--there are a few handy shortcuts that improve understanding that it outright skips. It kind of feels like they took a bit too much to heart the latter part of the saying "Those who can, do; those who can't, teach."

    56. Re:I actually found this funny by baubo · · Score: 1

      I wish I had mod points. Highly informative.

    57. Re:I actually found this funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ugh. Where'd you learn to program? The % means the following number is a placeholder for that numerated argument passed from the calling function. You kids are always shittin in my yard...

    58. Re:I actually found this funny by obscuro · · Score: 1

      Philosophy hasn't used reason since the 60s. Did you ever read OF GRAMMATOLOGY? It's a really interesting read if you suspend any kind of rigor and just go with it. Kind of like a novel with no characters.

      If it weren't for some of a halos taking a while to set behind the horizon, I'd put the break with reason with the later works of Nietzsche. Brain cancer is a bitch.

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/3313279/Madness-of-Nietzsche-was-cancer-not-syphilis.html

      --
      Every rule has more than one consequence.
    59. Re:I actually found this funny by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      I wonder how can one develop the proper reasoning need for a philosopher without the formal Logic training that is algebra.

      Instead of teaching basic algebra at 6th grade and the second degree equations and mulivariables, use statistics to introduce the algebra, and not the reverse.

      By 7th grade, a student should know what is the mean (average), understand negative numbers, the unitary method, and rudamentary graph plotting. As well, at least the times tables up to 13 by 13 or 13x13. I taught the kids math by taking them shopping. (If 5 things cost $5.00, how much does 1 thing cost, and if the were to buy 22 of them (one for each of the classmates) how much would that cost in total.

      Real life examples are the best introduction to algebra

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    60. Re:I actually found this funny by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Forgot to mention directed graphs, undirected graphs, mappings, traversing search trees... It really was a remarkable thing. And he carried it out with extraordinary deftness. The tests were written so that the average students looking for a passing grade had no trouble getting one, but the honors students looking for an A got a solid intellectual workout to earn it.

    61. Re:I actually found this funny by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      Yes.. for the neocons it would be religious belief, and for progressives it would be 'social justice'. Neither would want the school system teaching students to apply critical thought on these subjects.

    62. Re:I actually found this funny by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      You can't have inflation without someone's income going up

      FTFY

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    63. Re:I actually found this funny by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      Wat? '%' means "this is a binary number."

      As in:

              LDA #%01000010 * 42, of course

      Just check the Motorola assembler programming manual for the 6800, 6809, etc. It's right there. It's been there since the mid-ish 1970s.

      You kids.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    64. Re:I actually found this funny by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      Is there a Monopoly variant involving inflation?

      Sure. It's built right into the regular version. Buy the game this year. Buy another next year. Compare pricing. :)

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    65. Re:I actually found this funny by mcswell · · Score: 1

      No, not necessarily simpler; different. I don't think statistics is any simpler than calculus, just different. I loved and excelled in math up through integral calculus (algebra I, algebra II, linear algebra, trig,...), but I could probably count on my fingers the number of times I've had to use anything more advanced than algebra I, and a very general understanding of trig. Statistics, otoh: I run into it all the time, and I wish I knew more. (I have had two courses in probability and statistics, but neither was terribly practical.)

      So yes, I'd love to see them replace anything past maybe algebra I with statistics (except of course for mathematicians, engineers, and so forth). IMNSHO, nearly everyone would benefit from an understanding of things like statistical significance and statistical modeling. And it should be taught in a way that emphasizes real-world issues. (Example: if more students take SATs now than did ten years ago, and SAT scores are lower now than they were ten years ago, can we conclude that students are on the average "dumber"? How can we tell? Or along the same lines, what can SAT scores predict? Success in college, success in career, health,...)

    66. Re:I actually found this funny by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      As a person with a philosophy degre, I feel professionally obliged to remind you that all mathematics and science...in effect all of human progress...are simply branches of philosophy which eventually became specialized enough and developed enough axioms to seperate themselves. Science was once known as natural philosphy, Turing's "Computing Machinery and Intelligence" whcih essentially defined the computer is a pure philisophical work and Bertrand Russel is dually one of the great mathematicians and philosophers of the 20th century. Any time before 1600 if you asked anybody who engaged with scientific or mathematical problems what they were doing, I give you much better than even odds that they would have said "philosophy".

      I am NOT saying that people should rush out and get philosophy degrees (not on their own at least, it's a great double major). However, if STEM graduates would consider how much funding philosophy departments get against what we have given the species,they might consider refraining from kicking us.

      they do hand out PhDs, after all, in the sciences.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    67. Re: I actually found this funny by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Mod up!!

    68. Re:I actually found this funny by chipschap · · Score: 1

      I've had people who hold masters degrees in engineering who complained that if they were paid more, they would actually have less take-home pay because of being "bumped up to a higher tax bracket". That's not how tax brackets work in the USA.

      It's not how tax brackets work, but it's how some tax deductions work. For instance, if I recall correctly, passive losses: your income goes $1 above a certain threshold and you lose 100% of the deduction. So you do end up with less "take home" pay. (Actually the deduction is deferred to a later year, but it may end up offsetting capital gains taxed at a much lower rate.)

  59. Brain formation by mdsolar · · Score: 2

    There is a reason we expose young people to intellectual pusuits rather than just putting them where they'd be useful like in diamond mines or in chimney sweep jobs. There brains are particularly plastic and need stimulation to develop. Math is among the pursuits they need for their intellectual health. Leaving it out would be like leaving running out of physical development.

    1. Re:Brain formation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There brains are particularly plastic

      So which one are you- diamond miner or chimney sweep? Someone left spelling and editing out of your liberal arts development.

  60. Change of heart by RghtHndSd · · Score: 1

    What does Andrew Hacker say to the coder who discovers a love of mathematics at say 20? Not knowing advanced algebra and calculus would make it damn near impossible to switch over to mathematics at the university level. This is precisely what happened to me, and now I have a PhD in math and a post doc at an R1 university.

  61. Maybe the problem.... by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Maybe the problem is with how it is taught? Back in the day, high school math teachers tended to have a degree in mathematics (and biology in biology and chemistry in chemistry, etc.). Then in the 1970s this notion of certifying teachers came into being. With certification you were taught many things, like classroom management, child psychology, etc., but no longer was being a math or science teacher based on a demonstrated knowledge of the subject matter.

    For anecdotal evidence, I had an excellent organic chemistry teacher in high school. When my state passed new teacher certification rules, she was grandfathered in (or would that be grandmothered?). She often quipped that since she didn't have a certificate, it made no sense that she could teach us as freshman in college, but not seniors in high school. BTW, she finished her dissertation the year after I graduated and continued teaching in high school, without a certificate for an additional 20 years.

    Anecdote #2. I have a very good friend who is now a retired teacher. Math was her worst subject. However, the school system needed somebody to teach junior high math and she had a teaching certificate, so that is what she was hired to do. She would often say how grateful she was for the instructor's guide for the lesson plans, because without it she would be lost.

    In short, if you want kids to learn math and science, they need teachers that know math and science. My wife is a teacher, so I type this with some trepidation, but maybe instead of dumbing down the subject matter taught to students, we should quit dumbing down the requirements to teach them in the first place. If you want kids to learn, then need teachers who have mastered the subject matter.

    1. Re:Maybe the problem.... by Major+Blud · · Score: 1

      but no longer was being a math or science teacher based on a demonstrated knowledge of the subject matter.

      Actually, I find it's a demonstrated knowledge of how well the defensive line can protect the quarter back and how many RBI's the baseball team managed to bring in. In my public high school, close to 85% of the teachers coached one of the athletic teams. I'd be surprised if any of these guys actually had degrees in the actual field taught.

      --
      If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
    2. Re:Maybe the problem.... by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      I tutor math a lot. It is one of the most mind-to-mind subjects. Figuring out how somebody can understand a concept deeply in there own way is very satisfying.

    3. Re:Maybe the problem.... by werepants · · Score: 1

      If you want kids to learn, then need teachers who have mastered the subject matter.

      This. 100 times this. If we want quality education, we need quality educators. Teacher training programs are 95% busywork at this point, there are no wrong answers as long as you churn out your BS essays.

      We need to train teachers better in the things that matter. We need to add a hell of a lot more rigor to education research. We need to pay teachers a competitive wage based on their background - I left teaching for a job in industry where my wage doubled, and now after a few years of engineering I make more than I would have after 30 years teaching at that school, even if I had gotten a PhD.

      Give great ideas to mediocre people and you will get mediocre results. Give mediocre ideas to great people and you will get great results. Education reform in the U.S. is all about new curriculum, adding in laptops, getting rid of math, firing bad teachers. But where is the focus on training and retaining great teachers? That's the missing piece.

    4. Re:Maybe the problem.... by dcollins · · Score: 2

      Close -- as far as I know (and I research this), high school teachers in most states still need a specialized bachelor's degree in math education, plus the general teaching certification.

      The undeniable problem is that teachers at the elementary-school level definitely don't need any such skill, and in fact are perennially the weakest and most hateful about math of our entire college-going population. Then they teach broken math to our children from K-6 and in many cases there's no recovery after that. I agree that we need math specialists at all level of education, like every other modernized country.

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    5. Re:Maybe the problem.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Figuring out how somebody can understand a concept deeply in there own way is very satisfying

      You sound like a serial murder/rapist- in that order.

  62. Lots of good comments... by bradley13 · · Score: 2

    I was going to use my mod points, but there are too many good comments (and plenty of modders anyway).

    However, one point no one seems to have made yet: TFA seems to worry that, without Alg2, you won't get a college degree, and the world will be denied the next talented sports writer or EMT.

    To me, a better question is: Why in the world would you expect a sports writer or an EMT to have a college degree? Those are both fields that require a certain amount of training, but a college degree seems to be the wrong kind. What is it with the US (this is very US oriented), that everyone is expected to go to college? The simple fact is that most people don't (or shouldn't) need a college degree for their careers. And by forcing everyone to go, you only water down the contents of a college education, so that everyone can pass.

    Also: I agree with the Ms. Goldstein's husband: you require high school students to do math for the same reason you require them to read Shakespeare. High school is a generalist education that should expose students to an essential broad cross section of academic and cultural studies.

    Finally, Ms. Goldstein hits on a key problem with math education in the USA: "American teachers, especially those in the elementary grades, have taken few math courses themselves, and often actively dislike the subject." Might just make it hard to learn...

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
    1. Re:Lots of good comments... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone is expected to go to college, so that everyone will have debt.

  63. Generational math illiteracy by michaelmalak · · Score: 1

    Sure, teach statistics before Calculus. But the reason students struggle in math is the teachers themselves do not know math. There is an illiteracy in math that is handed down generation to generation, analogous to the language illiteracy in the descendants of American slaves that is handed down generation to generation (stemming from when it was made illegal to teach blacks how to read and write). Math, including Algebra II and Geometry, teach logical thinking, something that is sorely lacking and that is greatly needed in today's culture which is soaked in misleading media on the one hand and marked by rapid changes in technology and culture on the other, both of which requiring critical and logical thinking to sort it out and to not get led astray by fads and lies.

    1. Re: Generational math illiteracy by dothasmurfysmurf · · Score: 1

      Aka innumeracy

  64. Really ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You assume people would grok the issues related to "exponential growth" and would do something useful about it ? Yeah, that requires some Algebra.

    The current trajectory is "ignorant, brutish religion wins numerically", though.

  65. I support the pro-Statistics part by mi · · Score: 1

    Where this simply a case for statistics. I'd support it... But Algebra underpins it all — there are good arguments for introducing children to Algebra before Arithmetic (Robert Heinlein, actually, floated this idea decades ago).

    polynomials and logarithms, and is required by the new Common Core curriculum standards used by 47 states and territories, drives dropouts at both the high school and college levels

    Oh, wow — just when America started doing something right about Math, someone wants to mess with it. So, if people drop out because of it, it should be abolished? The logic sounds sort of like that about narcotics — people keep doing it despite efforts to the contrary, so it should become legal. Oh, he only talks about Algebra II — the "complicated" stuff... Well, how elitist of him — what about the poor kids, who fail basic Algebra en masse?

    But, hey, how about we abolish the "Common Core" instead and allow the decisions on what to teach be made at the local level — and compare the results? Yes, some schools will be in error, but not all — while national curriculum created in Washington carries the risk of forcing everybody to make a mistake...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  66. Re:advanced mathematics requirements, like algebra by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not only is that NOT advanced mathematics, but if these people realized what advanced mathematics encompasses they'd realize that everyone uses advanced mathematics every day. Sigh. I wonder where these people come from and how people end up listening to them.

  67. Calculus is a prerequisite for statistics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The normal distribution is defined as the solution to the differential equation: df/dx = -k(x - u) f(x)

  68. So, no logarithms and trigonometry in statistics? by tommeke100 · · Score: 1

    The Entropy is high in this dude's head.

  69. Do the math! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those who fail to do the math are doomed to failure....

    The world doesn't run on feelings and unicorn farts. Do the math!

  70. Never wound a bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To make useful stuff, you need math. These days, stuff includes food, energy, houses, the Internet, cell phones, computers, war, medicine, Cat scanners, movies, the stock market, and many, many more other things that keep us alive and out of the middle ages. With as many folks on the planet today, maybe that's out of the stone age?

    This country is supposed to have the idea of equal opportunity to climb up or down the economic ladder. Perhaps the math hurdle is a path to help smart, focused poor folks climb up and rich otherwise inclined folks climb down. It that a bad thing?

    As a human, I use the thinking skills that come from math to sort good ideas from bad daily.
        Me thinks for technical things, Mr Hacker is a little behind the 8-ball in this area.

    A wise man once said never wound a bad idea, kill it dead dead dead.
    This seems one of the best cases I've ever seen for this rule.

  71. Ideas of a political scientist by mangamaster03 · · Score: 1

    The author is a political scientist, so why wouldn't he propose reducing the math curriculum.

    1. Re:Ideas of a political scientist by sabbede · · Score: 1

      I was one. They don't like math. And they're really, really bad at it.

  72. Re:advanced mathematics requirements, like algebra by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I disagree...

    While memorizing divisors and even multiplication tables is increasingly obsolete, understanding the how is important.
    I don't know how to "calculate" a square root by hand, but I do know that a square root is the inverse operation of a square (i.e. sqrt(2^2)=2) and I know that a square is just a multiplication of a number by itself. (i.e. 2^2=2*2)
    From these two bits of informat I can tell you that 2*2=2^2=4 and that thus sqrt(4)=2 and 3^2=3*3=9 so sqrt(9)=3 or 4^2=16 so sqrt(16)=4 ... but I can't tell you what sqrt(8) equals other than that it's between 2 and 3 and probably a lot closer to 3 than 2... so I'll guess 2.8... and sqrt(5) is some where between 2 and 3 and closer to 2... we'll say 2.2... I didn't calculate the sqrt, I guessed, if I had a calculator I could tell you that sqrt(5)=2.2360679774997896964091736687313.

    This is what we need to do with division also... and even multiplication (2*4=2+2+2+2) and it's part of what common core is trying to get at (with what success I can't say) teach kids not how to get exact answers, computers are for exact answers, teach kids how to get close enough in their head and how to use the computer to get something exact... that way when the computer lies to you for whatever reason (mis-entered data? bad calculation? screen resolution?) they see it and look to troubleshoot before blindly accepting the answer.

    I had a calc professor who really enjoyed the fact that the screen resolution and default window size on graphing calculators could make them lie about what a wave form looked like... he'd give a long polynomial and ask you to draw a rough graph of the function... if you put it in a TI-83 or 89 (he handed out different tests based on your calculator) it would graph a sin wave at the default view, but if you zoomed out it was a parabola... the truth was it was a parabola with a sin wave looking form between x=-10 and x=10 (default view on the calc if I remember right).

    His reasoning is that if you looked at the formula (something like x^20+4x^5+99x^4+4x^3+8x^2+6x=y) before entering it into the calculator you'd see the x^20 as the largest value in the equation and know that as x approached infinity so did y and as x approaches negative infinity, y approaches infinity. but in the middle there is a bunch of squiggles, in his formula designed to make a sin wave at -10 through 10.

    Understanding the basics, having a rough idea of what right looks like should be a requirement to use the computer, because it will produce wrong answers from time to time because of bad data or other reasons, and the human needs to be able to identify that and fix it rather than following blindly.

