5 ms·

On the flipside, I was in a Calculus lecture at uni and turned to the girl next to me who was crying. I asked her if she was ok, and she said she didn't underst

On the flipside, I was in a Calculus lecture at uni and turned to the girl next to me who was crying. I asked her if she was ok, and she said she didn't understand why she had to sit in the lecture learning Laplace transforms when she "only wanted to be a primary school teacher". From the sounds of it, it was a prerequisite? Edit: Oh :) I just worked it out - I was taught to fold the subtraction and carry right in one step. I'm an idiot!

analog31 7y ago
Seems unlikely, though it may vary from one country to another. Here in the states, you would probably need to take a year of math, but there are levels of math "below" calculus that you can take to get a K-12 general education certificate. Also in the states, engineering students ask the same question about Laplace transforms. ;-)
- buzzkillington 7y ago
  >Also in the states, engineering students ask the same question about Laplace transforms. ;-) Because I want you to build things that don't fall apart because of resonance?
  - analog31 7y ago
    I'm playing devils advocate here, but the argument you'll get is that there's software for that. Also, in a typical department, there may be one or two engineers who handle the quantitative problems for the team. Many engineering students go through their education, having heard from someone, that they won't need their math after they graduate. And things do fall apart.
    - buzzkillington 7y ago
      >I won't need math, so I'll blindly trust this 20 year old 32 bit half precision floating point thing someone coded up in an afternoon before their holiday break. Don't get me started on engineers who think floating point numbers can be treated like real numbers for equality testing.
- pjscott 7y ago
  > Also in the states, engineering students ask the same question about Laplace transforms. ;-) Laplace transforms are wonderful because they protect you from the differential equations that would otherwise await you if were foolish enough to take a step outside the S-domain.
protomyth 7y ago
My response to primary school teachers is that they need some mastery of math so they are not anxious about the subject in front of students. Because if the girls in her class lookup to her and she is anxious, nervous, or dismissive of math then those girls will not go into any STEM field. If you want more females in STEM careers then it starts with elementary school teachers loving STEM.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- paganel 7y ago
  Primary school maths is not really maths, is arithmetics, asking a primary school teacher to go into some crazy higher-maths details in order to teach arithmetics is just a huge waste of resources.
  - copperx 7y ago
    I would argue that calculus and Laplace transforms aren't math if there are no proofs involved; it's just multi-step arithmetic and symbol manipulation.
v64 7y ago
This comment surprised me, as I have a BS in math and Laplace transforms were not something I was required to learn for the degree (although I had the option to take courses as electives that covered them). My university offers a math degree intended for those who want to go into teaching that doesn't get any hairier than Number Theory for required courses.
- barry-cotter 7y ago
  Your school had a special fake Math degree for aspirant teachers? What was it called, Math for Educators? Was there any indication on the transcript or diploma that it wasn’t a real Math degree?
  - jccalhoun 7y ago
    Yes my college had a math for educators degree. https://www.bsu.edu/academics/collegesanddepartments/math/academic-programs/major-mathematics-teaching https://www.bsu.edu/academics/collegesanddepartments/math/ac... I was a math education minor and I had to take 9 classes (3 credit hours each) including 2 on teaching math. It didn't seem very much like a "fake math degree" to me.
  - jointpdf 7y ago
    Damn, what a toxic and misguided comment. I have a MS in Applied Mathematics and there are many areas of math (especially “pure” math) that I’ve never touched. Same goes for my professors. The field is so vast and so deep that it’s impossible to learn even a negligible portion of it (unless you’re immortal). Are our degrees fake? It makes perfect sense that prospective educators would specialize in different areas of math than those with a pure math (or engineering, or physics, or statistics, etc) degree.
- alfiedotwtf 7y ago
  I took it as an elective that was offered to Electrical Engineering. I'm sad my uni didn't have Number Theory (at least none available to me) :(
tmh88j 7y ago
>I asked her if she was ok, and she said she didn't understand why she had to sit in the lecture learning Laplace transforms when she "only wanted to be a primary school teacher" What university did you attend that Laplace transforms were part of the standard calculus curriculum, let alone a requirement for primary school teachers? From my experience in the US, universities typically offer different sets of calculus classes based on the major. Undergrads in business school might have to take a simplified calculus class or two, but the content is not as in depth as the calculus classes required for STEM majors. I learned about them in a signal processing class, not from the math department. I can't think of a single reason why a primary school teacher should have to study them.
- alfiedotwtf 7y ago
  Nah, not an intro to Calc... it was second year Electrical Engineering calculus, but students were from all different courses (I was doing Compsci at the time).
  - tmh88j 7y ago
    Maybe I wasn't clear enough, but I wasn't referring to intro classes either. I had to take several calculus classes that were for STEM undergrad students and I still didn't encounter laplace transforms until a signal processing class. Students in other majors like business or education had their own separate set of less in depth calculus classes, if they had to take any at all. I find it odd that laplace transforms would be part of the general calculus curriculum, but even more odd that non-STEM students are required to take those classes.
Gunax 7y ago
There seems to be a culture of proud ignorance around math more-so than other subjects. While I am sure there is some engineering student out there griping about having to take a psychology course, they don't seem to complain as much as when non-mathy people have to study math. I think it is a mistake for our education system to treat math as something superfluous and abstract from daily life. While neither Laplace transforms nor Shakespearen analysis are necessary to live, the former is probably more useful than the latter.
- mistersquid 7y ago
  > While neither Laplace transforms nor Shakespearen analysis are necessary to live, the former is probably more useful than the latter. Without context, such an overbroad generalization is at best meaningless. If someone is choosing between potential spouses, or addressing a dishonest business colleague, or deciding how best to recognize a selfless samaritan, few branches of mathematics would be of any use. Whereas, one of Shakespeare's hundred and an half sonnets might be of direct "use". Usefulness and utility depend on context. Contextless generalizations about the value of different branches of human knowledge is generally meaningless.
  - watwut 7y ago
    If you are using sonnets to decide that, everybody would be better off if you did study Laplace transformations instead. It is harder to be confused with real life.
- watwut 7y ago
  > While I am sure there is some engineering student out there griping about having to take a psychology course, they don't seem to complain as much as when non-mathy people have to study math. I don't know in your school, but in our people would complain and complain and complain about even theoretically having humanistic course compulsory. And those courses were designed to be free grade and any expectation on student to actually put effort into it caused complains. I did not wanted them either, it is not like I would just complain about other people. Nobody expected tech students to read Shakespear much less analyse it.
alfiedotwtf 7y ago
Wow. I edited the wrong comment ️

