Richard Cohen on Algebra, "Meh".

[Dylab]

There is a somewhat widely circulated column out by Richard Cohen on the L.A. school district's requirement for students to have a year of algebra and a year of geometry. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/02/15/BL2006021501989.html

Cohen discusses the story of Gabriela Ocampo who dropped out of highschool after failing algebra six times. I'm sympathetic although I'm not without my suspicions. In a unparalled level of stupidity Cohen derides the requirements in part by saying,


Here's the thing, Gabriela: You will never need to know algebra. I have never once used it and never once even rued that I could not use it. You will never need to know -- never mind want to know -- how many boys it will take to mow a lawn if one of them quits halfway and two more show up later -- or something like that. Most of math can now be done by a computer or a calculator.


I don't think it is neccesary to explain why this comment is dumb. (Here at least.) I'm curious what your thoughts on the whole situation is.

Here are a couple blog links.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/02/richard_cohen_advocate_for_ign.php <PZ Myers attacking the comment

http://scienceblogs.com/ethicsandscience/2006/02/algebrahating_and_societal_pro.php <Speculative diagnosis on the issue.

[eri]

So this guy doesn't do his own taxes? He doesn't know how to figure out how many miles per gallon his car gets? There's no way he can understand a credit card application, or figure out loan payments.



I am not anti-algebra. It has its uses, I suppose, and I think it should be available for people who want to take it.

That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Just mind-boggling. How does this guy think the world works? Who programs those computers? Who teaches him how to use his calculator?

As for his examples of algebra-savvy students who couldn't write, I'd like to point out to him that most scientists (who usually take math up through Calc II at the least) have more publications in peer-reviewed journals than he does with all his typing skills.

[eri]

To add:

In the fall of 2004, 48,000 ninth-graders took beginning algebra; 44% flunked, nearly twice the failure rate as in English. Seventeen percent finished with Ds.

From an LA times article. Which mentioned that 2004 was the first year that students were requried to pass algebra and geometry before graduating. Why were we graduating students before 2003 who couldn't pass basic math classes? Oh, it can't just be LA. I have in front of me 20 labs from first-year engineering students, showing appalling algebra skills, no calculus whatsoever (although it was a requirement for this course), and, at times, poor writing and communication skills.

Sometimes I wonder if I went to the only high school in the nation with expectations of it's graduates beyond the ability to walk across the stage and successfully intercept a piece of paper.

[Jorghnassen]

How the bloody do they teach algebra to get such a high failure rate? High school algebra ain't rocket science...

[SixSixSix]

There is nothing more infuriating than the ignorant preaching the value of their ignorance.

It may be true that you can get by in life without needing to know algebra. But you can also live without knowing how to read. The real question is - does the effort required to learn algebra have a sufficiently good payoff?

In my opinion, the answer is yes, for many reasons:

a) Learning anything exercises the brain, which in turn allows you to learn more easily.

b) No knowledge is useless.

c) Those who possess knowledge will constantly see applications for it; those who lack knowledge may deny that these applications are valid.

Note that none of the above is algebra specific, of course. Here's some specific reasons:

i) Engineering and science disciplines are math-based. They are also well paid, desirable, and prestigious professions. Therefore, learning higher mathematics (I'd really include calculus here as well) is a portal to a better job and a higher standard of living. This is the "pragmatic" reason - regardless of whether computers can solve all mathematical algebraic problems or not, universities offering engineering or science degrees will want you to be able to demonstrate mathematical proficiency. As a computer programmer, I am highly skeptical of this claim - certainly packages like Mathematica are very good, but I don't see an algebra-novice making head nor tails of such programs - you still need to know what an equation is in order to get a computer to solve it.

ii) Algebra is useful for all forms of finance. It is a boon when budgeting; it helps to figure out where the bargains are when you're shopping; it will let you know how much time you'll save on paying off your mortgage if you make a lump sum payment.

iii) Algebra can save you money. Yes, you might be able to buy computer programs that will help with the options in ii, but if you understand algebra you can figure it out yourself.

iv) Algebra - and mathematics in general - is just plain fun. For those who disagree, I'm wondering if there might be a way to improve the teaching of it so that you would come around.

I find a use for algebra, calculus, trigonometry, probability theory, and so forth frequently. If you understand these techniques, your eyes will be opened to applications for them. If you wilfully remain ignorant, then there are none so blind as those who will not see.

[LostAngeles]

About ten years ago I tutored my mom through algebra. It was an uphill battle for both of us, me trying to get through to her that she was not, "stupid," and her to even do this stuff. We actually had a huge fight about this. I was still in high school and doing Calculus and she asked me, "Why do I need to know this?"

This woman used to give me her used Dell puzzle books after she was done. She ripped out the answer key and tossed them before starting them. In doing the logic problems and the "word arithmetic" (one "word" divided into another with each letter representing a digit), I got enough of an introduction to Algebra that it was pretty easy for me.

"The reasoning." I told her.

