On the issue of kids not pursuing engineering/science/math these days

[avant-garde]

In a Wikipedia article about Thomas Friedman's "The World Is Flat"

Friedman also believes there should be more inspiration for youth to be scientists, engineers, and mathematicians due to a decrease in the percentage of these professionals being American.

Why do you think this is so? Why has the American youth decided to abandon these fields?

[maverick_starstrider]

I think the standard line is the end of the cold war. America's culture made the space program the ultimate accomplishment (in their minds) and then it was accomplished. Motivation is about a stick and a carrot, the carrot is gone. Science fiction novels laud the potential awesomeness of nano-tech or superconductors or the likes but culturally america (I'm canadian so I guess i'm saying "north america", if not "the west") does not recognize these things as something that we need to drive towards, they will happen when they happen. I think it's a better questions to ask why science and engineering were so "sexy" during the cold war.

[colonelcrayon]

Americans are becoming more and more stupid. It's easier to hide incompetence behind vague excuses and inexact explanations in fields without absolute measures.

[This is coming from a current high school student]

[Pengwuino]

Americans are becoming more and more stupid. It's easier to hide incompetence behind vague excuses and inexact explanations in fields without absolute measures.

[This is coming from a current high school student]

What?

[djeitnstine]

In a Wikipedia article about Thomas Friedman's "The World Is Flat"


Why do you think this is so? Why has the American youth decided to abandon these fields?

Not only is this the american youth, it is widespread across the western hemisphere. I've had a few thoughts on this matter before. I have concluded that technology is a double edged sword.

We strive to gain better technology and better fields in science and engineering. In the process we "cushion" ourselves with better lives and more sophisticated tools. As we do so the tendency to become better and/or the *general* tendency to have an interest in these fields fades because for many "its already done". For instance having a top notch phone in your hands, or riding on a segway (sp?).

The consequence of such advances comes a factor of *laziness*, simply because learning about these things are hard.

The other edge cuts us because of this. The public gets the better technology has to become in order to "woo" them. A perfect example of this is the iphone. I am not going to hide as I am a victim of this laziness. I shun the idea of not being able to send email from my phone.

In my opinion I think those of us in the fields have to create an interest in them again. We need to be able to show the public that not everything that can be done has been done yet, we need their input.

I know there are efforts out there to bring youth into the field, (persons such as Brian Greene are trying to achieve this) But I don't know how pretty we can make "long complicated" formulas look.

Perhaps if we can use a more "hands on" approach in *more* schools it will be very successful.

[maverick_starstrider]

Not only is this the american youth, it is widespread across the western hemisphere. I've had a few thoughts on this matter before. I have concluded that technology is a double edged sword.

We strive to gain better technology and better fields in science and engineering. In the process we "cushion" ourselves with better lives and more sophisticated tools. As we do so the tendency to become better and/or the *general* tendency to have an interest in these fields fades because for many "its already done". For instance having a top notch phone in your hands, or riding on a segway (sp?).

The consequence of such advances comes a factor of *laziness*, simply because learning about these things are hard.

The other edge cuts us because of this. The public gets the better technology has to become in order to "woo" them. A perfect example of this is the iphone. I am not going to hide as I am a victim of this laziness. I shun the idea of not being able to send email from my phone.

In my opinion I think those of us in the fields have to create an interest in them again. We need to be able to show the public that not everything that can be done has been done yet, we need their input.

I know there are efforts out there to bring youth into the field, (persons such as Brian Greene are trying to achieve this) But I don't know how pretty we can make "long complicated" formulas look.

Perhaps if we can use a more "hands on" approach in *more* schools it will be very successful.

Well ultimately it comes down to a trade off, we could design the education system to produce powerful scientists but then we'll lose more students along the way. The current philosophy is "no student left behind" (in slogan anyway, the actual implementation seems to be too much of a chore for most politicians to consider). Although I certainly accept your point I don't entirely agree with it. Given true motivation the tools of modern technology allow a scientist to be more productive than ever before. Ultimately it's all about motivation and creating a culture where people actually have strong ambition to do science.

[ralilu]

shudnt all this new technology promote an interest in science/engineering/technology?

I think its because of the stigma that starts at a young age about math. Mathematics should be taught to little kids in a more interesting way. If kids where first taught about the elegance and deeper implications about math instead of giving them boring homework exercises then they would be more interested by the time they reach high school...

[maverick_starstrider]

Americans are becoming more and more stupid. It's easier to hide incompetence behind vague excuses and inexact explanations in fields without absolute measures.

[This is coming from a current high school student]

Well I think your grapes might be a little sour sir. I acutally have optomistic view of the current generations potential (well, i'm pretty young myself). Take this for what it is worth coming from someone who specializes in computational but I think computational approaches are the future of science and I was using DOS when I was 6 years old, my parents however viewed the computer as this funny little box that allows them to do word processing and send e-mails (still do as a matter of fact).

[thrill3rnit3]

shudnt all this new technology promote an interest in science/engineering/technology?

I think its because of the stigma that starts at a young age about math. Mathematics should be taught to little kids in a more interesting way. If kids where first taught about the elegance and deeper implications about math instead of giving them boring homework exercises then they would be more interested by the time they reach high school...

On the contrary, it causes kids (and teachers alike) to become lazy, and resort to the plug-and-chug approach onto their high tech gizmos and technology.

Just look at the evolution of the graphing calculator. Totally removed and outdated "manual computation", a skill which I believe to very important. Not just that, but it also got rid of theoretical analysis and thinking behind all those plug-and-chug techniques (such as in AP Calculus).

[colonelcrayon]

What?
Let me put it a different way: if you do something wrong on your 1st grade math homework, it's wrong. A good teacher will explain what you did wrong and help you improve, but that doesn't change the fact that you got the wrong answer. It's far easier to slide around laziness when writing a 1st grade book report - even if you only read the first chapter, you still stand a chance of convincing the teacher that you did your work. Lazy students learn to hate subjects that you can't dodge around with excuses.
Well I think your grapes might be a little sour sir. I acutally have optomistic view of the current generations potential (well, i'm pretty young myself). Take this for what it is worth coming from someone who specializes in computational but I think computational approaches are the future of science and I was using DOS when I was 6 years old, my parents however viewed the computer as this funny little box that allows them to do word processing and send e-mails (still do as a matter of fact).
You definitely aren't the norm. The overwhelming majority of people at my school view computers the same way as your parents. This is all anecdotal, but I would bet it applies to the general population as well.

Think about what "computational approaches" are. Actual understanding of software is dying. Increased accessibility has the perverse effect of destroying the incentive to learn.

EDIT
On the contrary, it causes kids (and teachers alike) to become lazy, and resort to the plug-and-chug approach onto their high tech gizmos and technology. Just look at the evolution of the graphing calculator. Totally removed and outdated "manual computation", a skill which I believe to very important. Not just that, but it also got rid of theoretical analysis and thinking behind all those plug-and-chug techniques (such as in AP Calculus).
I agree with some but not all of this. The bigger problem is the emphasis on computation over theory, "solutions" over proofs, rote repetition over thought, etc. A well-taught math class will not be threatened by technology because it will demand work a calculator can't provide.

[maverick_starstrider]

http://www.xkcd.com/603/ In randall we trust

[Rhine720]

Maybe they did their research and have found the false, unsastisfying information that seems to make many people so hesitant in choosing a STEM career.

Remembering several years ago..I was never told " Math is an extremely powerful tool. Everything in the universe could be reduced to a mathematical equation" or " If you know math then you could figure out how far a projectile will go in so much time by so much force ect ect"

Also I remember one day in 8th grade talking to my science teacher. He sorta giggled when I told him "Every advancement in science is beyond our imagination of happening. Like travelling to the moon. Or the Internet. Those use to be myths"

I feel not many students hit that nail and realize how much left is to be discovered. And dare I say it they should open up to the fact scientific theories will change and when someone says something is impossible , then that person is wrong.

Not enough stimulation of creativity might also be something. What captivated me most the videos. When I finally understood E=MC^2 and relativty I doomed myself to an interest in physics. Videos of the history of science.

Perhaps if more science were incorporated into video games. Like planting a secret seed. For instance Half life series. You play as a theoreticle physicist who is part of a teleportation project that goes terribly wrong. When the player realizes how physics does/can make those automatic laser turrets, advanced AI, singularity machines, teleportation, zero point energy field manipulators ectect feasible they'll have the seed of growing interest.

I know this because it certainly fulled my creativity as a student already looking into physics.

Lastly it might be too hard. And it might be underpaying in the long run. Suprisingly kids are quite aware of these circumstaces are young ages when thinking about long term goals which they do. Not to mention parents who usher their children to become doctors or nurses or lawyers.

This was more rambling and speculation but I conclude by saying the interest is there ..it just needs to be awaken

[maverick_starstrider]

Maybe they did their research and have found the false, unsastisfying information that seems to make many people so hesitant in choosing a STEM career.

Remembering several years ago..I was never told " Math is an extremely powerful tool. Everything in the universe could be reduced to a mathematical equation" or " If you know math then you could figure out how far a projectile will go in so much time by so much force ect ect"

Also I remember one day in 8th grade talking to my science teacher. He sorta giggled when I told him "Every advancement in science is beyond our imagination of happening. Like travelling to the moon. Or the Internet. Those use to be myths"

I feel not many students hit that nail and realize how much left is to be discovered. And dare I say it they should open up to the fact scientific theories will change and when someone says something is impossible , then that person is wrong.

Not enough stimulation of creativity might also be something. What captivated me most the videos. When I finally understood E=MC^2 and relativty I doomed myself to an interest in physics. Videos of the history of science.

Perhaps if more science were incorporated into video games. Like planting a secret seed. For instance Half life series. You play as a theoreticle physicist who is part of a teleportation project that goes terribly wrong. When the player realizes how physics does/can make those automatic laser turrets, advanced AI, singularity machines, teleportation, zero point energy field manipulators ectect feasible they'll have the seed of growing interest.

I know this because it certainly fulled my creativity as a student already looking into physics.

Lastly it might be too hard. And it might be underpaying in the long run. Suprisingly kids are quite aware of these circumstaces are young ages when thinking about long term goals which they do. Not to mention parents who usher their children to become doctors or nurses or lawyers.

This was more rambling and speculation but I conclude by saying the interest is there ..it just needs to be awaken


Amen, the biggest threat to the newest generation of scientists is CULTURE not technology. Everytime a TV shows insults or makes a mockery out of sciences or a person makes a joke out of nerdiness.... THAT kills science. Toss out Hip Hop culture, CSI and Rush Limbaugh and the newest generation could look like the Uber-Mensch relative to now.

[Choppy]

My first question is this: what evidence to we have to suggest that there is less interest in science and engineering? Does the article quote enrollment rates at universities in particular subjects? Is this notion based on employment rates in particular fields?

The reason I ask is because I'm not sure this is really a trend. Lots of people like to jump on the up and coming generation for all the technological toys they have. I'll admit, I do this from time to time. But is it deserved? One might argue that today's youth naturally have to be more technologically aware than previous generations. They have all sorts of career paths not open to the previous generations.

Even if you argue that enrollement in physics is going down, is that balanced by an increase in enrollment in programs like: engineering physics, materials science, forensic science, computer and information technology, medical physics, and other subjects that were classically filled by regular physicists?

[maverick_starstrider]

Even if you argue that enrollement in physics is going down, is that balanced by an increase in enrollment in programs like: engineering physics, materials science, forensic science, computer and information technology, medical physics, and other subjects that were classically filled by regular physicists?

I take exception to your inclusion of forensic "science" but otherwise I very much agree. Those who want to do science can now do science better than they ever could before. Those who don't... well they've hardly changed from previous generations either. Although I have to say, I've been reading "Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman" lately and his accomplishments by my age puts me to all kinds of shame (hell, his accomplishments by age 10 put me to all kinds of shame) but I have to think that there are probably people like that kicking around in our generation as well. And, yes, ultimately it comes down to, as you point out, the numbers. Statistically HOW MANY children go into sciences, statistically HOW WELL do they do, relative to previous generations, etc.

[Feldoh]

I don't necessarily think the problem is purely because of a lack of intelligence in students today. I agree it is a problem, but why is it that students seem to be lacking in knowledge about science? What I'm trying to say is that this problem is a symptom rather than a cause of a lack of interest in the sciences.

It seems to me that the problems cause stems from an early age. It seems that a lot of students go through elementary school without any sort of interest in the sciences, why is that? Perhaps that is the actual question we should be asking. I mean lets face it -- if you don't like something you're not going to continue to pursue it if you don't have to. If students lack an interest in the sciences what is the motivation to pursue mathematics, or any science for the matter? There is none. Because of this students direct their energy into other pursuits and lets face it: if you don't have a solid foundation in math, or any science then of course you will be perceived as unintelligent when it comes to all of these fields. Basically is a lack of interest early on that causes students to skim over the foundations which only leads to more problems later on in their "educational career".

Students are not being inspired to learn anything pertaining to the sciences. The curriculum tries to encourage the scientific method and rational thought but what scientific ideas are discussed when teaching such things? I don't know what it was like for anyone else but to be honest at least for me science was just not interesting in elementary school. I probably would still had a disinterest in physics if it wasn't for two particular high school teachers I had.