  73. Stop That! by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    It is vital, for people to get along with each other, that all students are required to do serious mathematics. Many people think that mathematicians and scientists do no real work at all. Many are also deluded and think that if they buckle down a bit they could excel at math. The simple truth is that if they dedicated every ounce of their being to being able to work as a mathematician or scientists that mostly could not cut it. The social effects are awful. High school math teachers are not highly paid nor are many college professors. After all, why would the public support them when the public opines that anyone can do this stuff well. We also have such deep literacy issues that many parents want college to really degrade itself into being a trade school. The cost of education is so high that parents want to turn college into a get even, money- wise, experience. I would like to see advanced mathematics as an absolute requirement for any high school diploma. Hopefully at least, to beginning calculus for all students. Students not capable of academic life need to be moved to job training or trade schools. We need to support our intellectuals at far higher levels than we currently do. It is tyhe whiz kids that will make America prosperous and strong. The rest can cook French fries as KFC or some other menial task.

  74. same for CS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, how does CS help with the 99.9% of OTHER jobs, the ones that arent CS related.

    1. Re:same for CS by Script+Cat · · Score: 1

      Here sort these items by the 3rd row in the even columns and the 5th row in the odd columns. (Proceeds to start cutting and pasting with the mouse.)

  75. Logarithms and polynomials? by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
    That's really basic stuff. Without logarithms, how would anyone describe logarithmic processes (e.g. human hearing) or exponential processes (radioactive decay, heat transfer, whatever)?

    And (simple) polynomials appear in basic things like kinetic energy.

    On the other hand, some statistics and probability theory is useful.

    1. Re:Logarithms and polynomials? by Walking+The+Walk · · Score: 1

      Without logarithms, how would anyone describe logarithmic processes (e.g. human hearing)?

      This. How can we expect people to understand that a magnitude 7 earthquake is 10 times more powerful than a magnitude 6 earthquake, if they don't at least know the basics of logarithms? Similarly for decibels. These are units that are routinely used in both the news and normal conversation, yet they think it'll be fine if an entire generation thinks the difference between 10 decibels and 20 is the same as the difference between 110 and 120 db?

      --
      A recursive sig
      Can impart wisdom and truth
      Call proc signature()
  76. Re:I see the argument, but its deeper than just ma by Major+Blud · · Score: 1

    You cant raise a family on any of these careers

    That's a pretty hefty assumption. I know plenty of welders and EMT's that have large families and are very financially secure. Of course my evidence is anecdotal, but so is yours.

    Namely, that we presume so long as everyone can "code" and learn maths, that they can one day successfully achieve gainful employment

    I would counter that parent's seem to presume that Little Johnny doesn't need math because he's headed for the NBA/NFL/RIAA anyway.

    --
    If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
  77. Missing the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem with math is not the nature of the subject, but the notation. The symbols used in math are very difficult for the human brain to work with. What is needed is a complete rethink on the notation to make it more 'user friendly'.

    To think of it in different terms, its like swapping assembly language for a higher level language.

    A notation that provides some insight into the actual 'code' behind it, Such as square root, would be really useful.

    The above article asserts that coders do not use math, well, coding is a mixture of algebra and calculus. We use it wvery day and a program is technically a type of mathematical proof.

  78. Algebra and calculus a requirement for stats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As far as I know, algebra and calculus are a hard requirement for statistics even basic one. Logarithms, exponential and polynomials are really basic requirement. Theses may be explained intuitively with a graphical representation and illustrated by real world applications. 99% of your students are not able to understand those: teachers your are doing it wrong!

    PS: I'm not a professional teacher but I frequently give free private lesson to high school students, I never met one I was unable to teach theses concepts.

  79. Yup! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's been a bit more than 10 years since I've finished highschool and started to work, never used anything higher than regular fractions(once or twice), learned in primary school, when I was like, 10~11. 99.99% of the time what you need is just the basic 4, addition/subtraction/multiplication/division, that's all.

  80. Let's Make a Deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You get to drop Algebra if you also drop English Literature.

    "According to another Hacker, only English Lit majors actually use English literature in their day-to-day work and even the doctors, accountants, and coders of the future shouldn't have to master abstract English literature that they'll never need. For many English literature is often an impenetrable barrier to academic success."

  81. Re:A view I've held for long time by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    This

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  82. Re:I see the argument, but its deeper than just ma by Shortguy881 · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure you can argue a long-haul driver as skilled labor. I know some cooks, carpenters and mechanics and none of them live in utter poverty as you describe. They aren't millionaires but most have immense job satisfaction (its what they want to do) and a decent living. I'm not sure were you are coming up with this biblically underpaid nonsense.

    I'd argue the fever dream nowadays is these just graduated college students who think they can enter the work force at 6 figures and be a millionaire by age 30. But be damned if they have to work to get there. That woman from Yelp is a prime example.

    --
    Brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.
  83. Re:I see the argument, but its deeper than just ma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cooks, carpenters, welders, EMT's, and auto mechanics are all incredibly important --and in some cases in high demand -- professions for people to consider. However the pay and hours in these fields is a form of misery not seen since the old testament. You cant raise a family on any of these careers, and for some of them retirement isnt really an option.

    I know quite a few people in those fields who are having an easier time raising a family and preparing for retirement than many other engineers that I know. Time to time I wonder why I didn't just got into a trade and still might someday if I get totally fed up with my industry.

  84. Re:I see the argument, but its deeper than just ma by swb · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Very well said. There is a tremendous bias against jobs that involve working with your hands and far too many people are encouraged to "go to college" in order to obtain some apocryphal "white collar" career. I would say that a lot of the IT problems many companies have originate with this blue collar bias, with the belief that IT employees are somehow not quite white collar.

    I had a conversation with the maintenance supervisor at a client who told me about his son. In the top 10% of his class in high school, he told the school counselor he didn't want to go to college. The counselor requested a meeting with his dad and basically beat him up for not making him go to college (the kid ended up getting some kind of 2 year drafting education, and works for a kitchen equipment maker travelling to job sites to review kitchen construction plans to make sure the planned designs and installations will work -- the guy said he makes close to 100k).

    As far as I can tell, all the "go to college" rhetoric has done is build college administration empires, make oodles of money for the student loan industry and probably dumb down traditional academic courses that vocationally-minded students have no interest in.

    And what's the end game, exactly? $100k in a debt so you can make coffee? We've flooded the market with half-educated college graduates aspiring to a mythical middle class lifestyle that's becoming increasingly unobtainable even by well educated graduates.

    One thing that kind of counts against a lot of skilled trades is the abysmal, old-school hostile management-labor relationship. I worked closely with journeyman electricians as my last job and while the benefits they had seemed great, the work environment seemed really unpleasant. Draconian, authoritarian management schemes, forced overtime and work rules that make a $20k a year cubical job seem pleasant.

  85. Descartes, Prof. Hacker? by ErnoWindt · · Score: 1

    Learning math is part of an essential education, along with reading, writing, developing critical thinking and analysis skills, learning at least one foreign language, not to mention learning history, geography, etc. Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Kant and almost all of the great philosophers throughout history were skilled at mathematics. In Descartes' case, his work had a profound impact on mathematics. To say that philosophers don't need to study math only reveals the paucity of Hacker's own knowledge.

  86. Mathematics = survival tool by fonske · · Score: 1

    Our senses were developed to let a heterotrophic organism survive.
    Galilei quote:
    "The universe cannot be read until we have learned the language and become familiar with the characters in which it is written. It is written in mathematical language, and the letters are triangles, circles and other geometrical figures, without which means it is humanly impossible to comprehend a single word. Without these, one is wandering about in a dark labyrinth."

    You want to let kids choose between acting out like a chimp or study mathematics?

    BTW: reading is not adding letters in words, words in sentences, application of grammatics...
    It's recognition of patterns which just happens to be the essence of mathematics.
    Mathematics is easy peasy if you learn your definitions - as much a vocabulary thing as anything else.

    But the problem is you can't see that if you never studied it - or better, understood it's essence!!!
    So here I see a big problem in education: always the stress on analysis.
    But analysis is a chicken without a head if it's not followed by synthesis, a creative exercise to put things back in perspective.

  87. algebra is not the problem.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the whole "common core" bullshit is the real problem.

    1. Re:algebra is not the problem.. by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

      Why?

    2. Re:algebra is not the problem.. by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Common Core obfuscates math. Other subjects differ in their particular problems, but rest assured that political bias is injected where possible.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  88. Same goes for studying fiction by SlideRuleGuy · · Score: 1

    I've made a similar case against teaching students all about fiction, poetry and drama in so-called English classes, as nobody needs that crap except future English teachers, authors and poets. (And if we make this change, even future English teachers won't need to study fiction, poetry or drama.) We should replace all that useless garbage with reading comprehension (using NON-fiction exclusively), writing (again, non-fiction) and critical thinking studies. Our current educational emphases come to us from a distant past and seriously need revamping. We need critical thinkers far worse than we need people who can create fiction.

    1. Re: Same goes for studying fiction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why can't you think critically about ideas from fiction? Particularly philosophical issues---fiction gives us an outlet to explore things that don't yet, or even can't ever, exist in our world. Critical thinking is about exploring new ideas and evaluating them. The two seem to go hand-in-hand.

  89. Re:I see the argument, but its deeper than just ma by shawn2772 · · Score: 1

    However the pay and hours in these fields is a form of misery not seen since the old testament. You cant raise a family on any of these careers, and for some of them retirement isnt really an option. we use education as a whipping stick for these careers to insist theyre worth "less" than they really are

    You're making a claim here that doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Specifically, you're claiming that those vocational careers aren't well paid because we "insist" they're less valuable than others that require more education. But such perceptions have little to no effect on wages. What drives wages is supply and demand, and those fields aren't well paid because the supply of people able to do them is high relative to the demand for them.

    If you want to see this self-fulfilling prophecy of underemployment in the real world, just look at the trucking industry. Perpetually understaffed, underpaid long-haul tractor-trailer drivers that get no vacation, sick leave, or retirement fund yet are in such ridiculous demand that most trucking companies like Dart or Swift will pay the driver to finish their CDL education. The demand is so high, drivers with a good record can quit a job and be hired at another in the same day.

    The fact that a driver can get another job easily, and the fact that trucking companies are willing to pay for training, don't indicate that truck drivers are underpaid relative to the economics of the industry. Truckers can change jobs easily because their skills are highly mobile: Driving a truck for one company is no different from driving for another. There are slight differences in procedures and paperwork, but they're trivial, so friction is low. The contract nature of trucker employment also helps a lot; because the company can easily terminate any driver who turns out to be a problem, they don't have to be very careful about who they hire.

    As for training, trucking companies have found that it's cheaper to pay for training than to pay higher mileage rates, because that allows them to draw from the large pool of unskilled workers available and because the training is easy, a legally-required formality more than a challenging skill development exercise. If the training were longer, more expensive and more difficult, then they'd undoubtedly find it better to raise pay scales and let the higher pay encourage people to take on the risk of obtaining training themselves.

  90. You never know when by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You need algebra at a bar:
    http://www.ilovebacon.com/fresh-bacon/algebra-1.html

  91. don't debate this topic here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    on SD, anonymous posts last about 2 minutes before deletion. If you see this, look back again in 3 minutes. Poof! It never happened. If you wonder about what scrap heap is adorned by people who can't master basic math skills, you can stop now - these folk are moderating and deleting SD posts so that you won't have to be uncomfortable due to the process of thought. If you viewed this post prior to deletion, have no worries, you'll briefly wonder if you ever saw it in the first place. But, this questioned memory won't linger. Rest assured, you will sleep well.

  92. Already failed math... by shellster_dude · · Score: 1

    If you're going to college to "become a poet" or a sports writer, you've already failed math. You've failed to do even a trivial cost-benefit analysis on your "investment". If the math hurdle keeps a couple more dummies from throwing their money away, I say it's a good thing.

  93. Just went through this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Full disclosure: I have a degree in math and physics and absolutely LOVE math and practical and impractical applications.
    Now my dilemma: My daughter is in final year of high School and I asked her to take an advanced functions class, so she could learn some mathematical rigour and ingrain some logical thought processes before she went away to university and I wouldn't be around to help her if she got stuck on a problem. I have always encouraged her to do math and science but frankly aside from biology she completely sucks at STEM. She gets excellent grades in the touchy feely classes like english and art and social sciences. It was not a lack for trying and she had an interest in STEM when younger but now avoids it like the plague.
    Long story short she has dropped the advanced functions class because she fears it will drop her overall average, which would affect her ability to get into the post secondary school of her choice (Her chosen field of study does not require math) . Where did I go wrong? Are some people really not able to comprehend Maths and abstract thought? I find it hard to believe if so, I know I struggled when I first encountered the higher stuff, but graduated top of my class in University...There has to be a way.

    1. Re:Just went through this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The last pure mathematics course I took in college, I got an F because I was not able to complete the quizzes (4-5 problems each) in the alotted time (around 40 minutes).

      In many cases I understood full well how to solve the problems, but in between studying 4 other subjects, rushing around town through traffic and finding parking, and working two jobs it was just too tricky to focus my attention in such a way to complete them in such a short amount of time. These time constraints also meant I always had to rush to and from class, and because dropping the class would cause me to lose full-time status I simply had to take the F and stop going so I could devote time to other "more important" courses (this was purely an elective for me).

      That's the key: some people can just do it faster than others, and our system rewards them to the exclusion of everyone else. Personal circumstances are completely ignored unless the student seeks personal attention from the professors. Many students lack the confidence to do this, or simply lack the time. Only the wealthiest and most privileged students are typically able to produce such focus (especially the ones who abuse prescription ADHD medication).

      We would have a lot better mathematicians if we relaxed the time constraints, and as others have commented this is certainly not uncommon for other educational systems past and present (which show much higher success rates than our own). But, perhaps it is by

      CAPTCHA: design

  94. Ban geography and history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't see why I as an engineer should know anything at all about geological processor, or what Karl Marx's birthday was.
    Are these people retarded? Maybe common core books, or american teachers are simply shit.
    I went through high school with 60 other students in my year and only 5 of them didn't pass due to whatever reason.
    Sure, some students only got 6 out of 10 on average, or even 5 out of ten, and they will go on to do something on tv, or whatever.
    Also, how exactly are you going to teach statistics without matrix multiplication etc?

  95. Hate? Bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The reason why math is hard is two-fold:

    1. It isn't mere rote memorization.
    2. It isn't a touchy feely subjective subject where you get points for effort or a good argument.

    And the reason it's incomprehensible to the masses is because the way it's taught is complete crap. Far too many teachers ignore point number one.

  96. Statistics instead of Algebra by Script+Cat · · Score: 2

    f(x)=ae^-( ((x-b)^2) / 2c^2)

  97. Re:I see the argument, but its deeper than just ma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know where you get off saying " You cant raise a family on any of these careers" The skilled trades are fantastic careers to get into. I happen to do architectural sheetmetal and I will say I know for a fact that my salary is higher then many of my acquaintances who work in various IT and engineering.

    On a side note, I do absolutely see the value in high level math. It teaches logic and deductive reasoning.

  98. The real problem is accelerated math by MyNicknameSucks · · Score: 1

    Howdy folks,

    The problem with the math curriculum is how much ground high school kids are expected to cover in one or two classes per year. Just look through older posts: algebra; polynomials; logarithms; stats; calculus; trig. That is a massive amount of material to cover. Further, since math builds upon prior concepts, if you had a teacher who skipped over part of the curriculum or you simply had trouble with earlier material, you're boned once you reach the more advanced concepts -- and things can get exponentially worse unless you either get tutoring or have a sudden epiphany.

    I actually don't know what the solution is. I know a couple old school Ph.Ds in biology who have had to take crash courses in stats the last few years as they work through DNA analyses. Their joke is that they went into biology because it was considered math-light 25 years ago. But then, I also know people with solid math backgrounds who stumble on figuring out tips (it's not just the % -- there are social norms involved that influence the calculation). Most math curricula are light on doing everyday math mentally.

    If you breezed through math in high school? That's freakin' awesome. I honestly wish I was better at higher math -- my job options would've been wider post-graduation.

    But ... we're taking an accelerated math curriculum and throwing it at everyone, regardless of ability or, importantly, regardless of prior education. The one size fits all approach is kinda' crazy in a subject that, essentially, builds a scaffold from scratch.