She still doesn't understand that that's what she was doing all those years. She can do her taxes, she can do her algebra classes now and get As without my help, but I don't think she's made the connection yet.

*sigh*

(1/2 of thoughts. It's bedtime.)

[roger]

Well, neither of my parents can do algebra and they get along fine. The taxes get paid, the loan applications are understood, gas milage is calculated, etc. It's absolutely false that you need algebra to get by.

Now, as to why you might want to teach algebra, is because it increases your potential in life. My dad held a respected, responsible position in the town, but there was not way he could become, say, and engineer. That happened to align with his interests anyway, so it was no loss to him. Prior to this he worked as a carpenter, and there were a few times he came to me to solve a math problem for him, but again, there are a large number of rules-of-thumb that can be used to solve most problems without math. If I wasn't there, he could have gone to somebody else, or worked it out by trial and error. yes, in that case he would have been better off knowing it, but some people just don't 'get' math. It'd be unfortunate if my father didn't get a high school degree - as smart as he is (he's developed curriculum for the state, for example), I doubt he could have passed algebra.

[SixSixSix]

Mathematics is problem solving. The numbers, the variables, the expressions - they are simply a way of formalizing the process.

It sounds as if your father did get math - he just didn't get the number/algebraic symbol part of it. I'm not a teacher, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if it wasn't possible to vary the teaching method to breach this apparent gap.

In any case, I'm not sure what the situation is in the US, but year 10 (the final compulsory schooling year) in Australia has always required algebra and geometry. In fact, I believe introductory calculus is now at a year 10 level. I don't believe this is because kids are getting fundamentally smarter - it's just that the advent of calculators means that you can, to some degree, cut out some of the drudgery problems and cover more of the harder stuff.

[roger]

Perhaps. I do recall tutoring my mother when she was getting her GED (she dropped out in 8th grade), and was never able to teach her Algebra. I think my teaching skills were pretty good, as I was a student math tutor at the time. But it is telling that other countries have these requirements. Tell me, is it required to pass algebra and geometry to graduate, and, if so, is the grading 'lenient' down in the D range to help students get through if they don't get it? My uninformed opinion is that probably most anybody can squirm through a course with a D as long as they are trying hard. The end result is that they "pass", though it can't be said they understood the material. That reflects my high school experience - an A counted for something, a D meant you were trying, but not suceeding. F was reserved for people who absolutely didn't try to learn.

[roger]

p.s. in general, calculus is reserved for 12th grade, and only for those who are in an advanced track. It is absurd, I taught myself calc in 10th grade, and was doing junior (college) level by 11-12 grade. I don't think that is anything special; I had a friend who came over here from France to major in math and said it wasn't until his Junior year in college before he started seeing stuff that hadn't been covered in his high school.

We seem to have horrendous levels of duplication in our lower levels. For example, we learned to multiply 3-4 digit numbers together in 3rd grade. 346*761, that sort of thing. Yet in 5 grade, I recall weeks spent on multiplying 3 digit numbers, then 4 digits, then 5, etc. Egads, if you can do 3 digits, you can go n digits. What a waste of time. We did learn more in 5th grade, but there is just a lot of repetition.

[SixSixSix]

Tell me, is it required to pass algebra and geometry to graduate, and, if so, is the grading 'lenient' down in the D range to help students get through if they don't get it? My uninformed opinion is that probably most anybody can squirm through a course with a D as long as they are trying hard. The end result is that they "pass", though it can't be said they understood the material. That reflects my high school experience - an A counted for something, a D meant you were trying, but not suceeding. F was reserved for people who absolutely didn't try to learn.
That's a good question.

Without seeming to appear arrogant, I've never been a D student at anything, so I really couldn't say. In Australia, you can leave school at any time after your 15th birthday - there is no requirement to graduate, but if you don't, you will find some options curtailed (though of course we have adult education programs to allow people to go back later in life and graduate, or finish upper school).

If you want to go on to upper school (year 11 and 12), you probably need at least a passing grade in mathematics, science, english, and social studies (a catch all that lumps in a little geography, a little history, a little economics, and a little politics). Whether that is a D or a C, I couldn't say - and you also need to keep in mind that I'm 33 now, so my high school days are a fair while back (though I doubt things are any easier - quite possibly the requirements are a little more stringent now).

Kiless would be a better person to ask, as she's a high school teacher. I'm just the mug that married her. :)

[SixSixSix]

p.s. in general, calculus is reserved for 12th grade, and only for those who are in an advanced track. It is absurd, I taught myself calc in 10th grade, and was doing junior (college) level by 11-12 grade. I don't think that is anything special; I had a friend who came over here from France to major in math and said it wasn't until his Junior year in college before he started seeing stuff that hadn't been covered in his high school.

Keeping in mind that it's been a while since I was at high school, as I recall we didn't do any calculus at year 10 or earlier. Year 11 and 12 we certainly did, but at that point you are technically able to avoid doing any mathematics whatsoever.

