8 ms·

I really despise all the "why you should care about math" takes. The question is never asked about any other school subject and only mathematics has to justify

I really despise all the "why you should care about math" takes. The question is never asked about any other school subject and only mathematics has to justify itself that way. I had to learn about categories of plants and animals, interpret 20th century literature, learn about events from a thousand years ago, I did presentations on the demographics of European countries, how certain chemicals react and much, much more. I never used any of that knowledge for anything, certainly not in my career or in university. But somehow mathematics is the one field which needs to justify its own existence? Mathematics needs to bend itself over and "be relevant" so that people will actually learn about it? Why? Why not ask the same of any other subject. Justifying mathematics is easy, especially such a universally applicable subject as calculus. But I see no reason why it should have to justify itself in any way.

paulcole 3y ago
> The question is never asked about any other school subject Are you kidding? Every tech-bro on the planet makes their disdain for literature, philosophy, etc. extremely well known.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  It's hard to make out your actual point given it's couched in stereotype.
  - paulcole 3y ago
    I don't think it's that hard. But if it is, then my point is that people absolutely do make the same complaint about any subject they don't like being told to learn. Tech bros (generally) don't like being told to learn about art. And non-tech bros (generally) don't like being told to learn math.
    - arolihas 3y ago
      It can be hard to understand something when someone is more interested in being offended.
      - robertlagrant 3y ago
        Another stereotype. I'm not offended by people substituting lazy stereotypes for thinking. I just think it comes out badly when they try and articulate points.
        paulcole 3y ago
        Did you really not understand my original point?
        robertlagrant 3y ago
        Not really, no. It just seemed to be a continuation of a made up category, and I don't understand the point of doing that.
        arolihas 3y ago
        What stereotype do you think I am referencing? Their point was so simple I am honestly baffled at how anyone could possibly be confused or genuinely find it inarticulate.
        robertlagrant 3y ago
        The stereotype that if someone disagrees it must be because they're offended.
        arolihas 3y ago
        That's not what a stereotype is. And I didn't even make the claim that everyone who disagrees with me is offended. I just said it can be hard to understand something if you are offended by it. In this case it seemed likely, because the obvious point was that different people have different preferences towards subjects and look down on others. For example, some people in tech have a disdain for literature or other "soft" subjects like the humanities. When you complain about the stereotype and state that it obscures this point suggests that one could be offended by it and it is clouding their judgement. The fact that the OP simplified their point and you still refuse to understand it because it's a "made-up category" supports this notion. But hey, maybe you aren't offended by the term "techbro". It's perfectly possible that you lack reading comprehension skills. It's also possible that you are being deliberately obtuse and disingenuous
- projectazorian 3y ago
  Now now, let’s not be unfair, a bit of room is permitted for surface level study of classical philosophy, maybe some Nietzsche.
golergka 3y ago
People aren't doing it because they think they should. They are doing it because they want to.
BiteCode_dev 3y ago
That's because math is harder for most people. There is no difference between learning a name in history or in biology, or some workflow. But math reasoning really filters out people in a way nothing else does. All other topics just require memory and basic reasoning. Even physics mostly is hard because of math. And philosophy, mostly because of jargon and references. Otherwise, if you break it down, it's not that complicated. But you can break down a math problem as much as you want, some of them are beyond what you can do comfortably. And a lot of students reach this limit early in their life. I see this when I play board games with people: there is a threshold of rules and calculation power above which I lose 90% of the players. They just can't enjoy it, because it requires too much effort to play. It's similar for me and sport. I've been doing exercise all my life, but my brother will always do more, and harder, because there is a barrier after which it's just too painful for me. Math and athleticism can be trained, but there is a hard ceiling. And even before you reach that ceiling, closing the gap gets more and more expensive for some people, so much the ROI is difficult to justify.
- constantcrying 3y ago
  What I specifically dislike is the question "what am I ever going to use this for" or versions of it. Which I only ever hear about mathematics, but which can be asked about every other subject as well. Yes, math is hard and definitely not for everyone, which I think is perfectly fine. But arguing that something has no use to you, because the first time in your life you actually have to engage in complex logical thinking is just lazy. The value of mathematics is independent of how hard it is.