    Anywho ... with regard to "useless" classes like gym and the arts ... gym and music have pretty solid evidence showing they help raise academic scores (especially with regards to boys and doing something physical). Ditto for having green spaces for kids to spend time in during the day. Humanities classes, done well (trust, just like math and science, they often aren't), also teach critical thinking, but of a type that places value on being able to read emotions and placing events in context. The emotional IQ thing, as current thinking holds, is essential in making effective teams -- http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02...

    Basically, we should be teaching kids 50 hours a week, giving them time to burn off energy, in environments with green spaces, with fully involved teachers, including individualized learning regimens (with private tutors, as needed), with music instruction (especially in groups) all in a cost-effective manner. IME, we're kinda' asking the impossible.

    1. Re:The real problem is accelerated math by MrKrillls · · Score: 1

      Yes! More time - but it must be well spent with better math teachers at least.

      --
      Don't step on the baby.
    2. Re:The real problem is accelerated math by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      The typical school week is 30 hours, of which 2 to 5 hours is lunchtime and 0 to 4 hours is walking between classes. Many children already hate school and can barely contain their violence in that small period. You want to imprison them for 50 hours a week?

      Exercise is for when school is out, not in a prescribed class where half the male students consider the teachers sadistic boors. The exception may be densely populated cities lacking adequate safe playgrounds, but suburban and rural areas should not need gym classes.

      Too bad it's not possible to make soft seats that aren't easily destroyed with sharp objects. Sitting on a wooden chair for an hour hurts, and that's one reason students can't seem to focus.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    3. Re:The real problem is accelerated math by MyNicknameSucks · · Score: 1

      Hey-o,

      You misunderstood my points.

      I didn't say that kids should be in class for 50 hours a week -- I said, basically, that we're trying to cram 50 hours' worth of stuff into 30 hours with, sometimes, incompetent teachers and poor environments, "we're kinda' asking the impossible."

      And the physical activity correlation with academic achievement works (particularly with boys) when it's rolled into the school day. The problem is more with bad teachers, as you yourself pointed out, rather than with the concept itself. You might not have liked gym, along with many other kids, but it's an essential release of pent up energy during the school day for many others. Again, just like teaching math, there isn't really a one size fits all approach to fostering academic achievement.

  99. Re:I see the argument, but its deeper than just ma by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

    " Perpetually understaffed, underpaid long-haul tractor-trailer drivers that get no vacation, sick leave, or retirement fund yet are in such ridiculous demand that most trucking companies like Dart or Swift will pay the driver to finish their CDL education. The demand is so high, drivers with a good record can quit a job and be hired at another in the same day. "

    No worries. Once the self-drive technology matures, this industry will be the first to adopt it. If you're currently in the Trunk Driving industry, it is highly recommended to start prepping for this unavoidable reality in the near future. This goes for all driving based jobs ( Taxis, delivery, etc. )

  100. We are retarded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Algebra isn't just about a skill set, it also helps the brain develop in certain ways and empowers certain types of thinking (memory, logic, and even critical thinking and integrating other knowledge). This is why it is required. Calculus on the other hand, is highly specialized and that is why it is not required. I'm all for civics too, but that used to be part of a balanced cirriculum once upon a time (I took both, and at a far younger age than modern students). We are morons destroying ourselves by destroying younger generations (the children really ARE our future).

  101. Appalled by HalcyonTimes · · Score: 1

    I'm appalled by the general sentiment of most other commenters. It seems like a lot of people are missing the point. The core argument is that you don't need to be good at maths to do most jobs. I'm an engineer myself and I work on some pretty advanced stuff, but I don't need algebra in my daily work.

    It seems like a lof of commenters take Hacker's proposal as an affront to their intelligence. "I passed the test so everyone else should pass the test". This shows a serious lack of empathy. Slashdot visitors are most university engineers, we are the top 5% of the world. It's important to realize that 95% of the world are not as academically smart as you. This doesn't mean they can't do many of the jobs we rely on.
    The irrationality Hacker aims at is that advanced maths is not something most people need in their working daily lives. So why have it as part of a standardized exam? It's not about being smart or dumb, it's about gauging the relative usefulness of skills.

    1. Re:Appalled by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Because if the subject isn't taught, then almost nobody will ever really get very good at it.

      People who happen to be good at math weren't born that way.... they still had to be taught. And it's not just about learning the basics and expecting someone to go forward from there, because getting good at math for most people requires practice.... and practicing to get good at something when you aren't very good to begin with, or don't understand it very well yet generally pushes people quite far outside of their own comfort zone.

      Of course, it is only when we stretch ourselves beyond the levels that we are ordinarily comfortable that real learning can begin. If this person's proposal were ever taken seriously by academia, all that would happen is that we'd have fewer people able to do things that require this kind of education, and many of those who would otherwise have been very good at this sort of math will never discover their true potential.

    2. Re:Appalled by Charcharodon · · Score: 1
      Then get rid of college degrees all together. Replace them with certifications that stack up to a similar conclusion.

      The biggest problem most people have with college is not that it is hard material, it is staying motivated for 4-5 years while overworked and dirt poor.

      Most jobs need maybe 6-18 months worth of training at best. Everything else is showing up to work on time and remembering to wear pants.

  102. Bring back Home Ec by Tvingo · · Score: 1

    Screw statistics, if you want practical bring back Home ec and teach basic accounting, teach about credit cards, checking, saving, mortgages, etc. That's far more useful to force upon everyone. That said if you can't get through Algebra II with at least a C in high school you probably aren't cut out to tie your shoelaces let alone become any of the professions the article mentions.

    --
    Nothing i have to say is worth saying.
  103. Where this is going by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    They should just go ahead and remove all academic requirements and replace them with a yoga class so we'll be able to bend over and kiss our asses goodbye.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  104. Re:I see the argument, but its deeper than just ma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We assume little johnny needs to code because thats what his employers want

    This is what the Sillicon Valley assholes are trying to push with their unnatural influence on congress and the whitehouse, however you should not let that distract you from the actual value that learning coding could and should have. The problem is, it is being taught as a singular skill. It should be taught as a subject. Coding is as broad as the entirety of Mathematics. It is not creating some hipster shit in Ruby. That's actually more Marketing design skills than anything coding related.

    The reason coding in basic education is important, is the same reason mathematics is important. If you have a broad knowledge of the subject, you can apply it to a variety of situations in your life. There are so many things that could be improved by good software, even very physical things like farming or plumbing. If people in these jobs had general coding knowledge, they could advance their own fields, instead of relying on some kind of magical guru coder specialist that will never get hired.

    The problem with our education system, is expecting people to learn what they need for a job, instead of learning what it means to be human. The difference between mules carrying shit up mountains, and humans, is the ability to think and reason. Yet all of our laborers are treated like animals and even machines, expected to repeat things exactly over and over again, any variation being unwanted. Which is precisely INHUMAN. The problem is our jobs and our education. They both need to change out of this slaver->slave, employer->slave, job creator->job beggar economy.

  105. Political [Cough] SCIENCE by FatRatBastard · · Score: 1

    "*political scientist* Andrew Hacker"

    Well there's your problem. From "science" that is softer than a new born's bowel movement. [/snark]

  106. Abandon learning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Learning is getting in the way of people getting a community college degree. Just drop learning altogether, keep people in stasis for 3 years for a few hours a day, then give them a degree. Their life prospects are obviously dependent on the paper itself rather than what it certifies.

  107. Hilarious by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    "I regard this math requirement as highly irrational."

    I see what you did there...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  108. Forget statistics by poet · · Score: 1

    Let's talk personal finance and economics which will give you basic algebra (pre-algebra) as well as basic statistics and some sense of when to use debt and not!

    --
    Get your PostgreSQL here: http://www.commandprompt.com/
  109. A Story about Abstraction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm a computer scientist, and also happen to be pretty good at algebra, trig, and calculus. I also study educational psychology and course development, specifically for computer science. By far and large, the biggest problem most students have in computer science is the notion of abstraction.

    When I was an undergraduate in political science, we were studying four schools of legal philosophy (Thomas Aquinas and his ilk). We were required to discuss law based on the theoretical frameworks of these legal scholars. The other students in my class simply could not do it - they were wholly unable to detach themselves from their beliefs about how law should be and attempt to discuss from a different perspective. As a computer scientist, I found it very easy to step back, adopt a set of premises, draw logical conclusions about a legal question, and then argue the legal question from a completely different set of premises. This astounded my classmates, who made the course so personal that one young woman left the room in tears because we didn't want to hear things from her perspective.

    Abstraction is a very difficult process for many people. Children who enjoy complicated board games and role playing games are the ones I often believe would make excellent computer scientists and mathematicians given that they can operate under a given set of rules and reach answers and conclusions using those rules.

    Consider a board game: most people are capable of following the rules. Fewer are capable of learning how to use the rules to their advantage to win.

  110. Mmy general ed algebra. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At a community college had a full class 28 students at final there were 2.

  111. Stats always seem harder to me by Tangential · · Score: 1

    I am skeptical. I understand that stats are not well understood and are easily twisted to correlate almost anything.
    But as a graduate engineer with lots of Calculus, Algebra, Stats and Probability in my past, I personally found probability and statistics a lot harder than Algebra.
    To think that people who can't handle 2x + 1 = 3x -1 are going to 'get' statistics is highly improbable to me.

    --
    Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But then I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain
  112. Missing car analogy by Sax+Russell+5449D29A · · Score: 1

    Imagine algebra being the driving school and practical statistics as driving a car. You can hardly drive a car in an urban environment unless you've gone to driving school and know how the system around you works.

    Sure, the end result is where everybody wants to get, but there are (sadly) no shortcuts.

    --
    -SR
  113. Maybe it's not the math? by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    Perhaps teaching algebra, geometry, and such isn't so much about the UTILITY of the specific skills, but more about teaching kids a methodical, procedural, deductive method of thinking and problem solving?

    Not every answer in their lives will be found by 'googling' or 'asking their friends'.
    Sometimes, there are going to be hard problems - and not just math-related ones, although likely there will be plenty of those - where having some experience in methodically stepping-through the issue's component parts and rigorously analyzing the thing will be the only way to come to a good conclusion.

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:Maybe it's not the math? by MrKrillls · · Score: 1

      Also, given better teaching, maybe some teacher might be able to make note of the beauty hiding in plain sight in math and geometry.

      --
      Don't step on the baby.
  114. Re:I see the argument, but its deeper than just ma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But you're right, long-haul heavy trucking will go first.

  115. Machine Learning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Algebra is the basis os Machine Learning Algorithms (think Google etc.). In Asia and Eastern Europe students learn algebra in middle school. These people will eat you alive.

  116. they should move it to junior high school by peter303 · · Score: 1

    God, I was so bored by slow math progression in grade school. Even though I accelerated two years and eventually went to MIT, I feel I could have accelerated math another 2 or 3 more years. I know plenty of bored stiff people too.

    1. Re:they should move it to junior high school by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      This is the as yet mostly unutilized potential of computer learning. For those of us who found pre-college math somewhere between easy and obvious, self-paced modules of mathematics would be a huge boon.

      Properly implemented computerized education has vast advantages - custom pacing, infinitely patient electronic teachers, low burden on human teachers. It's hard for me to imagine any field that would benefit more from computerized education than math. The progress that could be achieved with children not held back in areas where they're most effective should be astounding.

      Schools - centralized places where children are taught en masse should have been a thing of the past two decades ago. What the hell is wrong? Why hasn't this happened?

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  117. Calculus not needed for intro level stats by sjbe · · Score: 5, Informative

    Forget algebra, how can you teach stats to someone with zero exposure to calculus?

    You can do a basic stats class for people who haven't had calculus. I know because I have taught and tutored people in stats who haven't had calculus. You will find very few stats classes that will require you to actually have a deep understanding of calculus. Sure, if you do know calc you can go deeper into stats but it isn't vital to start with. You can teach Bayes theorem, conditional probability, and lots more without ever doing a derivative or integral. I made my living doing statistical simulations and none of it required me to actually do any calculus to get useful answers.

    Probability theory can't be described without limits and infinite summations, i.e. you can't comprehend it without calculus.

    Not true, at least at the introductory level. Most people can understand a bell curve just fine without ever having taken a calculus class. Just because they can't derive the formula for the curve doesn't mean they can't understand the concept it represents. It's no different than intro physics in that regard. Plenty of people take intro physics prior to or concurrently with calculus. It's when you want to go deeper that you might need to understand some calculus but most people will never get there.

    1. Re:Calculus not needed for intro level stats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Key word, 'basic'

      This is tying people to the lowest rung of understanding

      Perfectly fine if you want a nation of data consumers who believe what you feed them instead of analyzing it themselves

      What comes next, people griping that nobody should be allowed to use higher math because it is too hard for them to understand?

    2. Re:Calculus not needed for intro level stats by Bookworm09 · · Score: 1

      Posting to undo an incorrect mod. For some stupid reason "offtopic" was chosen as I scrolled through the choices. My finger wasn't even on the mouse button. :(

    3. Re:Calculus not needed for intro level stats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most people can memorize an algorithm to get the answer and you have no fucking clue whether or not they understand because you test on their ability to mechanically apply the algorithm. they haven't a fucking clue that the probability of 2.0000 inches of rain tomorrow is almost exactly 0.0000% and instead will give you the probablility of getting more than 2" or less than 2" by mindlessly applying the algorithm. Do it, ask them the probability of some specific value happening.

      -bitter math adjunct

    4. Re:Calculus not needed for intro level stats by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Stats is 'memorize and regurgitate'/'plug and chug' before calculus. Fine as far as it goes, but often misapplied.

      Of course for most people who are destined to never pass real calculus, all math is 'memorize and regurgitate'. It's why they do so poorly.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    5. Re:Calculus not needed for intro level stats by dpidcoe · · Score: 1

      Most people can understand a bell curve just fine without ever having taken a calculus class

      But at that point you're asking them to just take it on faith that that's how it works. I took a stats class in community college the semester before I did calc, and mostly remember being confused for the entire thing. I passed with flying colors, but only because I'd memorized the correct formulas, had a killer group project, and was able to logic my way through the multiple choice test that was the final. There was really no understanding there, and by the time I'd transferred out I'd forgotten it all.

    6. Re:Calculus not needed for intro level stats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      great. now average folks will be able to tell damnable lies. welcome to idiocracy.

    7. Re:Calculus not needed for intro level stats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because they can't derive the formula for the curve doesn't mean they can't understand the concept it represents.

      And just because the curve is popular/convenient in theory doesn't mean it's the correct curve as often in practice. Of course in practice an approximation is often good enough ;).

    8. Re:Calculus not needed for intro level stats by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      You can do a basic stats class for people who haven't had calculus.

      Indeed. As a returning college student in a different degree field, due to shifting requirements I've had about 4 classes that I need to 'upgrade'. IE my 100 level physics class isn't good enough, I need the 200 level one. My 300 level 'calculus based' statistics class used calculus ONE DAY, and was otherwise mostly identical to my 200 level non-calculus based statistics course.

      Other than it having been two decades since I took the earlier classes, the skills learned(and what little maintenance they received) made passing the latter courses easy.

      Most people can understand a bell curve just fine without ever having taken a calculus class. Just because they can't derive the formula for the curve doesn't mean they can't understand the concept it represents.

      I think this is the critical part to understand. 99% of people today are not going to be collecting statistics on a formal basis, however I'd argue that 99% of people need to understand how basic statistics work. Of those who are doing statistics formally, they will be using some sort of software package to automate most of the tasks, especially the calculus, and mostly need enough familiarity to recognize if something is off - IE the ability to recognize different distribution models.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    9. Re:Calculus not needed for intro level stats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good luck finding the area under that bell curve!

      Forget algebra, how can you teach stats to someone with zero exposure to calculus?

      You can do a basic stats class for people who haven't had calculus. I know because I have taught and tutored people in stats who haven't had calculus. You will find very few stats classes that will require you to actually have a deep understanding of calculus. Sure, if you do know calc you can go deeper into stats but it isn't vital to start with. You can teach Bayes theorem, conditional probability, and lots more without ever doing a derivative or integral. I made my living doing statistical simulations and none of it required me to actually do any calculus to get useful answers.

      Probability theory can't be described without limits and infinite summations, i.e. you can't comprehend it without calculus.