What we need is a reform on the ways we teach science. It needs to be taught in such a way as to stimulate interest in children. We all take too much for granted and in doing so neglect the principles which have been the inspiration for innovation, or worse yet fail to see the ingenuity of the innovations in the first place. We need to come up with a way to make sure that innovation is not looked down upon. I'm not particularly sure how to accomplish such a thing but doing so, I believe, would help to create a genuine interest in the sciences.

[maverick_starstrider]

I don't necessarily think the problem is purely because of a lack of intelligence in students today. I agree it is a problem, but why is it that students seem to be lacking in knowledge about science? What I'm trying to say is that this problem is a symptom rather than a cause of a lack of interest in the sciences.

It seems to me that the problems cause stems from an early age. It seems that a lot of students go through elementary school without any sort of interest in the sciences, why is that? Perhaps that is the actual question we should be asking. I mean lets face it -- if you don't like something you're not going to continue to pursue it if you don't have to. If students lack an interest in the sciences what is the motivation to pursue mathematics, or any science for the matter? There is none. Because of this students direct their energy into other pursuits and lets face it: if you don't have a solid foundation in math, or any science then of course you will be perceived as unintelligent when it comes to all of these fields. Basically is a lack of interest early on that causes students to skim over the foundations which only leads to more problems later on in their "educational career".

Students are not being inspired to learn anything pertaining to the sciences. The curriculum tries to encourage the scientific method and rational thought but what scientific ideas are discussed when teaching such things? I don't know what it was like for anyone else but to be honest at least for me science was just not interesting in elementary school. I probably would still had a disinterest in physics if it wasn't for two particular high school teachers I had.

What we need is a reform on the ways we teach science. It needs to be taught in such a way as to stimulate interest in children. We all take too much for granted and in doing so neglect the principles which have been the inspiration for innovation, or worse yet fail to see the ingenuity of the innovations in the first place. We need to come up with a way to make sure that innovation is not looked down upon. I'm not particularly sure how to accomplish such a thing but doing so, I believe, would help to create a genuine interest in the sciences.

Implicit in this argument is that the average child of previous generations had a better understanding of science. Which seems all kinds of wrong to me.

[Feldoh]

Implicit in this argument is that the average child of previous generations had a better understanding of science. Which seems all kinds of wrong to me.

Not at all. I'm merely saying that a lack of knowledge is a common side-effect of being uninterested in the sciences.

[rabbitweed]

I know quite a lot of people who have went on to do Engineering.

As for science, there's simply no money in it...when you compare it to how much time it takes to get anywhere. In my country you can spend 7 years getting a PhD in physics or spend 6 months at Police college and get the same salary.

[Pengwuino]

As for science, there's simply no money in it...when you compare it to how much time it takes to get anywhere. In my country you can spend 7 years getting a PhD in physics or spend 6 months at Police college and get the same salary.

Well that's not a fair comparison. You're not in a position where you could be killed on a daily basis as a physicist. Business is a much better comparison or nursing. Come right out of college and you could be doing very well. If you look at the economics of it, hard science majors just aren't in big enough demand and it isn't seen as the source of major financial benefits.

[TMFKAN64]

I'm afraid that it's just pure and simple economics. STEM careers require a lot of work, and while the pay isn't bad, you can probably do better elsewhere with less effort.

[Tiger99]

I don't know if there's been a change in the levels of people interested in science.
Often people talk about trying to make maths and science interesting to children, as a way to get more people to study them. I wonder about this, because I think a lot of children are put off not by a lack of interest, but by a belief that they lack the necessary aptitude for science.

I think very early on children are told whether or not they are good at science, and there's a certain cultural belief in the west that mathematical/scientific ability is almost purely innate. I certainly remember thinking "well, if I was any good, it wouldn't matter that I haven't studied - I'd still get 100%". So a lot of people learn that there's no point in learning about physics and mathematics - if it doesn't all come naturally to them without effort, then they'll never get it anyway. Even at university, it was common for lecturers and tutors to write people off because they got a bad grade as just "not having the ability to ever understand", even if the reason they got the bad grade was because they (for whatever reason) missed out on the work or didn't have the appropriate preparation.

Perhaps this is a reason why people might opt out? I think in countries where less emphasis is placed on the value of innate talent, and more on [ed: skills attained through hard work], more people might be inclined to stick it out in the sciences. But my opinions may be ill-informed.

[Tiger99]

That said, I don't know if a lack of interest in the sciences is really that big a problem. The only reason it worries me is that people really won't understand issues related to environmental problems and energy use and so forth.

[mal4mac]

I come from a UK perspective, but I think things are similar in the the US. I don't think science gets enough appreciation from "popular culture". For instance (like the US) "the Apprentice" is a very popular programme and makes "hero figures" out of business people. The same goes for sports, music, and (even!) estate agents. In the 1970s figures like Patrick Moore and James Burke were as iconic as Alan Sugar or David Beckham. They persuaded many kids (like me!)to look closely at science. Where are these iconic figres now? "Stephen Hawking?" You ask. I don't think he penetrates far enough into the popular consciousness. Kids used to watch "Sky at Night" or "Tomorrows World" every week on the TV. The latter isn't there, the former is now on at very odd hours, and doesn't have the "drive" it used to have.

[FirstYearGrad]

I disagree with the sentiment of this thread that more people should be pursuing STEM-related fields. The natural sciences are completely saturated with talent as is, even with the immense increase in funding over the past few years from the NSF/NIH. What makes the West great is that our culture doesn't hold science/engineering to be the majors everyone pursues (unlike the East) and people are free to pursue their passion. I get the distinct impression from many of my eastern classmates that they are largely being forced into the profession, which can't be good for productivity.

I feel that due to our system only the competent (or stubborn :)) will go all the way for their PhD, which is exactly how it should be. I'm not saying every competent person will go into STEM-related fields because well look at how many MIT grads go into finance, but I'd say that very few fools get far along their higher degree paths.

I think very early on children are told whether or not they are good at science, and there's a certain cultural belief in the west that mathematical/scientific ability is almost purely innate. I certainly remember thinking "well, if I was any good, it wouldn't matter that I haven't studied - I'd still get 100%".

Yeah this is true and it's wrong. I once failed two quarters in a 6th grade class on pre-algebra and logic. I got tutoring after that and 10 years later I'm at a top 5 graduate school for engineering and working in arguably the best lab for my field.

[DukeofDuke]

I have no idea what you guys are talking about.

We have like 3 grad students for every position in academia. From what I hear, the competition is intense, and you have to fight off some of the strongest minds you've ever met just to get low level entry positions.

It seems like science has plenty of disciples, and more than enough for her to be one choosy biatch. I don't understand why people are saying there aren't enough going into science. If you ask me, please reduce the number so I can actually get somewhere in academics!!

[DukeofDuke]

I come from a UK perspective, but I think things are similar in the the US. I don't think science gets enough appreciation from "popular culture". For instance (like the US) "the Apprentice" is a very popular programme and makes "hero figures" out of business people. The same goes for sports, music, and (even!) estate agents. In the 1970s figures like Patrick Moore and James Burke were as iconic as Alan Sugar or David Beckham. They persuaded many kids (like me!)to look closely at science. Where are these iconic figres now? "Stephen Hawking?" You ask. I don't think he penetrates far enough into the popular consciousness. Kids used to watch "Sky at Night" or "Tomorrows World" every week on the TV. The latter isn't there, the former is now on at very odd hours, and doesn't have the "drive" it used to have.

So you don't watch the Big Bang Theory? :rolleyes:

I want to go the opposite way and say nerdiness in general has become a lot more popularized and accepted in the last 10 years.

[avant-garde]

I'm afraid that it's just pure and simple economics. STEM careers require a lot of work, and while the pay isn't bad, you can probably do better elsewhere with less effort.

Like, where would you qualify as "elsewhere"?

[Andy Resnick]

getting an MBA requires 2 years of schooling. Law school is also a 2-year program, but then you must pass the Bar exam. There's two examples.

[Tiger99]

I disagree with the sentiment of this thread that more people should be pursuing STEM-related fields. The natural sciences are completely saturated with talent as is, even with the immense increase in funding over the past few years from the NSF/NIH. What makes this West great is that our culture doesn't hold science/engineering to be the majors everyone pursues (unlike the East) and people are free to pursue their passion. I get the distinct impression from many of my eastern classmates that they are largely being forced into the profession, which can't be good for productivity.


I agree. I think there's two issues though - the number of non-scientists who take some mathematics and science (which is perhaps too low) and the number of people who try to become scientists (which is perhaps too high).

I actually do mathematics, so I'm a bit off-centre in this discussion, but we see this all the time in discussions on the numbers of students doing mathematics in Australia (where I'm from). People keep saying there aren't enough. I wonder where I went wrong, since I did study mathematics and don't really feel like I've got much of a place in Australia (or the rest of the world for that matter - sigh), at least not one using mathematics. If there aren't enough, shouldn't I be in demand? What aren't there enough for anyway?

But then I realised what they meant - they want aspiring economists, aspiring doctors, aspiring social workers and aspiring engineers and so forth to learn some mathematics. By itself, it doesn't qualify you for much, but people in these other professions can use mathematics and science, and citizens in general can perhaps make better voting/purchasing decisions if they understand science. So it's good to get people interested, but not too interested, in case they get addicted and all start trying to pursue research careers.

[maverick_starstrider]

I have no idea what you guys are talking about.

We have like 3 grad students for every position in academia. From what I hear, the competition is intense, and you have to fight off some of the strongest minds you've ever met just to get low level entry positions.

It seems like science has plenty of disciples, and more than enough for her to be one choosy biatch. I don't understand why people are saying there aren't enough going into science. If you ask me, please reduce the number so I can actually get somewhere in academics!!

Well one could say that this is a result of lack of jobs, rather then too many workers.

[Office_Shredder]

Well one could say that this is a result of lack of jobs, rather then too many workers.

What would be the purpose of more people pursuing math and science if they can't get jobs? Do you just want to bankrupt a generation of people or something? He's identifying a potential source of the problem

[maverick_starstrider]

What would be the purpose of more people pursuing math and science if they can't get jobs? Do you just want to bankrupt a generation of people or something? He's identifying a potential source of the problem

45 years ago science was a much bigger priority for the west and thus there were more jobs. That funding plummeted during the late 70's. Now a days, especially after Bush, there is less gov't funding for science, thus less jobs. So is the situation that there are too many people in science or too little gov't funding.

[DukeofDuke]

45 years ago science was a much bigger priority for the west and thus there were more jobs. That funding plummeted during the late 70's. Now a days, especially after Bush, there is less gov't funding for science, thus less jobs. So is the situation that there are too many people in science or too little gov't funding.

This is true, but I think its inaccurate to say the fault lies in kids not pursuing the sciences "like they used to." Right now there are far more warm bodies vying for jobs in academia than there are positions available. So even if the problem is reduced government interest in science, my core point still holds: that there is still more than enough youth interest in the sciences considering the availabilities in these fields.

[maverick_starstrider]

Well I also think the job problem (though correct me if I'm wrong about this) is mostly related to bio. I've often thought they should make bio programs tougher. Less people graduate into the job market, presumably they're of better quality also. Every person who wants to be a vetrinarian and their uncle seems able to get a bio degree. As a result bio people often take ridiculously low paying jobs when they enter the job market.

[Andy Resnick]

I agree. I think there's two issues though - the number of non-scientists who take some mathematics and science (which is perhaps too low) and the number of people who try to become scientists (which is perhaps too high).

I actually do mathematics, so I'm a bit off-centre in this discussion, but we see this all the time in discussions on the numbers of students doing mathematics in Australia (where I'm from). People keep saying there aren't enough. I wonder where I went wrong, since I did study mathematics and don't really feel like I've got much of a place in Australia (or the rest of the world for that matter - sigh), at least not one using mathematics. If there aren't enough, shouldn't I be in demand? What aren't there enough for anyway?

But then I realised what they meant - they want aspiring economists, aspiring doctors, aspiring social workers and aspiring engineers and so forth to learn some mathematics. By itself, it doesn't qualify you for much, but people in these other professions can use mathematics and science, and citizens in general can perhaps make better voting/purchasing decisions if they understand science. So it's good to get people interested, but not too interested, in case they get addicted and all start trying to pursue research careers.


I completely agree with this sentiment- I think society is much better off, having a voting populace that understands the scientific method, and perhaps more to the point, understands that logical thought and objective reality are useful tools to solve problems.

[symbolipoint]

The members participating in this discussion have made some brilliant speculations regarding the apparant (or perceived) lesser frequency these days of kids taking interest in Math and Science. Two important general ways to increase likelihood of getting related jobs or better related jobs in Science, Math, or Engineering are to enroll in a concentration of other courses (possibly but not necessarily including double-majoring), and finding work experience before graduating. Further, participating in some kind of activity to maintain any kind of recent experience may be useful (because of some employers' prejudices).

Very frequently, as some latter posts express, Mathematics is mostly a TOOL for other fields.

[mordechai9]

I don't doubt that there's fewer students in science, engineering, etc. now compared to as many in the past. (Proportional to the current population, anyways).

First of all, some people claim that there are already too many people in science and engineering, academic jobs are already too competitive, etc. However, this is missing the point, because if there was more people in science/engineering, then there would be more positions, more funding and everything as a result. If 20% of our politicians were former scientists/engineers, for example, these areas would get a lot more funding, and there would be a lot more positions available.

