6 ms·

> Maybe I'm wrong, but I have always believed that if you want people to be good at math, it's their first years of education which are important, not the last

> Maybe I'm wrong, but I have always believed that if you want people to be good at math, it's their first years of education which are important, not the last ones. In other worlds, push for STEM should be present in kindergartens and elementary schools. By the time people go to high school it is to late. I indeed believe you are wrong. I started getting interested in STEM when I was 16 and now have a masters in math on the one hand and work for one of the most prestigious Tech firms in existence on the other. Meanwhile, when I was young, I was encouraged to enter creative fields (mostly writing in my case) which I did have enthusiasm for but then dropped as a teenager. So I switched at least twice, what I wanted to do with my life and still turned out fine. Honestly, the whole "you need to get them when they are young" idea never convinced me very much. It's never too late to learn a thing and often you need a certain age to actually appreciate something. You don't have to be a childhood prodigy to be good at something. I rather find the idea pretty harming; I've met a lot of people who did not pursue the career they wanted, because they bought into the myth, that you need to start programming at 6 to get a job at a company like Google or Facebook. Let kids be kids for a while. Don't worry, they can always figure out what they love later and it's never too late to reconsider.

shas3 9y ago
> Honestly, the whole "you need to get them when they are young" idea never convinced me very much. It's never too late to learn a thing and often you need a certain age to actually appreciate something. You don't have to be a childhood prodigy to be good at something. While starting early is neither necessary nor sufficient for success, the question should be: do the benefits of starting early outweigh risks? Like the parent comment, I think they do, if done correctly and gently, but it should be decided case-by-case for each child. The only risk I can think of is: if you push too hard, it can have the opposite effect of making the child hate it. So, one has to do it with utmost sensitivity and by responding to cues and feedback from the pupil.
- Merovius 9y ago
  I find that a pretty strange approach to parenting. IMO you should optimize for happiness of your child, not for carefully manipulating them into the path you laid out for them. My perception of a good parent is to encourage your child to discover and pursue their own passions, even if they contradict yours. You can open doors, but they need to walk through it by themselves. YMMV.
  - shas3 9y ago
    Huh? Learning can be fun, last I heard. In any case, that's what I meant when I said 'feedback'. Further, there are some skills that are absolutely necessary to learn to function in society, basic math, basic language skills, etc. More important are skills like perseverance, managing one's own emotional well-being, self-control, delaying gratification, etc. It is one's responsibility to at least attempt to teach these to their children.
    - Merovius 9y ago
      I was referring to this sentence: > The only risk I can think of is: if you push too hard, it can have the opposite effect of making the child hate it. That seems like a weird "risk".
d3ckard 9y ago
So basically you're saying that it is a preferred solution to teach kids math poorly, let them develop insecurity and aversion towards it and then spent a lot of money to let them overcome it than just do it right in the first place? Yeah, I know that's not what you mean, but you're missing a point. The premise of the article is that US has a STEM problem. I merely suggested that they're allocating resources wrong to fix it. I didn't mean they should introduce rigor and discipline or increase hours - I said that the best way to achieve results in teaching math is to fix it early, when it's most commonly broken (in my experience). It actually helps you if you decide to switch interests, because you got the basics right, which in this case is the ability to think in an abstract way. If you don't agree with me, you should have provided arguments that math problems do not arise early in education system, but they are introduced later. One last thought - timing _does_ matter. That's why almost every professional athlete starts as a child. The question is how much you gain for starting early and I agree, that it is usually unreasonable to put too much pressure on kids. Pressure is not necessary to fix the system as far as I see it, though.
- Verdex_2 9y ago
  > So basically you're saying that it is a preferred solution to teach kids math poorly, let them develop insecurity and aversion towards it and then spent a lot of money to let them overcome it than just do it right in the first place? Yeah, I know that's not what you mean, but you're missing a point. If you knew it's not what they meant then why did you start off saying that's what they meant? If you thought they were missing the point why didn't you just say that?
  - d3ckard 9y ago
    To better illustrate the point. I actually started with that, decided that it sounds too aggressive and added that paragraph to make that clear.
- deftturtle 9y ago
  Went to college with a guy. Freshman year calculus. He was really slow with it. I helped him, and we did homework together. Now he's a math major. Totally surprised me, but he's now majoring in a subject that he wasn't super good at. People need good teachers at all ages. I'm glad his college professors helped him out enough to lead him to major in math.