      Not true, at least at the introductory level. Most people can understand a bell curve just fine without ever having taken a calculus class. Just because they can't derive the formula for the curve doesn't mean they can't understand the concept it represents. It's no different than intro physics in that regard. Plenty of people take intro physics prior to or concurrently with calculus. It's when you want to go deeper that you might need to understand some calculus but most people will never get there.

    10. Re:Calculus not needed for intro level stats by ohieaux · · Score: 1

      Do students ever calculate a probability on a Normal distribution with calculus? It's not something I would like to do. That said, other continuous distributions are more easily integrated and can be done for example. But, I've been able to get areas from software and tables for just about anything that matches a real world process or distribution.

      --
      Where all think alike, no one thinks very much.
    11. Re:Calculus not needed for intro level stats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Discrete probability and statistics does not require calculus, but for the idea of the normal distribution to make meaningful sense, you do need at least a hand-waving version of calculus - areas under a curve and how probability of an interval can be positive while the probability of any specific value in that interval is 0.

    12. Re:Calculus not needed for intro level stats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you can learn introductory calculus before you learn algebra.

  118. A big leap for mankind...backwackwards by evolutionary · · Score: 1

    So, we're saying that we should education people less because we are too stupid/lazy to use the basic building blocks of engineering. Okay, What was it Oscar Wilde said in "The Importance of being Earnest"? " “I do not approve of anything that tampers with natural ignorance. Ignorance is like a delicate exotic fruit; touch it and the bloom is gone.” -Lady Bracknell

    --
    "Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Einstein
  119. obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If math was really hard, it would be ubiquitous in porn.

    [wdw]

  120. Economics rather than stats by Comboman · · Score: 1

    Frankly, stats would not be my choice as a follow-up, but rather a combination of critical thinking courses and civics.

    My choice for an alternate math course would be economics; and I don't mean the monetary theory stuff, just basic budgeting and calculating loan amortizations. You would not believe how many people out there think they are financially responsible because they are making the minimum payment on their credit card debt every month.

    --
    Support Right To Repair Legislation.
    1. Re:Economics rather than stats by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      My choice for an alternate math course would be economics; and I don't mean the monetary theory stuff, just basic budgeting and calculating loan amortizations. You would not believe how many people out there think they are financially responsible because they are making the minimum payment on their credit card debt every month.

      This Exactly. Schools try to force students to pass courses at a certain level and skip more important skills to accomplish that. We would be much better off in both english and math to make sure the lower levels are well mastered before pursuing the higher levels for the sake of a high water mark. Many students are forced to read Shakespeare or into advanced grammer courses when they would be better served by more emphasis on the lower levels that they are still weak at. Many concepts like balancing a checkbook and calculating interest rates are never even covered in school unless you are developmentally disabled. Instead of focusing on "no child left behind" and forcing people to move up, we would be better off focusing on complete mastery at a given level before proceeding to the next level.

    2. Re: Economics rather than stats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is taught in high-schools, it is called Home Economics (home ec for short).

    3. Re:Economics rather than stats by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I think they should do more chemistry, and I don't mean the elements and compounds stuff.

      P.S. Maybe they should study the correct use of semicolons so they don't end up as a retard like you.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    4. Re: Economics rather than stats by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      That is taught in high-schools, it is called Home Economics (home ec for short).

      Home Ec is optional for most, primarily only taken by girls, and mostly a misnomer. I actually took home ec in high school and bizarrely enough it never covered any economics. It covered things like cooking, sewing, and setting a table.

    5. Re: Economics rather than stats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not nice, its just a post on the Internet. Besides, that semicolon is 100% correct! http://www.grammar-monster.com/lessons/semicolons_before_conjunctions.htm

    6. Re:Economics rather than stats by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      Many students are forced .... into advanced grammer courses when they would be better served by more emphasis on the lower levels that they are still weak at.

      Like spelling?

    7. Re: Economics rather than stats by mspohr · · Score: 1

      How would you do this without algebra?

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    8. Re: Economics rather than stats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Econ is a good idea, but I would say, at least in addition if not more urgently, students in high school should be taking courses in logic. You have no idea how many papers I read in which students can't formulate or present a logically meaningful point of view. It terrifies me to no end, and I think we have only seen the tip of the iceberg of Trump-like candidates (on both sides). Just wait until this crop of kids, who have no clue how to think, becomes the largest voting bloc in the US.

    9. Re: Economics rather than stats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With a block of voters, the voters would be grouped according to a common factor (e.g., the way they voted, their age, their class).
      With a bloc of voters, the voters would have actively grouped themselves in order to have an effect towards a common interest.

      Source:
      http://grammar-monster.com/eas...

      Yeah, I was curious too. I wasn't sure. I think they'd be a block in this case. That is, they'd be a block unless they actively grouped themselves together in order to get elect a certain candidate or similar. If they group intentionally, they're a bloc but, by default, they'd just be a block.

  121. Humm... by mdsolar · · Score: 1

    Might the students who succeed in that be also those who would do well with math?

  122. Is there even a shadow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is there even a shadow with it rammed so far us your rear end?

  123. look who's talking by ooloorie · · Score: 1

    Dana Goldstein writes at Slate that political scientist Andrew Hacker proposes replacing algebra II and calculus in the high school and college with a practical course in statistics for citizenship.

    You can't understand statistics meaningfully without algebra and calculus.

    What Andrew Hacker seems to be saying is that students should be taught the kind of pseudo-science that passes for "statistics" among social scientists. Perhaps they should be, but that takes a few weeks, not an entire high school curriculum.

  124. Not For Everyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not everyone needs advanced math. Most Americans are destined for blue collar work anyway, and won't really need anything past 8th grade.

    We could save billions in the education system if we sort out people early, and simply give them just enough education to be a productive happy worker.

    People only get frustrated if you try and teach them more than they can absorb.

    We can use the extra saved money and pour it into research programs, and funding people who actually should go to university and high school.

  125. So education quality continues to "improve" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I used O-Level books to learn A-Level mathematics. The dumbing down of standards to demonstrate "improvement" of education as a whole continues in this latest attack on common sense.

    Advanced algebra presents hurdles for people completing their higher education? So what? Isn't that the point? You don't get a participation award when you FAIL your exams. That's the whole point of grading... so people can demonstrate their ability to learn and apply advanced concepts. It's not about the maths it's about your ability to apply what you have learned. I never enjoyed my mathematics lessons or homework either but I still did it to the best of my ability and, looking back, even though I had no real gift for it I did well enough to further my academic career to a point where I am proud of my achievements. I don't think I'd have been able to do it without learning the life skill called Doing Things Well Even If You Don't Enjoy It Because Not Everything Is Fun And Games. Or DTWEIYDEIBNEIFAG.

    I'm a big supporter of vocational qualifications, when I hire programmers their academic achievements are interesting to me but they are not a deciding factor. I want to see experience and ability to solve problems that are directly related to the work I am paying them to do. Anecdotally I've found that those with the better academic achievements tend to do better but my sample size (I've employed maybe a dozen people full time over the last decade) is way to small to draw a conclusion. Even so, I believe these people have learned DTWEIYDEIBNEIFAG.

    Pure mathematics is about as useful as applied chemistry when it comes to the general workforce. School isn't just about opening doors for jobs, it's about opening doors for academics too. If you are finding your maths homework too hard then do your best and choose a career that doesn't rely on it. Same as chemistry, same as biology, same as physics.

    I don't believe anyone who is attempting to get in to a higher education establishment is being poorly treated if they are unable to learn calculus. Taking it off the curriculum altogether is a huge backwards step. You don't have to do well in it to do well in the things you want to do. Removing the opportunity for people who CAN do well in it because many don't is stifling them. It will harm academia, it will harm engineering and it will reduce the quality of education my a measurable amount.

    At least by an amount measurable by people who can do maths.

    As for teaching statistics instead: I learned statistics side by side with pure mathematics. Why not do both? Oh yeah, it's haaaarrrd. Wah.

  126. Re:I see the argument, but its deeper than just ma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    , just look at the trucking industry. Perpetually understaffed, underpaid long-haul tractor-trailer drivers that get no vacation, sick leave, or retirement fund yet are in such ridiculous demand that most trucking companies like Dart or Swift will pay the driver to finish their CDL education.

    Automation will solve this. Autonomous cars are marketed as reducing the death rate from flying steel and plastic at 60-75 mph but it is long haul trucking that is the killer market.

    And it takes algebra, programming and other skills to make autonomous cars.

    How about we step back and take a sobering moment to realize that knowing philosophy, math and thinking skills makes all jobs more valuable. Even if Western businesses misuse it to dumb down the requirements and expectations of service industry jobs.

  127. Driving is a skill by Dareth · · Score: 1

    You probably know how to drive a car or even a reasonable sized truck. Driving a large rig requires even more skill and a special license to measure that skill. I do not see how it would not be seen as skilled labor.

    --

    I only look human.
    My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
    1. Re:Driving is a skill by Shortguy881 · · Score: 0

      If it can be mastered it in an afternoon of hands on training, its not really a skill. Hacky sack takes more skill. One caveat, this is coming from someone who knows how to drive a stick. You couldn't take someone who hasn't driven stick and master that in an afternoon.

      Now you can come back and say, but think of the snow and ice and steep hills and turn radius and blah blah, but this is really no more involved than the fry cook manual at your local fast food restaurant.

      --
      Brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.
  128. Re:A view I've held for long time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's an easier way to understand when politicians are lying. You simply check if their mouths are moving.

  129. Priming the Pump by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    It's also useful to detect how someone's data is misrepresented. Can anyone lie with statistics to a statistician?

    To a statistician? No.

    But we aren't talking about making everyone a statistician, we are talking about teaching them just enough statistics that they will be MORE susceptible to misleading statistics, not less.

    Someone without statistical training will at least use common sense to act as a check against misleading stats - someone with limited understanding of statistics will buy into a lie much more readily, convincing themselves it is true because they "understand statistics".

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Priming the Pump by suutar · · Score: 1

      if we're talking about _practical_ statistics, then maybe it will (I think it should) include "these are various ways that statistics can be presented to mislead. Keep an eye out for these."

    2. Re:Priming the Pump by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      The book is 'How to Lie with Statistics'.

      It is a classic and should be read by everyone, even those who don't get math.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    3. Re:Priming the Pump by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      You know the reason statistics was invented is because "common sense" is so often wrong, right?

    4. Re:Priming the Pump by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the recommendation - I just bought it and look forward to reading it!

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    5. Re:Priming the Pump by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      There is no man whose understanding is so far off the mark, that he cannot be brought even further away from the truth by misinformation and self-deception.

      Whoever said "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" is literally trying to warn you about a half-education in statistics, the mental equivalent of only taking half your course of antibiotics...

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  130. The Language God Talks by Gim+Tom · · Score: 2

    The Language God Talks -- Richard Feynman

    A quote from the book with the same name, both in print and in audio, by Herman Wouk about his conversations with Feynman while doing research for his two volume magnum opus on WWII. According to Feynman the language is Calculus

  131. The Case Against Gym: It's hard, some can't do it by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

    Especially that rope-climbing bit, I could never do that. Or gymnastics. The lighter quicker kids were always better at that. OTOH I could lift more than they could, and beat any two of them at a tug of war. So, horses for courses.

  132. Not surprising, PoliSci people hate math. by sabbede · · Score: 1
    I know this from personal experience. I majored in PoliSci. They can barely handle basic statistics, which led to some academic disagreements that led to my exit from a masters program.

    Turns out there's far less intentional "lying with statistics" in politics than you might think. Truth is, they just can't follow the math.

  133. Non-whites are the problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and everybody knows it.

  134. The innumerate strike again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So we have someone that represents something that needs the word "science" in its name opining on math. I am ever so inclined to trust his instincts, as for the knowledge, I trust he has none.

  135. Calculus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We can all consult an expert when we need to accomplish something but we need to be able to ask the right questions.
    It is important that all students be exposed to Calculus so that they know what can be done mathematically. They don't need to master it.

  136. Can you learn stats w/o knowing polynomials? by RandCraw · · Score: 1

    No, you must take algebra before you take statistics or probability. If you didn't, the teacher would be able to cover only the most rudimentary concepts in stats or prob.

    Without knowing polynomials, how would you deal with an unknown standard deviation when the known variance is not a simple square? You're stuck. And without knowing logarithms, how do you understand a logarithmic axis on a plot? Or a log likelihood? How would you appreciate that every kind of probability distribution is based on a formula that's expressible only using exponents AND polynomials.

    Learning statistics and probability without algebra II would dumb them down so much that they'd lose their mathematical roots. They'd become merely conceptual... sterile disembodied factoids to be memorized en masse and regurgitatied by rote... never usable and soon forgotten.

  137. Forget Algebra. How about basic math skills? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Judging by the recent abundance of simple math "tests" on Facebook, I'd say people need more time studying BASIC math. Like, really basic math! Like the fact that you do multiplication before addition/subtraction. i.e. "6 - 3 x 0 + 1" does not equal 1.

  138. No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The kind of math they are proposing to remove is so foundational and basic, we might as well agree to remove spelling and handwriting from the curriculum. We are a technological society. If we start chipping away at the educational foundation that our society is built on, the house will sink and crumble.

  139. Re:A view I've held for long time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... As a matter of course we don't teach people medicine or geology or Latin, these are specialisms which people with an interest study as they refine their possible future choices.

    Yes we do.

    Phys ed classes contain first aid components (aka medicine) and geography and foreign languages are both common high school requirements.

    High school is supposed to give a foundation in a broad spectrum of areas before the specialization of college.

  140. Observations.... by erp_consultant · · Score: 1

    Math was something I enjoyed and was quite good at. But for many people it was a real struggle in high school. I saw it as being similar to music. Some people, no matter how hard they tried, could not play an instrument to save their lives. It doesn't mean they are dumb, it's just that some people are wired differently. The difference, or course, is that you could get through high school just fine without ever taking a music class. Not so with math.

    So I agree somewhat with the article but I'm not sure that Statistics is the answer either. Personally, at the high school level, I would prefer that people are taught more practical things. Like how to open a bank account, how to balance a checkbook, how to make a budget, how to cook, the basics of investing, etc. For most people high school is as far as they get in formal education. Only something like 25% of Americans graduate from college.

    There is the argument that math teaches you how to think logically and how to solve problems - both important skills. But we should not be creating barriers to success just because someone has trouble with algebra.

  141. How about using Algebra by jader3rd · · Score: 1

    Think about xkcd 1050, the one which has the text "It's weird how proud people are of not learning math when the same arguments apply to learning to play music, cook, or speak a foreign language."

    I think that the problem is that every math class in school, after Algebra feels like it's being taught because every student needs math every year, and they already learned the material from the previous year, so what's left to teach them? It has a feel of trivia to it, but it's frustrating because you grasp trivia, but this math thing feels like it is supposed to be used somehow but you never get to apply it to anything.

    When a student asks "Why am I learning calculus?" the closest answer which feels remotely right to them is "In case you decide to teach math in High School, you'll need to know calculus".

    What to do about it? Drop pre-algebra for Intro to Computer Science. It'll really be some basic programming, but still. Even tell the students that they get a years break from math. Many will love that, and those that don't will get over themselves quickly. Then do algebra, and then possibly even drop algebra 2 for more programming. This will create a balance in the students minds of learning mathematical principles, and then actually getting to apply them. They'll become better at math.

    And if many students start to get good at programming, it might even be worth it to drop calculus, and trigonometry, for more statistics or even machine learning. I know that there are professions which use calculus, but there are so many more which use stats. And more and more, every business is going to using machine learning.

    I say this as someone who loved math in school. I honestly think that by balancing out theoretical math class with some math application (programming) more students will do better at math and be more prepared for the future workforce.

    1. Re:How about using Algebra by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      You're confusing calculus with art history.

      Calculus is essential to differential equations, which in turn is necessary to model the physical world. No scientific or engineering education is complete without it.

      Computer modeling - throwing together observations and polynomials of presumed drivers - on occasion may make a significant correlation between f(input) and output. Don't depend on it, and don't use it for extrapolation. If you want to understand the mechanisms behind the real world, (nonlinear) differential equations are essential, and calculus is essential to differential equations.

      The xkcd on purity applies to more than just purity https://xkcd.com/435/

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    2. Re:How about using Algebra by jader3rd · · Score: 1

      Calculus is essential to differential equations, which in turn is necessary to model the physical world. No scientific or engineering education is complete without it.

