Is Algebra Necessary?
A TYPICAL American school day finds some six million high school students and two million college freshmen struggling with algebra. In both high school and college, all too many students are expected to fail. Why do we subject American students to this ordeal? I’ve found myself moving toward the strong view that we shouldn’t.
There are many defenses of algebra and the virtue of learning it. Most of them sound reasonable on first hearing; many of them I once accepted. But the more I examine them, the clearer it seems that they are largely or wholly wrong — unsupported by research or evidence, or based on wishful logic. (I’m not talking about quantitative skills, critical for informed citizenship and personal finance, but a very different ballgame.)
This debate matters. Making mathematics mandatory prevents us from discovering and developing young talent. In the interest of maintaining rigor, we’re actually depleting our pool of brainpower. I say this as a writer and social scientist whose work relies heavily on the use of numbers. My aim is not to spare students from a difficult subject, but to call attention to the real problems we are causing by misdirecting precious resources.
The toll mathematics takes begins early. To our nation’s shame, one in four ninth graders fail to finish high school. In South Carolina, 34 percent fell away in 2008-9, according to national data released last year; for Nevada, it was 45 percent. Most of the educators I’ve talked with cite algebra as the major academic reason.
Shirley Bagwell, a longtime Tennessee teacher, warns that “to expect all students to master algebra will cause more students to drop out.” For those who stay in school, there are often “exit exams,” almost all of which contain an algebra component. In Oklahoma, 33 percent failed to pass last year, as did 35 percent in West Virginia.
Algebra is an onerous stumbling block for all kinds of students: disadvantaged and affluent, black and white. In New Mexico, 43 percent of white students fell below “proficient,” along with 39 percent in Tennessee. Even well-endowed schools have otherwise talented students who are impeded by algebra, to say nothing of calculus and trigonometry.
California’s two university systems, for instance, consider applications only from students who have taken three years of mathematics and in that way exclude many applicants who might excel in fields like art or history. Community college students face an equally prohibitive mathematics wall. A study of two-year schools found that fewer than a quarter of their entrants passed the algebra classes they were required to take.
“There are students taking these courses three, four, five times,” says Barbara Bonham of Appalachian State University. While some ultimately pass, she adds, “many drop out.”
Another dropout statistic should cause equal chagrin. Of all who embark on higher education, only 58 percent end up with bachelor’s degrees. The main impediment to graduation: freshman math. The City University of New York, where I have taught since 1971, found that 57 percent of its students didn’t pass its mandated algebra course. The depressing conclusion of a faculty report: “failing math at all levels affects retention more than any other academic factor.” A national sample of transcripts found mathematics had twice as many F’s and D’s compared as other subjects.
Nor will just passing grades suffice. Many colleges seek to raise their status by setting a high mathematics bar. Hence, they look for 700 on the math section of the SAT, a height attained in 2009 by only 9 percent of men and 4 percent of women. And it’s not just Ivy League colleges that do this: at schools like Vanderbilt, Rice and Washington University in St. Louis, applicants had best be legacies or athletes if they have scored less than 700 on their math SATs.
It’s true that students in Finland, South Korea and Canada score better on mathematics tests. But it’s their perseverance, not their classroom algebra, that fits them for demanding jobs.
Nor is it clear that the math we learn in the classroom has any relation to the quantitative reasoning we need on the job. John P. Smith III, an educational psychologist at Michigan State University who has studied math education, has found that “mathematical reasoning in workplaces differs markedly from the algorithms taught in school.” Even in jobs that rely on so-called STEM credentials — science, technology, engineering, math — considerable training occurs after hiring, including the kinds of computations that will be required. Toyota, for example, recently chose to locate a plant in a remote Mississippi county, even though its schools are far from stellar. It works with a nearby community college, which has tailored classes in “machine tool mathematics.”
That sort of collaboration has long undergirded German apprenticeship programs. I fully concur that high-tech knowledge is needed to sustain an advanced industrial economy. But we’re deluding ourselves if we believe the solution is largely academic.
