Should Algebra Be Required At Community Colleges?

[symbolipoint]

I've been thinking a lot over the last few weeks about this without posting. The main reason I posted was to be challenged, and maybe garner some ideas from all of you.

I...

Sorry to waste everyone's' time.

This topic was, although containing slightly outrageous comments, NOT a waste of time. This was a good topic and well-discussed.

 

[bhobba]

Circling back to the original discussion, I will note that even a liberal arts school like Hillsdale College requires one semester each of Math, Chemistry, Physics, and Biology of all their majors, even the humanities. Their view of education has these course requirements even for majors in: French, German, Politics, Art, Greek, Psychology, History, Religion, Latin, Marketing, Music, Theater, Physical Education, and Philosophy.

Without a doubt, despite what Brown does, that's exactly what Liberal Arts colleges should do. Especially important I think is a subject I would call statistical thinking. It would help the rise of silly movements like ani-vaccers to know, for example, the chance of dying while driving your child to school is much higher than an adverse reaction to vaccination, yet both are of obvious benefit to all.

Of course if you do STEM its virtually certain stats will be part of your program. It was for mine - I did Mathematical Stats 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b - only 3a and 3b were optional and that hasn't changed except its called slightly different things like statistical inference or modelling. I actually didn't like stats that much but the reason I did 3a, 3b was I liked the lecturer a lot he was a funny guy - you always heard laughter from his classes. I remember one joke well - a bit sexist, but relevant and you couldn't help laughing - statistics is like a bikini - it's the bits you don't see you want to know about.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Dr. Courtney]

The math class is the weight room for the mind.

 

[gfd43tg]

I'm okay with it if science/math majors are not forced to take a ton of humanities courses. Of course, then many of those theater/drama instructors will be out of a job since significantly less people would take the course if it wasn't a requirement! That's the point.

I actually attended a California Community College. Classes are overfilled and you won't get out reasonably in 2 years as a STEM major. Anything to reduce the non-STEM workload would help to alleviate the problem. I had to take a a lot of non-STEM courses that did no good for me. I learn more history watching documentaries on youtube than I ever did in my college course.

 

[Vanadium 50]

. I had to take a a lot of non-STEM courses that did no good for me.

I believe that. However, shouldn't they at least try?

Specifically, you have been unable to persuade us that tinting laws shouldn't apply to you, unable to persuade us that you deserve substantially more money while providing substantially less value to your company than your salary, and unable to persuade us that an 8 hour workday is too long. Given this, shouldn't you be advocating for more and better classes involving persuasive writing?

I am unswayed by your argument here - if you found no value in some of your classes, why should the other classes - presumably the ones you did find valuable - no longer be required?

 

[gfd43tg]

I believe that. However, shouldn't they at least try?

Specifically, you have been unable to persuade us that tinting laws shouldn't apply to you, unable to persuade us that you deserve substantially more money while providing substantially less value to your company than your salary, and unable to persuade us that an 8 hour workday is too long. Given this, shouldn't you be advocating for more and better classes involving persuasive writing?

I am unswayed by your argument here - if you found no value in some of your classes, why should the other classes - presumably the ones you did find valuable - no longer be required? I'll take the "pittance salary" that I was unable to persuade you on. Or do you mind writing me a check?

Yeah my thread was locked before I even had a chance to respond. Tint laws don't apply to government official vehicles though. Just us common folk. I guess if you are in a marked car its easier to drive at night??

I would advocate for technical writing classes offered in the english (or mixed with science/engineering) department at the CC level. Also, I'm not even trying to make an argument. I'm just pointing out that humanities majors do not have to take math, but STEM majors have to take humanities? I think I took at least 6 humanities/art classes in total, whereas they don't even have to take one math class? I am perfectly okay with neither of us taking courses that are not related. I don't even think this is controversial in many countries, even in Europe.

By the way, there is a real world impact of making me take all those unnecessary courses. It's very difficult to go through CC in 2 years, which pushes us back a year, which means we get our job a year later, which means opportunity COST of non-employment for the year I was in school. All so they can "try" to make art history more useful to me? I would rather have my "pittance" annual salary that I was unable to persuade you on. Or are you willing to write me a check? Since it seems like you really want to send me back to school for persuasive writing.

 

[Mark44]

Yeah my thread was locked before I even had a chance to respond. Tint laws don't apply to government official vehicles though.

Is this just anecdotal, or can you cite specific laws in your state that make an exception for government vehicles with regard to the tinting?