analog31 7y ago

Seems unlikely, though it may vary from one country to another. Here in the states, you would probably need to take a year of math, but there are levels of math "below" calculus that you can take to get a K-12 general education certificate. Also in the states, engineering students ask the same question about Laplace transforms. ;-)

buzzkillington 7y ago
>Also in the states, engineering students ask the same question about Laplace transforms. ;-) Because I want you to build things that don't fall apart because of resonance?
- analog31 7y ago
  I'm playing devils advocate here, but the argument you'll get is that there's software for that. Also, in a typical department, there may be one or two engineers who handle the quantitative problems for the team. Many engineering students go through their education, having heard from someone, that they won't need their math after they graduate. And things do fall apart.
  - buzzkillington 7y ago
    >I won't need math, so I'll blindly trust this 20 year old 32 bit half precision floating point thing someone coded up in an afternoon before their holiday break. Don't get me started on engineers who think floating point numbers can be treated like real numbers for equality testing.
pjscott 7y ago
> Also in the states, engineering students ask the same question about Laplace transforms. ;-) Laplace transforms are wonderful because they protect you from the differential equations that would otherwise await you if were foolish enough to take a step outside the S-domain.

protomyth 7y ago

My response to primary school teachers is that they need some mastery of math so they are not anxious about the subject in front of students. Because if the girls in her class lookup to her and she is anxious, nervous, or dismissive of math then those girls will not go into any STEM field. If you want more females in STEM careers then it starts with elementary school teachers loving STEM.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
paganel 7y ago
Primary school maths is not really maths, is arithmetics, asking a primary school teacher to go into some crazy higher-maths details in order to teach arithmetics is just a huge waste of resources.
- copperx 7y ago
  I would argue that calculus and Laplace transforms aren't math if there are no proofs involved; it's just multi-step arithmetic and symbol manipulation.