A skeptic might argue that, even if our current mathematics education discourages large numbers of students, math itself isn’t to blame. Isn’t this discipline a critical part of education, providing quantitative tools and honing conceptual abilities that are indispensable — especially in our high tech age? In fact, we hear it argued that we have a shortage of graduates with STEM credentials.
Of course, people should learn basic numerical skills: decimals, ratios and estimating, sharpened by a good grounding in arithmetic. But a definitive analysis by the Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce forecasts that in the decade ahead a mere 5 percent of entry-level workers will need to be proficient in algebra or above. And if there is a shortage of STEM graduates, an equally crucial issue is how many available positions there are for men and women with these skills. A January 2012 analysis from the Georgetown center found 7.5 percent unemployment for engineering graduates and 8.2 percent among computer scientists.
Peter Braunfeld of the University of Illinois tells his students, “Our civilization would collapse without mathematics.” He’s absolutely right.
Algebraic algorithms underpin animated movies, investment strategies and airline ticket prices. And we need people to understand how those things work and to advance our frontiers.
Quantitative literacy clearly is useful in weighing all manner of public policies, from the Affordable Care Act, to the costs and benefits of environmental regulation, to the impact of climate change. Being able to detect and identify ideology at work behind the numbers is of obvious use. Ours is fast becoming a statistical age, which raises the bar for informed citizenship. What is needed is not textbook formulas but greater understanding of where various numbers come from, and what they actually convey.
What of the claim that mathematics sharpens our minds and makes us more intellectually adept as individuals and a citizen body? It’s true that mathematics requires mental exertion. But there’s no evidence that being able to prove (x² + y²)² = (x² - y²)² + (2xy)² leads to more credible political opinions or social analysis.
Many of those who struggled through a traditional math regimen feel that doing so annealed their character. This may or may not speak to the fact that institutions and occupations often install prerequisites just to look rigorous — hardly a rational justification for maintaining so many mathematics mandates. Certification programs for veterinary technicians require algebra, although none of the graduates I’ve met have ever used it in diagnosing or treating their patients. Medical schools like Harvard and Johns Hopkins demand calculus of all their applicants, even if it doesn’t figure in the clinical curriculum, let alone in subsequent practice. 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.
I WANT to end on a positive note. Mathematics, both pure and applied, is integral to our civilization, whether the realm is aesthetic or electronic. But for most adults, it is more feared or revered than understood. It’s clear that requiring algebra for everyone has not increased our appreciation of a calling someone once called “the poetry of the universe.” (How many college graduates remember what Fermat’s dilemma was all about?)
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. Thus mathematics teachers at every level could create exciting courses in what I call “citizen statistics.” This would not be a backdoor version of algebra, as in the Advanced Placement syllabus. Nor would it focus on equations used by scholars when they write for one another. Instead, it would familiarize students with the kinds of numbers that describe and delineate our personal and public lives.This need not involve dumbing down. Researching the reliability of numbers can be as demanding as geometry. More and more colleges are requiring courses in “quantitative reasoning.” In fact, we should be starting that in kindergarten.
I hope that mathematics departments can also create courses in the history and philosophy of their discipline, as well as its applications in early cultures. Why not mathematics in art and music — even poetry — along with its role in assorted sciences? The aim would be to treat mathematics as a liberal art, making it as accessible and welcoming as sculpture or ballet. If we rethink how the discipline is conceived, word will get around and math enrollments are bound to rise. It can only help. Of the 1.7 million bachelor’s degrees awarded in 2010, only 15,396 — less than 1 percent — were in mathematics.
I’ve observed a host of high school and college classes, from Michigan to Mississippi, and have been impressed by conscientious teaching and dutiful students. I’ll grant that with an outpouring of resources, we could reclaim many dropouts and help them get through quadratic equations. But that would misuse teaching talent and student effort. It would be far better to reduce, not expand, the mathematics we ask young people to imbibe. (That said, I do not advocate vocational tracks for students considered, almost always unfairly, as less studious.)
Yes, young people should learn to read and write and do long division, whether they want to or not. But there is no reason to force them to grasp vectorial angles and discontinuous functions. Think of math as a huge boulder we make everyone pull, without assessing what all this pain achieves. So why require it, without alternatives or exceptions? Thus far I haven’t found a compelling answer.