Just us common folk. I guess if you are in a marked car its easier to drive at night??

I would advocate for technical writing classes offered in the english (or mixed with science/engineering) department at the CC level. Also, I'm not even trying to make an argument. I'm just pointing out that humanities majors do not have to take math, but STEM majors have to take humanities? I think I took at least 6 humanities/art classes in total, whereas they don't even have to take one math class? I am perfectly okay with neither of us taking courses that are not related. I don't even think this is controversial in many countries, even in Europe.

I can empathize with you to some extent here. Before transferring to a four-year school, I needed to take a few classes in "general education" which for me included Art History, Music Appreciation, Anthropology, and Philosophy. Many (most?) four-year schools have an interest in producing well-rounded graduates rather than ones who have passed through a narrowly focussed curriculum. I don't begrudge having to take those classes very much, but I agree that students in the humanities (including art) ought to have at least some knowledge of mathematics and the sciences, if only to be as well-rounded as the STEM students are.

By the way, there is a real world impact of making me take all those unnecessary courses. It's very difficult to go through CC in 2 years, which pushes us back a year, which means we get our job a year later, which means opportunity COST. All so they can "try" to make art history more useful to me? I would rather have my "pittance" annual salary that I was unable to persuade you on. Or are you willing to write me a check?

 

[gfd43tg]

Is this just anecdotal, or can you cite specific laws in your state that make an exception for government vehicles with regard to the tinting?

Doesn't matter whether or not it's in the books. I'm not going to go dig through the code to try and find where the rules are, probably hidden since it pertains to government vehicles. I care about actual enforcement (j-walking is on the books too I'm sure). That's why I didn't care before since police where I am generally don't enforce that particular law. The percentage never changed, only that it is now part of the annual safety inspection. Here's a photo of my state's governor (can you guess who this is?) getting into a vehicle. That front window I am certain is 5% VLT.

 

[Mark44]

Is this just anecdotal, or can you cite specific laws in your state that make an exception for government vehicles with regard to the tinting?

Doesn't matter whether or not it's in the books. I'm not going to go dig through the code to try and find where the rules are, probably hidden since it pertains to government vehicles.

From the rules for this forum:

Generally, discussion topics should be traceable to standard textbooks or to peer-reviewed scientific literature.

In this case, that would include a citation of the specific state law. The laws for each state are public knowledge. In my state, Washington they are known as the RCW (Revised Code of Washington) and are accessible online. There are no "hidden" laws.

I care about actual enforcement (j-walking is on the books too I'm sure). Here's a photo of my state's governor (can you guess who this is?) getting into a vehicle. That front window I am certain is 5% VLT.

I don't see how that can be true. You can see the A pillar inside the car pretty clearly. At only 5% VLT I don't think you would be able to.

In any case, we're veering off-topic. Let's get back to the discussion about whether algebra should be required for college students.

 

[gfd43tg]

The answer to the question is that it should be required for high school students!

 

[alemsalem]

I'm not sure if Algebra specifically is actually necessary for these fields. However, if the point is to make things easier so that more people pass, then that's not a good educational decision. I think physics and math are valuable to other fields, it could train them to solve problems in ways that they wouldn't get in other fields. I would speculate if math and physics education was better, then more people will make better decisions in society.

To answer your specific questions. Sure don't fail people based on something they won't use. But make sure you test their problem solving abilities and make sure they can make intelligent decisions and think properly.

 

[thejosh]

Reading literature enables effective analysis, whereas maths develops problem solving skills.A person who is enriched with literature usually(in my opinion) is very good at analysing a situation and annotating why something happened but a person with mad maths skills would rather solve the situation then analyse it.Now, I know this sounds ridiculous when you first read it but consider this example(I made it up but you'll get the idea):
A car smashes into a wall. Two witnesses are asked to give an account of what happened.One stated that the driver must've seen the police at the bottom of the road and, trying to avoid them, attempted a u turn and somehow lost control. The other witness stated that the cars inertia was too great for it to turn a full 360 degrees without its center of mass causing it to create a moments which would overturn it so the driver tried to counter this and, due to conservation of momentum, smashed into the wall attempting to stop. Both of them are correct but their accounts don't make sense until put together.That's maths and literature- two seemingly different subjects that actually compliment each other. That, in my opinion, is why a litterateur sometimes goes too far to the "imaginative side" and a mathematician will often lack imagination- they're not complete unless together.
https://numbersandshapes.net/2012/11/creativity-and-mathematics/

 

[thejosh]

I'm trying to decide if this should bother me or please me.