v64 7y ago

This comment surprised me, as I have a BS in math and Laplace transforms were not something I was required to learn for the degree (although I had the option to take courses as electives that covered them). My university offers a math degree intended for those who want to go into teaching that doesn't get any hairier than Number Theory for required courses.

barry-cotter 7y ago
Your school had a special fake Math degree for aspirant teachers? What was it called, Math for Educators? Was there any indication on the transcript or diploma that it wasn’t a real Math degree?
- jccalhoun 7y ago
  Yes my college had a math for educators degree. https://www.bsu.edu/academics/collegesanddepartments/math/academic-programs/major-mathematics-teaching https://www.bsu.edu/academics/collegesanddepartments/math/ac... I was a math education minor and I had to take 9 classes (3 credit hours each) including 2 on teaching math. It didn't seem very much like a "fake math degree" to me.
- jointpdf 7y ago
  Damn, what a toxic and misguided comment. I have a MS in Applied Mathematics and there are many areas of math (especially “pure” math) that I’ve never touched. Same goes for my professors. The field is so vast and so deep that it’s impossible to learn even a negligible portion of it (unless you’re immortal). Are our degrees fake? It makes perfect sense that prospective educators would specialize in different areas of math than those with a pure math (or engineering, or physics, or statistics, etc) degree.
alfiedotwtf 7y ago
I took it as an elective that was offered to Electrical Engineering. I'm sad my uni didn't have Number Theory (at least none available to me) :(

tmh88j 7y ago

>I asked her if she was ok, and she said she didn't understand why she had to sit in the lecture learning Laplace transforms when she "only wanted to be a primary school teacher" What university did you attend that Laplace transforms were part of the standard calculus curriculum, let alone a requirement for primary school teachers? From my experience in the US, universities typically offer different sets of calculus classes based on the major. Undergrads in business school might have to take a simplified calculus class or two, but the content is not as in depth as the calculus classes required for STEM majors. I learned about them in a signal processing class, not from the math department. I can't think of a single reason why a primary school teacher should have to study them.

alfiedotwtf 7y ago
Nah, not an intro to Calc... it was second year Electrical Engineering calculus, but students were from all different courses (I was doing Compsci at the time).
- tmh88j 7y ago
  Maybe I wasn't clear enough, but I wasn't referring to intro classes either. I had to take several calculus classes that were for STEM undergrad students and I still didn't encounter laplace transforms until a signal processing class. Students in other majors like business or education had their own separate set of less in depth calculus classes, if they had to take any at all. I find it odd that laplace transforms would be part of the general calculus curriculum, but even more odd that non-STEM students are required to take those classes.

Gunax 7y ago

There seems to be a culture of proud ignorance around math more-so than other subjects. While I am sure there is some engineering student out there griping about having to take a psychology course, they don't seem to complain as much as when non-mathy people have to study math. I think it is a mistake for our education system to treat math as something superfluous and abstract from daily life. While neither Laplace transforms nor Shakespearen analysis are necessary to live, the former is probably more useful than the latter.

mistersquid 7y ago
> While neither Laplace transforms nor Shakespearen analysis are necessary to live, the former is probably more useful than the latter. Without context, such an overbroad generalization is at best meaningless. If someone is choosing between potential spouses, or addressing a dishonest business colleague, or deciding how best to recognize a selfless samaritan, few branches of mathematics would be of any use. Whereas, one of Shakespeare's hundred and an half sonnets might be of direct "use". Usefulness and utility depend on context. Contextless generalizations about the value of different branches of human knowledge is generally meaningless.
- watwut 7y ago
  If you are using sonnets to decide that, everybody would be better off if you did study Laplace transformations instead. It is harder to be confused with real life.
watwut 7y ago
> While I am sure there is some engineering student out there griping about having to take a psychology course, they don't seem to complain as much as when non-mathy people have to study math. I don't know in your school, but in our people would complain and complain and complain about even theoretically having humanistic course compulsory. And those courses were designed to be free grade and any expectation on student to actually put effort into it caused complains. I did not wanted them either, it is not like I would just complain about other people. Nobody expected tech students to read Shakespear much less analyse it.

alfiedotwtf 7y ago

Wow. I edited the wrong comment ️