I've seen a lot of reaction to this article as basically unfettered anger that doesn't do much to address the points raised. I hope we can have a rational discussion about practical issues and real problems that real students have in the education system instead of a lot of talk about stupid Americans and competing with South Korea in the international standardized test championships.
A TYPICAL American school day finds some six million high school students and two million college freshmen struggling with algebra. In both high school and college, all too many students are expected to fail. Why do we subject American students to this ordeal? I’ve found myself moving toward the strong view that we shouldn’t.
There are many defenses of algebra and the virtue of learning it. Most of them sound reasonable on first hearing; many of them I once accepted. But the more I examine them, the clearer it seems that they are largely or wholly wrong — unsupported by research or evidence, or based on wishful logic. (I’m not talking about quantitative skills, critical for informed citizenship and personal finance, but a very different ballgame.)
This debate matters. Making mathematics mandatory prevents us from discovering and developing young talent. In the interest of maintaining rigor, we’re actually depleting our pool of brainpower. I say this as a writer and social scientist whose work relies heavily on the use of numbers. My aim is not to spare students from a difficult subject, but to call attention to the real problems we are causing by misdirecting precious resources.
The toll mathematics takes begins early. To our nation’s shame, one in four ninth graders fail to finish high school. In South Carolina, 34 percent fell away in 2008-9, according to national data released last year; for Nevada, it was 45 percent. Most of the educators I’ve talked with cite algebra as the major academic reason.
Shirley Bagwell, a longtime Tennessee teacher, warns that “to expect all students to master algebra will cause more students to drop out.” For those who stay in school, there are often “exit exams,” almost all of which contain an algebra component. In Oklahoma, 33 percent failed to pass last year, as did 35 percent in West Virginia.
Algebra is an onerous stumbling block for all kinds of students: disadvantaged and affluent, black and white. In New Mexico, 43 percent of white students fell below “proficient,” along with 39 percent in Tennessee. Even well-endowed schools have otherwise talented students who are impeded by algebra, to say nothing of calculus and trigonometry.
California’s two university systems, for instance, consider applications only from students who have taken three years of mathematics and in that way exclude many applicants who might excel in fields like art or history. Community college students face an equally prohibitive mathematics wall. A study of two-year schools found that fewer than a quarter of their entrants passed the algebra classes they were required to take.
“There are students taking these courses three, four, five times,” says Barbara Bonham of Appalachian State University. While some ultimately pass, she adds, “many drop out.”
Another dropout statistic should cause equal chagrin. Of all who embark on higher education, only 58 percent end up with bachelor’s degrees. The main impediment to graduation: freshman math. The City University of New York, where I have taught since 1971, found that 57 percent of its students didn’t pass its mandated algebra course. The depressing conclusion of a faculty report: “failing math at all levels affects retention more than any other academic factor.” A national sample of transcripts found mathematics had twice as many F’s and D’s compared as other subjects.
Nor will just passing grades suffice. Many colleges seek to raise their status by setting a high mathematics bar. Hence, they look for 700 on the math section of the SAT, a height attained in 2009 by only 9 percent of men and 4 percent of women. And it’s not just Ivy League colleges that do this: at schools like Vanderbilt, Rice and Washington University in St. Louis, applicants had best be legacies or athletes if they have scored less than 700 on their math SATs.
It’s true that students in Finland, South Korea and Canada score better on mathematics tests. But it’s their perseverance, not their classroom algebra, that fits them for demanding jobs.
Nor is it clear that the math we learn in the classroom has any relation to the quantitative reasoning we need on the job. John P. Smith III, an educational psychologist at Michigan State University who has studied math education, has found that “mathematical reasoning in workplaces differs markedly from the algorithms taught in school.” Even in jobs that rely on so-called STEM credentials — science, technology, engineering, math — considerable training occurs after hiring, including the kinds of computations that will be required. Toyota, for example, recently chose to locate a plant in a remote Mississippi county, even though its schools are far from stellar. It works with a nearby community college, which has tailored classes in “machine tool mathematics.”