Bother you, it should definitely bother you. It entails that the general public benefit greatly from the development of science but instantly tag scientists as nerds or "smart social outcasts." Terrible just terrible IMO

 

[Mark44]

A car smashes into a wall. Two witnesses are asked to give an account of what happened.One stated that the driver must've seen the police at the bottom of the road and, trying to avoid them, attempted a u turn and somehow lost control. The other witness stated that the cars inertia was too great for it to turn a full 360 degrees

After a 360° the car would be going in the same direction.

without its center of mass causing it to create a moments which would overturn it so the driver tried to counter this and, due to conservation of momentum, smashed into the wall attempting to stop. Both of them are correct but their accounts don't make sense until put together.That's maths and literature- two seemingly different subjects that actually compliment each other.

I don't interpret your examples as literature vs. math. Your first example attempts to explain the motivation of the driver. The second example describes the behavior of the car.

That, in my opinion, is why a litterateur sometimes goes too far to the "imaginative side" and a mathematician will often lack imagination- they're not complete unless together.

 

[thejosh]

After a 360° the car would be going in the same direction.

Sorry I meant to say 180 degrees - don't worry school's starting soon.

I don't interpret your examples as literature vs. math. Your first example attempts to explain the motivation of the driver. The second example describes the behavior of the car.

The mathematician calculated the reason the car overturned rather than the reason behind the driver;'s actions whilst the litterateur did the opposite- he deduced the motivation behind the driver's actions rather than the reason the car smashed into the wall.

 

[thejosh]

That shows the perspectives of a mathematician vs a litterateur.

 

[Mark44]

Sorry I meant to say 180 degrees - don't worry school's starting soon.

The mathematician calculated the reason the car overturned rather than the reason behind the driver;'s actions whilst the litterateur did the opposite- he deduced the motivation behind the driver's actions rather than the reason the car smashed into the wall.

As I said before, your examples provide explanations from two different perspectives. Someone versed in basic physics could provide both perspectives: an explanation of the car's motion and a reasoned guess at the driver's motivation.

 

[thejosh]

It's just an example- in literature you commonly analyse people's characters and motives but in physics you do calculations and deduce equations and a person who has done basic physics has probably at least completed a year or two of literature anyway.

 

[Mark44]

Reading literature enables effective analysis

I'm not sure that this is true. One necessary condition for effective analysis is the ability to reason logically.

 

[thejosh]

Even the simplest question posed in a literature exam will require some degree of logic.

 

[russ_watters]

Bother you, it should definitely bother you. It entails that the general public benefit greatly from the development of science but instantly tag scientists as nerds or "smart social outcasts." Terrible just terrible IMO

...that was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. The real answer is I'm [mostly] delighted by it:

My personal (and political) philosophy of personal freedom/personal responsibility comes with a perspective of always looking for and usually adopting the most positive, non-confrontational position where my desires and the desires of others do not intersect. Applied here, as I said in another thread recently, if an adult doesn't want to learn math/science, fine! They're happy that they have an easier time in college and I'm happy that I won't ever have to compete with them for a job! Everyone wins!

Does the namecalling bother me? No, definitely not. I learned in high school that the trump card response to being called a "nerd", etc. is: "Be nice to me or 10 years from now I'll fire you." I'm proud of being a nerd/geek/dork. I literally wear it as a badge of honor (on a t-shirt).

Note, this doesn't alter my opinion on the core issue of the thread: schooling in a broad range of subjects should continue to be mandatory through high school, with specialization starting after, for people who intend to go to college. For people who don't intend to go to college, specialization should start earlier (with vo-tech schooling). Similarly, parents should not be selling their kids short by example or guidance.

 

[thejosh]

@russ_watters You may wear it as a badge of honor but a lot of other people who would've otherwise done science and achieved their goals were discouraged by societies harsh outlook to "nerds" and "geeks" etc. Science is not just about getting jobs its wonderfull in itself and needs the next einstein to improve it - we're all benefiting from it- imagine if you called a person a nerd and they drop science when they could've gone on to do something extraordinary ;like discover the cure for cancer, you would've effectively prevented the saving of millions of lives with one word.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

Note, this doesn't alter my opinion on the core issue of the thread: schooling in a broad range of subjects should continue to be mandatory through high school, with specialization starting after, for people who intend to go to college.