Basically I think the problem is mainly educational/societal like other people have mentioned. The K-12 education system in the U.S. is a joke, basically. There's a lot of good teachers out there and it's not necessarily their fault. But school in the U.S. is like a daycare, with huge variation depending on neighborhood and location, lots of kids don't even learn how to read, let alone learn to become a scientist.

Societally, science and engineering are completely ignored, considering the value they impart on society. Everybody thinks math and science are so impossibly hard, you tell them you're a scientist and they say "Oh jeez I could never do that!" People don't understand science/engineering is very approachable if you just work at it over a long period of time, just like anything else. In America there isn't a lot of culture -period-, let alone cultural appreciation for something as esoteric and "drab" as science/math/engineering. Of course, it's not drab at all, but this is how it is misportrayed and interpreted. Back to the education system again.

The key fault of the educational system is it just doesn't convince anybody that anything is interesting. It's obsessed with fulfilling dictations given by the overlords in the chain of command, all down the line. There's very little motivational/inspirational type of activity. Most students don't take any "career" classes for their entire time in K-12. It's a miserable situation.

[djeitnstine]

, my core point still holds: that there is still more than enough youth interest in the sciences considering the availabilities in these fields.

Interesting, I suppose that explains the major vacuum of engineers in america at the moment. I hope this little article from forbes helps: http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/03/hard-jobs-fill-leadership-careers-employment.html written 06.03.09

A small quote: For the second year in a row, engineer is the hardest job to fill in America.

Why are engineers so hard to find? "We have whole generations of people loving liberal arts, not going into science and math," says Larry Jacobson, executive director of the National Society of Professional Engineers. ...

Also, I'm sure your statement explains why such a large number of students drop out of my degree at my university (Aerospace Engineering)

[maverick_starstrider]

Interesting, I suppose that explains the major vacuum of engineers in america at the moment. I hope this little article from forbes helps: http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/03/hard-jobs-fill-leadership-careers-employment.html written 06.03.09

A small quote:

Also, I'm sure your statement explains why such a large number of students drop out of my degree at my university (Aerospace Engineering)

Yeesh, reading that article, the job titles are so broad that I find it difficult to think of jobs that AREN'T covered in that list. Engineers, Nurses, Constructions Workers, Skilled Trade, Sales Reps, etc. that doesn't leave a whole lot out.

[DukeofDuke]

Interesting, I suppose that explains the major vacuum of engineers in america at the moment. I hope this little article from forbes helps: http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/03/hard-jobs-fill-leadership-careers-employment.html written 06.03.09

Hey, malicious sarcasm isn't cool :smile:


Note that "physics professor" wasn't on that list. Maybe I'm wrong in this respect, but when I read "interests in the sciences" I assumed we were talking about interest in scientific research, not interest in applied sciences.

In that case I'd like to note that biology is usually a school's second or third most popular major after business/econ and psych.

[avant-garde]

^ do you think that's because a lot of pre-med students choose biology as their major? what do biologists do for a living?

[djeitnstine]

Hey, malicious sarcasm isn't cool :smile:


Im sorry I did not intend for it to come across so malicious. But I couldn't keep from pointing out the facts.

[DukeofDuke]

Im sorry I did not intend for it to come across so malicious. But I couldn't keep from pointing out the facts.

More sarcasm :rolleyes:

Like I said before, I was referring to interest in physics more than I was interest in engineering. This is why all my comments referred specifically to the oversaturation of PhD's looking for academic positions, in comparison to the available positions. Spend a few hours on this forum, and the topic will inevitably come up...

[DukeofDuke]

^ do you think that's because a lot of pre-med students choose biology as their major? what do biologists do for a living?

I think biology is one of those "standard" majors you pick if you don't know what to do. And then there are the premeds too. Also, a lot of people around where I live go into biotech jobs, synthesizing biochemicals and such. Its actually a pretty big job presence around here (I live in the Research Triangle Park, the Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill area that has the most PhD's per unit area in the world).

[DukeofDuke]

I completely agree with this sentiment- I think society is much better off, having a voting populace that understands the scientific method, and perhaps more to the point, understands that logical thought and objective reality are useful tools to solve problems.

Priority number one: High school science classes MUST mention that a theory is not "just a theory." I somehow doubt the Republican Party would be able to use the religious right and more moderate elements of that faction as easily if they understood some basic scientific concepts. ID would be much less of an issue if people realized how much had to be done before something could be taught as "just a theory."

[djeitnstine]

More sarcasm :rolleyes:


I think you misread my post. Anyhow, I give this interesting article from times which discusses the topic at hand as it applies to the general public

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1912548,00.html

[rabbitweed]

I completely agree with this sentiment- I think society is much better off, having a voting populace that understands the scientific method, and perhaps more to the point, understands that logical thought and objective reality are useful tools to solve problems.

I think you really over estimate the intelligence of humanity as a whole.

I spent a few years between high school and university pretty much working any bottom of the barrel of the jobs I can get, and I find as a result my faith in humanity is much, much lower than all my student and academic peers. There are many people out there who have never really rubbed shoulders with the morons of society.

[avant-garde]

I'm afraid that it's just pure and simple economics. STEM careers require a lot of work, and while the pay isn't bad, you can probably do better elsewhere with less effort.
Yeah but... when people start to realize this, won't they all go in that direction? And then it will create a surplus in that field that requires "less effort," thus driving salaries down.

Haven't we seen this with law degrees? Soon it will happen to undergraduate business?

[ralilu]

i love that reply avant-garde

[DukeofDuke]

Yeah but... when people start to realize this, won't they all go in that direction? And then it will create a surplus in that field that requires "less effort," thus driving salaries down.

Haven't we seen this with law degrees? Soon it will happen to undergraduate business?

Not unless our system radically changes. Science is usually not short term profitable, in that gains are hard to measure and only happen over time. Modern economics demands quarterly bottom lines...so unless we have a systematic overhaul the big bucks probably won't go to the scientists in the room.

[chiro]

In australia we are trying to get more scientists and engineers by reducing the cost of the degree.

I've found when speaking to other people when they find out I'm doing math is that they say "Ohhh" and then they say something along the lines "Wow you must be smart".

It seems that a lot of people have bad experiences with learning math and although math does not equal science, a lot of scientific endeavours require math in order to think logically and move from idea to establishing a theory or conjecture or hypothesis.

Personally I think the only way this is going to change is to get skilled people in math (think uni professors and lecturers) to go to schools and teach kids not only what math is all about but why we do math. If people aren't interested then fine to each their own. But if they are interested but struggling then that is where someone skilled can step in correcting the mistakes and perceptions of that student.

Another thing I've found is that in general education is a thing whereby in most subjects students aren't actively engaged in learning, they are simply tested on how well they can memorize and slightly process what they are meant to know. I believe that people in general do not learn with a bunch of theorems shoved down their throat but learn through discovery.

Another thing with science is that there is the perception that one can't make sufficient amounts of money in that career. I would argue against this if the student had business acumen and learned to combine science with business and go where the money is. Many people have done this and come out very well in the end.

If we are to get more people into these areas we need to think about what the perceived incentives are. Money only goes so far. Recognition goes pretty far. People like recognition. People want to acknowledged and rewarded for doing something hard.

I think one thing with science and engineering is that people have to realize that they
can do more than just engineering or science after they complete that degree. You can tell people about MBA's advisory or consultant jobs, political jobs, development roles the list is endless. If students realized that degrees didn't confine their options then I think students would be more willing and open to undertaking these degrees. Thats just my opinion though.

[Sankaku]

I think you really over estimate the intelligence of humanity as a whole.... (snip)

There are many people out there who have never really rubbed shoulders with the morons of society.

While I like to think of myself as an optimist, in my darker moments I have to agree with you. We still have to do our best to make sure non-science students leave school/university with a solid understanding of what science actually is. Our future depends on it. Without that understanding, people will continue to make incredibly destructive decisions - both at a personal and at a national level.

[avant-garde]

Not unless our system radically changes. Science is usually not short term profitable, in that gains are hard to measure and only happen over time. Modern economics demands quarterly bottom lines...so unless we have a systematic overhaul the big bucks probably won't go to the scientists in the room.

Yeah, but what about engineers/programmers who work in the corporate world?

[TMFKAN64]

Engineers in industry do well... but the "big bucks" are in management/marketing/sales. Which, to be honest, is probably where they should be. Companies need engineers to build a product. But it is *far* more important that they are able to sell this product for revenue.

Good marketing beats good engineering every single time.

[DukeofDuke]

Good marketing beats good engineering every single time.

At making money, yes, not at making better products.

[Tiger99]

Personally I think the only way this is going to change is to get skilled people in math (think uni professors and lecturers) to go to schools and teach kids not only what math is all about but why we do math. If people aren't interested then fine to each their own. But if they are interested but struggling then that is where someone skilled can step in correcting the mistakes and perceptions of that student.


You might be pleased to know that the CSIRO's launched a program to do just that: http://austmaths.wordpress.com/2009/08/15/mathematicians-in-schools/
Or maybe you already knew?

[Troponin]

My early years were a perfect storm for producing students that did not want to pursue math or science.
First is "no child left behind." I don't know what others take is on this, but in my experience it is more along the lines of "no child allowed to excel."
Classes are taught at the level of the average student....at the pace of the slowest students.

Add to that the fact that being smart is "lame."
It's "cool" to be good at sports. Being smart, especially in math and science is (in my experience) the exact opposite of cool.
It's not just the kids that perpetuate this. Even our math teachers would make jokes and innuendos about math being for "dorks."

It took me 29 years to finally "accept" math. I was so sure I hated it that I never let myself realize I love it.

Hell, even today, when my wife and I visit my parents and my Father asks me about "life," the second I mention Physics, Math, or studying, he says something along the lines of "I gotta party with you!" or "That sounds like my kind of Saturday night. You must be a BLAST to hang out with."

I'd have to guess there are a lot of people my age out there who could/would have gone into math or science if some of the above things affected them a little bit different.

[bleedblue1234]

The problem with most students today is that most fields in most sciences (economics, physics, mathematics, biology, etc.) are so very specialized and require literally years and thousands and thousands of hours of effort to truly appreciate and do revolutionary work in the field.

I don't think there will be many Isaac Newtons or even Einsteins running around as we move well into the 21st century, just because even the smartest of minds can only accomplish so much, and much of what is quote "easy" to discover has been done so already.

Maybe with further advances in computer technology and a genetic engineering we can create far more intelligent humans, but as it stands right now to do truly revolutionary work in a field of science requires years of dedication for a cause most people see as fruitless or "whats the point?".

There are no more "renaissance" men... and with the death of many of the true "famous" scientists, so goes most peoples interest in science itself...

[Phyisab****]

Lack of attractive women.

[chiro]

You might be pleased to know that the CSIRO's launched a program to do just that: http://austmaths.wordpress.com/2009/08/15/mathematicians-in-schools/
Or maybe you already knew?

Hey there thanks for the heads up. Thats great news, a great initiative.

[TMFKAN64]

At making money, yes, not at making better products.

Well, of course. But we were talking about where the "big bucks" were... and unsurprisingly, they're with the people who bring in the money.

[Sankaku]

It's "cool" to be good at sports. Being smart, especially in math and science is (in my experience) the exact opposite of cool.
This is a significant problem. If you are lucky to go to an elite school, this kind of peer response is more rare, but for most of us it is a huge obstacle. I can only think that it is a defence reaction to feeling inadequate when someone you know is smarter than you (or works harder than you).

In schools, the teaching is only half the battle. The 'learning culture' is the other half. If kids are actively discouraged from learning by their peers, it almost doesn't matter what kind of excellent science teachers are in the schools. I am a firm believer in equal education for all, but stuff like this makes me realize why some parents send their kids to private schools.

It evens out by University to some degree, because students are paying for their own education (mostly) and have found their path by then (mostly). However, for many people the damage has already been done.

I think it isn't an issue of enough people going into the hard sciences. Rather it is an issue with non-scientists having a solid science background. If everyone who went through university had to have decent skills of rational scientific thought, we wouldn't see so many 'well educated' idiots making policy and business decisions that we all regret.

[Office_Shredder]

My early years were a perfect storm for producing students that did not want to pursue math or science.
First is "no child left behind." I don't know what others take is on this, but in my experience it is more along the lines of "no child allowed to excel."
Classes are taught at the level of the average student....at the pace of the slowest students

...

It took me 29 years to finally "accept" math. I was so sure I hated it that I never let myself realize I love it.

In all fairness, No Child Left Behind was passed way after you left your early years

[Troponin]

In all fairness, No Child Left Behind was passed way after you left your early years


Fair enough. I didn't really word it well anyway. My formative years were a perfect storm for "learning" that school was pointless.

The classes were still taught at the level of the average student at the pace of the slowest students. In a situation like that, it is very easy for the top students to lose interest unless they have someone to influence them against that.
Not that I was one of those top students.....I wasn't.

I really just used the no child left behind so that I could say it should be called "no child allowed to excel."

Regardless, I come from a blue collar family in a blue collar town. My beliefs growing up were that sports were what was "important" about school. Math was lame, studying was for dorks, and you just had fun playing sports and partying until it was time to get a shitty job and start a family.

I'm not blaming my upbringing for that, I just wish I had the maturity to realize how stupid that view is.

My high school Algebra teacher would make jokes about how we'd never need algebra in the "real world," but it shows colleges that you're willing to suffer through it anyway.

Like I said, my Father pokes fun at me for going back to school. If we're at a family gathering, as soon as the topic of me going back to school comes up....it turns into a mess of sarcastic comments like "you must be a RIOT to party with!"
Then I hear "what are you going to do with that math?"
"will you ever use that stuff"
"what so fun about adding numbers all day?"