      I absolutely agree. But how many students are going to have a complete scientific or engineering education at the high school level?

      Instead of having so many students struggle with math year after year, because it's kept as this theoretical, abstract thing, where they can't see it's application; I think that the trial and error which comes through debugging and a development cycle, really solidifies the math concepts in ways that busy work never does for most people.

  142. Yes! by Charcharodon · · Score: 1
    Sounds good to me. Let's make school even easier! Hell we've already dumbed it down a lot, some how people still are having a hard time, so let's go all the way.

    I say get rid of it, but at the same time I would like to see completing college Algebra as requirement to vote.

    Frankly if you can not comprehend something that easy then you probably don't have the brain power to make intelligent decisions in the voting booth.

  143. Yep, let's dumb it down for diversity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We all have to be treated like retards that way it doesn't offend the primitive turd world invaders and the niggers we stupidly brought over centuries ago and allowed to breed. I don't know about you, but I don't think we should lower our standards. I think we should deal with the problem at it's source by exterminating the parasites infesting our once great nation.

  144. Everyone blames the Philosophers... by jjn1056 · · Score: 2

    "But it's not easy to see why potential poets and philosophers face a lofty mathematics bar. "

    I was a Philosophy major in college and I did Calculus... I do agree that I hardly use more than basic algebra. Perhaps a real life math class and statistics are more useful. I find doing stuff like figuring out a mortgage and 'how long will it take me to pay off my credit card' is pretty useful.

    --
    Peace, or Not?
    1. Re:Everyone blames the Philosophers... by MrKrillls · · Score: 1

      But the essentials of calc, where the underlying logic and beauty live, can be taught and understood far more quickly and directly than the extended full monty that seems the only way it is taught. Not aiming for dumbing down, but to give a wider circle a rudimentary sense of the hows and whys. Maybe a tiny part of a good base for a more comprehending citizenry?

      --
      Don't step on the baby.
    2. Re:Everyone blames the Philosophers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hated math until I took pre-calc, which was the first time I saw any beauty in mathematics. Calculus was like gazing upon the Good.

      Now I teach ancient Greek and read Plato with my students, and I understand why Plato would be absolutely horrified at the proposal in the article.

  145. Algebra skills... to vote? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That sounds pretty racist. How will all the dindus get their gibsmedats? Hell, they claim it's racist to ask for ID to make sure wetback scumbags aren't voting. Personally, I think it's time we got rid of these low IQ third world primitives and only allowed White Men to vote. I want to live in a clean nation, how about you?

    1. Re:Algebra skills... to vote? by Charcharodon · · Score: 1
      Naw I like things mixed up, I'm just not a fan of mouth breathers in general.

      Not my fault women and some minorities (Asians and Indians put the white people to shame.) seem to have a hard time with basic math.

      Either they are dumb or lazy, which is it? It's not bigotry, math hates everyone equally.

  146. What else that's hard should be dropped? by Streetlight · · Score: 1

    Mathematics - and not particularly advanced math - is hard to learn for a lot of people. That doesn't mean it should be dropped from a high school curriculum. So, what else that's hard to learn for a lot of people? Science? Classic literature? History? Writing? Should any of the other "hard to learn for some people" subjects be dropped from the HS curriculum? Maybe reading of anything that contains more than five letter words should be gotten rid of. Let's eliminate some not often used letters from the alphabet in learning to write. All those terrible symbols for chemistry should be dropped. English is a perfectly good language so let's drop any foreign language instruction. As far as history is concerned don't go back to the study before 15 years ago. Comic books would be sufficient reading for English classes. Strive for the lowest level of achievement. We'd certainly increase HS graduation rates and turn the population into a collection of incompetent ignoramuses.

    --
    In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
  147. "tremendous amount of talent"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    required for "sports writing"?
    or being an EMT?

    The former just means you have to be long-winded when you talk about shit that doesn't matter. *at all*.
    The latter any high school graduate can master, it's a few weeks course, and yes, no math is involved in patching up wounds or doing CPR.

    I see no tremendous amount of talent being required or wasted in either example.

    As for philosophy, well, it's the *basis* of math. It is arguably much *more* difficult to study philosophy than algebra, trig, or calculus. If someone can't hack math they won't hack philosophy.

    Sure poetry--being good with words--may not require strong ability to *apply* math, but it sure does require very high intelligence to perceive the world and ideas and present ideas in an articulate and novel way. I'll bet some poets will chime in and cleverly dispel the idea that having to learn some math "annealed their character."

  148. Re:I see the argument, but its deeper than just ma by Whorhay · · Score: 1

    You can add carpenters to the list of viable jobs. Maybe the framing carpenters that are just cutting and nailing 2x4's together aren't rolling in it, but I knew a construction manager more than a decade ago who was having trouble finding a finish carpenter and was offering $30 an hour to start.

    I don't think many parents really believe their kid is going to be a rock star someday. They probably have realized though that they haven't made practical use of much of their higher math education. Consequentially they don't see the sense in fighting with their child to make them learn it, if it falls outside their interest.

  149. Part of a bigger problem: poor abstract reasoning by RandCraw · · Score: 1

    I agree with Hacker that 1) algebra II and trig are not often used by most adults, 2) statistics and probability would be more useful skills, and 3) a course in 'mathematical reasoning' would be much more useful to 85% of srtudents than the HS math that's taught now.

    But I think poor pure math skills in America is the tip of a much bigger problem, which is only going to get worse as life on Earth becomes increasingly virtual and computer based. It seems Americans are losing their ability to think and reason abstractly. And lowering the bar for math skills isn't going to fix that.

    Math and logic are the principal tools to think abstractly. And Americans increasingly suck at it. This is very bad, since everything you do on a computer is essentially abstract. At best, clicking a mouse on a button is a surrogate for some physical activity (meeting socially, traveling by map, turning a knob, etc). But increasingly, computers require us to think abstractly about how stuff works and how it *might* work. A GUI desktop is an analog for a real desktop. The thought process required for any physical action must change when the act is done virtually. If this virtual analog is unintuitive, then the user must think abstractly about how they *might* solve the problem, given the limits of the virtual world of Windows/OSX. In a reality like ours is becoming -- a fusion of virtual+physical reality -- if you can't back up a step and think abstractly, you're dead.

  150. Stats is just as hard if not harder by mrun4982 · · Score: 1

    I don't remember any of my statistic classes being any easier.

  151. "political scientist Andrew Hacker " by jcr · · Score: 1

    In other words, this is coming from a dumbass who couldn't get a real degree. Who the fuck cares what he thinks about anything?

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  152. It's the swing of the pendulum by bytesex · · Score: 1

    The mathless people want their place back. Too long have they suffered those 'engineers' taking all the well-paid jobs. Too long since those 'engineers' were simply irritating people confined to the basements of fortune-500 companies.

    --
    Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
  153. It's a chicken or egg thing. by hey! · · Score: 1

    The inability of people to use the algebra they've studied is a big part of why its seen as useless. It's not necessarily a lack of opportunities for using algebra. Look at all the vocational programs out there which teach students "spreadsheet skills". Anyone who's ever had to use a spreadsheet for its intended purpose (rather than as ad hoc databases) has to understand enough algebra not to implicitly divide by zero.

    I once helped a guy at work who had a hobby of making high end penny whistles (the kind they use in Celtic folk music) figure out the right length to make an A-natural pitch whistle. He knew how long to make a B-flat whistle, and had a formula that given the length of a whistle told him how long to make one that was a half-note higher, so all I had to do was invert the formula then double-check my results. Now this was a pretty smart guy; he'd just successfully defended his anthropology PhD thesis. He had no trouble at all following the algebra I used, but when I asked why he hadn't tried it himself he said it hadn't even occurred to him to use the algebra he knew. He'd done well enough in algebra to get into prestigious college, but it was as if he'd been taught to recite Homer in ancient Greek without ever having been taught what it means.

    I agree that people should know more statistics (and probability), but the same problem applies; people don't know how to apply the statistics and probability they've been taught. At some point in their school career they were dragooned into performing the mechanics of basic descriptive statistics, but it doesn't stick with them because the way they've been taught it's just a meaningless ceremony full of incomprehensible gibberish.

    People's practical math skills need bootstrapping. They can't use those skills until they understand them, and it's hard to to understand them until they can put them to some use.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:It's a chicken or egg thing. by MrKrillls · · Score: 1

      One thing that gets lost is that there IS room for creativity in math - you saw that he had the opportunity and missed it.

      --
      Don't step on the baby.
  154. Makes sense to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have a PhD in electrical engineering, and this sounds like a good idea to me. Most people who aren't scientists or engineers don't need to know how to do algebra, and won't remember any of what they learn in high school. I would totally support replacing high school algebra and pre-cal with something like "advanced math concepts". Teach the relationships involved in algebra, calculus, geometry, and yeah, statistics and probability. Focus on real-world uses and general problem solving skills instead of memorizing and reciting the quadratic formula. Anyone who wants to do that will have my support. If no one else wants to spearhead that idea, then I will.

  155. Advanced Math? by K.+S.+Van+Horn · · Score: 2

    When did algebra become advanced math? I was 11 when I took my first algebra course.

  156. Fix the stupidity problem! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about figuring out why there are so many stupid people in the USA, the Asian and East European students don't seem to have these difficulties with algebra, which is a proxy for abstract thought.

    They will crush us in the economic sphere or here at home with H1Bs.

  157. Ban English and Language Arts by PPH · · Score: 1

    We certainly don't use any of that here on Slashdot.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  158. Better idea... by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

    Scrap math entirely, and let people spend that time watching "Ow My Balls!" instead.

    That would be more in tune with the swiftly deteriorating IQ level of American society.

  159. Ignorance is not a solution by Framboise · · Score: 1

    In the past most people ignored how to read and write. Scribes were upper class people able to help them handling documents and letters, for money of course.
    Fortunately the obligatory school system has elevated the skills of most people regarding reading and writing so that scribes are no longer necessary. This represents a huge empowering of people, and actually has allowed the emergence of democratic societies. People can read by themselves and *think*: societies then count millions of thinkers instead of a few hundreds, that's a huge progress. In modern societies people lacking such an education are called illiterate, and are considered as handicapped.

    A similar concept applies when dealing with quantities and numbers. Nowadays even well educated scholars may struggle with numbers, innumeracy is actually widespread. For many journalists millions and billions seem synonyms. The innumeracy neologism was invented by John Allen Paulos, who in 1988 wrote the book "Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and its Consequences", a recommended reading. Innumeracy is endemic and actually handicaps many aspects of common life, starting with mastering the house budget. The insufficient proficiency regarding quantities and numbers then leads to more difficulties when dealing with higher math, like algebra and calculus.

    In my opinion, the problem with math education is not algebra or calculus, but the insufficient mastering of the elementary math levels, starting with arithmetic. Statistics and probability are in no way simpler conceptually than algebra and calculus. Lowering the general math level has for effect of preventing people to be empowered by math. Since US students already under-perform at the international level, I would say the proposition to reduce math education is a sure recipe to weaken the country on the long term.

  160. Another magic bullet... *sigh* by zkiwi34 · · Score: 1

    It also appears that the proponent hasn't really considered that Statistics as an option has a pretty darn low uptake. Why? Apparently because it's harder than Algebra 2 etc, and that it might be a useful requirement or recommended course of study for entry into (relevant) university programs has either not been considered or more likely has been rejected as unnecessary for some reason (rational or not).

  161. Algebra and yadda yadda. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Appropriate: the captcha is kinder.

    I'm hold a job that involves all sorts of weird stuff. None of it is in "Engineering" related endeavors, but I use the techniques I learned in Algebra I and II, Geometry, and Trigonometry every freaking day. I think I have used Calculus maybe a dozen times in my adult life, but that is because I have a tight enough grasp on reality to understand that there are numbers more important than 0, 1, and -1. As far as I care, Calculus is a mythical mathematical shorthand spoken by religious zealots who are afraid that they might accidentally let slip that they are afraid of getting their hands dirty. It has its purposes, but mostly in the ivory towers of people who don't have calluses.

    1. Re:Algebra and yadda yadda. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what exactly is that job that you're hold?

  162. Re:A view I've held for long time by MrKrillls · · Score: 1
    Nahh, common sense, life experience, skepticism, and growing a sufficiently robust bullshit detector are the means to listen effectively to politicians and the like.

    Math by itself helps, but the inner, "Oh that sounds wrong", dialog box is the real start.

    Regardless, the changes I'd make would be to improve the quality of algebra teaching, and maybe add more math.... Kids deserve to have a robust tool set that can take them anywhere they may find themselves wanting to go. Why limit them from the get go?????

    --
    Don't step on the baby.
  163. Give options by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    How about give a few options rather than make a single subject be the bottleneck. For example, give a 3-path choice:

    1. Algebra (probably I and II)
    2. Statistics and probability
    3. Discrete math: logic/set-theory, etc.

  164. I presume math is mostly taught wrong ... by Qbertino · · Score: 1

    Math is the only subject in which just about anybody can go from absolutely ignorant to genius, at more or less the same pace (Math prodigies aside). That's a simple fact.

    Given, that pace may be notably slow and for most it's a torture to deal with things they simply don't understand - *until* they understand them, that is - but it's possible. Boolean Algebra can make you cry if you fail to get a grasp on it. Once you've understood it, it's so trivial as to be just about childish to ponder about it.

    A cleaning lady who can't speak one correct sentence can learn serious algebra and get to degree heights. No joke. I've seen it happen. Simlletons with little grasp on life or social interactions can rise to unseen height in math.

    I've also seen assistant programming tutors who were total n00bs in progging but about the best in math on campus.

    Most other subjects require some sort of skill that needs to be aquired in the environment one lives and grows up in - such as versatility of language. Math is basic, and can be learned by a bum.

    Which brings me to my point:
    I think math is taught wrong most of the time and that perhaps different people need different approaches to the subject.

    Example: I remember asking my math professor about a decade ago for a reference on mathematical symbols and explainations of what they mean - which mathematical operation they represent. He looked at me like I was an alien. Every PL has a reference, and how good a PL is, is often measured by that reference. Math? Not so much. Each guy writes math differntly and you have to already understand math to then know what he's actually writing down. Not a good prospect for learning or passing on a field, if you ask me.

    For one, I suspect that math as a subject matter would make a huge leap forward if people could come down on one normalised math notation, so one can understand what they are writing about. That alone would improve math teaching and learning by spades. In terms of notation, Math is a subject still stuck in ancient times.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
    1. Re:I presume math is mostly taught wrong ... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      You make a good point. Further complicating matters is that sometimes the terminology changes for no apparent reason.

      There are books like The VNR Concise Encyclopedia of Mathematics that provide some of the reference you're looking for, but math contains too many branches with too many ways of looking at related concepts for one reference to cover them all.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    2. Re:I presume math is mostly taught wrong ... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Frequently it is. Where I went to school there were a couple of cronies to a guy in politics who wrote the mathematics textbooks - utter crap in use for thirty years. I learned calculus by rote and had a lookup list in my head to answer questions like a trained parrot. It wasn't until I went to university and got hold of a textbook that actually explained how it worked that I got a grasp, and suddenly the concept was very easy and I could move on to the stuff that was actually non-trivial.

  165. Re:I see the argument, but its deeper than just ma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ever Drive a long haul conventional truck? I am an engineer. I had a neighbor who was a a long haul owner/operator. I've driven a lot of things, Yachts, Dump-trucks, motorcycles, high end sportscars, etc.. Nothing is tougher than a 18-speed non-synchromesh manual gearbox Peterbuilt with air brakes. It really made me think about how I drive on the highway around them.

  166. Maybe we need two types of high school degrees by tkotz · · Score: 1

    As universities offer two types of 4-year degrees, B.S. and B.A., it might make sense to have high schools do something similar. I know many schools have a separate college prep path, but maybe the split needs to be more nuanced as college becomes more common for all students. Or maybe at least common core standards need to reflect what most educational institutions already say some people are better at Mathematics and some are better at Language, Maybe graduates needs to do 2 years equivalent of both and 4 of one or the other. Though all students should have the option of doing 4 of both if they want.

    1. Re:Maybe we need two types of high school degrees by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Gah - seeing it as "high school degree" makes my head hurt but I since you guys call a lot of people that are not in charge of University departments "professor" I should expect a bit of title deflation.