My view is that general education in a broad range of subjects continues to be very valuable for the first half of college. Several factors draw me to this conclusion:

1. Based on logic and experience, I buy into the rationale behind a solid classic liberal arts education. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_arts_education

2. For those seeking a four year degree, there is plenty of time for specialization in the last two years, assuming a solid foundation in the usual introductory coursework in the first two (roughly half the coursework). Likewise, for those seeking a two year degree, there is plenty of time for specialization in the second year. A 75/25 split (specialized/general) is enough. A 100/0 split creates automatons more than thinkers.

3. Many high school grads reach college without the broad based knowledge they should have (that they would have if graduation really required what it claims to.) Revisiting it is a worthwhile endeavor for 25% or so of the college coursework. A college degree should be a guarantee of the things students should have learned in high school. Taking that expected high school knowledge/skill/ability for granted in the real world is short-sighted, unrealistic, and foolish.

4. All education is training to be a functioning adult in our society, not just for earning a living. We are not just educating employees for their tasks, we are educating jurors and voters also. The collective knowledge of a jury regarding quantitative and scientific reasoning is more important than ever given how expert testimony works in a courtroom. The collective knowledge of the voting public is more important than ever given the importance of quantitative and scientific reasoning in policy making. Ever wish those politicians were better at math and science? That starts with making the voters better at math and science.

 

[symbolipoint]

As I said before, your examples provide explanations from two different perspectives. Someone versed in basic physics could provide both perspectives: an explanation of the car's motion and a reasoned guess at the driver's motivation.

He's trying. His example may be, maybe is not working. A different example, maybe better. But really, Literature is the Art of Writing and Story-Telling. Algebra has a different purpose, but still relies on great literacy (just as Literature...).

 

[SciencewithDrJ]

The chancellor of CCC needs to address the real roots of the problem: poor math preparation at the high school level. He should lobby with the state education boards to improve the standard in high schools, so that students coming into his community colleges for an Associate Degree can no longer be so intimidated by the algebra course, because they would have the strong base to enable them to handle it.

 

[vela]

The chancellor of CCC needs to address the real roots of the problem: poor math preparation at the high school level. He should lobby with the state education boards to improve the standard in high schools, so that students coming into his community colleges for an Associate Degree can no longer be so intimidated by the algebra course, because they would have the strong base to enable them to handle it.

Gee, why didn't someone else think of that? If it were simply a matter of lobbying to raise standards, this problem would have been solved decades ago.

 

[SciencewithDrJ]

Gee, why didn't someone else think of that? If it were simply a matter of lobbying to raise standards, this problem would have been solved decades ago.

Every long journey has a first step. I suggested looking at the root of the problem, which is always advisable. It may well take a decade, but at least the issue would start to be tackled by someone somewhere somehow.

 

[vela]

The root of the problem isn't poor math preparation. That's the symptom. The real questions are, among others: Why are so many people in the US so intimidated by math? Is it the way it's taught? Are there better ways to teach the same skills? Why is it acceptable to taxpayers for math standards for high school graduation to be so low? How can we change that? What are the right math standards? Should it be one size fits all or should we recognize different levels of competence? How do we realistically deal with the students we have now who have been failed by the public school system?

 

[SciencewithDrJ]

The root of the problem isn't poor math preparation. That's the symptom. The real questions are, among others: Why are so many people in the US so intimidated by math? Is it the way it's taught? Are there better ways to teach the same skills? Why is it acceptable to taxpayers for math standards for high school graduation to be so low? How can we change that? What are the right math standards? Should it be one size fits all or should we recognize different levels of competence? How do we realistically deal with the students we have now who have been failed by the public school system?

Those are excellent questions indeed. I don't know much about the US school system, but here in Canada (which is essentially a similar culture and right next door to the US) math is not a big issue among students. It may well be a worthwhile research project for a science education graduate student to identify why that is so.

What is a realistic solution now for current students, that is tough and I share the concerns of all parties concerned. Perhaps a compromise can be reached to require a less advanced course, with a crash course requisite to upgrade the standard prior to taking the course.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

The chancellor of CCC needs to address the real roots of the problem: poor math preparation at the high school level. He should lobby with the state education boards to improve the standard in high schools, so that students coming into his community colleges for an Associate Degree can no longer be so intimidated by the algebra course, because they would have the strong base to enable them to handle it.

I agree, but I would not hold my breath. The chancellor of CCC does not have the authority to change what is happening in high schools.

S/He does have the authority to give the faculty full authority to fail EACH AND EVERY student who does not meet the proper standards of learning in their math courses. Of course, they'd probably also have to stop using student evals for any other purpose than informing the faculty.