I actually tried to tell my Mother that math isn't "really" about numbers....but she argued with me that I was wrong...


I'm sure it's over-dramatized, but you read about Feynman's school years and you hear about his physics professor giving him an Advanced Calc book, or how his math teacher would give him and his buddy special problems to take home and try to work out. That would never have happened when I was in school. Hell, I think the physics professor would be punished for not making the student follow along with what he was supposed to be learning.
And if a kid were staying after hours with a teacher and becoming friendly...the teacher would be punished for giving that kid special treatment.


I really don't want to sound like I'm whining about my school years. I loved school. I was captain of the football and baseball teams. I was a two time small college All-american in football. I had a great time in school. I just wish I let myself take a different view about education. As a kid I dreamed about being a scientist. I was certain I would be the first astronaut archaeologist who figured out how to travel faster than the speed of light. Unfortunately my experiences made it harder to maintain that view, and very easy to take the view I did.


I sound like a major f'n cry baby.....

[sportsstar469]

i know this may sound a bit....idk far fetched to some of you guys on this forum. but not everybody is a math/science expert, or has a passion to do any of that stuff. and yes not everyone wants to learn something hard because they are lazy. some people just cant do math no matter how much they try. i am a 19 year old college student..turning 20 in a week or two, and i am only i ncollege algebra/trig. we havent even covered the trig yet, but i do not find the algebra portion easy like most of you guys here would. hell i struggle finding the range of a function from a formula.some people just arent good at math. would you guys rather have everyone puruse a science degree and have non competent individuals trying to perform scientific breakthroughs?

[Sankaku]

I agree that not everyone needs to go into the sciences.
some people just cant do math no matter how much they try.
I think there is a small minority of people who really have difficulty with math (like a math dyslexia). However, most people who think they are bad at math have just been robbed by their schooling at an earlier age. If you are having trouble with algebra at age 19, then there are 3 possibilities:

1) You really are bad at math: Unlikely, but possible.
2) You are a slow starter: In which case, if you have good teaching and motivation starting now, you could make up for lost time and do well.
3) You are just as capable at math as most of us, but have been confused by bad teaching and negative peer pressure (see troponin's post) and now feel out of your depth. Again, if you have good teaching and motivation starting now, you will catch up fine.

Option number 3 is very very common.

[symbolipoint]

Let me say something that will rile some nerves here: Students have better opportunity to learn Mathematics if they stay out of the common typical minimum Math courses in high school but attend only the college preparatory Math courses of Algebra 1, Geometry, Algebra 2, MathAnalysis/PreCalculus/Statistics/IntroCalculus. The material is more thorough and of better quality and motivation (what kind) is often clearer, and the material is taught often from teachers who have a deeper Mathematical background than from non-college prep. teachers.

I am NOT insisting that this is universally true. It is only a partly experienced impression.

[sportsstar469]

I agree that not everyone needs to go into the sciences.

I think there is a small minority of people who really have difficulty with math (like a math dyslexia). However, most people who think they are bad at math have just been robbed by their schooling at an earlier age. If you are having trouble with algebra at age 19, then there are 3 possibilities:

1) You really are bad at math: Unlikely, but possible.
2) You are a slow starter: In which case, if you have good teaching and motivation starting now, you could make up for lost time and do well.
3) You are just as capable at math as most of us, but have been confused by bad teaching and negative peer pressure (see troponin's post) and now feel out of your depth. Again, if you have good teaching and motivation starting now, you will catch up fine.

Option number 3 is very very common.

well if you dont mind id like to give you a little history on my math career(if youd like to call a 19-20 year olds school history that)
in 6th grade i was in the normal math class, apparently the teachers thought i was doing to well in that class and put me in the higher level math class. keep in mind there were kids who were place din the higher level math class FROM the begining of the year based on 5th grade i guess. but never the less i was deemed ''smarter at math'' than my fellow average math classmates. at the end of 6th grade we took a math and english placement test. i placed into pre algebra for 7th grade which im sure most of you know is the higher level math class. there's math and pre algebra. its here that my difficulties with math began. i got alike a 40-50 percent final grade in that class. i just couldnt keep up with the class's concepts. i then repeated pre algebra in 8th grade and passed it with a b?
i went onto algebra in 9th grade, and once agai nwas completely lost. i failed it. the counnselor decided to put me intop ''intermeidate'' algebra which is a class lower than algebra 1 for the start of my 10th grade year. i got kicked out of my highschool during my tenth grade year. i wont go into that,but i got into a fight with a kid and thats wh y igot thrown out..theres more to the story but that is irrelevant. SO from my 10th grade to 12th grade i layed and rotted in alternative school. my mind was sitting with no stimulation.
i took intermeidate algebra agai nat alternative school, then cheated my way to an A in geometry..and never took any mroe math except for a ''checking'' class.
still got a highschool diploma.
when i got to college itook the placement test and got like 99 on the english and reading part, s and like 90 on the arithmitic parts. i got a 40 on the algebra parts. i was palced i n an elementary algebra class which i aced. since i was behind i took an algebra 2/intro to right triangle trig course, in the 6 week summer session this past summer. i also got an A in that. now i am in college algebra /trig and i think theres some pre calc we go into at the end but im not sure. im not trying super hard, and i did get a 100 on the first quiz we had, but the last quiz we had i think i bombed(like a 70-80 if im lucky). i havent been doing the homework, but thats no excuse. algebra should come naturally to a college student. ALSO i got A'S in my other two math classes because iwould go for tutoring and extra teacher help EVERY DAY making sure to never fall behind. i had great math teachers so its not their fault. i also have a great math teacher this term, and i go to her for extra help after EVERY CLASS. i also go to the amth tutoring lab. however, if i dont understand a concept, it doesnt matter how many times the tutors explain it to me, as theyre talking nothing gets absorbed, and it just seeps through my head until every last ounce of substance saidd pusses outt he other side of my head.

well thats my situation, sorry for the long rant.

[Klockan3]

well thats my situation, sorry for the long rant.
So, what is the moral of the story? You didn't really make a point that fit the topic.

[sportsstar469]

So, what is the moral of the story? You didn't really make a point that fit the topic.

i was just explaining my background in math. it fit the topic just fine./

[Klockan3]

i was just explaining my background in math. it fit the topic just fine./
But the deal is that he weren't talking about you, he were talking about people in general. Anyway, it sounds like your problem is mostly that you don't personally care about maths, not that you can't do it.

[Sankaku]

well thats my situation, sorry for the long rant.

So, you did well at math when young. You were put in a class that moved quickly but you then had difficulty. You fell behind and then got demotivated - bouncing around in marks depending on whether you got tested on something you knew or not. Now you are finding part of math easy and part hard. You can do well if coached by good teachers but still have holes in your understanding that will take work.

Seems like you prove my point exactly.

[sportsstar469]

But the deal is that he weren't talking about you, he were talking about people in general. Anyway, it sounds like your problem is mostly that you don't personally care about maths, not that you can't do it.

werent?
anyway he did mention me in his post. but all that aside i am curious what my deal is. and i thought maybe i could get some more insight on my math abilities by giving some information about myself. although im sure noone can tell fro mthe internet but its worth a try i guess. also it explains why im not interested in doing engineering or math teaching as my profession.

i think i might be a combo. i dont care but i also cant do it. it just seems like whenever i go to the tutor or the teachers(good teachers who are nice and explain things i na variety of ways) it just goers right through me and as theyre explaining it im thinking oh man i didnt get that and they keep trying to make me explain it and im finally like yeah i got it...and walk out as confused as i came in.

[symbolipoint]

sportsstar469 has expressed his particular case why some students do not pursue Engineering/Math/Science. In contrast to so many students who do poorly in Mathematics, sportsstar469 has REPEATED the typical sequence of Math courses, and ASKED for help eventually, when he needed help, and is currently learning the course topics.

sportsstar469 has also indicated some possibly poor counseling & placement problem as he reveals in his enrollments and troubles of beginning Algebra and "Intermediate Algebra" in high school. A student would commonly need to have understood most of Algebra 1 and maintain some knowledge as a requirement to successfully studying Intermediate Algebra; The "Intermediate" course of Algebra is more advanced and an extension from Algebra 1. His being placed into Intermediate Algebra without first passing Algebra 1 was a mistake. Other general problems like this might occur in other schools, although I have only been aware of a few things like this.

[sportsstar469]

sportsstar469 has expressed his particular case why some students do not pursue Engineering/Math/Science. In contrast to so many students who do poorly in Mathematics, sportsstar469 has REPEATED the typical sequence of Math courses, and ASKED for help eventually, when he needed help, and is currently learning the course topics.

sportsstar469 has also indicated some possibly poor counseling & placement problem as he reveals in his enrollments and troubles of beginning Algebra and "Intermediate Algebra" in high school. A student would commonly need to have understood most of Algebra 1 and maintain some knowledge as a requirement to successfully studying Intermediate Algebra; The "Intermediate" course of Algebra is more advanced and an extension from Algebra 1. His being placed into Intermediate Algebra without first passing Algebra 1 was a mistake. Other general problems like this might occur in other schools, although I have only been aware of a few things like this.

i would normally agree with you, that intermediate algebra is a higher level than algebra one since in college that is how it works. but in highschool intermediate algebra was algebra 1 at a much slower pace. i never truly passed an algebra classs till i got to highschool, so i was pretty pleased when i got an A in my first class, and then i got an A in my 6 week algebra 2/trig course. idk why but ive just not cared much about school this semester.

by the way youll be happy to know chemistry is going fine. those conversions are so easy to me now, it makes me laugh to think they were hard. i mean i went from not being able to do the conversions, to solving limiting reagent problems by using the conversions at the first step! so i have come some ways./ it still takes a minute or to to go from something like a teragram/gigaliters to pounds/gallons or something like that but im pretty good at it now

[Phyisab****]

Well this thread has degenerated a little, take your personal story to another thread. But seriously, I don't think the answer to this question is that complicated. In my opinion it is some weighted combination of:

*warning this turned into a pretty angry rant by the end, sorry to be a downer but I guess part of me really feels this way*

1. From a young age, kids are taught by society in general and unfortunately, often their parents and teachers, that math and science are for geeks and nerds. Elementary school science is also taught to the lowest common denominator, which is really damn low when your in elementary school. I knew more about science in elementary school than my teachers, so that wasn't exactly going to capture the interest of anyone who had talent.

2. If for some reason you make it to middle school while maintaining an interest in math/science, you still have 6 years of low quality schooling to wade through. If you decide you really really want to be a scientist, it really doesn't matter. All you can do is keep getting A's in classes that are way too simple and unrewarding. 6 years is a long long time when you are 12.

3. If you manage to graduate high school with good grades because it was really easy or because you actually believed grandpa or someone that it would make your life better someday, you're left with the decision of actually going to college for math/science. This is when you realize math and science are more difficult than the majors of your classmates by orders of magnitude. Then you consider that your roommate is a heavy drinking business major with a cocaine habit who still gets A's in all his classes because it's that easy. This guy is going to make more money than you and have a fun time doing it. While the math/science guy is going to have to dedicate himself in a way those other guys will never understand. Subsequently, you will be rewarded by realizing you can't get a good job with that physics BS that you gave your blood, sweat, and tears to earn. Now you need to take 5 more years to get a Ph. D., with of course all the obstacles that stand in the way of that. Hopefully you really do love math/science for their intrinsic beauty or you may be near suicidal at this point. This is when you look back on your life and all you can say is damn. There really is something to be said for taking the easy way out.

It really chaps my cheeks when I hear "our kids aren't pursuing math and science the sky is falling!" You know who else isn't pursuing math and science? All the poseurs who wrote that stupid story. Why don't you take up your end up the rope a**holes. Why aren't people pursuing math and science? Because its damn hard and it isn't at all obvious that your work will be reasonable rewarded. Now of course someone is going to say as they already have on this thread "of course you aren't entitled to anything just because you worked hard and got a physics degree." I'm not saying you are. But if you're worse off than the average business student, it's really a piss poor incentive for people to go into math and science.

[comp_math]

While people may say one got to do science for the love of it, wait till you are married and have kids, have a mortgage to pay, etc. Then it will seem like your science job isn't really paying much. Also, you spend all your time doing science, and having not much time with your family or other things.

And by the way, just let your kids do what they are interested in, whether it is business or science, or whatever.

[avant-garde]

Hmmm.... most of these arguments seem to be focused on science/physics, but how effectively does it describe CS/engineering?

[Sankaku]

This is when you realize math and science are more difficult than the majors of your classmates by orders of magnitude.
So true. So true. (I liked your rant)

[Topher925]

1. From a young age, kids are taught by society in general and unfortunately, often their parents and teachers, that math and science are for geeks and nerds.

I would also like to add to this what kids, and by kids I mean me when I was a kid, are taught success to be. When in HS it was drilled into our minds that success was a high class job like a CEO at a big company, a fast car, a big boat, and a trophy wife with boobs the size of Australia. Bottom line, you are nothing unless you have status and money. Therefor, the majority of my classmates went on to pursue degrees in finance, business, law, or medicine in order to make money and be "successful".

I honestly think that society is starting to turn it around though. I'm now seeing a lot more science fairs and things like FIRST robotics that I used to. Plus when you have the president saying that the country needs more scientists and engineers since the financial system is retarded and our manufacturing base is gone, it at least gives you a little bit of hope.

