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

[clope023]

sure everyone can do some sort of math, but not everyone can do high level math and that's fact. and no you don't get AS confused as others. I've 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. I've 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 he's confused but calc 2 and 3 are hard but not super hard just that he's struggling. to compare a guy like me who isn't 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 I am 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? I am 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 he's confused but calc 2 and 3 are hard but not super hard just that he's struggling. to compare a guy like me who isn't 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 I am 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? I am 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 isn't 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 high school 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 I am 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 don't care anymore. i am just lazy too. like i have a math quiz tomorrow and a math test on monday and i haven't even studied once.

i mean i don't understand if I am bad at math or not. i got a 100 on my first quiz without 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 don't 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 don't make much sense to me. my adjunct in the summer class was great though!

btw i don't know who on this forum said that calc 3 was the easiest calc, but i told my friend in bio what you said, and he's 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 don't know who on this forum said that calc 3 was the easiest calc, but i told my friend in bio what you said, and he's 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 isn't 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 haven't taken precalc ever/.//

anyway, you know what's funny. i worked really hard for my A in that summer course i took, however this semester I am 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 don't ''give a ****'' about keeping my 4.0 gpa, i actually do close to as well because I am not as stressed out about getting an A. like i literally don't 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 receive 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 doesn't matter whether a person has done math early or late. but that's 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 I am probably slightly better at math than I am making myself out to be. i mean i literally do not care at all this semester, and don't 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 I am 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 high school 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 receive 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 receive 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 definately 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 doesn't matter whether a person has done math early or late. but that's 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 I am probably slightly better at math than I am making myself out to be. i mean i literally do not care at all this semester, and don't 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 I am 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 high school 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 can't even dribble a ball to save my life. I am 6'2 and can't dunk, or palm a basketball.i can get my wrist above the rim though but that's all I've 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 don't take music classes, or take coaching for singing. i have good genetics for singing but don't 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 haven't even opened the book to look over the material LMFAO. actually i haven't opened the book at all this semester, however i have a b or so i think, maybe a b plus.

but yeah I am 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.