That sort of collaboration has long undergirded German apprenticeship programs. I fully concur that high-tech knowledge is needed to sustain an advanced industrial economy. But we’re deluding ourselves if we believe the solution is largely academic.
A skeptic might argue that, even if our current mathematics education discourages large numbers of students, math itself isn’t to blame. Isn’t this discipline a critical part of education, providing quantitative tools and honing conceptual abilities that are indispensable — especially in our high tech age? In fact, we hear it argued that we have a shortage of graduates with STEM credentials.
Of course, people should learn basic numerical skills: decimals, ratios and estimating, sharpened by a good grounding in arithmetic. But a definitive analysis by the Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce forecasts that in the decade ahead a mere 5 percent of entry-level workers will need to be proficient in algebra or above. And if there is a shortage of STEM graduates, an equally crucial issue is how many available positions there are for men and women with these skills. A January 2012 analysis from the Georgetown center found 7.5 percent unemployment for engineering graduates and 8.2 percent among computer scientists.
Peter Braunfeld of the University of Illinois tells his students, “Our civilization would collapse without mathematics.” He’s absolutely right.
Algebraic algorithms underpin animated movies, investment strategies and airline ticket prices. And we need people to understand how those things work and to advance our frontiers.
Quantitative literacy clearly is useful in weighing all manner of public policies, from the Affordable Care Act, to the costs and benefits of environmental regulation, to the impact of climate change. Being able to detect and identify ideology at work behind the numbers is of obvious use. Ours is fast becoming a statistical age, which raises the bar for informed citizenship. What is needed is not textbook formulas but greater understanding of where various numbers come from, and what they actually convey.
What of the claim that mathematics sharpens our minds and makes us more intellectually adept as individuals and a citizen body? It’s true that mathematics requires mental exertion. But there’s no evidence that being able to prove (x² + y²)² = (x² - y²)² + (2xy)² leads to more credible political opinions or social analysis.
Many of those who struggled through a traditional math regimen feel that doing so annealed their character. This may or may not speak to the fact that institutions and occupations often install prerequisites just to look rigorous — hardly a rational justification for maintaining so many mathematics mandates. Certification programs for veterinary technicians require algebra, although none of the graduates I’ve met have ever used it in diagnosing or treating their patients. Medical schools like Harvard and Johns Hopkins demand calculus of all their applicants, even if it doesn’t figure in the clinical curriculum, let alone in subsequent practice. 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.
I WANT to end on a positive note. Mathematics, both pure and applied, is integral to our civilization, whether the realm is aesthetic or electronic. But for most adults, it is more feared or revered than understood. It’s clear that requiring algebra for everyone has not increased our appreciation of a calling someone once called “the poetry of the universe.” (How many college graduates remember what Fermat’s dilemma was all about?)
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. Thus mathematics teachers at every level could create exciting courses in what I call “citizen statistics.” This would not be a backdoor version of algebra, as in the Advanced Placement syllabus. Nor would it focus on equations used by scholars when they write for one another. Instead, it would familiarize students with the kinds of numbers that describe and delineate our personal and public lives.This need not involve dumbing down. Researching the reliability of numbers can be as demanding as geometry. More and more colleges are requiring courses in “quantitative reasoning.” In fact, we should be starting that in kindergarten.
I hope that mathematics departments can also create courses in the history and philosophy of their discipline, as well as its applications in early cultures. Why not mathematics in art and music — even poetry — along with its role in assorted sciences? The aim would be to treat mathematics as a liberal art, making it as accessible and welcoming as sculpture or ballet. If we rethink how the discipline is conceived, word will get around and math enrollments are bound to rise. It can only help. Of the 1.7 million bachelor’s degrees awarded in 2010, only 15,396 — less than 1 percent — were in mathematics.
I’ve observed a host of high school and college classes, from Michigan to Mississippi, and have been impressed by conscientious teaching and dutiful students. I’ll grant that with an outpouring of resources, we could reclaim many dropouts and help them get through quadratic equations. But that would misuse teaching talent and student effort. It would be far better to reduce, not expand, the mathematics we ask young people to imbibe. (That said, I do not advocate vocational tracks for students considered, almost always unfairly, as less studious.)