[Troponin]

Well this thread has degenerated a little, take your personal story to another thread. But seriously, I don't think the answer to this question is that complicated. In my opinion it is some weighted combination of:

*warning this turned into a pretty angry rant by the end, sorry to be a downer but I guess part of me really feels this way*

1. From a young age, kids are taught by society in general and unfortunately, often their parents and teachers, that math and science are for geeks and nerds. Elementary school science is also taught to the lowest common denominator, which is really damn low when your in elementary school. I knew more about science in elementary school than my teachers, so that wasn't exactly going to capture the interest of anyone who had talent.

2. If for some reason you make it to middle school while maintaining an interest in math/science, you still have 6 years of low quality schooling to wade through. If you decide you really really want to be a scientist, it really doesn't matter. All you can do is keep getting A's in classes that are way too simple and unrewarding. 6 years is a long long time when you are 12.

3. If you manage to graduate high school with good grades because it was really easy or because you actually believed grandpa or someone that it would make your life better someday, you're left with the decision of actually going to college for math/science. This is when you realize math and science are more difficult than the majors of your classmates by orders of magnitude. Then you consider that your roommate is a heavy drinking business major with a cocaine habit who still gets A's in all his classes because it's that easy. This guy is going to make more money than you and have a fun time doing it. While the math/science guy is going to have to dedicate himself in a way those other guys will never understand. Subsequently, you will be rewarded by realizing you can't get a good job with that physics BS that you gave your blood, sweat, and tears to earn. Now you need to take 5 more years to get a Ph. D., with of course all the obstacles that stand in the way of that. Hopefully you really do love math/science for their intrinsic beauty or you may be near suicidal at this point. This is when you look back on your life and all you can say is damn. There really is something to be said for taking the easy way out.

It really chaps my cheeks when I hear "our kids aren't pursuing math and science the sky is falling!" You know who else isn't pursuing math and science? All the poseurs who wrote that stupid story. Why don't you take up your end up the rope a**holes. Why aren't people pursuing math and science? Because its damn hard and it isn't at all obvious that your work will be reasonable rewarded. Now of course someone is going to say as they already have on this thread "of course you aren't entitled to anything just because you worked hard and got a physics degree." I'm not saying you are. But if you're worse off than the average business student, it's really a piss poor incentive for people to go into math and science.

Okay, this is exactly what I 'wanted' to say, only explained much, much better. I agree 100%, and am actually a little jealous that the point is made so much better than mine. lol

[sportsstar469]

i still feel the notion that everybody can do math is very ignorant. you guys are science/math people, and you guys dont realize how much people struggle with math. im not buying that my problem is i dont care, or that i can do it with good teachers. i have a good teacher now and i dont know the stuff really. i also do not absorb anything she or the tutors say when igo for extra help. il ladmit this semester i havent done the homewerks, but i have been to class everyday for extra help, and have gone for tutoring every day so it equals out...

but yeah like isaid some people just cant learn it even when its explained to them over and over a thousand times. and for all you people on here who are good at math and are telling others they dont work hard....shame on you./

although i am not trying as hard as i can i will admit that!! i also get no benefit when going for the tutoring sessions./

[MissSilvy]

i still feel the notion that everybody can do math is very ignorant. you guys are science/math people

Everyone CAN do math, if you're of normal intelligence or above. What most people lack is the background and desire to do so. I'm afraid that most people I know are nose-to-the-bark on a particular tree instead of looking at the forest, if you understand my meaning.

The excuses 'I'm not a math person/I wasn't nurtured when I was young/I don't have the neural connections necessary to do math' to be very stupid. You're essentially blaming your shortcomings on something that's a fraction of the entire experience. It's like saying how you twisted your leg that one time during peewee baseball and that's why you never made it to the big leagues. There's far, far more to it than that and the reason most people seek refuge in these inane excuses is that they take the pressure off of you; after all, how could you HELP that your parents didn't make you do calculus before you were 10 or that your brain isn't two times as fast as a normal persons? Your failure at math simply MUST be due to things beyond your control. Or is it?

[Sankaku]

you guys dont realize how much people struggle with math.
No, you don't realize that we (who you think are 'good at math') have to work just as hard, worry that we are not brilliant, and get confused just like everyone else. There are very few people who are genius level in math. All the rest of us just work hard because we desperately WANT to understand. Don't worry about comparing yourself to other people.

If you have some foundational part of math missing from earlier in your schooling, it will make large parts of the subject hard to grasp. Once you have filled in the missing puzzle pieces, everything else will make sense (with normal hard work).

Otherwise, you are just handicapped and should give up now. I will let you make that decision.

[sportsstar469]

No, you don't realize that we (who you think are 'good at math') have to work just as hard, worry that we are not brilliant, and get confused just like everyone else. There are very few people who are genius level in math. All the rest of us just work hard because we desperately WANT to understand. Don't worry about comparing yourself to other people.

If you have some foundational part of math missing from earlier in your schooling, it will make large parts of the subject hard to grasp. Once you have filled in the missing puzzle pieces, everything else will make sense (with normal hard work).

Otherwise, you are just handicapped and should give up now. I will let you make that decision.

sure everyone can do some sort of math, but not everyone can do high level math and thats fact. and no you dont get AS confused as others. ive spoken to people who are in calculus 3 classes which is probably much lower than most people here who are on the road to physics. they say calc 1 was easy, and calc 2 they started struggling. these people got c pluses in calc 2 so they're not really math wizards. my school has remedial classes which start at fractions and whole numbers lol. not everyone has the ability to do math. i still HATE fractions and decimals. ive been contemplating switching my degree from premed to elementary education since math requirements are much lower. id like to switch to psychology but i assume you need a lot of math to get a phd inpsych? i know you need at least stats.

but yeah telling me to give up now makes you an ***./

[Sankaku]

ive been contemplating switching my degree from premed to elementary education since math requirements are much lower.
With your attitude toward learning, I hope you never become a school teacher.

"Sorry little Jimmy, you just suck at math and there is nothing you can do about it!"

You would be all kinds of inspiration. In fact, you would be propagating exactly the kind of unfairness that made you hate math in the first place.

If pointing that out makes me an ***, then so be it.

[avant-garde]

Basically, if you can READ any text and comprehend those ideas, then you can do MATH. Math and reading are symbolic in nature.

[MissSilvy]

but yeah telling me to give up now makes you an ***./

While I agree, the statement may have been a bit unnecessarily harsh, sitting here and whining instead of trying to remedy your situation makes you seem a bit silly. And when all you do is moan about how no matter what you do, you'll never succeed, what sort of response were you expecting, exactly?

[Klockan3]

Everyone CAN do math, if you're of normal intelligence or above.
While I agree that sportsstar469 is a bit overly negative I don't agree with this. It is very easy to overestimate what "normal" intelligence is since most of your friends and such comes from the upper tiers since similar attracts.

Think like this, only ~15% of graduating HS students even take the first calculus class so those are certainly not a good representation of normal, you will have to go back to middle school and look at those. And yes, there most do struggle with simple things like fundamental algebra. There are just like 5 rules they need to learn, it can't be that hard right?

The problem is that if you have a bit of talent for maths then you will not see the problem those face. You will just see it like this since you don't notice the difference between doing maths and following a recipe from a cookbook:
Basically, if you can READ any text and comprehend those ideas, then you can do MATH. Math and reading are symbolic in nature.

Edit:
And when all you do is moan about how no matter what you do, you'll never succeed, what sort of response were you expecting, exactly?
If you read the story you would see that this isn't the case, this is coming after a lot of trying.

Edit edit: And yes, while maths is hard for everyone it starts to get hard at different stages and that is certainly not something that only comes from psychological effects. Also even for the talented it is usually harder than other subjects anyway, the easy way out is always tempting. With this I want to say that there certainly are people who don't do any maths who are really smart, and most who study some kind of maths later do underestimate their place on the intellectual gauss curve. You really do feel like an idiot when you study something you have no clue about. And since you never study something you understand in maths you will feel like an idiot constantly.

[clope023]

sure everyone can do some sort of math, but not everyone can do high level math and thats fact. and no you dont get AS confused as others. ive spoken to people who are in calculus 3 classes which is probably much lower than most people here who are on the road to physics. they say calc 1 was easy, and calc 2 they started struggling. these people got c pluses in calc 2 so they're not really math wizards. my school has remedial classes which start at fractions and whole numbers lol. not everyone has the ability to do math. i still HATE fractions and decimals. ive been contemplating switching my degree from premed to elementary education since math requirements are much lower. id like to switch to psychology but i assume you need a lot of math to get a phd inpsych? i know you need at least stats.

but yeah telling me to give up now makes you an ***./

calc 3 sounds hard but it really was the easiest of the calcs, calc 1 was hardest followed by calc 2 for btw I started college in remedial algebra; physics undergrad majors take calc1-3 followed by differential equations, partial differentials and linear algebra and perhaps 1 or 2 more maths not much more than engineering undergrads (physicists know math better though, god forbid an ee in my school is without his TI-89 ugh)

if I had stuck to what I had inate ability with I would've been an art major (and yes inate ability does exist, normally the people who say it doesn't actually have it but are somehow offended at the fact that they're being told that its their talent and not their hard that is the reason for their success, its a little bit of both); I eventually found math/physics quite beautiful even though I was struggling with it so I stuck with it

so yes genetics has a say in everything that you do but anyone ANYONE can make progress and yes understand math you just have to put in the hours, my friends who are math majors work their assess off for hours in the library everyday for their classes, they sometimes don't go home and sleep over in the math department so they can get up just study more right away for their exams, it takes that kind of dedication in some instances the subject can be that hard but its not impossible

[arunma]

Finally this thread got moved to a more appropriate forum.

I haven't read through all the posts, so forgive me if this has already been stated. I noticed in the OP that Friedman points out that the percentage of scientists who are American is what is decreasing. Those of us who are Americans and physics grad students can probably attest to the following fact: we are essentially minorities in our own departments. Maybe I'm flat out wrong, but I wonder if part of the problem regarding the lack of American scientists is that Americans are now finding it difficult to get into our own graduate schools, because we are competing with applicants from overseas. Unlike Americans, students in China and, to a lesser extent, India are trained to do physics problems (which isn't the same thing as studying physics), and prepare much longer for the GRE than we do. That's why most of us have pGRE scores in the 40th to 50th %-ile, whereas our fellow grad students from overseas are scoring in the 90s. Of course I'm all for letting people into grad school on the basis of merit, but something has gone terribly wrong when American taxpayers are footing the bill to educate so many students from other countries while denying that education to our own citizens.

At this point you all probably think I'm some Southern racist guy who wants to close off our borders. I assure you that I take no issue with immigration from other countries. In fact, in principle I don't even have problem with immigration for the purpose of going to grad school here. In fact, both of my parents emigrated here from India so that my dad could go to grad school, so I recognize that there is some value in bringing foreign students to study here. But I think that we're going overboard when 8 students out of a first year physics graduate class of 15 are non-Americans (this is the typical ratio in my department, and I've heard that other departments are the same). It should be no surprise that America isn't producing American scientists; we're too busy producing scientists for other nations! If we want more Americans to go into the physical sciences, then why not require that public schools admit a larger percentage of Americans?

I'd like to consider a toy model here. In your typical physics graduate program, you get around 200 applications a year, and admit something like 30 students. Assuming the citizen to non-citizen ratios of admitted and matriculating students are the same, this means that only 15 of the admitted students are Americans. I have trouble believing that the next 10 or so Americans on the list of applicants are so woefully underqualified as to not merit admission into the graduate program. Instead of admitting 15 foreign students, why not admit an additional 10 to 12 Americans, and only 3-5 non-Americans? This would be an excellent way of producing more American scientists, while using the American tax dollars that go to the department for their intended purpose.

Anyway, there's my take on this, based on my experiences in grad school. Hopefully no one will yell at me.

[MissSilvy]

and yes inate ability does exist, normally the people who say it doesn't actually have it but are somehow offended at the fact that they're being told that its their talent and not their hard that is the reason for their success, its a little bit of both

I hope to god you're not a science major, because that was the most unjustified and smarmy-sounding hypothesis-posed-as-fact that I have EVER seen. Good to know you've cited studies or at least provided some support for your outrageous claim. Oh wait, you declared it to be true despite any dissenting opinion? Bugger.

[sportsstar469]

While I agree that sportsstar469 is a bit overly negative I don't agree with this. It is very easy to overestimate what "normal" intelligence is since most of your friends and such comes from the upper tiers since similar attracts.

Think like this, only ~15% of graduating HS students even take the first calculus class so those are certainly not a good representation of normal, you will have to go back to middle school and look at those. And yes, there most do struggle with simple things like fundamental algebra. There are just like 5 rules they need to learn, it can't be that hard right?

The problem is that if you have a bit of talent for maths then you will not see the problem those face. You will just see it like this since you don't notice the difference between doing maths and following a recipe from a cookbook:


Edit:

If you read the story you would see that this isn't the case, this is coming after a lot of trying.