"Back when I were a lad", there were 3 levels of "upper school" mathematics. You could do Applied Mathematics, which I understand was basically just a revision of lower school stuff, perhaps with a little trigonometry thrown in. Then there was Maths I, which had differentiation, a little trigonometry, and some basic linear algebra. The highest level (which is what I did) was Maths II/III - a double unit, in effect. We covered calculus including differentiation, the fundamental theorem of calculus, and basic integration; trigonometry including some simple proofs; linear algebra (I think we were introduced to matrices, but I cannot be sure - certainly we never did anything with dot products, cross products, or determinants); and a fair few geometric proofs, algebraic equations for lines and surfaces, and "related rates". It wasn't until first year uni that we did Taylor series, vector spaces, or partial differentiation. I understand that the top mathematics units in upper school now touch on at least matrices and Taylor series - but again, it's been a fair whack since I was at high school.


We seem to have horrendous levels of duplication in our lower levels. For example, we learned to multiply 3-4 digit numbers together in 3rd grade. 346*761, that sort of thing. Yet in 5 grade, I recall weeks spent on multiplying 3 digit numbers, then 4 digits, then 5, etc. Egads, if you can do 3 digits, you can go n digits. What a waste of time. We did learn more in 5th grade, but there is just a lot of repetition.
I'm certainly not trying to suggest that the Aussie system is better, or anything. Calculators are allowed into class at primary school level now (I wasn't allow a calculator for mathematics even in year 12, though we could use them for our final Physics and Chemistry exams). There are many Aussie teenagers that probably could not multiply two 3 digit numbers without a calculator, or perform long division. I feel this to be a bad thing, but I'm possibly being overly picky here.

[Complexity]

Reliance on calculators is a bad thing - you don't know how to calculate anything if you don't have a calculator, and you don't develop the ability to do rough estimates in your head or be able to tell whether the result of a calculation is plausible.

Also, you don't develop an understanding of structure or meaning of a calculation or its operations.

I wouldn't allow a calculator in any math class from grade school through college.

[slingblade]

I wouldn't allow a calculator in any math class from grade school through college.

We had $120 graphing calculators in my algebra classes. Learning to use them properly is also necessary. Those big buggers are complex--have you seen the instruction book? It's over an inch thick!

But if you couldn't do the equations on paper, you couldn't figure out how to do them on a calculator, or at least, that was my experience.

At any rate, we weren't allowed to use them on tests--any tests, including the big ones administered by ETS, like the Praxis I (general knowledge, including math and science). If you hadn't learned how to do the operations, you would be bugger-all on the test, where it really counts. So having a calculator in class wasn't the path to easy street one might imagine.

It depends on how the instructor uses them. Great for homework, but not at all used on tests. That seems about right to me.

[Dark Jaguar]

Reliance on calculators is a bad thing - you don't know how to calculate anything if you don't have a calculator, and you don't develop the ability to do rough estimates in your head or be able to tell whether the result of a calculation is plausible.

Also, you don't develop an understanding of structure or meaning of a calculation or its operations.

I wouldn't allow a calculator in any math class from grade school through college.

I use a calculator all the time, I do in fact rely on it, but I can also do any of the calculations I use that calculator for on paper if I didn't have access to it. Someone can be aware of the method by which it works even if they are spoiled by a calculator. I'm talking a simple one though. I'm not sure how screwed up one could get doing higher math using a more advanced calculator than what is provided in Windows :D. As to how quickly I could do that math, well, I've never been good at memorizing numbers at all, so no, I have not memorized the various tables I was expected to in school. I'd be doing it all manually.

[Dylab]

Its official Complexity isn't allowed to teach math, ever.

Just out of curosity what it is your education and job background?

[Hindmost]

On a similar note Ted Rall wrote in an op-ed piece related to the number of people from other countries that are filling engineering and science postions in the US. Ted went on degrading these technical fields essentially saying that the jobs were horrible anyhow, so let expats take them. (he gave some anecdotes about himself taking physics in college and a friend working in the defense industry)

I wrote him an email asking him to turn off all the technology designed by engineers and see how long he could survive, e.g. try turning off the electricity first. I then remarked that I could live without political commentary for a very, very long time. He never replied.

I do have alot of students that can't make rough estimates. Whatever value the calculator pops out, they put down. (missing a bracket on a TI calculator can really mess up the results) I rely on my calculator as well, but I can usually tell if I punched something wrong by the end result. Learning with a slide rule may have something to do with that.

Of course we have computers to do that stuff now, but someone has to know the design basis and someone has to program them.


glenn:boxedin:

We live in a society where it's considered okay for intelligent people to be scientifically illiterate.


<O:pLawrence M. Krauss</B>

[Jorghnassen]

Calculators are only good to speed up computing trig functions when the angles are given in degrees...

/what other uses could they have?

[Complexity]

Its official Complexity isn't allowed to teach math, ever.

Just out of curosity what it is your education and job background?
Ph.D. in Computer Science, Northwestern University
M.S. in Computer Science, Northwestern University
B.S. in Computer Science, Mathematics minor, Northeastern Illinois University
B.A. in English Literature, Mathematics minor, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Three years as a Computer Science teaching assistant and instructor (one term) at Northwestern University
Five years teaching Computer Science at the university level after Northwestern.