Yes, young people should learn to read and write and do long division, whether they want to or not. But there is no reason to force them to grasp vectorial angles and discontinuous functions. Think of math as a huge boulder we make everyone pull, without assessing what all this pain achieves. So why require it, without alternatives or exceptions? Thus far I haven’t found a compelling answer.
I've seen a lot of reaction to this article as basically unfettered anger that doesn't do much to address the points raised. I hope we can have a rational discussion about practical issues and real problems that real students have in the education system instead of a lot of talk about stupid Americans and competing with South Korea in the international standardized test championships.
I talked to a Computer Scientist and he said it's not even used. I can definitely understand if someone was going to be a physicist or chemist or some other heavy science.
I wish I had taken more math when I was younger. It should stay in HS and first year college, because no one knows what they're going to be or might change their mind. Heck, I did. Only now did I finally find my calling and going to what I can to make it happen.
Well if they were to get rid of anything, they should get rid of proofing of triangles. Even my dad with his PHD, says it's unnecessary.
It also stressed average vs median and such and different ways to have equal pieces of pie. I found this a lot more practical than Algebra or such.
As for the article: dammit, _p, I'm a historian, not a mathematician, but I think the author makes some pretty cogent arguments against making it mandatory for everyone. I myself took all of ONE math course in college, and it had nothing at all to do with algebra nor anything at ALL to do with my Major or Minor.
On the other hand, making sure high school students understand the basics of symbolic logic is also pretty damn important, so I like the fact the author addresses ways to see that happen without forcing algebra on students who won't ever need it again.
I'd love for math to be taught that would be more...accessible? I guess? I don't know what that would be, though, since mathematical thinking is difficult for me. I can do basic math, but even mental math is a challenge for me. And I've definitely been made to feel like I'm really dumb for not being ~amazing~ at math, even though I'm a good writer and am generally a creative person who appreciates beauty and wishes to create it somehow.
Idk, this is a weirdly touchy subject for me.
and now i have to take it this semester to graduate with a counseling degree. i can't follow math. it just does not compute to me.
He gave me a D, but I fucking walked and made the dean's list since I got an A in all my other classes!
It's true that the people who decide how and when to teach various types of math to kids come out of education (or business management), not math. The mathematicians I knew LOVED math and made me enjoy talking about theoretical math as well as more basic aspects. They *understood* math so it wasn't about memorizing the time tables or memorizing formulas. They would look at a calculus problem, for example, and work through it so they were solving it rather than recognizing the formula and plugging in the correct answer. Maybe I never would have been able to do that but they were convinced most people would be if they'd been taught math as a fun game rather than a grind of worksheets.
So I guess I don't think the debate needs to be about requiring algebra or not. Yes, we need high school students to leave with more practical life skills like understanding interest rates but algebra might be easier and more appealing if the subject was approached completely differently from the beginning.
Edited at 2012-07-29 11:33 pm (UTC)
I had to take stats to fill my math GE requirement in college and I have no idea how I passed. I think my teacher took pity on me.
I just don't understand how I did so well in chem for biotech in high school considering how terrible in math I am. I'm pretty good at science. math is just like a brick wall to me :(
I hate to memorize so I didn't like that I was supposed to memorize for algebra. I think I'd not good at memorizing so asking me to look at a line of letters and symbols and recognize it as fitting the pattern of a formula was not going to work (or is that more calc?). Geometry made sense to me because at least I could *see* it.
momma lindsey is praying 4 u
be strong
xx
One thing I do feel safe saying is that if such an unexpectedly low percentage of our students are managing to learn it, we need to look at the preparation they're coming in with and how they're being taught. There also seems to be a real cultural meme that math is extremely hard and no fun - my math major friends in college frequently got the response 'Why?!?!' when they mentioned what they were studying.
The value of learning something should never be measured by how "useful" it is in "real life" (whatever that is) or in entry-level jobs. By that measure, why would we do away with elementary algebra in favor of nurturing poets? My ability to write a villanelle never got me a basic job. There is value in what is said about how much it is used, but that's not the point. Most people don't use poetry in their daily life either, but that doesn't mean it should not be taught or that we should call it useless.