  - butterNaN 3y ago
    I feel your complaint is valid, but I your ire should be directed towards people who are supposed to answer this question, not the people who are asking it. My guess is that answering "what am I ever going to use this for" is easier for other subjects, sometimes almost intuitive. For Maths, it needs to be defined as soon as it starts getting abstract. "what am I ever going to use this for" is a perfectly valid question. People who are supposed to answer it should do a better job of doing so, writing good curriculum, and overall communication.
zephyr9 3y ago
Hello mathematics, meet philosophy.
roel_v 3y ago
"The question is never asked about any other school subject" Huh? People around me asked that all the time in high school & beyond.
alpaca128 3y ago
> I see no reason why it should have to justify itself in any way If you cannot justify to children why you force them to sit in school for hours every day you shouldn't be surprised by the consequences. Though weirdly schools tend to be very surprised in my experience. And yes, this question is absolutely asked in other subjects too, but less often as they're not as abstract and usually related to things people encounter every day. > Justifying mathematics is easy And thus left as exercise to the reader?
- constantcrying 3y ago
  >If you cannot justify to children why you force them to sit in school for hours every day you shouldn't be surprised by the consequences. Nobody told me why I should learn about ancient history or 20th century literature. >usually related to things people encounter every day. Basically nothing I did in school had anything at all to do with things I encountered every day. I played video games and hung out with friends. I didn't study European art history in my time away from school. >And thus left as exercise to the reader? Yes. I assumed that most people on this website understand the inherent value in abstract thiking and broadly applicable problem solving techniques.
  - LunaSea 3y ago
    > Yes. I assumed that most people on this website understand the inherent value in abstract thiking and broadly applicable problem solving techniques. This absolutely doesn't match what is thought in elementary and secondary schools. You are thought how to apply things and not how to think (in an abstract way or not).
    - constantcrying 3y ago
      Yes, math education is generally bad.
  - mtVessel 3y ago
    Oh, you mean the kind of abstract thinking and problem solving skills you develop from reading history and literature and applying them to the events of the day? Yeah, I totally understood that. Still not sure where Calculus fits in, though.
nicbou 3y ago
This drove me nuts when I was a student. No one gave me a solid reason, even though it was right there. Math is a language that is required to describe how the world works. It's the official language of certain spheres of society that seriously impact your life. If you don't speak it, other people will make decisions for you that you can't understand. It's also really useful if you deal with finance, engineering, computers, statistics etc. If you don't speak math, these doors are closed to you. This would be a lot more evident if they had us solve real world problems with math.
- foofoo4u 3y ago
  Same. For K-12, at least, I believe the reason why no one could give a solid reason is because the teachers who are teaching the subject have literally no professional industrial experience with math. They have nothing to share with no real-world insights. I presume this should come to no surprise. According to GTP, the average salary range of a mathematician in the US is, "$80,000 to $100,000, while more experienced mathematicians can earn up to $150,000 or more." With salaries like these, no one working professionally as a mathematician would choose to downgrade to become a teacher, with teacher pay, lower respect and deal with uninterested, rude, problematic students.
maccard 3y ago
> The question is never asked about any other school subject and only mathematics has to justify itself that way Hard disagree here. When I was in school, there were constant discussions among the teenagers about "why do I need to learn a dead language (irish)", "why do I need to learn french/german, they can all speak english", "why do I need to study geography, I'm never going to need to be able to categorise volcanic vs fold mountains".
yodsanklai 3y ago
> somehow mathematics is the one field which needs to justify its own existence I'm convinced that justification doesn't make students more motivated anyway. That being said, justification is needed, not for the students, but for people designing syllabus. They require arbitrage because there are so many hours in a day.
jalapenos 3y ago
Teachers of calculus should have to justify why people should learn it, given 99% of them will never use it, and could be taught something else challenging that they will use instead. But the same does also apply, and get called out just as often, regarding the humanities, especially given 99% of people can fulfil their humanities interests for free and at their leisure and on their phone with Wikipedia.
ed-209 3y ago
The author is trying to motivate kids, not make a case for the existence of math generally.