The last two years of teaching were at a university whose math department was going through hell regarding calculators. They were nearly evenly split on the use of calculators in the classroom.

They eventually opted for allowing graphing calculators to be used in all math classes and on all tests. Students were allowed to use the calculators for derivation and integration - I am certain that few of them learned any calculus to speak of, regardless of test scores or grades.

For the record, I'm a damned good teacher. :)

I got out of teaching and have been developing software for the past ten years. I'm currently a rules systems architect at an insurance company.

Much of my spare time is spent developing algorithms for challenging problems.

[drkitten]

Calculators are only good to speed up computing trig functions when the angles are given in degrees...

Speeding up computing trig functions when the angles are given in radians? Or can you calculate the sine of six-tenths of a radian off the top of your head?

[drkitten]

I do have alot of students that can't make rough estimates. Whatever value the calculator pops out, they put down. (missing a bracket on a TI calculator can really mess up the results) I rely on my calculator as well, but I can usually tell if I punched something wrong by the end result. Learning with a slide rule may have something to do with that.


That's my main objection to calculators as well. I remember once, an uncomfortably long number of years ago, when a student offered her "solution" to an engineering problem I had posed in class.

"It's 16.7.... well, either milliseconds or microseconds, I'm not sure which."

For the benefit of the Literature majors out there, there are 1000 microseconds in a millisecond. Basically, she was off by the same degree of imprecision as if she had said "it's either 16.7 minutes or days, I'm not sure which." Imagine telling your boss that when he wants to know how much longer until the boiler overheats and explodes....

The calculator had given her the number 16.7, which was correct. She managed to mangle that correct value into something totally useless by relying on the calculator instead of actually understanding the problem.

[Jorghnassen]

Speeding up computing trig functions when the angles are given in radians? Or can you calculate the sine of six-tenths of a radian off the top of your head?

Euler could. I'm not that great, but I live in a world where one never encounters other angles than multiples of pi/6 and pi/4... Degrees are only good for engineers ;).

[bjb]

To calculate the sine of 0.6 radians, I used the approximation sin(x) = x, for small values of x, which gives 0.6 as my estimate. The real answer is .56 so my guess is off by less than 6%. These types of approximations for small angles are often used by electrical engineers to simplify a problem. Back when I was learning these methods, I would solve the equations using the approximations and by using the exact equation, and I found the differences were very, very slight. The trick in engineering is to make sure the angles are small so the approximations work like they should.

Obviously, I don't agree that algebra is useless, and I also find it ironic that someone would use the internet to distribute their anti-knowlege opinions. But the reality is that most people don't use algebra so I agree that it shouldn't be a requirement for graduation. It's great that other countries can get their students to learn algebra, but my wife is a teacher here in Southern California and it just is not possible to do this. I wonder if you guys in other countries also have large numbers immigrant children of all ages entering your schools who can't even speak the language. How is a school supposed to teach all of their students algebra when all of them don't even speak english? How are the students going to learn if their parents don't know algebra or speak English themselves? These are the realities around here and I can believe that students are going to drop out even more rapidly than they already do because of the algebra requirement.

Now that I think about it, a good reason for anyone learn algebra is so they can teach it to their kids. Maybe Gabriela doesn't want to learn algebra but someday, she may have a kid who does. How is she going to feel when she can't even help her own kid with their homework?

[Hindmost]

That's my main objection to calculators as well. I remember once, an uncomfortably long number of years ago, when a student offered her "solution" to an engineering problem I had posed in class.

"It's 16.7.... well, either milliseconds or microseconds, I'm not sure which."

For the benefit of the Literature majors out there, there are 1000 microseconds in a millisecond. Basically, she was off by the same degree of imprecision as if she had said "it's either 16.7 minutes or days, I'm not sure which." Imagine telling your boss that when he wants to know how much longer until the boiler overheats and explodes....

The calculator had given her the number 16.7, which was correct. She managed to mangle that correct value into something totally useless by relying on the calculator instead of actually understanding the problem.

I sometimes think that we should teach the slide rule again...just for background purposes. (of course, I would have to brush up a bit.) I try to use Fermi questions to help students understand estimation...hmmmm, must work on something with that.

6x9=42

glenn:boxedin:

[Manny]

Richard Cohen is among the most famous journalists in the world. He broke the Spiro Agnew story. When young reporters say, "I want to be like...," Cohen's name comes up not long after Woodward and Bernstein.

He is by no means atypical of reporters. Remember that when you read a story. About anything. Even science, in many cases. The guy writing the story about the space shot doesn't know an AU except that there's a definition of it in his stylebook, and he'd have no idea how long it takes to get to Saturn unless the NASA press release told him. The guy writing about the federal deficit can't balance his checkbook. The sports guy doesn't know the statistical likelyhood of a person who hits .357 and gets ~3.9 at bats per game hitting safely in 56 consecutive games. He doesn't even know how to approach the problem or what an answer might look like. Remember this.

