3 ms·

I want to say that while I did very well in math in high school, it didn't hold my interest until I got into calculus in university, and am now deeply intereste

I want to say that while I did very well in math in high school, it didn't hold my interest until I got into calculus in university, and am now deeply interested in advanced vector analysis and other applied mathematics (I still hate proofs). I very much agree that much of high school is spent drilling useless topics into students heads that are completely unnecessary and never even explained beyond a few ridiculous "real-life" applications. All the interesting math is locked away, available only to those who suffer through meaningless tests and bureaucratic madness. It would be much better to introduce higher level topics first, showing students the incredible usefulness of high level math, and then using their curiosity to dig into the lower level concepts that make everything work, instead of forcing them to try and be interested in boring low-level rigor that , without a high-level structure, is of limited use. It's like we're teaching kids mathematical assembly language instead of Python.

abduhl 15y ago
Math at the lower level never holds anybody's interest (even those who go on to be very good at a STEM field). It is exactly (half of) what you said it is: boring low-level rigor. It is absolutely not of "limited use". Your comparison to assembly/Python doesn't fit at all. You cannot start in on vector analysis without an understanding of geometry and algebra. You can start Python without understanding assembly at all. You can go back and learn assmebly after you've learned Python but this isn't true in most cases with higher level math. How do I explain the chi-squared distribution without wasting the entire semester on basic maths? Math isn't like an Apple product, it doesn't "just work." Some make the argument that how we teach STEM based courses can be adjusted so that we start from high-level stuff and teach low-level mechanics along the way. While this approach is intriguing, it will never work. It relies on an assumption about students that isn't true: they are actually interested in the subject. If I had to guess the percentage of students with a deep interest in their subject I would put it at a little bit below the actual graduation rates. Most students are in degree programs nowadays because it is the next step, all of their friends are doing it, it is expected of them, and/or they are trying to make their parents happy. Many of these students will find out what it is they really want to do (whether it is in their first field or their second field), many will recognize that they hate their field and still slog through for social reasons, and many will fail. College is a life changing experience for most people, no matter what category they fall in.
- blackhole 15y ago
  Algebra is important. Knowing sum-to-product trig identities, limits to 0/0 and obscure trigonometric integral identities are not. I am not saying none of it is required, I am saying some of it is not required, and that there is an unnecessary emphasis on it. My comparison to assembly/Python was a comparison, but of course I should have expected people to take it to an extreme hyperbole. But then, your entire argument is based on the assumption that most people are not interested in mathematics, so I guess circular logic is totally fine in these arguments (and hilariously ironic). No really, let's look at this. I'm saying that teaching high level math alongside low level math (or at least putting less emphasis on low level math) will make more people interested in math. You're saying this won't work because people aren't interested in math. That doesn't work.

abduhl 15y ago

Math at the lower level never holds anybody's interest (even those who go on to be very good at a STEM field). It is exactly (half of) what you said it is: boring low-level rigor. It is absolutely not of "limited use". Your comparison to assembly/Python doesn't fit at all. You cannot start in on vector analysis without an understanding of geometry and algebra. You can start Python without understanding assembly at all. You can go back and learn assmebly after you've learned Python but this isn't true in most cases with higher level math. How do I explain the chi-squared distribution without wasting the entire semester on basic maths? Math isn't like an Apple product, it doesn't "just work." Some make the argument that how we teach STEM based courses can be adjusted so that we start from high-level stuff and teach low-level mechanics along the way. While this approach is intriguing, it will never work. It relies on an assumption about students that isn't true: they are actually interested in the subject. If I had to guess the percentage of students with a deep interest in their subject I would put it at a little bit below the actual graduation rates. Most students are in degree programs nowadays because it is the next step, all of their friends are doing it, it is expected of them, and/or they are trying to make their parents happy. Many of these students will find out what it is they really want to do (whether it is in their first field or their second field), many will recognize that they hate their field and still slog through for social reasons, and many will fail. College is a life changing experience for most people, no matter what category they fall in.

blackhole 15y ago
Algebra is important. Knowing sum-to-product trig identities, limits to 0/0 and obscure trigonometric integral identities are not. I am not saying none of it is required, I am saying some of it is not required, and that there is an unnecessary emphasis on it. My comparison to assembly/Python was a comparison, but of course I should have expected people to take it to an extreme hyperbole. But then, your entire argument is based on the assumption that most people are not interested in mathematics, so I guess circular logic is totally fine in these arguments (and hilariously ironic). No really, let's look at this. I'm saying that teaching high level math alongside low level math (or at least putting less emphasis on low level math) will make more people interested in math. You're saying this won't work because people aren't interested in math. That doesn't work.