ng12 9y ago
First, 16 is still pretty young. Second, just because you didn't have STEM hobbies when you were young doesn't mean you weren't given the framework to excel at STEM. It's not "you learn math or you don't", rather the argument is "you develop the framework for mathematical thinking or you don't". For what it's worth I also did better with literature and history than math when I was young. Also, I struggled to pass Calculus 2 but breezed through upper level CS courses. It's a very fuzzy thing.
- Merovius 9y ago
  > First, 16 is still pretty young. Depends on what we are talking about. The post I was responding to was talking about "the first years of education" and with 16, we are way past that.
rb808 9y ago
Nice to hear some sense, I'm surrounded by tiger parents sending their kids to STEM summer camps & after school classes because it'll help them get into MIT or whatever. Its pretty sad as most of them would be much better off if they had some fun and had some friends.
Balgair 9y ago
Anecdote time: I was a late bloomer in math too. From about 6th to 10th grade, I was terrible at math. I think it was because of inapplication problems. Yes, you get a word problem about Jack and Kwanzeeah trying to fill up a pail or something, it was nonsense to me. Why are they filling up a pail? Why are they using a bucket that is 173/9th's the size of the hose? Why do they have to not let it overflow? Why do I have to decipher this inanity, why can't they just ask me to do this stupid problem of stupid fractions? Why the cloak and dagger? Then you get to 'real' algebra and you start to find roots of quadratic equations and other useless information. Dear Lord! When has anyone ever done this for any reason? Yes, something something eigenvalues something something computational modeling something runge-kutte. But for real though, quadratic equations are just nonsense gibberish to weed out the poor kids from the rich ones. Trig, yes, it's useful when you are building a shed that has to be totally perfect and crisp otherwise the rich white lady will not pay you. Geometry was a bit 'fun' actually, but in the same way that learning that Custer's Men took a poop at this road-side stop on the way to Little-Big Horn. It wasn't until Chem in my 10th grade year that I actually 'got' algebra. We were doing moles to molarity calculations to get the solution to the right pH and make it all turn pink or something. It was then that I realized that all this mathy stuff was actually useful to me, that I could use it to make things easier and better for myself and my family. Like, I could 'know' what to do then. Before that it was just drill and kill and bad grades and shame. I remember staying after class and into the next one in the room, just sitting in the back doing these calculations over and over. I got kicked out for doing math! It was such a relief! I finally 'got it' when I needed it for something real to me personally. For me, it was the issue of 'math' being this blunt-shame-thing that made no sense to use ever. But once I needed to use math, it was trivially easy. Learning math for each of us is individual, we each have our own motivations that are unique that need to be met. I know that is not easy to institutionalize, but if you want to do it, you have to find the 'correct motivation for each kid.
- brightball 9y ago
  I'd agree with this completely. It's less about teaching what, how and when than it is teaching WHY you need to know this. In high school, if you can convince a single person that they need to know calculus, more power to you. 99% of people don't and it's literally a waste of time. Teach people finance though...suddenly we have math that people will know is important.
gertef 9y ago
Are you also suggesting that we shouldn't teach kids to read until they are in high school and decide they are interested?
- Merovius 9y ago
  No, I'm suggesting that we shouldn't push for kindergarten kids to read and analyze Shakespeare, because reading is so important (and in the process de-emphasize other subjects). I'm saying that the level of math education happening early (though I can only speak for my home country) is fine, just like the level of reading education happening in the early years is fine. It is completely okay to only reach Calculus and math as a structural science in your late teens and believing that you can teach that widely to kindergarten kids just doesn't work out particularly well for anyone.
metaobject 9y ago
For me, at least, understanding math was all about understanding how to translate symbols to concepts. Seeing an integral sign and understanding what it means, for example, can help simplify seemingly complicated mathematical expressions and make them easy to understand.
posterboy 9y ago
way I see it, the comment is in writing and at least a bit creative. Its hard to separate language from math and higher learning. Now, psychology is even mor important with regards to learning. In that sense, keep a positive attitude ;)
Sean1708 9y ago
You say you weren't interested in maths when you were young, but were you bad at maths when you were young?
watwut 9y ago
Not being particularly interested and not being taught math is not the same. You probably had normal math just like anybody else and was not behind other people all that much. But I agree that the tendency of programmers and public to assume that if you already don't know a lot about computers, you are lost case and stand no chance is harmful. There is strong tendency to overstate how difficult things are and that makes people look elsewhere.

