3 ms·

Any attempt to force a particular mathematical subject matter on students will undoubtedly be ruined by a committee.

by j2kun 13y ago

dalke 13y ago
Such cynicism. What do you have against Feynman's presence in the California committee to select, among other things, math books? Ahh, I see. If you are the person behind "Math ∩ Programming" then I can see what you have against that committee. Feynman wrote, arguing against new math: > It will perhaps surprise most people who have studied these textbooks to discover that the symbol ∪ or ∩ representing union and intersection of sets and the special use of the brackets { } and so forth, all the elaborate notation for sets that is given in these books, almost never appear in any writings in theoretical physics, in engineering, in business arithmetic, computer design, or other places where mathematics is being used. I see no need or reason for this all to be explained or to be taught in school.
- j2kun 13y ago
  The reason new math failed is because it was organized and administered by committees (comprised of people who don't do math). So your example is humorously evidence to my claim. What does a committee do when they are tasked with designing a curriculum or standards? They identify what should be tested, and then they pick the order that the topics are taught, likely outlining a time constraint on how long should be spent on each topic. This is the problem. If you're looking for things to test your students on then you will invariably add pointless content. Physicists are no exception (they invented the elaborate and pointless notation for vectors, the bra and ket). I don't propose we test students on mathematical notation, not at all. I propose we actually have them do mathematics (craft proofs, make conjectures), and I assert that any committee trying to craft a curriculum would ruin that. They have already ruined proofs in high school geometry.
  - dalke 13y ago
    "evidence to my claim"? But it's an example of a committee rejecting new math, not proposing it. And do you seriously want to argue that Feynman doesn't "do math"? Actually, it looks like you do. Why should only a certain type of math practitioner determine the curriculum? Do we only let people like Ramanujan set the curriculum? 'Cause that won't work. What you're complaining about is called "democracy." Yes, democracy is messy. The current movement towards high-stakes testing in the US is anti-democratic in part because it coalesces more power into fewer people. If you don't want a committee then what do you want? A so-called "education czar" with absolute power to make things work the way you think it should?

Any attempt to force a particular mathematical subject matter on students will undoubtedly be ruined by a committee.

by j2kun 13y ago

Any attempt to force a particular mathematical subject matter on students will undoubtedly be ruined by a committee.

dalke 13y ago

Such cynicism. What do you have against Feynman's presence in the California committee to select, among other things, math books? Ahh, I see. If you are the person behind "Math ∩ Programming" then I can see what you have against that committee. Feynman wrote, arguing against new math: > It will perhaps surprise most people who have studied these textbooks to discover that the symbol ∪ or ∩ representing union and intersection of sets and the special use of the brackets { } and so forth, all the elaborate notation for sets that is given in these books, almost never appear in any writings in theoretical physics, in engineering, in business arithmetic, computer design, or other places where mathematics is being used. I see no need or reason for this all to be explained or to be taught in school.

j2kun 13y ago
The reason new math failed is because it was organized and administered by committees (comprised of people who don't do math). So your example is humorously evidence to my claim. What does a committee do when they are tasked with designing a curriculum or standards? They identify what should be tested, and then they pick the order that the topics are taught, likely outlining a time constraint on how long should be spent on each topic. This is the problem. If you're looking for things to test your students on then you will invariably add pointless content. Physicists are no exception (they invented the elaborate and pointless notation for vectors, the bra and ket). I don't propose we test students on mathematical notation, not at all. I propose we actually have them do mathematics (craft proofs, make conjectures), and I assert that any committee trying to craft a curriculum would ruin that. They have already ruined proofs in high school geometry.
- dalke 13y ago
  "evidence to my claim"? But it's an example of a committee rejecting new math, not proposing it. And do you seriously want to argue that Feynman doesn't "do math"? Actually, it looks like you do. Why should only a certain type of math practitioner determine the curriculum? Do we only let people like Ramanujan set the curriculum? 'Cause that won't work. What you're complaining about is called "democracy." Yes, democracy is messy. The current movement towards high-stakes testing in the US is anti-democratic in part because it coalesces more power into fewer people. If you don't want a committee then what do you want? A so-called "education czar" with absolute power to make things work the way you think it should?