4 ms·

> Anecdotes and narratives are valuable. But when those anecdotes and narratives are ultimately nothing more or less than an appeal to authority ("I'm an ENGIN

by nmrm2 11y ago

> Anecdotes and narratives are valuable. But when those anecdotes and narratives are ultimately nothing more or less than an appeal to authority ("I'm an ENGINEER/accountant/etc. and can't do/didn't do/don't need to do this -- it must be crap!"), then it's absolutely reasonable to question that authority. What, exactly, was the problem that your friend had trouble finding the correct answer to? I'm extremely skeptical claims with the form "I'm an X and can't do CC problems" for a reason. There's no shortage of anti-common-core accountants/engineers/etc. who take the the blogosphere with complaints that "even they" don't know how to work a problem. But when you look at the problem, it's just performing addition using a non-standard algorithm or setting up and solving for a linear relationship. Not exactly rocket science. And then you look at Calc III classrooms and see students who clearly haven't internalized division. Which leaves only one conclusion -- being an engineer or accountant who made it through a few calc courses doesn't exactly equate to "good problem solver" or "understands anything about mathematics". > Looking at a lot of these studies, they are just gussied up anecdotes with questionable method and results. I'm not really sure what you're talking about here. I don't need empirical evidence that understanding multiple algorithms for a arithmetic procedures is a useful and crucial exercise. Just like I don't need empirical evidence do know that there's a lot less value in memorizing quick sort than there is in seeing multiple different sorting algorithms and comparing them. > and you don't make the rules Obviously :-) But it's a good sanity check on what it means to be well-trained in mathematics. If you've never written a proof of substantial length, you really don't know what mathematics actually is. In particular, the mathematics courses US engineers and accountants take are mostly unsubstantiated symbol pushing (warrant: find me a calculus student in the US outside of Chicago or a few other places who can prove the fundamental theorem), which isn't mathematics.

protomyth 11y ago
> I'm not really sure what you're talking about here. Common Core is based on a bunch of studies, look up the list cited in the documents on it. > If you've never written a proof of substantial length, you really don't know what mathematics actually is. In particular, the mathematics courses US engineers and accountants take are mostly unsubstantiated symbol pushing (warrant: find me a calculus student in the US outside of Chicago or a few other places who can prove the fundamental theorem), which isn't mathematics. When you decide that only one place in the US has any idea what mathematics is, then this discussion is not going to go any further. I guess Harvard, MIT, etc. don't count.
- nmrm2 11y ago
  > Common Core is based on a bunch of studies I'm not an educational researcher and I don't have a thorough understanding of the research methodology or the issues involved in designing those studies. Every Education researcher I've talked to thinks anti-common core people are a bit nuts and/or fundamentally don't understand what common core even is (I think most of them would put you in this second camp, since you're complaining about specific assignments). But as a mathematician, some problems are obviously the sort of problems that anyone with a passable mathematics education should have no problem solving. The common core problems people complain about are decidedly in this set. So when people say "I can't solve this common core problem", I mostly take it as an indication that they've had a really shitty mathematics education rather than an indication that common core is flawed. And yes, even someone who has passed through a calc course at Harvard can be bad at math. > I guess Harvard, MIT, etc. don't count. Harvard, MIT, etc. have excellent Mathematics departments and, following my criteria, any Math major for either of those institutions could have a lengthy conversation about common core. Indeed, among the many mathematicians I know with undergraduate degrees from Harvard College, I've never heard a single one complain that common core problems are obtuse or difficult. The distinction I was drawing is that US-based Calculus for Engineers and ODEs for Engineers courses aren't proof-based except in a small handful of cases. And, those courses are often easy to skate through with little or no mathematical understanding. Yes, even at elite universities. Which goes back to my original observation -- if you really can't add numbers in a novel way or setup and solve for a set of linear equations, then you're apparently not very good at math. Even if you are an intelligent pattern matcher who made it through a few calc courses by applying templates and performing rote calcuations.

by nmrm2 11y ago

protomyth 11y ago

> I'm not really sure what you're talking about here. Common Core is based on a bunch of studies, look up the list cited in the documents on it. > If you've never written a proof of substantial length, you really don't know what mathematics actually is. In particular, the mathematics courses US engineers and accountants take are mostly unsubstantiated symbol pushing (warrant: find me a calculus student in the US outside of Chicago or a few other places who can prove the fundamental theorem), which isn't mathematics. When you decide that only one place in the US has any idea what mathematics is, then this discussion is not going to go any further. I guess Harvard, MIT, etc. don't count.

nmrm2 11y ago
> Common Core is based on a bunch of studies I'm not an educational researcher and I don't have a thorough understanding of the research methodology or the issues involved in designing those studies. Every Education researcher I've talked to thinks anti-common core people are a bit nuts and/or fundamentally don't understand what common core even is (I think most of them would put you in this second camp, since you're complaining about specific assignments). But as a mathematician, some problems are obviously the sort of problems that anyone with a passable mathematics education should have no problem solving. The common core problems people complain about are decidedly in this set. So when people say "I can't solve this common core problem", I mostly take it as an indication that they've had a really shitty mathematics education rather than an indication that common core is flawed. And yes, even someone who has passed through a calc course at Harvard can be bad at math. > I guess Harvard, MIT, etc. don't count. Harvard, MIT, etc. have excellent Mathematics departments and, following my criteria, any Math major for either of those institutions could have a lengthy conversation about common core. Indeed, among the many mathematicians I know with undergraduate degrees from Harvard College, I've never heard a single one complain that common core problems are obtuse or difficult. The distinction I was drawing is that US-based Calculus for Engineers and ODEs for Engineers courses aren't proof-based except in a small handful of cases. And, those courses are often easy to skate through with little or no mathematical understanding. Yes, even at elite universities. Which goes back to my original observation -- if you really can't add numbers in a novel way or setup and solve for a set of linear equations, then you're apparently not very good at math. Even if you are an intelligent pattern matcher who made it through a few calc courses by applying templates and performing rote calcuations.