[Jimbo07]

Obviously, I don't agree that algebra is useless,

Algebra, calculus and science in general can be absolutely useless.

Last year I suffered through a year-long Junior level course in PDEs with boundary conditions (actually enjoying parts)! My wife, on the other hand, had to take economics as the science elective in her degree. :eek:

I'm a student intern. She's a cop. Right now she is making more money than I am. Oh sure, I may be on a steeper income growth curve, but right now she is basically supporting us.

Her math skills are abominable. Her people skills are amazing! Scientist or scum bag, she can tell someone is BSing her, just by a quick read in moments. Nothing supernatural, just experience combined with paying careful attention. Hers is an incredibly useful problem-solving skill.

On the other hand, if I want to be an engineer, I need science and math. It depends what you want to do.

I think calculus (and maybe algebra) IS a hard sell.

[SixSixSix]

It's great that other countries can get their students to learn algebra, but my wife is a teacher here in Southern California and it just is not possible to do this. I wonder if you guys in other countries also have large numbers immigrant children of all ages entering your schools who can't even speak the language.

It depends on how you define "large". (Ironically algebra gives a way to define that; eg x > 10%, say. ;) )

But certainly Australia is a highly multicultural society; we're younger than you Yanks, which means that the immigrant proportion of our population is correspondingly higher, and in addition some of our early immigrants were not necessarily English speakers (the Dutch as the main example). Recently the main influx of new students is from Asia; my wife Kiless teaches English as a Second Language at a fairly preppy private school, so I think that even if you want to argue it's not as bad here as it is there, at least you would need to concede that we understand the problem. It's also not uncommon for some Asian families to send their kids to school in Australia even if they don't intend living here (though I'm sure that's common in the US as well).

As far as needing it in everyday life - I would be very hesistant to use that as any sort of criterion for what to require for graduating high school. There is really no limit to how far down such a bar could be pushed. I suspect you could function in the Western World even if you were completely illiterate and innumerate, for example - it wouldn't be much of a life, but you might avoid starvation or death due to elements.

Learning humanities teaches you about the world and how to communicate. Learning sciences (including mathematics) teaches you how to think abstractly and reason. Both are necessary to be a productive human being; both immeasurably improve your enjoyment of life.


How is a school supposed to teach all of their students algebra when all of them don't even speak english?

Being an educator is not an easy job. It's one of the toughest and least appreciated professions it is possible to follow. Almost universally teachers are overworked and underpaid.

But slackening the requirements for scholarship helps nobody. It might make a teacher's life easier, but that is bought at the expense of their students education.


How are the students going to learn if their parents don't know algebra or speak English themselves?

I'm sure the US has adult education facilities.


These are the realities around here and I can believe that students are going to drop out even more rapidly than they already do because of the algebra requirement.

So be it. Nobody is served by lowering the bar. If less people manage to graduate, then there is a problem with the teaching methods or possibly the teaching duration. Maybe it is worth considering extending compulsory schooling up till 18, and then another 2 or 3 years "upper school" before University. If the labour force is stable enough that it can handle the delays, then maybe that's the answer.

[SixSixSix]

I think calculus (and maybe algebra) IS a hard sell.
Whereas someone that graduates with great grades in mathematics and science can get a white coat job somewhere with few people skills required.

But I think most people would agree that a fusion of the two is desirable.

[eri]

Whereas someone that graduates with great grades in mathematics and science can get a white coat job somewhere with few people skills required.

No good scientist is an island. Scientists have to be able to communicate - to write up and publish their ideas in a way that can be understood and defended, and to talk to their peers about their ideas (and very often teach as well). People skills are valued! Maybe not as much as the PhD in theoretical physics, but you're not going to get a job if you don't interview well.

I have to add that while I have met many literate people who have no math/science background, I have met very few scientifically literate people who were not also considered literate in the general sense.

[Jimbo07]

Whereas someone that graduates with great grades in mathematics and science can get a white coat job somewhere with few people skills required.


There are fewer 'white coat' jobs than people skills jobs (esp. when you fold in the vast bulk of sales jobs). My point was that the world seems set up so that smart people with good educations can get by with NO college-level math/science training.

As for eri's point, there seems to be a vast difference between science profs. and engineering profs. A number of my math/physics profs have been entertaining, engaging and informative (my linear alg. prof. was wild-haired, funny, and gave the very best analogy (or rationale) for studies in complexity (calling undergrad calculus a big lie) I have ever received). On the other hand, I can name a couple of engineering profs who are old, crusty, poor communicators. There are exceptions on either side, but that's how it seems to be generally shaking out...

[pgwenthold]

I have to add that while I have met many literate people who have no math/science background, I have met very few scientifically literate people who were not also considered literate in the general sense.


I think it is Paulos who points this out. Why is it acceptable to wear math illiteracy as a badge, but english illiteracy is considered such a sin.

The whole argument of "why do I need this in life?" applies just as much to understanding Huckleberry Finn as it does to solving binomial equations.

