5 ms·

>This is my best guess about the line of thinking that motivates these "no advanced math" policies. You've explained the thought process of the "reformers" fai

by AlanYx 3y ago

>This is my best guess about the line of thinking that motivates these "no advanced math" policies. You've explained the thought process of the "reformers" fairly well, but there is another additional element that's important as well: a sizeable contingent of people believe that advanced math itself is intrinsically bad or negative. Usually this is either because math is fundamentally exclusionary in some core way, or because it's somehow inextricably tied to ways in which equity-seeking populations are oppressed, or used as a tool of oppression. O'Neill's Weapons of Math Destruction is so popular in academic circles partly because it plays to this mindset. This viewpoint dovetails with some of the points you've highlighted, for example many believe that everyone is equally capable, but the reason they're not all getting competitive scores with good shots at college is because advanced math (being intrinsically negative/evil) is ruining it. So in their view it is rational to get rid of it, replacing it with something (the data science course) that's not advanced math. For these people, the goal is not to improve equity by getting everyone up to speed in advanced math. It's to bypass it.

Workaccount2 3y ago
At it's very foundation liberal ideology cracks pretty badly if "Everyone is born equally capable" is false.
- candiodari 3y ago
  But the only way to make people equal is to sabotage, sabotage and sabotage. And, of course, if parents have the means, this won't work. This is just robbing a lot of lower class kids from any chance of getting higher, just because not everyone will make it. That's stupid. Of course sabotaging kids is also slightly cheaper, and creates the need for more administrators, the ones making these decisions, to decide exactly what is "equitable".
- AlexandrB 3y ago
  I suspect that 'liberals believe "Everyone is born equally capable"' is a strawman. I hang out with pretty liberal people and no one actually believes anything like this. Interestingly, the article actually lists out a more nuanced, realistic version of this idea (with a link to research): > But whatever you think about the morality of this idea, it simply will not work. The reason is that the strong hereditarian hypothesis is wrong; practically all kids are educable, with the proper investment of resources. And we're talking about high school educational attainment here, not world-class achievement. To use a fitness analogy, not everyone has the anatomy to be a world-class deadlifter. But pretty much everybody can get to deadlifting 1x/1.5x their (healthy) bodyweight with some training.
  - loughnane 3y ago
    > I hang out with pretty liberal people and no one actually believes anything like this There is a broad streak of illiberality running through left-leaning Americans who call themselves liberal. At its core liberalism maintains not that everyone is equal in every way, but that virtually everyone is equally capable of flourishing if given the same opportunities. Liberalism must believe that since its unit of measure is the individual, not a faction or state. If someone who calls there’ themselves liberal doesn’t believe that I’d like to know what they think liberalism is.
  - Workaccount2 3y ago
    Usually no liberals actually will echo that line, or even are aware of it. But the very philosophy dictates that it must be true. And ask them the difference between a checkout clerk and an MIT grad, and they'll tell you it was all about opportunity. It's also why liberals have a very strong anti-science approach to fields like behavioral genetics, while falling over themselves to praise the social sciences.
- HDThoreaun 3y ago
  The entire point of liberal ideology is to gather a variety of viewpoints because we accept that everyone is not born equal. That doesn't make some people better than others, they just bring different skills to the table.
  - Workaccount2 3y ago
    No, we accept that everyone is born without equal opportunity. Its a key difference.
feoren 3y ago
> the reason they're not all getting competitive scores with good shots at college is because advanced math (being intrinsically negative/evil) is ruining it I ... I don't understand. This is literally the craziest conspiracy theory I've ever heard. Here's the thing: if a shadow cabal of lizard-people were actually using space lasers to mind control everyone into thinking the Earth is round so we never discover their hidden evil lairs at the edges of the flat Earth, or what have you ... if any those wacko theories were actually true, it would actually represent a terrible evil that humanity should fight to overcome. Such a plot might even make a decent movie. But this? Advanced math? What? Math is conspiring against humanity? I cannot even fathom a B-movie plotline where that holds together at all. No suspension of disbelief makes this make any sense. Math!?
- AlanYx 3y ago
  I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but the objections are not typically phrased in the type of language you're using. A typical example is something like this, from Louie (J.Res.Math.Ed. 2017): >Through the lens of the culture of exclusion, students who appear mathematically gifted are viewed as intelligent, whereas others are myopically perceived as “slow,” “remedial,” and “special needs.” These perceived differences are used to justify stratification such that the culture of exclusion in mathematics education shapes access to intellectually stimulating learning opportunities, prestigious educational programs, lucrative careers, and high-status identities. Furthermore, because ability categories are mapped onto other socially constructed categories, the culture of exclusion is both a product of and a tool for the maintenance of racial, gender, linguistic, economic, and other hierarchies. It is at its core a form of anti-intellectualism, that is true, but often emanating from other intellectual ideas from the academy.
  - feoren 3y ago
    Okay, have these guys seen how people who are really good at football are treated? And all those guys who are great at guitar keep getting all the chicks, goddammit! There's no reason to think that mathematics has any more of a "culture of exclusion" than any other field of study, vocation, or sport.

