Should calculus be eliminated for non-science/engineering/finance majors?

  • Context: Programs 
  • Thread starter Thread starter thetaobums
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Calculus
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on the relevance of calculus for non-science, engineering, and finance majors in college curricula. Participants argue that many students struggle with calculus and rarely apply it in their careers, suggesting that introductory programming or computer literacy courses would be more beneficial. The conversation highlights the need for a broader understanding of digital literacy, emphasizing practical skills over traditional math requirements. Ultimately, the debate reflects a tension between general education requirements and the perceived utility of specific courses in preparing students for the workforce.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of general education requirements in U.S. colleges
  • Familiarity with calculus concepts and their applications
  • Knowledge of digital literacy and its importance in modern society
  • Awareness of the differences between education and job training
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the impact of general education requirements on student engagement and success
  • Explore alternatives to calculus, such as statistics or programming, for non-STEM majors
  • Investigate the role of digital literacy in higher education curricula
  • Examine historical perspectives on the purpose of a liberal arts education
USEFUL FOR

Students, educators, and curriculum developers interested in the relevance of mathematics and digital literacy in higher education, as well as those advocating for curriculum reform to better align with job market needs.

thetaobums
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
I'm a science major, but I don't see the point of students from fields outside of science, engineering, and finance taking calculus. Most, if not all, colleges require these students to take at least one semester of calculus.

A lot of them don't do well and never take another math course in college. Besides, no matter how well they did, most of them will never use calculus again in their lives.

What is troubling is that there is no mandatory computer science requirement. We continue to be a digitally illiterate society, nevermind broadband penetration rates. Knowing how to send a tweet or an email attachment does NOT constitute digital literacy. If colleges would only replace calculus with intro programming, at least some students would enjoy it and learn a new skill that can contribute to the economy.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hey thetaoburns and welcome to the forums.

Can you list some of the majors (outside of science, engineering, finance and of course math) that take these classes?
 
I'm surprised that you're mentioning intro programming as an alternative. Doesn't that have exactly the same problem? (Most of them will never use it again). To me, computer literacy is knowledge of how to use the operating system and the most popular software. (A computer illiterate would answer these questions with "no": Do you realize that a right-click usually brings up a menu? Can you use a word processor? Can you download and install an application from the internet? Do you understand what it means to "install" an application? Do you understand what happens when you "open" a file in Windows? Can you install a printer? Can you configure an email client? Do you know how to kill a process? Would it even occur to you that that's what you need to do when your browser or media player fails to start?)

I also consider an understanding of the basics of computer hardware (the box on the floor is not a hard drive) or basic networking stuff more useful than programming.

Besides, while an intro course is all you need to write a script that takes a forum post and replaces itex tags with dollar signs, it won't teach you enough to write an application with a graphical user interface that makes work easier for you and your coworkers.
 
Last edited:
To understand the scientific principles behind engineering calculus is certainly required.
 
Kholdstare said:
To understand the scientific principles behind engineering calculus is certainly required.
Yes, but he asked if it should be eliminated for people who don't study engineering (or science or finance).
 
Along the same lines, why as an engineer did I have to waste my time taking english courses?
 
I have also never heard of non-sciency subjects being required to take calculus. What cases is the OP thinking of?
 
RandomGuy88 said:
Along the same lines, why as an engineer did I have to waste my time taking english courses?

Because college education \neq job training.
 
mr. vodka said:
I have also never heard of non-sciency subjects being required to take calculus. What cases is the OP thinking of?

Well in the US schools have general education requirements and these range from humanities to social sciences to physical sciences and quantitative reasoning which all must be satisfied in one form or another. I'm assuming the calc I and calc II classes fall under the quantitative reasoning requirements for those majors that require them for genED. I for one never understood the purpose of these idiotic genED requirements but nothing can be done at this point unfortunately.
 
  • #10
Robert1986 said:
Because college education \neq job training.

Poetry = waste of time if you are not interested in it.
 
  • #11
RandomGuy88 said:
Poetry = waste of time if you are not interested in it.

Yes, but there are a couple of things to consider. Most importantly, how do you know that you are not interested in poetry until you are exposed to it?

For example, I started college life as a history major. I had to take a math class because that is what the curriculum required. I had math in high school, and I didn't like it, so I was irritated that I had to take Math. But, I took pre-calc, really enjoyed it and switched my major to math. I am now about to start grad school in math. Had I not been forced to take math, who knows where I would be right now?

The purpose of a liberal arts college education (which is what we have in the US) is to expose students to a wide area of human knowledge. Sure, the student focuses his attention in one area (called his "major"), but this shouldn't be the only area he studies. That is for graduate school.
 
  • #12
Agreed. Statistics should be mandatory instead.
 
  • #13
Robert1986 said:
The purpose of a liberal arts college education (which is what we have in the US) is to expose students to a wide area of human knowledge. Sure, the student focuses his attention in one area (called his "major"), but this shouldn't be the only area he studies. That is for graduate school.