paulcole 3y ago

> The question is never asked about any other school subject Are you kidding? Every tech-bro on the planet makes their disdain for literature, philosophy, etc. extremely well known.

robertlagrant 3y ago
It's hard to make out your actual point given it's couched in stereotype.
- paulcole 3y ago
  I don't think it's that hard. But if it is, then my point is that people absolutely do make the same complaint about any subject they don't like being told to learn. Tech bros (generally) don't like being told to learn about art. And non-tech bros (generally) don't like being told to learn math.
  - arolihas 3y ago
    It can be hard to understand something when someone is more interested in being offended.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      Another stereotype. I'm not offended by people substituting lazy stereotypes for thinking. I just think it comes out badly when they try and articulate points.
      - paulcole 3y ago
        Did you really not understand my original point?
        robertlagrant 3y ago
        Not really, no. It just seemed to be a continuation of a made up category, and I don't understand the point of doing that.
      - arolihas 3y ago
        What stereotype do you think I am referencing? Their point was so simple I am honestly baffled at how anyone could possibly be confused or genuinely find it inarticulate.
        robertlagrant 3y ago
        The stereotype that if someone disagrees it must be because they're offended.
        arolihas 3y ago
        That's not what a stereotype is. And I didn't even make the claim that everyone who disagrees with me is offended. I just said it can be hard to understand something if you are offended by it. In this case it seemed likely, because the obvious point was that different people have different preferences towards subjects and look down on others. For example, some people in tech have a disdain for literature or other "soft" subjects like the humanities. When you complain about the stereotype and state that it obscures this point suggests that one could be offended by it and it is clouding their judgement. The fact that the OP simplified their point and you still refuse to understand it because it's a "made-up category" supports this notion. But hey, maybe you aren't offended by the term "techbro". It's perfectly possible that you lack reading comprehension skills. It's also possible that you are being deliberately obtuse and disingenuous
projectazorian 3y ago
Now now, let’s not be unfair, a bit of room is permitted for surface level study of classical philosophy, maybe some Nietzsche.

golergka 3y ago

People aren't doing it because they think they should. They are doing it because they want to.

BiteCode_dev 3y ago

That's because math is harder for most people. There is no difference between learning a name in history or in biology, or some workflow. But math reasoning really filters out people in a way nothing else does. All other topics just require memory and basic reasoning. Even physics mostly is hard because of math. And philosophy, mostly because of jargon and references. Otherwise, if you break it down, it's not that complicated. But you can break down a math problem as much as you want, some of them are beyond what you can do comfortably. And a lot of students reach this limit early in their life. I see this when I play board games with people: there is a threshold of rules and calculation power above which I lose 90% of the players. They just can't enjoy it, because it requires too much effort to play. It's similar for me and sport. I've been doing exercise all my life, but my brother will always do more, and harder, because there is a barrier after which it's just too painful for me. Math and athleticism can be trained, but there is a hard ceiling. And even before you reach that ceiling, closing the gap gets more and more expensive for some people, so much the ROI is difficult to justify.

constantcrying 3y ago
What I specifically dislike is the question "what am I ever going to use this for" or versions of it. Which I only ever hear about mathematics, but which can be asked about every other subject as well. Yes, math is hard and definitely not for everyone, which I think is perfectly fine. But arguing that something has no use to you, because the first time in your life you actually have to engage in complex logical thinking is just lazy. The value of mathematics is independent of how hard it is.
- butterNaN 3y ago
  I feel your complaint is valid, but I your ire should be directed towards people who are supposed to answer this question, not the people who are asking it. My guess is that answering "what am I ever going to use this for" is easier for other subjects, sometimes almost intuitive. For Maths, it needs to be defined as soon as it starts getting abstract. "what am I ever going to use this for" is a perfectly valid question. People who are supposed to answer it should do a better job of doing so, writing good curriculum, and overall communication.