Edit edit: And yes, while maths is hard for everyone it starts to get hard at different stages and that is certainly not something that only comes from psychological effects. Also even for the talented it is usually harder than other subjects anyway, the easy way out is always tempting. With this I want to say that there certainly are people who don't do any maths who are really smart, and most who study some kind of maths later do underestimate their place on the intellectual gauss curve. You really do feel like an idiot when you study something you have no clue about. And since you never study something you understand in maths you will feel like an idiot constantly.
EXACTLY!!! math gets hard for people at different stages. like i said my friend was able to do calc 1 and with ease, then struggled in calc 2 and got a c. now he sin calc 3 and says hes confused but calc 2 and 3 are hard but not super hard just that hes struggling. to compare a guy like me who isnt strong in algebra to someone like that, and to say that i could do that is just stupid. everyone here neds to get off their high horse.
i know having a negative attitude is bad but klockan is right missy you need to read my story. i actually feel bad for some people in my school. i think i have the ability if i put more work into this course to MAYBE get an a in it, and then get a b in precalc MAYBE. however there's a math major in my class who got a 40 on his first quiz and a 40 on his second quiz, and i see him study way more than i do. my quiz averages so far are a 100 on the first quiz, and a 73 on this quiz we just had. i think if i prepared more i might have gotten a 90 but i might not have. what matters is that i ace my test on Monday and get at least an 80 on Wednesdays quiz. although im not really trying my hardest./ it just gets frustrating when i do try and the tutors don't make sense to me.
calc 3 sounds hard but it really was the easiest of the calcs, calc 1 was hardest followed by calc 2 for btw I started college in remedial algebra; physics undergrad majors take calc1-3 followed by differential equations, partial differentials and linear algebra and perhaps 1 or 2 more maths not much more than engineering undergrads (physicists know math better though, god forbid an ee in my school is without his TI-89 ugh)

if I had stuck to what I had inate ability with I would've been an art major (and yes inate ability does exist, normally the people who say it doesn't actually have it but are somehow offended at the fact that they're being told that its their talent and not their hard that is the reason for their success, its a little bit of both); I eventually found math/physics quite beautiful even though I was struggling with it so I stuck with it

so yes genetics has a say in everything that you do but anyone ANYONE can make progress and yes understand math you just have to put in the hours, my friends who are math majors work their assess off for hours in the library everyday for their classes, they sometimes don't go home and sleep over in the math department so they can get up just study more right away for their exams, it takes that kind of dedication in some instances the subject can be that hard but its not impossible
well the person i talked to said calc 3 is harder for him because its totally different than calc 1 and 2, and because its multivariable and he doesn't know how to solve for areas and stuff..idk. but yeah that's pretty cool you started college in remedial algebra and got up as high as you did! are you sure you're not naturally good at math but just didn't have proper high school teachers? im sure there's some aptitude there to get up to the maths./

[avant-garde]

And when all you do is moan about how no matter what you do, you'll never succeed, what sort of response were you expecting, exactly?

Wait... didn't you make a thread about this in some other subforum?
I think it was "'Major in what you passionate in!' and other useless platitudes..."

[MissSilvy]

Wait... didn't you make a thread about this in some other subforum?
I think it was "'Major in what you passionate in!' and other useless platitudes..."

My thread was referencing the trite and useless statements that people often utter to those deciding on majors. I didn't say "Waaah, math is hard so it's not my fault I suck at it!". Difference, see? :)

[clope023]

EXACTLY!!! math gets hard for people at different stages. like i said my friend was able to do calc 1 and with ease, then struggled in calc 2 and got a c. now he sin calc 3 and says hes confused but calc 2 and 3 are hard but not super hard just that hes struggling. to compare a guy like me who isnt strong in algebra to someone like that, and to say that i could do that is just stupid. everyone here neds to get off their high horse.
i know having a negative attitude is bad but klockan is right missy you need to read my story. i actually feel bad for some people in my school. i think i have the ability if i put more work into this course to MAYBE get an a in it, and then get a b in precalc MAYBE. however there's a math major in my class who got a 40 on his first quiz and a 40 on his second quiz, and i see him study way more than i do. my quiz averages so far are a 100 on the first quiz, and a 73 on this quiz we just had. i think if i prepared more i might have gotten a 90 but i might not have. what matters is that i ace my test on Monday and get at least an 80 on Wednesdays quiz. although im not really trying my hardest./ it just gets frustrating when i do try and the tutors don't make sense to me.

well the person i talked to said calc 3 is harder for him because its totally different than calc 1 and 2, and because its multivariable and he doesn't know how to solve for areas and stuff..idk. but yeah that's pretty cool you started college in remedial algebra and got up as high as you did! are you sure you're not naturally good at math but just didn't have proper high school teachers? im sure there's some aptitude there to get up to the maths./

hell no I'm not naturally good at math, again I do believe there are people out there that are but I'm not one of them; my high school teachers were fine I was just lazy with regards to math and school in general up to high school and early college; calc 3 isn't even that high of a math, yeah for non-science/engineering majors that sounds hard but really in engineering and physics that stuff is just standard material everyone has to know so I guess for me it doesn't seem that hard anymore, you have to actually like if you're going to grind through it though, plenty of engineers in my school end up business or management types cause they get fed up with having to do all the hard calculations, I actually like it when my teachers bust out some pure math now, lol; maybe your tutors just suck, not everyone who understands math has the ability to put it into plain english

[sportsstar469]

hell no I'm not naturally good at math, again I do believe there are people out there that are but I'm not one of them; my high school teachers were fine I was just lazy with regards to math and school in general up to high school and early college; calc 3 isn't even that high of a math, yeah for non-science/engineering majors that sounds hard but really in engineering and physics that stuff is just standard material everyone has to know so I guess for me it doesn't seem that hard anymore, you have to actually like if you're going to grind through it though, plenty of engineers in my school end up business or management types cause they get fed up with having to do all the hard calculations, I actually like it when my teachers bust out some pure math now, lol; maybe your tutors just suck, not everyone who understands math has the ability to put it into plain english

well yeah i know that calc 3 isnt too high for physics, but physics and math majors are geniuses....
i still consider even calculus to be a pretty high level of math.

but anyway back to the question of if you are really good at math or not. i notice you said yooure not good at math, however you said the reason was you were lazy in highschool and early colleger. i think you might be good at math but are just confusing being lazy and being bad at math. 2was remedieal algebra and beyond, really easy ONCE you applied yourself?

i mean im not doing the worst in the class, thers a amth major in my class who got a 40 on the first and the second quiz. actually, i usually am in the top percentile of my classes. although i dont care anymore. i am just lazy too. like i have a math quiz tomorrow and a math test on monday and i havent even studied once.

i mean i dont understand if im bad at math or not. i got a 100 on my first quiz with out studying too hard, and a 73 on my second quiz with like 10 minutes of studying(so could ahve maybe been a 90 if i worked hard), and i was palced i nall the high math classes from 6yh-7th ggrade...although i failed them lol.

so those are pros. however the cons are that when a tutor or teacher explains something THAT I DONT KNOW i dont comprehend it.

and nah, the math tutors at m yschool are pretty good, its just me. i go to the same gu yall the time, because i found him the ''easiest'' to understand. i also go to my teacher, but they both dont make much sense to me. my adjunct in the summer class was great though!

btw i dont know who on this forum said that calc 3 was the easiest calc, but i told my friend in bio what you said, and hes like yeah right HAHA. he thinks he failed or got a D on his test today.

[Klockan3]

hell no I'm not naturally good at math, again I do believe there are people out there that are but I'm not one of them; my high school teachers were fine I was just lazy with regards to math and school in general up to high school and early college;
If you were lazy and still managed to get through high school and early college maths then you are better off than ~80-90% of the population depending on which courses you are talking about and how you define lazy.

btw i dont know who on this forum said that calc 3 was the easiest calc, but i told my friend in bio what you said, and hes like yeah right HAHA. he thinks he failed or got a D on his test today.
It is the easiest calc if you have good intuition of 3d spaces.

[DukeofDuke]

well yeah i know that calc 3 isnt too high for physics, but physics and math majors are geniuses....
i still consider even calculus to be a pretty high level of math.


Nah man, Calculus is mainly just new forms of computation. That's hardly math. If your textbook doesn't have more than a total of 10 proofs, its certainly not mathematics (and calculus books mainly have definitions that you merely execute).

Don't get me wrong, computation courses can be hard. But I think one major reason why so many people shy away from "math" is because they've been taught computation their whole lives, so they don't know how interesting mathematics can actually be.

And a smart kid once told me that people usually throw around the term "genius" so they don't have to admit the other person is just normal- that the other person is actually in our league, and they had to work for their knowledge. We say they are a "genius" so we never have to compete with them, so we can acknowledge and dismiss their success without engaging our sense of competition, so we can avoid having to compare to them. But its not because they are actually geniuses. I am a physics math double major at a pretty rigorous school, and I am not sure if I know a single genius.

[Klockan3]

People in my classes calls me a genius. But you are probably right, it is most likely because they don't want to compete. But on the other hand, when I can take twice the course load without studying at all outside of classes and still get better grades than most of them it wouldn't be fair for them having to compete with me.

It isn't about genius or not, it is about small differences stacking up. If it takes them twice as long to understand things than it takes for you, it means that the scheduled classes are just half as effective for them at best, worthless at worst since it might go so fast that they don't have time to comprehend anything. Since lectures are extremely valuable in learning subjects like this it will lose them a ton of time outside of class, after a while it will get impossible to keep up.

Just because you still have to work a lot do not mean that you aren't smart. That one is important to not forget. I constantly have moments when I feel like an idiot, when some things just seems intangible and the second time everything seems obvious so it feels like I was stupid for not realizing it sooner. It is hard to not feel stupid when studying maths/physics.

Maths is not promiscuous.

Edit: Also about computational vs theoretical maths, have you ever seen what happens if you try to incorporate real maths into a standard computational class? Chaos, people understands less when they walk away from the lecture than when they went there since it is not made to be understood easily by intuition like casaul maths. So all that happens is that everyone stops going to the lectures and your course fails. It isn't that pure maths is hidden from them, it is that to most pure maths is their biggest nightmare so it is more to protect their minds than anything else.

Of course when you have gotten a firm grasp of the basics of computational then the real thing can be quite a sight, but until then it is just a chaotic mess of horrible intangible theorems which are seemingly worthless for everything.

[DukeofDuke]

People in my classes calls me a genius. But you are probably right, it is most likely because they don't want to compete. But on the other hand, when I can take twice the course load without studying at all outside of classes and still get better grades than most of them it wouldn't be fair for them having to compete with me.

It isn't about genius or not, it is about small differences stacking up. If it takes them twice as long to understand things than it takes for you, it means that the scheduled classes are just half as effective for them at best, worthless at worst since it might go so fast that they don't have time to comprehend anything. Since lectures are extremely valuable in learning subjects like this it will lose them a ton of time outside of class, after a while it will get impossible to keep up.

Just because you still have to work a lot do not mean that you aren't smart. That one is important to not forget. I constantly have moments when I feel like an idiot, when some things just seems intangible and the second time everything seems obvious so it feels like I was stupid for not realizing it sooner. It is hard to not feel stupid when studying maths/physics.

Maths is not promiscuous.

Agreed, outside of the physics building people are shocked at my schedule, and it commands respect even within. But that's a property of intelligence and hard work, not of genius. While you can't put a sociology major next to me and expect him to compete, its also not fair to call me a genius because of my higher ability relative to the other guy. A genius would break the scale. You can't really even compare, because genius thinks differently (as opposed to being relatively good at thinking normally like I am).

[Klockan3]

Understand that when sportsstar used the word "genius" he probably meant something like the best few percents, not a world changing genius like the ones you learn about when studying.

[DukeofDuke]

Understand that when sportsstar used the word "genius" he probably meant something like the best few percents, not a world changing genius like the ones you learn about when studying.

Yeah, at root we're having an argument over semantics. Nonetheless, in an age when every other child is "gifted" and everyone a standard deviation ahead of the population mean is called a "genius", we need to be precise about our terms. Otherwise we risk creating a generation of over-satisfied "geniuses" who are really not that far off from mediocre (I know more than one kid with genius syndrome, and a lot of them take some severe hits to their egos when they come here the first time).

[sportsstar469]

i did not mean geniuses like world changing. i meant that you guys are to smart to see how it feels for an average student. believe it or not people struggle before calc...some people never pass precalc..hell i havent taken precalc ever/.//

anyway, you know whats funny. i worked really hard for my A in that summer course i took, however this semester im not working hard at all in my chem class, bio class, or this class. i go to the teachers for some extra help, and ask the tutors some questions etc, but i do NO homework, and take 10 minutes to study for the tests and quizzes. i did the review sheet halfway, and then didnt try to figure out why some problems were wrong...but i think on todays quiz for math i got an A, it seems like when i dont ''give a ****'' about keeping my 4.0 gpa, i actually do close to as well because im not as stressed out about getting an A. like i literally dont care anymore and i think that's kind of a help to me if that makes sense to you guys. ijust thought that was interesting hahas. i mean half of my chem class got a 70 or below on the test (which was pretty damn tricky, all free response and critical thinking problerms) but only 5 people got over a 90 and i got a 95, and i studied maybe 10 minutes at 3 am because i was procrastinating it...HAHA. however i actually am studying for biology, and i have like a high b or a low a which is bad for me since biology is supposed to be my strong point.

[irises28]

Nah man, Calculus is mainly just new forms of computation. That's hardly math. If your textbook doesn't have more than a total of 10 proofs, its certainly not mathematics (and calculus books mainly have definitions that you merely execute).

Don't get me wrong, computation courses can be hard. But I think one major reason why so many people shy away from "math" is because they've been taught computation their whole lives, so they don't know how interesting mathematics can actually be.