  167. Re:I see the argument, but its deeper than just ma by MrKrillls · · Score: 1

    Who gets good pay for trades work may be regional. In parts of the Northeast, at least, a plumber who doesn't flood the house and leaves it in better shape than when he arrived will do just fine.

    --
    Don't step on the baby.
  168. Let me do the math for you, sir! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    America spends relatively more on higher education and less on primary and secondary education than do other countries without the "algebra" problem the article talks about. Put in the resources in elementary and high schools to teach the subjects well enough, and the problem of using math to filter for capable students at the post-secondary level goes away.

    Alternately, if what America really needs is college graduates, send kids to college straight from kindergarten and let the higher education system work out what to do with them. What loving parent wouldn't co-sign a loan for their darling tot to go to Harvard for 16 years? Without the financial burden of all of that dead-weight public education, government can cut taxes and use the money for something truly beneficial to the public. Like a wall.

  169. Re:A view I've held for long time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They could be chewing their food... Is chewing food considered lying?

  170. Not a good path by Goldsmith · · Score: 1

    A political scientist wants to teach statistics without algebra or logs? Instead of "math," the political scientist wants to teach the Consumer Price Index and other political tools as science. Wow.

    That's dumb, but the arguments being made in the NYT article go beyond dumb and are dangerous: Not all employers need people with algebra. Ok. So we shouldn't teach algebra. Oh, ok.

    A reasonable follow up question: Do employers need people who have read canonical American literature, or have any appreciation for history, art, or poetry?

    Well, I am an employer, I can answer that question. I don't NEED my employees to know any of that stuff. None of that goes onto the job description. During a job interview, I will never hear "this Research Biologist job looks great, I'm super qualified for that, but I've never read Hemmingway." It's not important. I would be very concerned if someone had no interests or studies outside of their job, but each individual subject is not important.

    TFA says "Instead of investing so much of our academic energy in a subject that blocks further attainment for much of our population, I propose that we start thinking about alternatives." That line of thinking leads to full time work-study. Work ethic, punctuality, experience being managed in a job... there are some skills directly applicable to EVERY workplace, and it doesn't require ANY difficult academic subjects. Tailoring the educational system to job postings is stupid and a pathway to a very poorly educated population.

    Math should be relevant to "real" people. That's not controversial. So let's judge math education based on real-world applicability for everyone, not just "employers."

    People should be able to handle their personal finances, and understand what they're signing on to when they sign a loan or a job offer. Algebra *should* be enabling that, but we teach it poorly and people cannot apply it to their lives.

    These are the kinds of things everyone should be able to do with math:
    Assume you need to put a $1000 on a credit card for a year. Evaluate three different (real) credit card offers and determine which will require you to pay the least amount back.

    Assume you get a job offer with a $40k annual salary. This offer comes with a 401k retirement plan that you will own. Your employer will pay into your 401k account the same amount you pay into it, up to 3% of your salary. How much money are you paid annually for this job if you submit 3% of your salary to the 401k?

    You have two job offers for temporary work, and can only take one. The first is for 25 hours at $15 an hour and the second is at $18 an hour for between 15 and 25 hours. How many hours do you need to get at the $18/hour job to get paid the same total amount as the $15/hour job?

    If people can't do these problems (and many can't), then I agree that it's pointless to try and teach polynomials and logs, and that's really a bad thing!

    People in liberal arts and social science need to think about that this is math that is 400 years old. In the 1600s, people thought this was important enough to work on and use. This is math that was useful in the Renaissance, and we have built on it and increased it's utility since then (notably: basic statistics...). This is "advanced" and "modern" in the same way that novels are (a 400 year old art form). No one would suggest that reading novels is an impediment for graduation, and anyway, not important to the workplace, so we should be more modern and just read blog posts in school.

  171. Re:advanced mathematics requirements, like algebra by MrKrillls · · Score: 1

    Yes! Understanding FIRST!

    --
    Don't step on the baby.
  172. A related disability by dtmos · · Score: 1

    The only problem is that now when I am in a country that speaks a romance language my mind ends up defaulting to French, even if the language is Spanish, Portuguese, or Italian.

    I have a related disability: At various times in my life I have been conversationally fluent in Spanish, Japanese, and German, but haven't used any of them to an appreciable extent in 20 years. However, when I do happen to visit a country speaking one of these languages, and need to say something (usually, "excuse me"), there's no telling which of the three languages will come out of my mouth. It's as if the brain has classified languages into "English" and "everything else", and merged all knowledge of foreign languages into one file.

    I have to stop to think what the correct response would be and, nearly always, the social situation needing my response has passed by the time I complete the context-switch into the needed language. Maddening.

    1. Re:A related disability by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      I spoke decent French in high school, and then started learning German. I had the same problem as you - it only really went away when I got much better at German than I was at French (my French now is, of course, terrible, since I haven't been working on it). I'm glad someone else understands that problem though!

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
  173. Why learn chemistry? by jacekm · · Score: 0

    Dump the chemistry class. It is useless. Just teach us how to cook meth and make ethyl alcohol from sugar at home and we will be all set for life.

  174. it's truly appalling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How many cashiers I've met in the last decade that can't calculate change due.

    If you can't even fix *that*, then WTH are we even discussing Calculus and Statistics for yet?

    Common Core is destroying our society's ability to perform basic arithmetic.

  175. Re:I see the argument, but its deeper than just ma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am also a system engineer

    The problem is that modern design (by we SE's, incidentally) has begun to put more weight on reliability and replacement over repair. In this sense, the system doesn't get fixed as much as entire subsystems get replaced and sent back for depot level maintenance. This is done both because the longevity of the subsystems is improved with this tighter integration at construction, the time to repair is decreased (increased logistics burden of larger parts is offset by aforementioned longevity increase), and a reduction in trained personnel labor pool is realized by having it centrally located at the depot (experienced labor was costing more than the increase cost in part transfer--the trucker plus fuel plus depreciation.).

    I agree with you that this has had negative affects on society as a whole, but the problem is also related to the "jobs have gone away and many aren't coming back due to technology / LEAN" issues.

    Once reliable driverless vehicles become possible, those long-haul truckers are not going to be doing too well unless they're in a special niche (dangerous roads / HAZMAT / oversize). But that will just be a fraction of the trucking workforce. A good national freight train system (hyperloop?) could do the same thing.

  176. Who is "mandating" math? by ooloorie · · Score: 2
    It's not really clear what Hacker wants. High schools generally don't require algebra 2 or calculus AFAIK. You can go through high school without them, and then take some blue collar job or go to vocational school. Colleges, too, decide what their admission requirements are. Many colleges tend to prefer students with algebra and calculus, but that's usually not a strict requirement, and in any case, it's a decision of individual schools, not a "mandate".

    In any case, by definition, competitive colleges have "barriers" to entry, and requiring all their students to know basic math and science (and that's what algebra and calculus are) is a reasonable barrier for them to have. If anything, colleges should be requiring more science and math literacy, not less.

  177. Put This in Context by dcollins · · Score: 1

    Hacker is a professor emeritus from CUNY in Political Science. He has a new book coming out right now, his second on the subject. He personally gets a lot of publicity for the "Man Bites Dog" headlines that can be written about the professor-who's-against math. (Also, he's a regular book reviewer for the New York Times, who usually start off his PR tours by publishing an op-ed from him.) On the other hand, CUNY administrators have plans to get rid of even the most basic math requirements (7th-grade level) for any of their degrees, so as to boost retention/graduation rates in the face of a tidal wave of unqualified open-admissions students from NYC high schools. Hacker gives them political cover for that project by writing stuff like this. Journalists don't know any better... heck, the writer of the Slate article actually thinks that pi is 3.14!

    Counterargument from the mathematics side -- MadMath: Lower Standards are a Conspiracy Against the Poor
    Counterargument from the political science side -- Gin and Tacos: A Very Stupid Argument Gets the FJM Treatment

    --
    We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
  178. So, in other words ... by Thanatiel · · Score: 2

    Let's dumb down the general level ?
    No thank you.

    Instead of making knowledge easier students should be pushed to learn to learn, train their brain, the most they can.

    --
    Irrelevant news and morons using moderation to mod down what they disagree on. 2018 resolution: so long.
  179. Common by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought the whole "common core" bullshit was going away?

  180. sour grapes? by DriveDog · · Score: 1

    Sounds like he was forced to settle for Poli Sci because he couldn't handle Algebra.

  181. Algebra can be fun without the tests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Algebra and Algebra II, and Calculus can be interesting subjects to study when you dont have to pass a test for it. Take away the tests and the fear and anxiety around it and for many people it can actually become fun and interesting. What makes math so horrible is the fact that you have to rote memorize all of this, and then regurgitate it all perfectly in a test where you have to recall everything from memory. Few people will need to do this. The insanity goes back to elementry school where people are forced to memorize a multiplication table. This is rote memorization and it does not teach anything at all about a process of solving a problem, and its unnecessary as its unlikely someone would be caught on a desert island and would need to solve math problems without a table or calculator. Many who have poor memory get along better if they are able to refer to a notes and guides to refresh their memory. Perhaps one alternative would be to discuss algebra in classes but make the tests optional except for engineering degrees where it is necessary.

    One interesting point, from the academic and testing data is that Orientals and Whites tend to do far better on mathematics, than Blacks or mesoamerican racial groups. The SAT data correlates well with the IQ testing data which shows consist 20% IQ gaps between Black and White racial groups. JP Rushton and others have cited studies that show that these differences appear early, long before education begins, suggesting a genetic cause. MRI data has also proven a different in brain size between racial groups with Whites having on average larger brains than Blacks. The major theory here is that racial groups that originate in high, cold climate attitudes, have evolved larger brains to cope with the colder climate and develop the technology needed to survive winter, such as food storage, crafts needed to make clothing, boots and other winter gear, and the long term planning and advanced problem solving needed to avoid starving and freezing to death in the cold winters, as opposed to tropical climates where people can run around naked all year long and fruit hangs on the trees all year. What is suggested here is that blacks tend to learn more slowly so more money should be allocated for educating blacks in schools just for them that are specially tailored to their own needs, as they tend to learn more slowly they can have a slower paced educational program designed for them.

  182. So no case then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is this crap?

  183. Math is hard, Language is hard? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I suppose no complaint will be raised for people who struggle with languages but who find math easy? Why are there still language/writing requirements in college and university degrees if my main subject is math, science, or engineering? What a waste of my time! (sarcasm)

    There's a reason why these requirements (math and language) exist despite the fact that some people find them respectively challenging: they are fundamental and important whether or not you think they are. At some basic level you should be proficient in both. So, to those people who have to struggle their way through a basic algebra, trigonometry, or even calculus class: too bad. It's good for you. The same was said about English when I had to take a required writing class: it's something you need to be able to do, and do well. They were right. Unless there's endorsement for a world where if you want to calculate a ratio you have to call up a math expert, or if you want to put two sentences together you have to call an English major, there are good reasons to maintain these *basic* requirements all the way through.

    Let's change that last sentence in the summary to something about English:

    "Demanding English across the board actually skews a student body, not necessarily for the better."

    That's stupid. We don't need a population that can't communicate, and we don't need a population that can't work with numbers. Calling it an "education" if you don't strengthen both areas all the way through is silly. If students are weak with math then they need more practice, not less. Likewise for writing. That's why we don't let engineers graduate without a writing course either. If you "can't even get a college degree" on your way to be a sports writer or emergency medical technician because of the minimum math requirement on your way there, then I'd say you should find an employer who doesn't care about a college degree qualification for the job you would be doing. Either that or pick a different job entirely.

  184. Stop teaching everything... by mschaffer · · Score: 1

    The schools should stop teaching everything. Modern education is a complete failure and are pushing out students that cannot handle cold cereal.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com...

  185. No. by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

    And if you have to ask why, then double no.

  186. Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Andrew Hacker is a baby back b|tch

  187. Re:A view I've held for long time by dcollins · · Score: 1

    Most of those things you mention used to be part of standard high school educations: geology, Latin, etc. I had those in my public high school in a rural state in the 1980's. Now folks want to get rid of 7th-grade algebra because that's too hard. I have community-college students, NYC high school graduates (Hacker is from CUNY), who can't do 6th-grade arithmetic (fractions, negatives, read a decimal) or even 3rd-grade (times tables, read an integer).

    The real thing that's happening here is a shell-game of certification deflation, so that we can pretend everyone has a college diploma, when their skills are not the same as high-school diplomas from 50 years ago. I honestly wonder: How much lower can we push the bar?

    --
    We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
  188. Re:A view I've held for long time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I had anatomy lessons as part of my Biology classes; and basic geology as part of my Earth Science classes.

    The idea of primary education is not to give you profession is to expose you to different ideas and figure out your potential.
    There are vocational schools if you need a trade.

    But if you are planning to go for any type of engineering degree you need to understand math.

  189. Math & Algebra are tools by bwanagary · · Score: 2

    Learning to use chopsticks might not be useful every day to the average Anglo-Saxon diner, but the dexterity acquired by proficiency in their use might help a surgeon or EMT have a better success rate. I don't care if my doctor consumes Asian food or not but I care that his skills be the best possible for very obvious reasons. There are many tools available to improve mental acuity - mathematics is one such tool. Algebra helps develop, among other things, the ability to think in the abstract and develop or hone logical thinking and problem solving. At the same time, I do believe that certain curricula are loaded with irrelevant requirements that extend the duration of study for graduation solely to support greater revenues for the institution.

  190. Teachers, not Gatekeepers by Slim_Jack · · Score: 0

    The problem with Math classes like Algebra is not that they are useless, but that they are presented by Math Teachers as Gateways that the 'Less Smart' need to be kept behind; if Math, including Algebra and Calculus, and the prior Math Classes are properly taught, they are viewed as a useful tool and knowledge for all, and not just a mechanism for limiting access to higher studies to the lucky few who make the cut (and probably have the right parental resources to succeed).

  191. Re:A view I've held for long time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a matter of course we don't teach people medicine or geology or Latin, these are specialisms which people with an interest study as they refine their possible future choices.

    Um, yes, we do. "Medicine" is a bit of a broad term, but Biology covers the basic structures and functions of organic systems while chemistry covers things from the molecular level down. Geology is part of Earth Science, which was covered the year before Biology in my high school. And Latin, while not as common as it was a few decades ago, is still taught in some schools; other languages with roots in Latin are typically offered and some understanding of Latin is required in English. My education may be out of date though. For all I know, high school education today might cover little more than texting and selfies.

  192. It's ok to teach basic stats before calculus by sjbe · · Score: 1

    This is tying people to the lowest rung of understanding

    Ridiculous. Teaching intro stats before calculus does nothing of the sort.

    Perfectly fine if you want a nation of data consumers who believe what you feed them instead of analyzing it themselves

    We already have that. Frankly statistics is not given nearly as much attention in our schools as it should be. Requiring an intro level stats course could not possibly make it worse. All you get by requiring calc before stats is more people with a poor grasp of statistics because relatively few will ever take calculus. I don't know that we should dump Algebra for stats but I have no problem with requiring most students to take a basic stats course.

    What comes next, people griping that nobody should be allowed to use higher math because it is too hard for them to understand?

    Got any more strawmen you'd like me to burn?

    1. Re:It's ok to teach basic stats before calculus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sry, but pissing on something, claiming that it is kerosene and then snapping your fingers and calling it a lighter is not going to burn anything

      You should expose yourself to external validation sometimes, it may improve your products, which are lame at best

  193. Socialist Education - the usual problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Socialist Education has produced exactly the same problems as all other forms of socialist distribution.

  194. Re:I see the argument, but its deeper than just ma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We need better planning of the workforce, in order to reduce pain, and unemployement, and misery.

  195. If we were honest by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 2

    If we were really looking out for the next generation, we would be teaching them all Post-Apocalyptic Maths, along with how to knap flint and distill alcohol for fuel.



    Because 99% of them are fucked already.

  196. Instead by dcw3 · · Score: 1

    Let them do it, but for those taking this route, give them all participation ribbons instead of diplomas.

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
  197. Memorization vs analytics by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Stats is 'memorize and regurgitate'/'plug and chug' before calculus.

    Only if you aren't paying the slightest bit of attention. If you don't know how to explain Bayes Theorem in a real-world useful way without invoking integrals then you don't really understand it sufficiently. I've personally taken over 15 statistics heavy courses when I was in college (both undergrad and grad school) and I think we actually got into integration in maybe 2 of them. The notion that you need calculus to understand or do useful things with statistics is demonstrably nonsense. It helps but it's not remotely a requirement for comprehension.