[Zbu]

That's my main objection to calculators as well. I remember once, an uncomfortably long number of years ago, when a student offered her "solution" to an engineering problem I had posed in class.

"It's 16.7.... well, either milliseconds or microseconds, I'm not sure which."

For the benefit of the Literature majors out there, there are 1000 microseconds in a millisecond. Basically, she was off by the same degree of imprecision as if she had said "it's either 16.7 minutes or days, I'm not sure which." Imagine telling your boss that when he wants to know how much longer until the boiler overheats and explodes....

I don't mean to nitpick, but as a Lit Major and ex-Computer Science major, it's not fair to label all Lit Majors as math illiterates. I got to Precalc level before I changed majors (due to a few bad professors who believed that people were born knowing programming or not and believed sitting in front of a desk was 'teaching') and while I do agree with math illiteracy being fashionable, I also disagree with this pseudosnobbery when it comes to talking down to people who don't practice math fields professionally. Some of us are quite well-rounded, you know. :)

[SixSixSix]

No good scientist is an island. Scientists have to be able to communicate - to write up and publish their ideas in a way that can be understood and defended, and to talk to their peers about their ideas (and very often teach as well). People skills are valued! Maybe not as much as the PhD in theoretical physics, but you're not going to get a job if you don't interview well.

Absolutely! Which is why I said that a fusion of the two skills was desirable.

I do not intend to slight humanities by any stretch of the imagination. Good communication skills, knowledge of geography, history, economics, politics - all of these are very useful things to know. But the sciences are important, too - especially mathematics, which is to a large extent the gateway to many sciences. I suspect few physicists, for example, will get very far without strong mathematical skills.

[drkitten]

I suspect few physicists, for example, will get very far without strong mathematical skills.

The problem is there is still an asymmetry (going back at least as far as Snow's Two Cultures). Few physicists will get very far without strong mathematical skills. However, equally few physicists will get very far without strong writing and communication skills. (That whole "publish or perish" thing.)

At the same time, the humanities scholars are overplaying their hand when they equate "writing and communication skills" with the sort of stuff studied academically in humanities department, such as English lit, history, philosophy, and so forth. Learning how to write well is critical to success in the modern world. Learning how to do algebra is slightly less critical, but still important. Learning how to read Huck Finn is not at all critical. The end result is that the humanities scholars are defending both the most and the least important skills -- and often unaware of the difference.

[Zbu]

The problem is there is still an asymmetry (going back at least as far as Snow's Two Cultures). Few physicists will get very far without strong mathematical skills. However, equally few physicists will get very far without strong writing and communication skills. (That whole "publish or perish" thing.)

At the same time, the humanities scholars are overplaying their hand when they equate "writing and communication skills" with the sort of stuff studied academically in humanities department, such as English lit, history, philosophy, and so forth. Learning how to write well is critical to success in the modern world. Learning how to do algebra is slightly less critical, but still important. Learning how to read Huck Finn is not at all critical. The end result is that the humanities scholars are defending both the most and the least important skills -- and often unaware of the difference.

I'll respectfully disagree on two points:

1) Algebra is just as important as learning to write well because both show a form of logic.

2) While reading is an important skill to learn when you're in grade school, more often than not reading books is important because the focus within most Literature courses is to show you how to read and look for things within the text to support an argument. A lot of things can happen in literature and the more you express hidden lines of thought or meanings within a text, the better writers you eventually create because you suggest another way of reading which searches for these hidden meanings and the proof to back them up in a logical way. Of course, this would fall below algebra if we were comparing the importance of writing well, algebra, and critical reading, but it's still important to some extent. The reason it would fall beneath algebra because of the degree of argument involved. Of my knowledge, algebra deals in absolutes which cannot be redefined where Literature and Critical Reading aren't always absolute and are always argued, hence the importance for finding proof in your reading of it.

[drkitten]

1) Algebra is just as important as learning to write well because both show a form of logic.


Demonstrably untrue. There are lots of jobs -- including high-paying, high-status jobs -- that require the ability to write well, but not necessarily the ability to solve algebraic problems. Newspaper reporter, of course, is a classic example -- but any job that involves a substantial written communications component : sales, advertising, customer relations, etc. would be the same.

By contrast, there are almost no jobs that require algebraic skill but not writing skill, and there have not been any since "calculator" became an office supply and not a job description. Prior to about 1950, there were, in fact, relatively good jobs available as "calculators" to simply do all the number-crunching; for example, taking till receipts and turning them into a total figure of daily sales, or calculating ballistics tables for the Army. Those jobs no longer exist.

This asymmetry is amply demonstrated simply by looking at graduation requirements; whether at high school or college level, the number of science and mathematics classes required of all students to graduate is usually much less (often on the order of 1/3 as much) as the number of literature/humanities classes. That's not to say that math majors don't take a lot of math. But math majors typically have to take much more literature than literature majors need to take math.

