3 ms·

Calculus is also mathematically shallow in that sense: the subject where you start with axioms and gradually build up the machinery of calculus is (Real) Analys

Calculus is also mathematically shallow in that sense: the subject where you start with axioms and gradually build up the machinery of calculus is (Real) Analysis, which is not part of the standard calculus curriculum and which the vast majority of people taking calculus will never study [1]. A typical Calculus class expects students to memorize and use things like trig function integrals which are presented without proof; not so different from memorizing and using statistical tests presented without proof, in my opinion. In an intro statistics class I think conceptual depth is more important than mathematical depth. It's more important that students really understand the concept of probabilistic inference, both hypothesis tests and confidence intervals, than that they understand the mathematical derivation of the t distribution [2]. Unfortunately intro stats classes often fail on this count as well. One of the (many) straws that eventually broke my desire to teach was a committee decision--a committee composed entirely of people not teaching intro stats--to disallow students from bringing formula cheatsheets to exams, effectively forcing us to make the students memorize formulas rather than focusing on conceptual understanding. [1] When I took Real Analysis there was a calculus class that met right before us in the same room, which often ran over so that the calculus students would be packing up as we entered the room. One day as we're sitting down one of them asks us what class we're there for, and then asks what Real Analysis is all about, since he's never heard of it. One of my classmates responded with the absolutely perfect "Well, our homework last night was integrating x^2 from 0 to 1." [2] I'd say the same goes for Calculus, for what it's worth; actually understanding what an integral means is more important than being able to set up the Reimann sum and take the limit.

Jensson 2y ago
> A typical Calculus class expects students to memorize and use things like trig function integrals which are presented without proof; not so different from memorizing and using statistical tests presented without proof, in my opinion. You can see the derivatives based on their shapes, it is very intuitive that way unlike statistics. Calculus tries to show the intuitive explanations for the different parts, and it works very well it is how we get engineers and those engineers has built almost everything we see in modern society. Intuition is much more useful than formalism unless you need to prove things, and calculus is one of the most intuitive subjects in math once it clicks. That intuition then stays with students for their entire lives, often they don't understand they got it from calculus class. Humans has very poor intuition for things like velocity and acceleration until after they take calculus, but people forget that since those things feels so extremely obvious after you have taken the class. That just shows how great the class is, that it helps solidify such important concepts that people don't even realize they used to have trouble with them. > Unfortunately intro stats classes often fail on this count as well Because unlike calculus statistics is very unintuitive. The only ways to teach it is either via extreme formalism or by showing people what numbers to put where, there is no intuitive way to teach statistics as far as we know. That makes statistics classes and knowledge you learn there churn much faster than the intuition built in calculus, making the class inherently less useful. All the useful things I know about statistics I learned in middle school, stuff like confidence intervals, sampling bias etc. Everyone learns that in middle school, later stats classes just focus on churning numbers, I learned nothing in later stats classes I was forced to take in college.

Jensson 2y ago

> A typical Calculus class expects students to memorize and use things like trig function integrals which are presented without proof; not so different from memorizing and using statistical tests presented without proof, in my opinion. You can see the derivatives based on their shapes, it is very intuitive that way unlike statistics. Calculus tries to show the intuitive explanations for the different parts, and it works very well it is how we get engineers and those engineers has built almost everything we see in modern society. Intuition is much more useful than formalism unless you need to prove things, and calculus is one of the most intuitive subjects in math once it clicks. That intuition then stays with students for their entire lives, often they don't understand they got it from calculus class. Humans has very poor intuition for things like velocity and acceleration until after they take calculus, but people forget that since those things feels so extremely obvious after you have taken the class. That just shows how great the class is, that it helps solidify such important concepts that people don't even realize they used to have trouble with them. > Unfortunately intro stats classes often fail on this count as well Because unlike calculus statistics is very unintuitive. The only ways to teach it is either via extreme formalism or by showing people what numbers to put where, there is no intuitive way to teach statistics as far as we know. That makes statistics classes and knowledge you learn there churn much faster than the intuition built in calculus, making the class inherently less useful. All the useful things I know about statistics I learned in middle school, stuff like confidence intervals, sampling bias etc. Everyone learns that in middle school, later stats classes just focus on churning numbers, I learned nothing in later stats classes I was forced to take in college.