    Of course for most people who are destined to never pass real calculus, all math is 'memorize and regurgitate'.

    That is not unique to math classes. Our entire academic system rewards people who are good at memorize and regurgitate. Actual analytical ability is routinely discouraged both directly and indirectly. I know plenty of people who did pass calculus who were very good at memorization but not so awesome at logically reasoning their way through problems. Medical schools are positively loaded with them. Skill at memorization is hugely rewarded there. It is FAR easier to get good grades by being good at memorizing while having modest analytical abilities than it is to be great analytically but pedestrian at memorizing.

    1. Re:Memorization vs analytics by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      It is FAR easier to get good grades by being good at memorizing while having modest analytical abilities than it is to be great analytically but pedestrian at memorizing.

      Returned college student, after 20 years of being out, I went directly into calculus. Managed to pass 1-3 with at least a B, first time through.

      While I'm not busting the bell curve for either, I'm 'decent' at memorization and analysis. However, given time constrained tests, I found that if you didn't have the 'shortcuts' memorized you simply didn't have time to do more than 1-2 of the problems analytically.

      And I'm talking as a guy who got points back by graphing *my solution* multiple times against the *official solution*, showing that, yes, they were identical. I just took the problem in a bass ackwards way while integrating, and while my solution took twice as many lines, my answer was just as valid.

      If I had more time or reference materials, sure, I could find the quick/easy way to do it more consistently. But with no notes, references, and time limited? That's memorization more than analysis.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    2. Re:Memorization vs analytics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I re-entered school for a master degree after being out for 20 years
      They had a fairly comprehensive math exam, which I aced.
      They were amazed, but I have been working in civil engineering, geography and software development since I got out of school the first time

      in my experience, memorization is crap, while application, understanding the mechanics and learning through trial and error are key to application

      reducing people's exposure to mathematics and pushing them towards low-bar areas like statistics is going to create workers who can make a pretty bar graph, but who do not understand the data behind it

  198. Teach Math Agree 100% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The algebra 2/trigonometry course taught at most schools across the country conatins very little in the way of useful knowlege unless you are going into engineering.In such case just create a course for students who think they may be interested in engineering. It is very abstract. The time would be better served teacing basic programing concepts .

  199. Only a few scientists use statistics. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So we shouldn't bother with stats either. I've never needed what I learned in geography.chemistry, literature classes, shop or just about anything after 8
    years old in school, so we should not bother with them either.

    OR that argument is a load of bollocks, and therefore if you want to remove algebra or calculus, you need something that actually appears to have come from a hominid at least, even if it's not that far evolved.

  200. Re:I see the argument, but its deeper than just ma by orgelspieler · · Score: 1

    Here's the thing, a good welder can do algebra and trigonometry. It takes algebra to determine missing dimensions. It takes trigonometry to do anything at an angle. A good truck driver can do algebra and calculus. Figuring out how far you've traveled when you go various speeds along various parts of your journey is integration. I will pay a lot more for a welder/fabricator who can do these extra mathematical gymnastics than I would for one who can't.

    I don't disagree that statistics should be taught, to some extent, in high school. I just don't know that it should be at the expense of the existing curricula. At my high school you could choose between AP Calculus, AP (I think) Statistics, or any other elective. Since I was in three musical ensembles, I didn't get to take an extra math class senior year. I am glad I didn't, because learning it in college from a super-inspiring professor (who wrote her own book) was a great experience for me.

  201. Better idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's get rid of the ridiculous essays and excessive literature/writing courses plastered all over every single course path in every school. I couldn't even escape it taking primarily coding/tech courses, because it was "required" for my degree. I do not, never have, and never will write any lengthy papers or essays in my career. EVER. I'm happily employed as a systems engineer for a major bio pharmaceutical company. I love to read and I have excellent grammar and no problem communicating clearly and effectively with the town, companies, merchants, co-workers, my manager, or anyone else, and I didn't get ANY of that from "English class". /rant

  202. Problem starts in 2nd or 3rd grade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I lost the source, but the problem starts in 2nd and 3rd grade when a very nice sweet lady tells them that "math is hard" and that it's okay that they're "bad at math."

  203. get rid of formal math! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Teach our kids GAMBLING.

    Really. Cause every financial, business, medical, and social system is a freaking casino.

  204. Re:A view I've held for long time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tell us which company you work for, I need to remember to avoid ever using anything from them.

    If you are not doing "maths" then your software is worth shit all!!!.

  205. In our Brave New World by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We will teach the Beta's what Beta's must know, and Gamma's nothing at all.
    Alphas of the Algebra shall Rule.

  206. Hugh Pickens strikes again by oldmac31310 · · Score: 2

    Another shite post from this douchebag.

    --
    http://www.acetonestudio.com
  207. # Sittin' on the dock of the bay... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    At least he didn't spell it as naval gazing like 99% of the twats round here.

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

    If one lacks the mental ability to tackle Algebra II then there are many jobs one may be capable of doing and doing well. "Philosopher" is not one of them.

  209. Re:I see the argument, but its deeper than just ma by swb · · Score: 1

    But most of what a typical welder does is the kind of practical trigonometry that doesn't involve actually knowing trigonometry per se, it's more intuition and experience in figuring out some angle necessary to complete a part or something, perhaps with the aide of a square or protractor or some kind of a precalculated table.

    A good baseball outfielder is practical expert in physics, too, even though they have no idea how to do the math.

  210. substitution of one for another by zakeria · · Score: 1

    isn't that algebra?

  211. Bring back the Trivium and its mathematical analog by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

    I have long thought that basic propositional logic, syllogisms and the like, should be taught alongside elementary algebra, in the same way that arithmetic is taught alongside grammar. They are extremely analogous; when I first saw a syllogism I literally shouted "it's like algebra with words!", and solving a system of equations is very much like completing a syllogism, where each equation is a premise and the solution is the conclusion. A basic course in logic at a young age could go a long way toward improving the general populace's critical thinking skills.

    And then to complete the trifecta... or if you will, the trivium: after grammar in elementary school and logic in middle school, some basic rhetoric should be covered in high school. And, to come back to the topic of the article: after arithmetic in elementary school and algebra in middle school, some basic statistics should be covered in high school. Rhetoric and statistics are again closely analogous, as both are employed heavily and often misleadingly in arguments, and all adults should know at least rudimentary defenses against that kind of bullshit.

    --
    -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
    "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
  212. Is indeed useless for most people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Algebra is indeed useless for most people; as in never used IRL for anything. And yet our education system tortures students with a subject that is both extremely difficult for many to grasp, and useless. How about we force everyone to learn, I don't know, something equally useful and difficult, such as upside-down-backwards-reverse-pig-latin-swahilli? That makes exactly as much sense as forcing all students to learn Algebra. What we need is more critical-thinking, more logic, more things which help our children know how to understand the world; to think & learn for themselves. This hyper-focus on a single useless/difficult topic is absurd and moronic. How about we teach our kids how the political system really works and how to understand what politicians actually say (often nothing at all; an important lesson of Logic courses)? Having a population which actually understands politics well enough to properly choose government officials would certainly benefit everyone and society as a whole VASTLY more than Algebra. But the key to all of this is understanding that people really are wired differently. The one-size-fits-all education system is utterly abhorrent. It frequently denigrates brilliant, talented, eager youth and slowly turns them into education-hating drones. But hey, I'm from the USA (obviously), so how can we really expect education to function when such a depressingly-high percentage of the population is categorically moronic in the first place; their potential having been already destroyed by the existing education system?

  213. One result of weakening maths at school... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not sure about the US, but in Australia there is a trend of students taking easier maths to get better scores at school.

    We then have to teach them basic maths during first year physics or engineering classes at university. Many of the students can't even work with fractions, and you end up having to teach them calculus from scratch when you are meant to be teaching them something that uses it.

  214. Sounds like someone didn't like their math classes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dumb. Even if you don't ever use the math directly, learning how to think in the logically abstract has tremendous benefits in many fields.

  215. Not what but How by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    90% of all topics in school are not difficult because it is inherently difficult (the what) but it is either difficult in how it is taught (the how) or when it is taught. Bottom line a good teacher makes a lot of a difference.

    I agree that in university (I studied computer science) math was overrated and only used to make students drop the topic. Failure quotients of over 96% make no sense at all. I passed (in the second attempt) ... but never need the math in real life.

    However looking at the summary: trigonometry should be dropped? Seriously? WTF is so hard to grasp on that? What exactly is there to "grasp"? You look out of the window and you see trigonometry and geometry ...

    Are you sure you have not a mental illness if you can not grasp stuff like geometry and trigonometry? Or are the teachers in the US realy that bad?

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  216. This is SO STUPID and wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Calculus. Okay. But Algebra is essential to simple problem solving abilities. The dam POTUS monkey wants everyone to become a programmer and yet they won't even be able to determine whether buying 6 oz of coffee at $2 is a better buy than 8 oz of coffee at $3.50. If you can't solve simultainous equations you are going to be a failure in life let alone CS.

    1. Re:This is SO STUPID and wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With enough common sense anyone can answer that question regardless of whether they understand Algebra. The same applies to topics in calculus, physics, really any branch of science or mathematics.

      Interestingly that seems to be something you lack if you feel it is appropriate or productive to call the president "The dam POTUS monkey" - even the most die-hard anti-Bush liberals typically had less vacuous insults than that. Of course the racial trolling in your verbiage is all-too-evident.

  217. Re:A view I've held for long time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll go one step further; why do we have "people" in general? What purpose do they serve if their jobs can be more efficiently and safely done by robots? Perhaps the purpose of society is to care about the Kardashians? Seems like a terrible waste of entropy.

  218. Fu**** up academics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I must say that here in Spain we complain often about our educational system, but f*** me, the US is orders of magnitude in deeper shit.

  219. Fashion design? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am writing a fashion design CAD program/programming language similar to how FreeCAD works.

    I found that the reason why more good tools for fashion design don't already exist is because people with talent in fashion lack the ability to describe clothing in terms of math. 99.99% of all of fashion design is based on Bézier curves which are of course a series of sets describing coefficients for use within cubic polynomials.

    Simply changing the waist measurement of a dress to shift the arc of a curve towards a given point requires identifying the nearest point of the curve relative to the point which is an integral of a third order polynomial and a second order polynomial yielding a 5th order polynomial and identifying the roots.

    Rotating the points of a garment around a given point requires trigonometry and to optimize the calculation application of matrices to multiply points against against a transform matrix.

    To allow simple management of rotation of values around a point and back to its original position, implementing arbitrary precision math and/or numerical representation as rational numbers.

    To me, I can't recall learning any math in high school which was abstract. I have used all these simple constructs directly in real world applications. Everything from quadratics for calculating the proper amount of boards to buy for laying a new floor to logarithms which I use daily for wireless network design.

    The problem is that teachers only understand this math as abstract. "Why would I need to know this?"... Normal answer is "You'll understand later in college". The real answer is "Because you're in high school to keep you from being a hudlum loitering in a mall for 4 years and it's unethical to send a 14 year old to a factory to make shoes. While you're in day care, let's use this opportunity to broaden your horizons and keep you from having to be a loser Poli Sci major who lacks the mathematical skills to identify root cause. He thinks the problem is teaching these topics. The problem is that poets and sports writers need to prove the passed these topics."

    As for a computer programmer who can't handle simple college level math. My son could do derivatives when he was 10. My daughter was experimenting with limits and rate of change at 8 1/2". These are children's topics. Any child can learn it easily with a good teacher.

    1. Re:Fashion design? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How kind of you to step off your high horse for a moment and remind us all just how stupid our educators are for not blindly applying mathematical models to reality as though they were factual.

      In fairness, neither you nor they seem to understand the difference between abstraction and reality.

      How do you know the world's best fashion designers are using Bezier curves and not n-body subatomic particle trajectories?

      How do you know buying patterns aren't subconsciously influenced by a metric of how much something fails to approximate a bezier curve?

      Now that I know the algorithm for your aesthetics I already find them to be quite distasteful and I can guarantee I'm looking for what I just described.

  220. Flawed argument by AnalogDiehard · · Score: 1

    coders of the future shouldn't have to master abstract math that they'll never need

    My department develops imaging inspection software that relies heavily on abstract math. You better believe it is a required skill for coders we hire. Another example of a political scientist who has no clue to the needs of the industry and has no business defining the curriculum of grade school.

    --
    Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
  221. "...and philosophers..." by dsmatthews9379 · · Score: 1

    This is a philosopher, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  222. Calculus for everyone? by volmtech · · Score: 1

    I have four children The oldest has an English PhD, oldest son has a law degree and is a contract manager at a Fortune 500 company, youngest son is in last year of college getting a business degree and his older sister is a hairdresser, not that there is anything wrong with that.

    Two years of me helping with homework every night, tutoring classes, summer school. The tears, the moaning, and it still took her five time to pass Florida's math assessment test to get her diploma. She was an honor graduate, straight As in every other subject but after surviving high school she said she would rather jab her eyes out with a sharpened #2 pencil than take another math test.

    Now she is a very good cosmetologist and was top of her class at the tech school. I just think she could have done so much more if college math requirements were less stringent.

  223. Shakespeare vs Algebra II by samwhite_y · · Score: 1

    I want to follow up on the comment that referenced Shakespeare.

    If you can argue that everybody should read some of Shakespeare before they exit high school, then there is at least some argument for them learning Algebra II. But let us assume for a moment that good knowledge of Shakespeare is not required to exit high school, is there any other case that can be made for Algebra II being a required subject for high school graduation or admittance to college? I have not seen one yet.

    On the other hand, when I hear the phrase "high school statistics class", I hear in my mind -- non-challenging class designed to allow anybody to pass with only a minimum of anything in it that one would consider to be "math".

    1. Re:Shakespeare vs Algebra II by dbIII · · Score: 1

      If you can argue that everybody should read some of Shakespeare before they exit high school

      Personally I'd say it should be there just to cure people of their fucking spelling bee fixations - Chaucer too if that doesn't work.
      I'm even more for algebra since it tends to be needed when dealing with physical objects such as woodworking etc. Calculus lets you understand the difference between strength and toughness of materials with a quick glance at a graph (integral of stress versus strain is the area under the curve if it's plotted on a graph - lots under the graph means tough, not much means brittle).

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

    The great dumbing down of the modern world continues... everything has to be "easier" or "simpler" or "faster".

    I for one just hope that I end up among the Morlocks and not the Eloi

  225. ENOUGH OF THE DUMBING DOWN!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am shocked how many posters agree with removing advanced math from curriculums. The schools, ALL OF THEM, have already been dumbed down so far that kids are graduating who know almost nothing compared with my generation and those before me. I thought this was the news for nerds, ie intelligent people. I have already suffered years of watching younger generations who are completely incompetent being put into positions they are not qualified for.

    It's true that advanced math is not used much in daily life. I don't use it much myself, geometry comes in handy, simple math for business accounting, etc., but not logarithms. Trig and calculus, almost never. But learning it did help me learn to think. Helped me learn to study, and learn to learn. How to analyze and solve problems. If that's not enough for you, just remember that it helps weed out the truly stupid. Everyone wants to help the less fortunate, get them educated and turn them into productive citizens. But many just cannot do the work. If you remove every course that is hard, then you get stupid people walking around with college degrees that get them into serious jobs they cannot handle. Yes, that ambulance med tech does not need advanced math, but when I am laying there injured and dying, I want a capable, intelligent person to show up who can handle the situation and think and reason for himself. My life, and your life, may depend on that someday.

    Perhaps you don't realize how bad it is already. about 12 years ago I was at the store with my young daughter, and I was teaching her how to shop, to read the packages, look for healthy foods and compare prices. I was surprised to learn she did not know her volumes, how many ounces and quarts to a gallon. I learned that well before high school, she was clueless. When she told me no one needs to know that, I was floored. So I made her learn it, but at the time I told her everyone knows that. Just watch. So I asked the person standing near us how many quarts in a gallon. They did not know. So I asked another, and another. I did eventually find one or two who did know 4 quarts to a gallon, but not a one knew how many ounces to a quart or gallon. I must have asked twenty people (I was getting very annoyed as I realized I was surrounded by idiots while my little girl looks at me any says, "See dad, no one knows that". Arrg.
    Last year, in another grocery store, I saw a mid-twenties middle class white man reading a package. He then turned to his girlfriend and asked her, "What is SODIUM???" JFC!!! How do you get to be at least 24 without knowing what sodium is? It's discussed everywhere constantly.