While reading is an important skill to learn when you're in grade school, more often than not reading books is important because the focus within most Literature courses is to show you how to read and look for things within the text to support an argument.

That's the argument, yes. In my experience of high school and college literature courses -- from both sides of the desk -- it's a specious argument that cannot be supported by actual pedagogical practice. It's like claiming mandatory religion classes make one more moral; it's a great line for convincing parents, but it's unsupported.

[Zbu]

That's the argument, yes. In my experience of high school and college literature courses -- from both sides of the desk -- it's a specious argument that cannot be supported by actual pedagogical practice. It's like claiming mandatory religion classes make one more moral; it's a great line for convincing parents, but it's unsupported.

Ouch, I didn't think of that. Well, I guess it helped me critically in cases, but then again I'm basing this on papers I've written for my second major which is a completely different subject. I just profess that I'm not being as accurate as I'd wish, I guess.

If it helps, this whole thread has made me go out and get some books to help out my math skills so I can no longer be fashionably math-illiterate. Still, such a bummer. :(

[Jimbo07]

This asymmetry is amply demonstrated simply by looking at graduation requirements; whether at high school or college level,

That was the basis for talking about my wife. Forgetting that I studied genuine literature/political science/philosophy classes years ago, my engineering program includes the classes: 1 term of English, 1 term of business communications, 1 term of philosophy, 1 term of ethics, 1 term of social science/history/philosophy related to technology. My wife, on the other hand (an education grad), took economics as her science elective! (Note that none of these classes are able to help some engineers become better communicators :( )

There's a complete asymmetry.

And yes, Zbu, I've seen people be fashionably math-illiterate. They are sometimes good speakers and can make math wonks feel badly (usually manifests itself as anger and derision... after the encounter).

[drkitten]

That was the basis for talking about my wife. Forgetting that I studied genuine literature/political science/philosophy classes years ago, my engineering program includes the classes: 1 term of English, 1 term of business communications, 1 term of philosophy, 1 term of ethics, 1 term of social science/history/philosophy related to technology. My wife, on the other hand (an education grad), took economics as her science elective! (Note that none of these classes are able to help some engineers become better communicators :( )

In theory, both the term of English and the term of businee communicatino should be able to help your engineers. This is (again) where part of the asymmetry comes in.

Way back when, when I and the other australopithecines were walking to school uphill both ways through a solid block of ice, the term of English offered to first-year students was called "freshman composition" and covered secondary-school writing skills. Similarly, business communication covered secondary-school writing skills. How to draft a cover letter for a job, how to write a memo, how to construct and present an argument intended to persuade, that kind of stuff. Useful skills, but of no literary merit whatsoever. We were required to proofread our essays (the sort of thing I obviously no longer do for my JREF postings) and eliminate comma splices, split infinitives, misspellings, et cetera.

Unfortunately, by common consent, this is no longer what "English" is about. It's gotten to the point where many schools no longer even teach this kind of "communications" class in the English department; the elementary courses taught in English are instead "Introduction to American Literature" or something, and composition is left to a quasi-faculty called the "Writing Center" or something like that. This is fine with the English faculty, since no one liked teaching comp anyway, and it's much more fun to teach close reading of texts of literary merit, even if that really means having to fight through a hundred bad Hamlet papers. It's still better than a hundred bad papers on "what I did on my summer vacation."

The problem, of course, is that close reading of texts of recognized literary merit is simply not a very useful skill. There are very few such texts out there (and with the abandonment of the Great Books programs in the name of diversity, the number of such texts is actually getting smaller). Most of what you need to read as a newspaper reporter -- or car salesman -- is hardly helped by an in-depth knowledge of the symbolism inherent in Huck Finn.

[Jimbo07]

Unfortunately, by common consent, this is no longer what "English" is about. It's gotten to the point where many schools no longer even teach this kind of "communications" class in the English department; the elementary courses taught in English are instead "Introduction to American Literature"

I have been told this is due to a culture war in English departments between promoters of rhetoric and promoters of literature. The rehtoricians seem to be having their hats handed to them.

You're bang-on about the content of a business communications class. I performed quite poorly in mine (until I figured out the game), because I was writing the sort of stuff that helped me top philosophy classes. It was too verbose for business comms.

Dilbert did a good send up of 'knowing old books.' The kid asked a question about pop-culture, and when it wasn't answered, asked something like, 'Oh. So your kind of knowledge is important and mine isn't?' I like Dilbert. :)

[jj]

Antiintellectual claptrap, that OP bit about algebra. I can understand why the poster of the OP is annoyed.

The title surprised my 15 year old, who walked off muttering something about idiots and brain damage.

[Achán hiNidráne]

I'm not the most mathematically inclined individual in the 'verse (why do you think my degree is in Journalism?), but I actually liked algebra problems. It was fun to play around with the formula and try to solve for X. To me, algebra assignments were fun number's puzzles that I got graded on.

And yes, there have been times where I've actually had to use it in one form or another. So there Mr. Cohen! Just because you're a dullard doesn't mean the rest of America has to be reduced to your level.