Perhaps, when we fail to reach a standard, instead of lowering the bar and declaring it useless, we take a look at how we are enabling -- or not, really -- people to reach it. Mathematics teaching in this country sucks. It sucks like a Dyson vacuum. Like a black hole. Then again, so does the entire education system. We manage to cough out poets and mathematicians in spite of it, not because of it. The entire thing needs an overhaul.
But the value of learning something that's causing kids to flunk out of school at all levels should take those things heavily into account. If poetry were the number one thing causing failing grades, this article would be about how we can change the way we're teaching that instead.
Creating a curriculum that's more applicable to everyday life instead of a one-track train to senior pre-calc isn't lowering the bar. Something doesn't have to be so conceptual it's impractical to be challenging or ~intellectual~ and I think that's a really damaging but common misconception.
Edited at 2012-07-29 11:53 pm (UTC)
But I do think that the way math is taught in schools is highly problematic. I'm not saying this as a complainer; I scored above 700 in the subject on the SAT and the GRE, so math isn't hindering me. But I still feel that my education in math was largely a failure. I don't remember huge portions of what I did in high school or college, and the main reason I do well on standardized tests is because I test well and I'm good at puzzling things out when I have multiple choice answers to pick from.
A lot of the bad math I was taught was in classes that weren't "math" as such but which were required and which should have been better. My high school physics class was a nightmare of equations with little context and no point or purpose for a student at that level. Theory and general understanding that would do the average person a lot of good later in life were largely ignored in favor of math-heavy exams that required lots of cramming on concepts that were instantly forgotten and never missed. The most good I ever got out of that class and the thing that stuck with me the longest was the optional, wholly theoretical reading on string theory (which is bunk now but whatevs). I love physics, but I got more useful information out of one day of touring CERN this spring than I did out of basically my whole high school semester of it.
My college required stats class was the same damn story. Lots of equations no one would ever remember or be able to do. I barely passed even with open book tests because the teacher didn't explain shit and I was too swamped with my major classes to get individual tutoring outside the class. It pissed me off because there is so much important stuff that everyone should know about statistics that we never got to - things that do not require the ability to solve a bunch of equations but just need basic mathematical grounding and an ability to think logically. So one of the most important classes for a person going out into the real world, totally wasted.
I was the co-captain of the engineering team in high school. I sucked ass at calculus. the other captain was awesome at it. competition stuff was generally a combination of multiple choice and essay. at one point we're both working on same practice problem. you're supposed to fix a drainage problem on an oil derrick right away before it floods. how big a pipe do you need?
I read problem, circle answer. about twenty minutes later, the co-captain finishes the math.
"what did you pick?"
"six inches"
"I also got six inches... did you just guess?"
"No, it said it needed to be fixed RIGHT AWAY. they other two pipe sizes offered were non-standard sizes you would have to special order. clearly we're using the 6" pipe if it needs to be done yesterday."
Generally at competitions they handed me the majority of the questions to read through and eliminate all those, THEN hand the rest to the ones to other team members who were great at math, nor so great at logic. and then I'd spend end of competition writing the essay to go with their math.
I did have to take a second year of calculus in college for my degree. I have never, EVER had any call to use it. I never had any call to use it any accompanying class IN college. Algebra? that I use all the goddamn time. Business spreadsheets, all algebra! just usually not the fixed equations they teach. That you really need to be rock solid on the basics so you can write your own.
I'm glad to this day that I took them. I was surprised, when I got out of school and took my first professional job, that I used algebra many, many times a day, every day, in the course of my work. And even more surprised that I turned out to be good at it.
My one issue, and the one point where I think I agree with this article, is that I would've gotten more out of it if the approach had been a little more...flexible? I remember being utterly confounded by mathematical proofs in high school. Then I took my first philosophy course in college and was confronted again with proofs, except these were presented in written form. And suddenly I got it, because my language skills >>> my math skills. And it made me wish I could go back and retake those high school math courses knowing that, so I could turn the mathematical proofs into word problems instead and understand them that way.