zephyr9 3y ago

Hello mathematics, meet philosophy.

roel_v 3y ago

"The question is never asked about any other school subject" Huh? People around me asked that all the time in high school & beyond.

alpaca128 3y ago

> I see no reason why it should have to justify itself in any way If you cannot justify to children why you force them to sit in school for hours every day you shouldn't be surprised by the consequences. Though weirdly schools tend to be very surprised in my experience. And yes, this question is absolutely asked in other subjects too, but less often as they're not as abstract and usually related to things people encounter every day. > Justifying mathematics is easy And thus left as exercise to the reader?

constantcrying 3y ago
>If you cannot justify to children why you force them to sit in school for hours every day you shouldn't be surprised by the consequences. Nobody told me why I should learn about ancient history or 20th century literature. >usually related to things people encounter every day. Basically nothing I did in school had anything at all to do with things I encountered every day. I played video games and hung out with friends. I didn't study European art history in my time away from school. >And thus left as exercise to the reader? Yes. I assumed that most people on this website understand the inherent value in abstract thiking and broadly applicable problem solving techniques.
- LunaSea 3y ago
  > Yes. I assumed that most people on this website understand the inherent value in abstract thiking and broadly applicable problem solving techniques. This absolutely doesn't match what is thought in elementary and secondary schools. You are thought how to apply things and not how to think (in an abstract way or not).
  - constantcrying 3y ago
    Yes, math education is generally bad.
- mtVessel 3y ago
  Oh, you mean the kind of abstract thinking and problem solving skills you develop from reading history and literature and applying them to the events of the day? Yeah, I totally understood that. Still not sure where Calculus fits in, though.

nicbou 3y ago

This drove me nuts when I was a student. No one gave me a solid reason, even though it was right there. Math is a language that is required to describe how the world works. It's the official language of certain spheres of society that seriously impact your life. If you don't speak it, other people will make decisions for you that you can't understand. It's also really useful if you deal with finance, engineering, computers, statistics etc. If you don't speak math, these doors are closed to you. This would be a lot more evident if they had us solve real world problems with math.

foofoo4u 3y ago
Same. For K-12, at least, I believe the reason why no one could give a solid reason is because the teachers who are teaching the subject have literally no professional industrial experience with math. They have nothing to share with no real-world insights. I presume this should come to no surprise. According to GTP, the average salary range of a mathematician in the US is, "$80,000 to $100,000, while more experienced mathematicians can earn up to $150,000 or more." With salaries like these, no one working professionally as a mathematician would choose to downgrade to become a teacher, with teacher pay, lower respect and deal with uninterested, rude, problematic students.

maccard 3y ago

> The question is never asked about any other school subject and only mathematics has to justify itself that way Hard disagree here. When I was in school, there were constant discussions among the teenagers about "why do I need to learn a dead language (irish)", "why do I need to learn french/german, they can all speak english", "why do I need to study geography, I'm never going to need to be able to categorise volcanic vs fold mountains".

yodsanklai 3y ago

> somehow mathematics is the one field which needs to justify its own existence I'm convinced that justification doesn't make students more motivated anyway. That being said, justification is needed, not for the students, but for people designing syllabus. They require arbitrage because there are so many hours in a day.

jalapenos 3y ago

Teachers of calculus should have to justify why people should learn it, given 99% of them will never use it, and could be taught something else challenging that they will use instead. But the same does also apply, and get called out just as often, regarding the humanities, especially given 99% of people can fulfil their humanities interests for free and at their leisure and on their phone with Wikipedia.

ed-209 3y ago

The author is trying to motivate kids, not make a case for the existence of math generally.