[Jon the Geek]

You're a day laborer. You're offered 1 job that pays $500, regardless of how long it takes, and another that pays $10/hour. How long would the first job have to take for the second job to be a better deal? (Ignore whether the scenario is actually legal)

You're a writer. One publisher will pay you $0.20/word for an article, and another pays a flat rate of $100/article. How long does the article have to be for the first publisher to be a better deal?

Everyone can use algebra, not just scientists.

[Achán hiNidráne]

You're a day laborer. You're offered 1 job that pays $500, regardless of how long it takes, and another that pays $10/hour. How long would the first job have to take for the second job to be a better deal? (Ignore whether the scenario is actually legal)

I'm assuming we're talking a standard 40-hour work week, right?

[Jon the Geek]

I'm assuming we're talking a standard 40-hour work week, right?
For a day laborer? Um, not so much.

[roger]

You're a day laborer. You're offered 1 job that pays $500, regardless of how long it takes, and another that pays $10/hour. How long would the first job have to take for the second job to be a better deal? (Ignore whether the scenario is actually legal)

You're a writer. One publisher will pay you $0.20/word for an article, and another pays a flat rate of $100/article. How long does the article have to be for the first publisher to be a better deal?

Everyone can use algebra, not just scientists.Those are word problems. We were doing them in 4th to 5th grade, with no help from algebra, thank you very much!

[SixSixSix]

Those are word problems. We were doing them in 4th to 5th grade, with no help from algebra, thank you very much!
They're still algebra. Whether or not you realised it, you were using algebra when you solved these.

[roger]

If you are not doing symbolic manipulation using rules such as associations, communitive, etc., you're not doing algebra in any meaningful way. In other words, I have no doubt Cohen can solve those word problems, but he sure couldn't derive the quadratic equation, factor an equation, or all the other things you learn in a typical 7th grade Algebra I course. You don't have to take Algebra I to solve those word problems.

[SixSixSix]

If you are not doing symbolic manipulation using rules such as associations, communitive, etc., you're not doing algebra in any meaningful way. In other words, I have no doubt Cohen can solve those word problems, but he sure couldn't derive the quadratic equation, factor an equation, or all the other things you learn in a typical 7th grade Algebra I course. You don't have to take Algebra I to solve those word problems.
The difference is of degree, not of kind. If one can understand how to solve those word problems, I would imagine that deriving the quadratic formula (good example, BTW) is not beyond one's abilities. And since deriving the quadratic formula (at least if you do so using the difference of squares method) requires you to first of all know how to factor an equation (a trivial factorisation, but still), that would seem to be included as well.

I'm not suggesting that algebra is trivially easy. But it's not impossibly difficult either. The majority of people that attend high school in the US do manage to graduate, I assume - even with the requirement that they pass algebra? And even if they don't - which may not be entirely the fault of algebra (I have no idea what the most commonly failed units are in Australia, let alone the US) - certainly anyone aspiring to tertiary education should be able to handle it. I see no merit in increasing the number of people that drop out of first year of university, which would seem to be an inevitable result of dumbing down the entry requirements.

[Zbu]

Plus let's think of what we're really doing when we're dumbing down requirements. We're basically reinforcing the idea that if something is hard, then it's too hard for someone to learn it. We're undermining the idea that learning is something that is capable of every human being and that learning is something that is built-in and not attainable. That alone should frighten everybody on this forum: if learning becomes something that someone has to be born with, then wouldn't we be creating a society in which upward mobility is impossible?

This is a much more important issue than algebra: with the attitude this idiot who wrote the article mentioned, how much longer is it optional to read? Science is under fire by fools who think an old book trumps hundreds of years of research, and now math is just too hard to learn because you'll never use it anyway? Sounds like someone has an agenda to create an uneducated underclass.

[Manny]

From a 1996 interview (http://www.commongroundradio.org/shows/96/9637.html) with former Postie Colman McCarthy:

McCARTHY: ...Did you go to a high school where they taught you a course in peace studies?

DAVIDSON: No.

McCARTHY: You did not. I did not. But you went to a high school...

DAVIDSON: ...although I had some teachers who'd probably would if they could.

McCARTHY: Yes, absolutely. But did you go to a high school where they required you to go into an algebra course? Did you take algebra in high school?

DAVIDSON: Certainly.

McCARTHY: Yes. How often do you go home and talk with your husband about the latest algebraic insight you have had? Do you do that?

DAVIDSON: (Laughter) I can't help my high-school-aged daughter with her algebra!

McCARTHY: Exactly. So here it is irrelevant to our adulthood, but they make us take this nonsense. And geometry. If you like algebra, fine... pi r² x bachazoids, crackazoids, lunazoids, hemorrhoids... Who cares!! You ever see a help wanted ad for an algebraist? I haven't. But the world is crying out for peacemakers. We are not teaching the kids how to be the essential thing. We have conflicts all our lives.

[SixSixSix]

Ah, anecdotal "evidence".

[Zbu]

There's nothing in the water at the Washington Post: they're just damn stupid.