That just depresses me, lol.
It's good to a have good science/math background. I learned the hard way about this bad economy that art is the first to go.
I failed calculus. I probably wouldn't if my dad had been teaching me. He's good at helping people understand math. He has helped many older students returning to school after raising children or foreign students. He just has a way of teaching that others understand.
I think part of the problem is that every few years there's some ~revolutionary new way~ to teach math (just like every other subject, dear God) and nobody really stops to figure out why people aren't learning no matter what the method is. I feel like there needs to be more number literacy (maybe that's not the correct word for what I'm trying to get across, maybe number sense is better) at a very early age. I never taught math or reading, only music, but just from being in the public school system for most of my career it seems to me like there is WAY more research on how children learn words and language and reading than there is on the way they learn the very basics of math.
It was similar to the "no calculator" rule we had, in high school. No realistic workplace is going to have you doing math on a daily basis where you need an answer NOW and you are not allowed to have a calculator. (I'm sure some one can find the exception - that's fine - they are EXCEPTIONS - not what the rules should be formed around, ftmp.)
Yes, math is important. A computer programmer might need some advanced math understanding (depending on the language, some more than others.) An artist does not need to same level understanding, and it's a waste of time and money to require the artist to go through the coursework for a useless class.
College admissions is so 'one size fits all' it's ridiculous.
If not, please transfer....
Lovingly,
Someone who has BTDT
I'm divided on this topic. On one hand, I can see the importance of mathematics. I think that students will eventually feel that they've been done a disservice if they aren't pushed to master algebra, which is a foundation for higher maths that they might need to take later on. I also think that for many students, there are fixable causes to their inability to grasp algebra. For example, many people lack the foundation to continue on to algebra because of gaps in their knowledge. This can easily be solved by addressing those gaps earlier on or providing tutoring to get those students up to speed. Other times, many students just aren't responding to the teacher's approach to instruction. So I think that eliminating the pressure to do well on math might be prematurely giving up on many students who could do well in math.
On the other hand, I do believe that people have certain aptitudes that they're pretty much born with. For those individuals, requiring success in math probably does create a barrier to excelling in other fields. I also agree that there's activities that you can use to replicate the problem-solving skills that one is supposed to obtain from solving a set of math problems.
In reality, I can't say that not knowing math has hurt me in any way and I was able to get a masters degree and almost complete a doctorate (I never did finish my dissertation) without being able to do any of it.
It's also useful in a lot of supposedly unrelated fields. Historians need to understand carbon dating, which uses differential equations at its root. Visual artists probably need some understanding of geometry. Let's not even get into the use of mathematics in music...
Even if a certain level of mathematical competence wasn't vital, one could just as easily say, "History is hard. Why do we teach history? It's stupid that I waste my time on this!" or "Why do I have to learn a foreign language?" or "Why make me read literature?" We learn a lot of stuff in school that really isn't all that important in most jobs/on a day to day basis. But we still learn them as it's part of having a common knowledge.
What annoys me is that this is always brought up with math. Never history. Never literature. (Admittedly occasionally foreign languages.)
Mmm, this isn't really something that would come up for a historian, actually. The results are important but knowing how it works is essentially irrelevant.
If you think that the requirements and emphasis for history and literature are anywhere near what they are with math, I would like to know what K-12 you went to and what universities you applied to.
Quantitative literacy clearly is useful in weighing all manner of public policies, from the Affordable Care Act, to the costs and benefits of environmental regulation, to the impact of climate change. Being able to detect and identify ideology at work behind the numbers is of obvious use. Ours is fast becoming a statistical age, which raises the bar for informed citizenship. What is needed is not textbook formulas but greater understanding of where various numbers come from, and what they actually convey.
This is something that really represents my interaction with people that consider themselves good with numbers. They can calculate complicated equations--which is great--but fail to understand any social meaning behind simple statistics and numbers--which is very important in order to understand the world we live in! If we could teach people the skills needed to both calculate and analyze numbers, it would make mathematics teaching a whole lot more valuable.