    So let's dumb down the educational system so guys like that can get degrees they don't deserve. But don't come whining to me here when you find yourself in trouble because no one around you can do their fucking jobs.

  226. Algebra vs calculus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Usenet Oracle has pondered your question deeply. Your question was:

    > if i passed algebra but failed calculus, what does that say about me ?
    And in response, thus spake the Oracle:

    } You do it discretely but not continuously.

    (captcha: talents)

  227. Re:A view I've held for long time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You used the word, "maths". You're a goddamn Brit.

  228. Tailor the teaching to the student. by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    If you want to destroy the country, it's hard to find a more effective method than insisting that tomorrow's creators spend the 3 or 4 years of high school cooking pot roasts and subtracting columns of numbers. Fit the curriculum to the student.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  229. I replaced Algebra II with Calculus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Went into the wrong class Junior year in high school. Decided to take calculus instead of the algebra class I signed up for.

  230. Re:Part of a bigger problem: poor abstract reasoni by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    Feel free to live in a house designed and built by a statistician, or drive the car he designed and built, or fly in the airplane. I'll go with stuff the trigonometry expert did. Good luck - you'll need your statistician to evaluate your chances.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  231. English by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, let's drop English, History, and all the sciences as well. Algebra and Trig was the easiest. He wants to replace it with Stats? Even after 2 classes of Stats, I still don't use it. What a dumb dumb

  232. Bollocks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > But it's not easy to see why potential poets and **philosophers** face a lofty mathematics bar.

    Bollocks... Having gone through programs for B.Sc. and M.Sc. in Philosophy of Logic and AI, I can tell you I needed lots of advanced mathematics. In addition to studying Russell and Whitehead's *Principia Mathematica* in a grad class on logic, I also took a graduate class in the philosophy of spacetime, which required knowing enough tensor algebra/calculus to understand the Einstein Field Equations of General Relativity, as well as enough functional analysis to understand Quantum Mechanics! There are plenty of philosophers of mathematics and science, and they need to know advanced math.

  233. Ada Lovelace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > But it's not easy to see why potential **poets** and philosophers face a lofty mathematics bar.

    The world's first computer programmer was a 27 year-old POET named Ada Lovelace!!!

  234. Re:advanced mathematics requirements, like algebra by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My job isn't very maths-intensive, I'm more of a liberal arts guy, but I recently had to do long division. Not on numbers mind you, but on polynomials, but still, I'd argue that even if you *think* you'll never need maths in your life, you probably will.
    I think this is also a case of people using the skills they have. Never learnt maths? Then you won't use it and try to dodge maths problems, even if that means missing opportunities. Same goes for any other skill, be it German, physics, or philosophy.

  235. Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Algebra is trivial. A poet cannot write a really good poem without understanding Algebra. You cannot do statistics, finance, or write computer code without algebra. You cannot even properly drive a car without algebra. Getting rid of it means lowering the standard of every other course we learn. Its critical to any profession. The Beatles could not write their music with understanding algebra first... its the basic of any musical composition course. You can't do anything without it. Calculus is also critical to statistics. Statistics without calculus is like a car without any engine or tires... it fails miserably!

  236. Four year foreign language requirement by h4ck7h3p14n37 · · Score: 1

    Don't most universities in the United States require four years of foreign language in high school, or four semesters at the college level?

    That's what the requirements were when I went to the University of Illinois in the mid-90's.

  237. nobody uses algebra? by gzuckier · · Score: 1

    then what are all these people doing, who stand at the counter in dunkin donuts, trying to optimize what they can buy with a $5 bill?

    --
    Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  238. It's not just math... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...it's the entire educational system that needs to change!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U

  239. Hacker Not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did the soi disant political scientist offer any data that suggested the magnitude of the problem? Poverty, not algebra is behind whatever educational problems the Hacker dreams of engineering away.

  240. Hacker Not by mlvlvr7460 · · Score: 1

    Did the so called political scientist offer any data that suggested the magnitude of the problem? Poverty, not algebra, is behind whatever educational problems the Hacker dreams of engineering away.

  241. no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuckin idiocracy come true.

    Why teach statistics at all? Why not just teach how to operate cash registers?

  242. A political scientist talks about maths... by ntipouan · · Score: 1

    High school algebra and calculus aren't abstract mathematics. Try real analysis, topology or abstract algebra, dear professor...

    --
    deltaS>=0 (c.s.)
  243. Sure...let's dumb education down. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's no reason that young people should need to learn to use their brains. After all, everything can be done with a push of a button and a call to someone on the phone. :-P

    Watch "Idiocracy". As dumb as the movie is, the predictions are spot-on.

  244. arithmetic by brunnegd · · Score: 1

    Start by teaching students to make change without needing a cash register or calculator

  245. The Case Against Algebra by Cthulhu's+Physicist · · Score: 1
    "I regard this math requirement as highly irrational."

    So is pi. Maybe we could round it off to 3 so we can finally square the circle..

    .

  246. Meh by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1
    Reading the article is illustrative of teh whiny bullshit that gets written today.

    I keep having flashbacks to the Talking Barbie who when you pulled her string, said "Math is hard!"

    Because the entire gist of th e story is thatbecause algebraII is hard, and some peopel drop out because of math being so hard......

    Get ready for it......

    We must make school so easy that no one is even remotely put upon. That's the takeaway.

    I pretty much sucked at algebra. Turned out I had possibly the worst algebra teacher in the world.

    But after a different, non math class where teh instructor taught us how to use slide rules, a miracle happened - I became rather good at it.

    Point is, I'm not saying that we have to learn how to use slide rules - although they do illustrate a mathamechanical concept that really worked for me - th epoint is that perhaps it needs taught better.

    One thing I do know, the common core mathematics children are being taught today makes the very basic maths darn near incomprehensible, and can turn the simplest problems into gobbledygook. http://toprightnews.com/insani...

    http://twitchy.com/2013/10/04/...

    While the far right has gone nuts over CC, the fact is that the simplest forms of math should not be so insane.

    But I digress.

    For as much as I hated algebra and my poor grades in it for one year, I use it on a daily basis now. And others might too, because who among us can say with certainty what skills we learn in our education will be needed in our careers and lives.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  247. If it is hard... by Doctrinsograce · · Score: 1

    Yeah, if something is hard, let's drop it from the curriculum. Oy. I taught my children and now my grandchildren: You must study to learn, learn to know, know to understand, understand to judge.

  248. **barf** by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is the dumbest bunch of Sheldon-esque bullshit I've read in ages. Just another case of a nerd wanting to make his boring life sound cool. Just embrace your nerdism like I have and get on with life. If you wanted the adoration a rock star gets, then you should have been a rock star. Instead the path of getting shit done and making the world work was chosen. IMHO, this is the better and more useful path. You can live, maybe unhappily, without the latest Katy Perry hit but let me see you live without clean drinking water. Yeah, you're welcome. Mr Lockhart needs to get off his hippie train and get his ass back to work. We got rockets to launch and robots to fix!

  249. And THIS is why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    replace a number it a calculation with a variable

    This is why you are still required to take English and the finer arts, barbarian. L2gRammaRz n00b!

  250. Over here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The hit dog hollered! We found the non-shoe-wearing, non-bath-taking, messy-assed mathematician!

  251. Re:advanced mathematics requirements, like algebra by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your professor was an asshole and if you find that particular event "clever" then I can only surmise that you, too, are an asshole.

  252. technically correct is BEST correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice try moving those goalposts, nerd, but you're too weak. The percent means precisely what Antron said. You are trying to make the application the definition which it is not. Do you believe an automobile is for fucking? You can fuck in it, on it, it can take you somewhere you are going to fuck, and it could attract a future fuck but a car isn't necessary to engage in said fucking nor do people go buy cars specifically so they can fuck. That's confusing the application of the car as the defining characteristic of a car. You just hate being contradicted so much you can't let a subject go nor admit when you're wrong. In this case you're wrong and we're right. There's not a valid argument against that but you won't let that stop you!

    1. Re:technically correct is BEST correct by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      nor do people go buy cars specifically so they can fuck.

      Don't know much about human nature, do you? :)

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  253. THAT IS NOT NEWS! by Gallomimia · · Score: 1

    This opinion has been expressed many times, years ago. Good old slashdot for reporting old crap, yet again.

    --
    Sadly, a Libertarian cannot force his views on another, and freedom cannot spread as does the cancer known as religion.
  254. Memory by IcyWolfy · · Score: 1

    BlueFox: I've been reading through your comments, and you've got a lot of really intriguing/fascinating views on the human brain, memory, and learning, which has caught my interest.

    Is there any means to contact you more directly to have a conversation? I was wanting to gleam more insight into your mind, and your mental processes -- in the hopes to be able to improve my own, or at least to give inspiration on how to improve my own modes of thinking.

    1. Re:Memory by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Most of what I've learned came from exploration not unlike something completely different from whatever John C. Lily did. Seriously, ketamine is not the way.

      The sad fact is my brain is filled with a wide stretch of domain knowledge. Moonwalking with Einstein made a good inspirational piece for all the mnemonics stuff; and I've since learned things like Kepner-Tregoe problem solving and decision analysis, hierarchical decomposition from project management, SQ3R and derived study methods, Cornell and other note-taking systems, and so forth. Some of what Kenneth Higbee wrote about memory--that it's associative, that it works by association, that organization sharply improves it, and so forth--has allowed me to recognize how and why some of these systems help with memory, with studying, and with analysis.

      For the most part, I have a pile of unsorted information my brain can command. Learning and teaching are different things, and I do not have a prepared presentation of any use to anyone. Some things I can't even explain properly, such as my model of thinking by which I break things down into abstract models and then associate them with anything else having a similar abstract model--I'll treat any mechanism as a set of subsets of other mechanisms, all cobbled together into one big machine. If I had a well-organized presentation, I'd have an educational plan instead of a vague ideal and a pile of tools I've already described.

      I can say this, however: people don't do enough reflection. Modern study methods include a step in which you think about what you just learned and how it relates to everything else--I do this in the extreme--and so come to more firmly understand the topic and those related topics, while also solidifying the new knowledge within the framework of your memory. People like to throw around words like "critical thinking" the same way teachers throw around words like "study" and "take notes": they don't have any meaning in mind, and are only voicing a complaint that you're not taking an abstract and ill-defined action. Reflection is the basis of critical thinking: you will frequently find disturbing mismatches, which only proves either your knowledge is incomplete or something you've learned is incorrect.

  255. Sounds good - outsource prosperity to China by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Sounds good - outsource prosperity to China and join the third world.

    What's with the idiot that thinks you can do much with statistics without some algebra and calculus to go with it?

  256. Logarithms are important to know by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 1

    Logarithms are important to know, they are used in many scales and units, such as Richter scale and AWG. I think this is just another ploy to keep people Smart enough so that they do not have to be on welfare, but stupid enough so they are happy with baseball and six packs and do not ask any tough questions.

  257. There's no point in arguing by Xamusk · · Score: 1

    The problem is a misunderstanding in the objectives of education.

    While people usually (and wishfully) think of "education" in the Trivium-like meaning (also sometimes called Medieval Education, if one is unabashed by the now-negative "Medieval" adjective) instead of what governments want, which is "national, compulsory general-knowledge education" (sometimes also called Prussian education system).

    As is usual, both education systems have their advantages, but emphasis in the former is dwindling. Myself I believe that we should focus on the former but pass a little in the latter to let students have contact with all types of knowledge and then choose what (and how many) they like most.

    As a teacher I had said once: "If a student is good at something and bad at something else, should we focus on what he's good at to reach maximum potential or should we focus on getting better where he's deficient, so he'll have a broader set of skills?"

  258. just...no by rocket+rancher · · 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."

    -Lazarus Long, via The Notebooks of Lazarus Long

    Algebra as some kind of gatekeeper to a good, well-rounded, liberal education is fucking absurd. This was probably the most idiotic assertion I have seen on slashdot in the last dozen years.

  259. How can you do statistics w/o Math?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is just sooo absurd to propose statistics without algebra. How do you get pass day 2 of statistics w/o it? Why don't we just skip math altogether!!

  260. Logarithms are Essential for Economics by herbierobinson · · Score: 1

    One can't really understand much about economics without understanding logarithms.

    --
    An engineer who ran for Congress. http://herbrobinson.us
  261. Bullshit by allo · · Score: 1

    School Algebra are just basics, who cannot learn them should not get the grade.

  262. i tried algaebra by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it left my chest all clammy

  263. Lies by Nunya666 · · Score: 1

    As Mark Twain popularized, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

  264. What? by vilanye · · Score: 1

    I had to take 2 calculus courses before I could take statistics in college

    1. Re:What? by movdqa · · Score: 1

      Colleges usually have two levels of intro statistics. One is the algebra-based course where you learn a little about statistics and a few tools. The other is usually taken by engineering and science majors and requires calc as a prerequisite and may require the ability to do proofs. I'm sure that the folks on this proposal are talking about the algebra-based version.

  265. What do kids do in math classes these days? by movdqa · · Score: 1

    School systems have 12 years to teach math to kids. In that time, they have to learn elementary arithmetic, algebra and maybe algebra 2, precalculus, and for a very few, calculus. What do they do with all that time? Why does it take seven or eight years to teach arithmetic? We're talking about addition, subtraction, multiplication, division (sometimes long), fractions, ratios, percentages, and maybe word problems. I think that the big problem is that we tell kids that they need to learn algebra - calculus without really explaining why they're useful and why these subjects are interesting where the usefulness of this stuff comes into play in your university science courses and in a few other places. The attitude is seen in college too. My son was taking Foundations of Computer Science and one frustrated student asked why do we need to study this stuff? So my son explained to him where it's useful - but that's only because I explained where it's useful when he was a lot younger. If kids have some kind of map or something to show them why what they are learning is useful or will be useful, they might be more motivated. My son tutored college math and science courses and his comment on kids having problems with calculus and physics is that a lot of students have poor proficiency in algebra. They understand the concepts of calculus or trigonometry but they have problems on exams because they didn't learn algebra well or they learned it and forgot it. We clearly have problems with math in our schools - I really don't know what they are but I'd guess that it had something to do with motivation. BTW, what do you suppose the reaction to his topic would be in Singapore?

    1. Re:What do kids do in math classes these days? by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      They're all dicking about with iPads instead of actually learning anything.

  266. Kinda Sorta Agree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First, we need to recognize the most important thing: top down government sucks at five 9's worth of everything (who wants Trump or Hillary in charge of education?). IF there is a place for the federal government to be in education, it should be as a guide or road map of suggestions. Such as "Nationally, on average, we want 5 graders to pass this test.", or "Ninth Graders with the goal of going to Juilliard should be on this tract." The Department of Education could be like 20 people working out of a rented space who mostly answer the phone trying to assist the state's DoEs with contact info for reaching out to leaders in education. They should not be cramming their views down our throats. Mississippi doesn't need D.C. involved if it wants to create a relationship with M.I.T., CalTech, Microsoft, Khan Academy, Yale, Harvard, Juilliard, Johns Hopkins, Ford, Boeing, Cisco, etc.to improve students lives. Moreover, Yazoo County doesn't need Jackson micromanaging every 5 minutes of the school day. Let parents have a say in what is going on; D.C. can't run their own public schools. Yes, of course, there can and should be some standards within education, but parents and local, elected officials should determine what is best as they are the most heavily invested in the outcome.

  267. Won't work politically by Shadow+IT+Ninja · · Score: 1

    School curricula are determined by various levels of government. Since many of these politicians are influenced by their own religion, we have always had some compromise between teaching and not teaching Scientific Method. The result is that it's just assumed that Scientific Method is learned along the way in Science classes. It's seldom taught explicitly. I think the reason is that it undermines religious faith. The most subversive idea of Scientific Method is that it demands uncertainty. It even demands that you explain and try to quantify the certainty of any experimental result. That's where statistics come in. Faith means you either believe something or you don't. This conflict is one of the most fundamental and divisive aspect of politics.

  268. Tecsilk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why not teach Topics for Silk Saree Where the Studends get more about Silk Fabrics Becase Chiffon Silk Saree is a very huge Topic to discuss about and Indian Silk Saree are best know for all the information about Silk
    and Silk Saree