And a smart kid once told me that people usually throw around the term "genius" so they don't have to admit the other person is just normal- that the other person is actually in our league, and they had to work for their knowledge. We say they are a "genius" so we never have to compete with them, so we can acknowledge and dismiss their success without engaging our sense of competition, so we can avoid having to compare to them. But its not because they are actually geniuses. I am a physics math double major at a pretty rigorous school, and I am not sure if I know a single genius.

Sorry this is so late, I was just reading this thread now, but I agree completely with everything said here.

[Sankaku]

...people usually throw around the term "genius" so they don't have to admit the other person is just normal- that the other person is actually in our league, and they had to work for their knowledge. We say they are a "genius" so we never have to compete with them, so we can acknowledge and dismiss their success without engaging our sense of competition, so we can avoid having to compare to them. But its not because they are actually geniuses.
I want to quote this too. Really well said.

[MissSilvy]

I agree but what people also don't realize is that the reason people dismiss someone as a 'genius' is the same as the reason people explain their lack of mathematical talent is due to not taking calculus in elementary school, or not having a 'biological advantage' for math or any other number of excuses that shifts the blame for their lack of understanding or progress off of them and onto someone or something else beyond their control. After all, which sounds better; 'I'm not excelling at math because I'm not putting the time, effort, and desire into understanding it,' or 'I'm not excelling at math because I started learning math too late and that makes me 'not a math person'.

Some may disagree, but I don't believe in 'math/physics/whatever person' arguments that usually say that if you don't do math or science when you're really young or your parents weren't very good at math, then you'll be doomed to have a difficult and uphill battle with it for the rest of your life. There are plenty of examples of people who were not math people or physics people before they knuckled down and decided they would be good at it. The problem is that once/if these types of people succeed, people dismiss it as 'ah, surely he was a math person this entire time!' as has just happened earlier in this thread. It's harmful and defeatist thinking based on scarce and conflicting psychological 'studies'.

[Tiger99]

I agree but what people also don't realize is that the reason people dismiss someone as a 'genius' is the same as the reason people explain their lack of mathematical talent is due to not taking calculus in elementary school, or not having a 'biological advantage' for math or any other number of excuses that shifts the blame for their lack of understanding or progress off of them and onto someone or something else beyond their control. After all, which sounds better; 'I'm not excelling at math because I'm not putting the time, effort, and desire into understanding it,' or 'I'm not excelling at math because I started learning math too late and that makes me 'not a math person'.

Some may disagree, but I don't believe in 'math/physics/whatever person' arguments that usually say that if you don't do math or science when you're really young or your parents weren't very good at math, then you'll be doomed to have a difficult and uphill battle with it for the rest of your life. There are plenty of examples of people who were not math people or physics people before they knuckled down and decided they would be good at it. The problem is that once/if these types of people succeed, people dismiss it as 'ah, surely he was a math person this entire time!' as has just happened earlier in this thread. It's harmful and defeatist thinking based on scarce and conflicting psychological 'studies'.

This strikes a chord for me in a way. But the funny thing is I still have trouble convincing me of its truth (is it true?). Even though I have a PhD in math I still worry that I can't actually be any good at it and I'll never be good at it because I didn't do those math competitions and stuff in high school and didn't advance through high school at a faster pace like most people in my university classes.

It's really hard to overcome my self-doubt and I find it quite distracting. At the very least it means I have to think about things for three months before I'm willing to ask questions because I figure about three months of my time is worth ten minutes of someone who's actually good at math. (To this day I've only asked two questions in a math lecture and both times I felt like my heart was going to fall out of my chest I got so nervous.)

But maybe I am just not very good at it. I wish I could be good at it with effort and desire for understanding and so forth. I guess my problem might not be a lack of mathematical ability specifically but just a lack of general intelligence.

[symbolipoint]

Tiger99, what you say is strange, or maybe you just exaggerated what you meant. How likely can a student repeat different courses (more than one course, each taken twice) before the school expells him? Yes, some people really need to repeat more than one course of Mathematics in college just to recieve a successful letter grade. This would indicate the need to change major field. What happened with you on your way through college through entrance to your PhD program, and finally earning your PhD?

[sportsstar469]

I agree but what people also don't realize is that the reason people dismiss someone as a 'genius' is the same as the reason people explain their lack of mathematical talent is due to not taking calculus in elementary school, or not having a 'biological advantage' for math or any other number of excuses that shifts the blame for their lack of understanding or progress off of them and onto someone or something else beyond their control. After all, which sounds better; 'I'm not excelling at math because I'm not putting the time, effort, and desire into understanding it,' or 'I'm not excelling at math because I started learning math too late and that makes me 'not a math person'.

Some may disagree, but I don't believe in 'math/physics/whatever person' arguments that usually say that if you don't do math or science when you're really young or your parents weren't very good at math, then you'll be doomed to have a difficult and uphill battle with it for the rest of your life. There are plenty of examples of people who were not math people or physics people before they knuckled down and decided they would be good at it. The problem is that once/if these types of people succeed, people dismiss it as 'ah, surely he was a math person this entire time!' as has just happened earlier in this thread. It's harmful and defeatist thinking based on scarce and conflicting psychological 'studies'.
i agree that it doesnt matter whether a person has done math early or late. but thats where my agreement with your post comes to an end. if someone does poorly in math all of their life because of laziness ,or just not being exposed to it, but then later goes on to ace a class such as calc3 -abstract algebra. i WOULD consider them to ''have it'' all their life. they obviously had the aptitude once they at least stopped being lazy, or they were exposed to the material.
now ill admit im probably slightly better at math than im making myself out to be. i mean i literally do not care at all this semester, and dont study or do the homework for math,or chem. bio i study though cause its easy(messed up thinking it should be the opposite). but i still have around a b plus in math, a low a in chem, and maybe a b plus or a in bio.

now i would not classify myself as an intelligent person, because i know im only in college algebra/trigonometry, and a general chem lab course, and a second semester gen bio course. however it would be unfair to compare the kids who study way more than i do, and still only barely scrape by with a c to myself.

in the same way it would be unfair to compare someone like me who has no chance of ever getting higher than a C in calculus 1, when my time comes to take it, to GENIUSES like yourselves here, who can do abstract algebra to b level or maybe even a levels. (i understand not everyone ehre could do that but i mjust saying) there might be people here who view abstract algebra as kindergardens. but yeah its not fair to compare you guys who have not struggled with math at a highschool level and who excel in PURE maths and PURE sciences and PURE LOGICS to me.

i do agree that math is hard for everyone though. i told my math teacher i have great respect for her, to be as good in math as she is. isaid what is the hardest math class. she said there is none. you can get as deep into math as youd like. even one of my math tutors said he was struggling in his abstract algebra masters elvel corse.( i thought abstract algebra was bachelors?) anyways my point is, sure they have some math level where they STARTED to struggle but things like algebra, trrig, pre calc, calc 1, calc 2 were not part of what they were struggling with. they did struggle yes, but they struggled when they got up to the higher maths.

[Tiger99]

Tiger99, what you say is strange, or maybe you just exaggerated what you meant. How likely can a student repeat different courses (more than one course, each taken twice) before the school expells him? Yes, some people really need to repeat more than one course of Mathematics in college just to recieve a successful letter grade. This would indicate the need to change major field. What happened with you on your way through college through entrance to your PhD program, and finally earning your PhD?

I don't really understand, so perhaps I commented out of context. I never repeated any courses. I always did okay, but there were always people doing better so I never overcame my sense of inferiority.

[clope023]

Tiger99, what you say is strange, or maybe you just exaggerated what you meant. How likely can a student repeat different courses (more than one course, each taken twice) before the school expells him? Yes, some people really need to repeat more than one course of Mathematics in college just to recieve a successful letter grade. This would indicate the need to change major field. What happened with you on your way through college through entrance to your PhD program, and finally earning your PhD?

I had to repeat calc 1 and 2 more than once, again laziness (not realizing how much studying was needed to do well) I've only changed to a different field within engineering/sci/math (in my case electrical engineering)

tiger99 - though I'm just an undergrad I can definetly relate, I have a somewhat competitive mindset and when I just can't compete I tend to get depresses about things like that, I would be standing tall and proud with a PhD in math though!

misssilvy - time of the month ended eh? I tend to agree basing everything soley on the genetic factor is defeatist and should be not be the be all end all of your career making decisions; there are different types of talent out there however and things will come easier to people with those talents, I don't have any studies I just speak of it from personal experience (in my case it was with athletics but I believe the trend can still apply to academics)

[Klockan3]

I agree but what people also don't realize is that the reason people dismiss someone as a 'genius' is the same as the reason people explain their lack of mathematical talent is due to not taking calculus in elementary school, or not having a 'biological advantage' for math or any other number of excuses that shifts the blame for their lack of understanding or progress off of them and onto someone or something else beyond their control. After all, which sounds better; 'I'm not excelling at math because I'm not putting the time, effort, and desire into understanding it,' or 'I'm not excelling at math because I started learning math too late and that makes me 'not a math person'.

Some may disagree, but I don't believe in 'math/physics/whatever person' arguments that usually say that if you don't do math or science when you're really young or your parents weren't very good at math, then you'll be doomed to have a difficult and uphill battle with it for the rest of your life. There are plenty of examples of people who were not math people or physics people before they knuckled down and decided they would be good at it. The problem is that once/if these types of people succeed, people dismiss it as 'ah, surely he was a math person this entire time!' as has just happened earlier in this thread. It's harmful and defeatist thinking based on scarce and conflicting psychological 'studies'.
This is the important part of your post. For the individual it doesn't matter if there exist talent or not. What matters is you. Then if you believe that you can through hard work get to the top of anything it will allow you to dedicate yourself better towards your goals than if you believe that there exist a possibility that what you want to do is doomed from the start.

[sportsstar469]

i agree that it doesnt matter whether a person has done math early or late. but thats where my agreement with your post comes to an end. if someone does poorly in math all of their life because of laziness ,or just not being exposed to it, but then later goes on to ace a class such as calc3 -abstract algebra. i WOULD consider them to ''have it'' all their life. they obviously had the aptitude once they at least stopped being lazy, or they were exposed to the material.
now ill admit im probably slightly better at math than im making myself out to be. i mean i literally do not care at all this semester, and dont study or do the homework for math,or chem. bio i study though cause its easy(messed up thinking it should be the opposite). but i still have around a b plus in math, a low a in chem, and maybe a b plus or a in bio.

now i would not classify myself as an intelligent person, because i know im only in college algebra/trigonometry, and a general chem lab course, and a second semester gen bio course. however it would be unfair to compare the kids who study way more than i do, and still only barely scrape by with a c to myself.

in the same way it would be unfair to compare someone like me who has no chance of ever getting higher than a C in calculus 1, when my time comes to take it, to GENIUSES like yourselves here, who can do abstract algebra to b level or maybe even a levels. (i understand not everyone ehre could do that but i mjust saying) there might be people here who view abstract algebra as kindergardens. but yeah its not fair to compare you guys who have not struggled with math at a highschool level and who excel in PURE maths and PURE sciences and PURE LOGICS to me.

i do agree that math is hard for everyone though. i told my math teacher i have great respect for her, to be as good in math as she is. isaid what is the hardest math class. she said there is none. you can get as deep into math as youd like. even one of my math tutors said he was struggling in his abstract algebra masters elvel corse.( i thought abstract algebra was bachelors?) anyways my point is, sure they have some math level where they STARTED to struggle but things like algebra, trrig, pre calc, calc 1, calc 2 were not part of what they were struggling with. they did struggle yes, but they struggled when they got up to the higher maths.

bumped to page 8./

[Moonbear]

I think biology is one of those "standard" majors you pick if you don't know what to do. And then there are the premeds too. Also, a lot of people around where I live go into biotech jobs, synthesizing biochemicals and such. Its actually a pretty big job presence around here (I live in the Research Triangle Park, the Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill area that has the most PhD's per unit area in the world).

I have to wonder where people keep getting these weird ideas about biology from? "Standard major" when you "don't know what to do?" And too easy? Really? If that's someone's attitude going into a bio major, they are NOT going to survive their freshman classes, let alone any advanced classes. And for those who think you don't need to know physics or chemistry to study biology, try taking an advanced physiology course.

This thread is seriously lacking in evidence that there are less students going into the sciences, or that those with an interest are being deterred to go elsewhere. It's interesting that people keep bringing up the point of low salaries being a deterrent from going into the sciences. When were salaries higher in the sciences? When there wasn't a glut of too many applicants to drive down base salaries. There's always someone more desperate for a job and willing to take the lower salary. If there weren't enough people to fill the jobs, salaries would be going up to entice people into those positions.

There are some exceptions, but those have nothing to do with lack of interest, but instead lack of programs to train people. For example, there is a nationwide shortage of anatomists right now as all the old-timers are retiring, and very few young faculty are available to take over their teaching positions. Why? Because research funding has driven universities to shut down graduate programs in pure anatomy (there really isn't much research left to be done in the field), and very few people other than those going into health professions take human anatomy courses to be able to teach them later. What's the up-side? Med schools are scrambling to entice the young anatomy faculty to teach at their institutions, so salaries for positions teaching anatomy are climbing rapidly, and somewhat out of proportion from other departments in med schools.

[Klockan3]

I think that one reason is that you have more options nowadays. 50 years ago if you were a nerd you would study maths or physics or something like that, today most gets trapped in a lot of IT stuff long before that.