shas3 9y ago

> Honestly, the whole "you need to get them when they are young" idea never convinced me very much. It's never too late to learn a thing and often you need a certain age to actually appreciate something. You don't have to be a childhood prodigy to be good at something. While starting early is neither necessary nor sufficient for success, the question should be: do the benefits of starting early outweigh risks? Like the parent comment, I think they do, if done correctly and gently, but it should be decided case-by-case for each child. The only risk I can think of is: if you push too hard, it can have the opposite effect of making the child hate it. So, one has to do it with utmost sensitivity and by responding to cues and feedback from the pupil.

Merovius 9y ago
I find that a pretty strange approach to parenting. IMO you should optimize for happiness of your child, not for carefully manipulating them into the path you laid out for them. My perception of a good parent is to encourage your child to discover and pursue their own passions, even if they contradict yours. You can open doors, but they need to walk through it by themselves. YMMV.
- shas3 9y ago
  Huh? Learning can be fun, last I heard. In any case, that's what I meant when I said 'feedback'. Further, there are some skills that are absolutely necessary to learn to function in society, basic math, basic language skills, etc. More important are skills like perseverance, managing one's own emotional well-being, self-control, delaying gratification, etc. It is one's responsibility to at least attempt to teach these to their children.
  - Merovius 9y ago
    I was referring to this sentence: > The only risk I can think of is: if you push too hard, it can have the opposite effect of making the child hate it. That seems like a weird "risk".

d3ckard 9y ago

So basically you're saying that it is a preferred solution to teach kids math poorly, let them develop insecurity and aversion towards it and then spent a lot of money to let them overcome it than just do it right in the first place? Yeah, I know that's not what you mean, but you're missing a point. The premise of the article is that US has a STEM problem. I merely suggested that they're allocating resources wrong to fix it. I didn't mean they should introduce rigor and discipline or increase hours - I said that the best way to achieve results in teaching math is to fix it early, when it's most commonly broken (in my experience). It actually helps you if you decide to switch interests, because you got the basics right, which in this case is the ability to think in an abstract way. If you don't agree with me, you should have provided arguments that math problems do not arise early in education system, but they are introduced later. One last thought - timing _does_ matter. That's why almost every professional athlete starts as a child. The question is how much you gain for starting early and I agree, that it is usually unreasonable to put too much pressure on kids. Pressure is not necessary to fix the system as far as I see it, though.

Verdex_2 9y ago
> So basically you're saying that it is a preferred solution to teach kids math poorly, let them develop insecurity and aversion towards it and then spent a lot of money to let them overcome it than just do it right in the first place? Yeah, I know that's not what you mean, but you're missing a point. If you knew it's not what they meant then why did you start off saying that's what they meant? If you thought they were missing the point why didn't you just say that?
- d3ckard 9y ago
  To better illustrate the point. I actually started with that, decided that it sounds too aggressive and added that paragraph to make that clear.
deftturtle 9y ago
Went to college with a guy. Freshman year calculus. He was really slow with it. I helped him, and we did homework together. Now he's a math major. Totally surprised me, but he's now majoring in a subject that he wasn't super good at. People need good teachers at all ages. I'm glad his college professors helped him out enough to lead him to major in math.

ng12 9y ago

First, 16 is still pretty young. Second, just because you didn't have STEM hobbies when you were young doesn't mean you weren't given the framework to excel at STEM. It's not "you learn math or you don't", rather the argument is "you develop the framework for mathematical thinking or you don't". For what it's worth I also did better with literature and history than math when I was young. Also, I struggled to pass Calculus 2 but breezed through upper level CS courses. It's a very fuzzy thing.