by AlanYx 3y ago

Workaccount2 3y ago

At it's very foundation liberal ideology cracks pretty badly if "Everyone is born equally capable" is false.

candiodari 3y ago
But the only way to make people equal is to sabotage, sabotage and sabotage. And, of course, if parents have the means, this won't work. This is just robbing a lot of lower class kids from any chance of getting higher, just because not everyone will make it. That's stupid. Of course sabotaging kids is also slightly cheaper, and creates the need for more administrators, the ones making these decisions, to decide exactly what is "equitable".
AlexandrB 3y ago
I suspect that 'liberals believe "Everyone is born equally capable"' is a strawman. I hang out with pretty liberal people and no one actually believes anything like this. Interestingly, the article actually lists out a more nuanced, realistic version of this idea (with a link to research): > But whatever you think about the morality of this idea, it simply will not work. The reason is that the strong hereditarian hypothesis is wrong; practically all kids are educable, with the proper investment of resources. And we're talking about high school educational attainment here, not world-class achievement. To use a fitness analogy, not everyone has the anatomy to be a world-class deadlifter. But pretty much everybody can get to deadlifting 1x/1.5x their (healthy) bodyweight with some training.
- loughnane 3y ago
  > I hang out with pretty liberal people and no one actually believes anything like this There is a broad streak of illiberality running through left-leaning Americans who call themselves liberal. At its core liberalism maintains not that everyone is equal in every way, but that virtually everyone is equally capable of flourishing if given the same opportunities. Liberalism must believe that since its unit of measure is the individual, not a faction or state. If someone who calls there’ themselves liberal doesn’t believe that I’d like to know what they think liberalism is.
- Workaccount2 3y ago
  Usually no liberals actually will echo that line, or even are aware of it. But the very philosophy dictates that it must be true. And ask them the difference between a checkout clerk and an MIT grad, and they'll tell you it was all about opportunity. It's also why liberals have a very strong anti-science approach to fields like behavioral genetics, while falling over themselves to praise the social sciences.
HDThoreaun 3y ago
The entire point of liberal ideology is to gather a variety of viewpoints because we accept that everyone is not born equal. That doesn't make some people better than others, they just bring different skills to the table.
- Workaccount2 3y ago
  No, we accept that everyone is born without equal opportunity. Its a key difference.

feoren 3y ago

> the reason they're not all getting competitive scores with good shots at college is because advanced math (being intrinsically negative/evil) is ruining it I ... I don't understand. This is literally the craziest conspiracy theory I've ever heard. Here's the thing: if a shadow cabal of lizard-people were actually using space lasers to mind control everyone into thinking the Earth is round so we never discover their hidden evil lairs at the edges of the flat Earth, or what have you ... if any those wacko theories were actually true, it would actually represent a terrible evil that humanity should fight to overcome. Such a plot might even make a decent movie. But this? Advanced math? What? Math is conspiring against humanity? I cannot even fathom a B-movie plotline where that holds together at all. No suspension of disbelief makes this make any sense. Math!?

AlanYx 3y ago
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but the objections are not typically phrased in the type of language you're using. A typical example is something like this, from Louie (J.Res.Math.Ed. 2017): >Through the lens of the culture of exclusion, students who appear mathematically gifted are viewed as intelligent, whereas others are myopically perceived as “slow,” “remedial,” and “special needs.” These perceived differences are used to justify stratification such that the culture of exclusion in mathematics education shapes access to intellectually stimulating learning opportunities, prestigious educational programs, lucrative careers, and high-status identities. Furthermore, because ability categories are mapped onto other socially constructed categories, the culture of exclusion is both a product of and a tool for the maintenance of racial, gender, linguistic, economic, and other hierarchies. It is at its core a form of anti-intellectualism, that is true, but often emanating from other intellectual ideas from the academy.
- feoren 3y ago
  Okay, have these guys seen how people who are really good at football are treated? And all those guys who are great at guitar keep getting all the chicks, goddammit! There's no reason to think that mathematics has any more of a "culture of exclusion" than any other field of study, vocation, or sport.