[PhantomOort]

I only recently found this thread (and this site) and a few questions pop into my mind as I read. Well, actually just one. If we replaced the word "math" in the last eight pages with words or phrases like "singing", "foreign language acquisition", "painting", "(good) creative writing", or "shooting hoops", how many posters would maintain the same position they've been holding until now?

My own conclusion is that people have some level of innate capacity to learn in different fields of knowledge, but that these vary with fields and with people. I do believe anyone can make themselves better at any skill than they currently are, but at some point we have to acknowledge diminishing marginal returns on the effort. You can make your legs muscles strong running in molasses, but you're still going to go nowhere fast.

[sportsstar469]

I only recently found this thread (and this site) and a few questions pop into my mind as I read. Well, actually just one. If we replaced the word "math" in the last eight pages with words or phrases like "singing", "foreign language acquisition", "painting", "(good) creative writing", or "shooting hoops", how many posters would maintain the same position they've been holding until now?

My own conclusion is that people have some level of innate capacity to learn in different fields of knowledge, but that these vary with fields and with people. I do believe anyone can make themselves better at any skill than they currently are, but at some point we have to acknowledge diminishing marginal returns on the effort. You can make your legs muscles strong running in molasses, but you're still going to go nowhere fast.

if you substituted the word math with words such as those aformentioned by yourself, i am positive the attitude would be of a much more positive connotation. HOWEVER, even with singing, shooting hoops etc, it is still the same principle. EVERYONE can play basketball, but not everyone can play it well. i cant even dribble a ball to save my life. im 6'2 and cant dunk, or palm a basketball.i can get my wrist above the rim though but thats all ive got going for me as far as basketball skills. i can most likely be instructed on how to perform these skills, and with practice may become a great dribbler, and dunker! i will probably not be great at basketball as a whole however.

i am a great singer though. nbut i dont take music classes, or take coaching for singing. i have good genetics for singing but dont tap into that. so i am wasting it.



long story short. have a math test that's worth 25 percent of my grade tomorrow at 12 am. it's 10 pm now. i havent even opened the book to look over the material LMFAO. actually i havent opened the book at all this semester, however i have a b or so i think, maybe a b plus.

but yeah im planning on playing some games and watching fringe online and not studying. i care about my grades a lot, and every semester up until now, i was the grade freak with a 4.0 gpa. i think all that caring got me to a melting point, in which i still care but all that studying i did caused me to now be a dead animal that does nothing to ensure he gets good grades and does not fail for the class i am screwed.

[DukeofDuke]

I have to wonder where people keep getting these weird ideas about biology from? "Standard major" when you "don't know what to do?" And too easy? Really? If that's someone's attitude going into a bio major, they are NOT going to survive their freshman classes, let alone any advanced classes. And for those who think you don't need to know physics or chemistry to study biology, try taking an advanced physiology course.

Er...I'm in university right now, so I can definitely tell you that people who don't really know what they want to do pick a couple of default majors such as bio, psych, or econ/business. And yeah, they definitely survive beyond freshmen classes. I know this because I have many friends that take these paths, and biology is one of the largest/most popular majors out there.

I'm on the ground here, so I know what I'm talking about in this case.
And yes, biology majors have it significantly easier than physics/chem majors. Take a look at their mean gpa's if you don't believe me. Physics, maths, and chem round out the lowest gpa averages, and are generally acknowledged on campus as the hardest majors by far.

[symbolipoint]

Er...I'm in university right now, so I can definitely tell you that people who don't really know what they want to do pick a couple of default majors such as bio, psych, or econ/business. And yeah, they definitely survive beyond freshmen classes. I know this because I have many friends that take these paths, and biology is one of the largest/most popular majors out there.

That trend about Biology exists; but how much is this trend we do not know without a thorough survey. Some people KNOW what they want and it is Biology, or a few of the other majors you mention; and other people pick Biology or such while they learn about what they want.


I'm on the ground here, so I know what I'm talking about in this case.
And yes, biology majors have it significantly easier than physics/chem majors. Take a look at their mean gpa's if you don't believe me. Physics, maths, and chem round out the lowest gpa averages, and are generally acknowledged on campus as the hardest majors by far.

Not so. The physical sciences let you use Mathematics to support a theory of a mechanism (I wish I knew how to say this more the way I intend). Biology is messy conceptually, and has some messy techniques which in some cases must be applied in a non-messy way. Some scientific-interested people find this messiness about Biology intolerable and switch major fields to the nice, neat, mathematical physical sciences or Engineering.

[DukeofDuke]

Not so. The physical sciences let you use Mathematics to support a theory of a mechanism (I wish I knew how to say this more the way I intend). Biology is messy conceptually, and has some messy techniques which in some cases must be applied in a non-messy way. Some scientific-interested people find this messiness about Biology intolerable and switch major fields to the nice, neat, mathematical physical sciences or Engineering.
I don't mean that the SUBJECT itself is inherently easier. I mean that the level at which it is taught within a university yields higher grades for less effort than physics, chemistry, and mathematics.

I doubt anybody really understands much of human psychology- its a very hard task, to discover the workings of the mind. But the major is ridiculously easy...

In the same way, the bio major is definitely more mainstream and less difficult than say physics or chem. Now, within the set of all bio majors, there are bunch of premeds and a few serious future biologists who probably toughen up their schedules considerably, but the mean biology gpa is significantly lower than the mean gpa for physics or math kids, and grade inflation is significantly higher.

[sportsstar469]

i see the terms pure math and pure science thrown around here a lot. i asked one of the tutors in the math lab if hes familiar with thee terms, and he had no idea what i was talking about. he has a masters in business and engineering, and just finished an abstract algebra class, and is taking a prob and statistics class now, so id assume hed know this term. just thought that was interestng./ lols.

[Klockan3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_mathematics

[sportsstar469]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_mathematics

THANKS KLOCKAN! but going back to why people dont pursue math, and that anybody can do math. we just started trigonometry lat week. and i am struggling graphing simple radians like 7pie over 5 or -pie/4. i have gone to my teacher 4 different days and asked her the same questions, and still dont understand it that well. i have even tried asking several other professors for help to vary the approach taken to learn it, and i still cant do it./

i know for a lot of you guys graphing radians is a piece of cake, and thats my point. i mstruggling with beginning tri./

[arildno]

THANKS KLOCKAN! but going back to why people dont pursue math, and that anybody can do math. we just started trigonometry lat week. and i am struggling graphing simple radians like 7pie over 5 or -pie/4. i have gone to my teacher 4 different days and asked her the same questions, and still dont understand it that well. i have even tried asking several other professors for help to vary the approach taken to learn it, and i still cant do it./

i know for a lot of you guys graphing radians is a piece of cake, and thats my point. i mstruggling with beginning tri./

Why don't you make a thread in the maths forums on this?

Anyways, a few points:

1. Draw a circle.
2. Remember that counter-clockwise angular measurement (beginning at the positive x-axis) is positive, clockwise measurement negative.
3. The full circle represents an angle of 2pi, as measured counterclockwise (agreed?)
4. So, given a particular angle, how big part of the full circle does it represent?

i) 7pi/5:
Of the full circle, this represent a part: (7pi/5)/(2pi)=7/10.
Can you find the angle so that 7/10th of the full circle is represented by it? There you have it!

ii) -pi/4:
Here, again, we get the part of the full circle:
(-pi/4)/(2pi)=-1/8 of the full circle.

Clearly, you are to trace out 1/8 of the full circle, in the CLOCKWISE direction (that's what the minus sign means)

Did this help?

[sportsstar469]

Why don't you make a thread in the maths forums on this?

Anyways, a few points:

1. Draw a circle.
2. Remember that counter-clockwise angular measurement (beginning at the positive x-axis) is positive, clockwise measurement negative.
3. The full circle represents an angle of 2pi, as measured counterclockwise (agreed?)
4. So, given a particular angle, how big part of the full circle does it represent?

i) 7pi/5:
Of the full circle, this represent a part: (7pi/5)/(2pi)=7/10.
Can you find the angle so that 7/10th of the full circle is represented by it? There you have it!

ii) -pi/4:
Here, again, we get the part of the full circle:
(-pi/4)/(2pi)=-1/8 of the full circle.

Clearly, you are to trace out 1/8 of the full circle, in the CLOCKWISE direction (that's what the minus sign means)

Did this help?

thanks for the pointers. its weird though, i ddint look at this until now, but in my math class this morning, i had no problem graphing most of the problems (we moved one step forward. we had to find the sin, cosine, etc of say 230 degrees or so or 5 pie/6 or so) but i didnt study at home so idk./

[Tiger99]

THANKS KLOCKAN! but going back to why people dont pursue math, and that anybody can do math. we just started trigonometry lat week. and i am struggling graphing simple radians like 7pie over 5 or -pie/4. i have gone to my teacher 4 different days and asked her the same questions, and still dont understand it that well. i have even tried asking several other professors for help to vary the approach taken to learn it, and i still cant do it./

i know for a lot of you guys graphing radians is a piece of cake, and thats my point. i mstruggling with beginning tri./

To be honest, this doesn't really sound like what I think of as math anyway. You're learning how to describe the size of angles. It's part of the language people use to communicate mathematics. It's a barrier that you get through before you can start learning about connections between different mathematical entities and prove things using deductive reasoning - and that's the bit that's mathematics.

Of course, I think a person will find it easier to understand mathematics if they have a facility for picking up different notations, and understanding what people are saying when the message isn't communicated very clearly, but I don't think that's the same as math.
It's interesting that you found it easier once you started making genuine statements - i.e., calculating sine and cosine.

[sportsstar469]

To be honest, this doesn't really sound like what I think of as math anyway. You're learning how to describe the size of angles. It's part of the language people use to communicate mathematics. It's a barrier that you get through before you can start learning about connections between different mathematical entities and prove things using deductive reasoning - and that's the bit that's mathematics.

Of course, I think a person will find it easier to understand mathematics if they have a facility for picking up different notations, and understanding what people are saying when the message isn't communicated very clearly, but I don't think that's the same as math.
It's interesting that you found it easier once you started making genuine statements - i.e., calculating sine and cosine.

yeah its strange. i mean a few days ago, i was struggling to graph pie over 3. but then again today i was bored in chemistry class, so i tried finding the sin of 210 degrees, and i blasted through it in ten seconds, then the tan of pie over 4 still did it in ten seconds. graphed it no problem, then found the reference angles no problem, then looked in the quadrant to determine whether sign and tangent were positive in those quadrants. then found the sin/tan of the given ref angle using my triangles and made it either positive or negative upon completing this problem.

its weird, but for some reason, i just grasped onto that lesson. if youre wondering why i typed out all of the steps since im sure you all know this easily, i just wanted to see if i could explain the steps. i heard that if you explain how to do something to someone, it shows youve mastered the material, and also as youre explaining the material you also retain 90 percent of what you said.

ill go back and actually do the homework, and evaluate whether or not i am truly a bad math student, or just a wimp loser ;).

but either way, trig is considered math even if as a person who's done pure maths you feel its not. when most people say i struggle in math, they are talking about alg-calc.

[DrClapeyron]

I think the issue is made up in order to allow foreign scientist and engineers to come to the US, work for low salaries and lower the salaries of US born workers. Cost effeciency.

[SW VandeCarr]

Agreed, outside of the physics building people are shocked at my schedule, and it commands respect even within. But that's a property of intelligence and hard work, not of genius. While you can't put a sociology major next to me and expect him to compete, its also not fair to call me a genius because of my higher ability relative to the other guy. A genius would break the scale. You can't really even compare, because genius thinks differently (as opposed to being relatively good at thinking normally like I am).

Some people think out of the box, sometimes way out of the box. If they're right, they're geniuses. If they're wrong, they're idiots.

[CRGreathouse]

I think the issue is made up in order to allow foreign scientist and engineers to come to the US, work for low salaries and lower the salaries of US born workers. Cost effeciency.

If non-US workers are willing to do the same job at P% of the US pay, then the choice of US companies is to increase efficiency by (100/P - 1)%, decrease wages by (100 - P)%, or shut down. Bringing in foreign workers is a way of avoiding #3 and easing into #2.

[sportsstar469]

i think i may have been a little harsh in my reasons why students may not choose math, but i stil stand by the issue, that a lot of people here dont realize the struggles that the average population deals with with math. from my posts on here, you have all figured out i am not very good at math, and i am convinced i wont succeed in it. when i go for extra help the teacher needs to explain it around 6 times for me to get it. its weird though, that i have a b plus or A, in my trig class, and i haven't done the homework, or really opened the book at all. i dont really study for the quizzes or tests either. only thing i do, is make sure to go for extra help after the lectures (because i get overwhelmed in lectures at how everyone else in the room seems to grasp every step shes doing, and although shes not going to fast she actually goes slow..shes going to fast for me) and even though thats all i do i am still doing well in this course.
it is for this reason, i think my comments were a tad ti harsh, although i still do think some people are not capable of even algebra.

[Nev3rDie]

In this world it's all about the drive to learn. Few are conditioned from an early age to have the desire to learn and read. It's just that simple. Those that weren't conditioned at an early age to crave learning, will almost never have that desire. Hence why we have a big gap in intelligence. Most don't have a real burning desire to learn more and more just for the sake of learning. Most people learn what they have to in order to get what they want, and not just for the pleasure of learning itself.