Merovius 9y ago
> First, 16 is still pretty young. Depends on what we are talking about. The post I was responding to was talking about "the first years of education" and with 16, we are way past that.

rb808 9y ago

Nice to hear some sense, I'm surrounded by tiger parents sending their kids to STEM summer camps & after school classes because it'll help them get into MIT or whatever. Its pretty sad as most of them would be much better off if they had some fun and had some friends.

Balgair 9y ago

Anecdote time: I was a late bloomer in math too. From about 6th to 10th grade, I was terrible at math. I think it was because of inapplication problems. Yes, you get a word problem about Jack and Kwanzeeah trying to fill up a pail or something, it was nonsense to me. Why are they filling up a pail? Why are they using a bucket that is 173/9th's the size of the hose? Why do they have to not let it overflow? Why do I have to decipher this inanity, why can't they just ask me to do this stupid problem of stupid fractions? Why the cloak and dagger? Then you get to 'real' algebra and you start to find roots of quadratic equations and other useless information. Dear Lord! When has anyone ever done this for any reason? Yes, something something eigenvalues something something computational modeling something runge-kutte. But for real though, quadratic equations are just nonsense gibberish to weed out the poor kids from the rich ones. Trig, yes, it's useful when you are building a shed that has to be totally perfect and crisp otherwise the rich white lady will not pay you. Geometry was a bit 'fun' actually, but in the same way that learning that Custer's Men took a poop at this road-side stop on the way to Little-Big Horn. It wasn't until Chem in my 10th grade year that I actually 'got' algebra. We were doing moles to molarity calculations to get the solution to the right pH and make it all turn pink or something. It was then that I realized that all this mathy stuff was actually useful to me, that I could use it to make things easier and better for myself and my family. Like, I could 'know' what to do then. Before that it was just drill and kill and bad grades and shame. I remember staying after class and into the next one in the room, just sitting in the back doing these calculations over and over. I got kicked out for doing math! It was such a relief! I finally 'got it' when I needed it for something real to me personally. For me, it was the issue of 'math' being this blunt-shame-thing that made no sense to use ever. But once I needed to use math, it was trivially easy. Learning math for each of us is individual, we each have our own motivations that are unique that need to be met. I know that is not easy to institutionalize, but if you want to do it, you have to find the 'correct motivation for each kid.

brightball 9y ago
I'd agree with this completely. It's less about teaching what, how and when than it is teaching WHY you need to know this. In high school, if you can convince a single person that they need to know calculus, more power to you. 99% of people don't and it's literally a waste of time. Teach people finance though...suddenly we have math that people will know is important.

gertef 9y ago

Are you also suggesting that we shouldn't teach kids to read until they are in high school and decide they are interested?

Merovius 9y ago
No, I'm suggesting that we shouldn't push for kindergarten kids to read and analyze Shakespeare, because reading is so important (and in the process de-emphasize other subjects). I'm saying that the level of math education happening early (though I can only speak for my home country) is fine, just like the level of reading education happening in the early years is fine. It is completely okay to only reach Calculus and math as a structural science in your late teens and believing that you can teach that widely to kindergarten kids just doesn't work out particularly well for anyone.

metaobject 9y ago

For me, at least, understanding math was all about understanding how to translate symbols to concepts. Seeing an integral sign and understanding what it means, for example, can help simplify seemingly complicated mathematical expressions and make them easy to understand.

posterboy 9y ago

way I see it, the comment is in writing and at least a bit creative. Its hard to separate language from math and higher learning. Now, psychology is even mor important with regards to learning. In that sense, keep a positive attitude ;)

Sean1708 9y ago

You say you weren't interested in maths when you were young, but were you bad at maths when you were young?

watwut 9y ago

Not being particularly interested and not being taught math is not the same. You probably had normal math just like anybody else and was not behind other people all that much. But I agree that the tendency of programmers and public to assume that if you already don't know a lot about computers, you are lost case and stand no chance is harmful. There is strong tendency to overstate how difficult things are and that makes people look elsewhere.