I still don't see why I have to waste my time in college taking courses like rhetoric or french when I had already wasted 4 years of HS taking essentially the exact same classes year after year and finding them unbearably boring. Thus far, nothing I have learned in the typical US english class has helped me at all but who knows; maybe one day my knowledge of the use of satire in The Scarlet Letter will somehow be useful for my studies or job. I would rather like to focus on physics and math much like a humanities major would probably just like to focus on his/her intended field of study and not have to take further math courses if he/she does not want to.
 
  • #14
WannabeNewton said:
I still don't see why I have to waste my time in college taking courses like rhetoric or french when I had already wasted 4 years of HS taking essentially the exact same classes year after year and finding them unbearably boring. Thus far, nothing I have learned in the typical US english class has helped me at all but who knows; maybe one day my knowledge of the use of satire in The Scarlet Letter will somehow be useful for my studies or job. I would rather like to focus on physics and math much like a humanities major would probably just like to focus on his/her intended field of study and not have to take further math courses if he/she does not want to.

I completely agree. By the end of high school I was well aware of the fact that I had no interest in taking an english class again, and yet I was required to take 2! If the english classes had focused more on writing technique or public speaking rather than interpreting poetry or Shakespeare then I probably would not have minded. So perhaps instead of forcing students like me to take British Literature there should be an option like a public speaking course. Same could go for students majoring in english. They could have an option for some type of math or science related course that is more practical for everyday life.
 
  • #15
the concepts of "the accumulated thing after a given variable" (integral) "rate of change" (derivative) and "the rate of change, of the rate of change" (second derivative) are quite important in everyday life. a calculus class just forces you to learn them clearly and see their implications on paper.
 
  • #16
Robert1986 said:
For example, I started college life as a history major. I had to take a math class because that is what the curriculum required. I had math in high school, and I didn't like it, so I was irritated that I had to take Math. But, I took pre-calc, really enjoyed it and switched my major to math.
Isn't pre-calc studied in high school in the USA?
 
  • #17
Fredrik said:
Isn't pre-calc studied in high school in the USA?

It depends on the pace you move at...some kids don't make it to pre-calc, and some make it all the way through an entire Calc sequence (depending on what the school offers, of course). Also different areas may have different requirements for graduation.
 
  • #18
I grew up in a very rural area which didn't offer more than Algebra 1/2 and Geometry 1/2. Your only other option was to split Alebra 1 and Geometry 1 up into part a/b for each and do that over the 4 years. That, or go 40-45 minutes each way to cross enroll at a community college.
 
  • #19
Fredrik said:
Isn't pre-calc studied in high school in the USA?

Yeah, and I took in high school. But this is kind of my point. I hated it in high school and really liked it in college.
 
  • #20
Robert1986 said:
Because college education \neq job training.

This is the most sensible post I have seen on this board in awhile.

Amazingly, most people equate education and job training. The two, of course, have very little in common. Before 1920's (with the advent of specialization and rising popularity of the term "specialist"), no college majors even existed. When one went to college, he was obtaining a Bachelor of Arts by being exposed to a wide range of disciplines. Amongst those were literature, mathematics, LOGIC, etc. The importance of such approach was that it taught one how to think and QUESTION the views he was presented. Upon receiving such education, if one chose to become, say, a doctor, he attended a specialized medical school where he received TRAINING (compare with the EDUCATION above) in medical field. The same applied to accounting, actuarial science, banking, and others. Studying engineering, accounting, finance, and other similar fields does not constitute "getting an education." In fact, getting an education is an oxymoron. Education is a life-long process by which an individual finds his place in society, exposes himself to the true and beautiful, and answers to himself the questions of "Why, How, and What".

P.S. Commenting on the poster of engineering background who was lamenting the uselessness of the English courses in his engineering tenure, I could only commiserate with the readers of the poster's possible scientific works in their attempts of dealing with run-on sentences and finding their way through impenetrable communique. By the way, the secondary purpose of those English courses is to help one communicate clearly. Needless to say, the primary reason is to show the true and beautiful ...
 
  • #21
YAHA said:
This is the most sensible post I have seen on this board in awhile.

Amazingly, most people equate education and job training. The two, of course, have very little in common. Before 1920's (with the advent of specialization and rising popularity of the term "specialist"), no college majors even existed. When one went to college, he was obtaining a Bachelor of Arts by being exposed to a wide range of disciplines. Amongst those were literature, mathematics, LOGIC, etc. The importance of such approach was that it taught one how to think and QUESTION the views he was presented. Upon receiving such education, if one chose to become, say, a doctor, he attended a specialized medical school where he received TRAINING (compare with the EDUCATION above) in medical field. The same applied to accounting, actuarial science, banking, and others. Studying engineering, accounting, finance, and other similar fields does not constitute "getting an education." In fact, getting an education is an oxymoron. Education is a life-long process by which an individual finds his place in society, exposes himself to the true and beautiful, and answers to himself the questions of "Why, How, and What".

P.S. Commenting on the poster of engineering background who was lamenting the uselessness of the English courses in his engineering tenure, I could only commiserate with the readers of the poster's possible scientific works in their attempts of dealing with run-on sentences and finding their way through impenetrable communique. By the way, the secondary purpose of those English courses is to help one communicate clearly. Needless to say, the primary reason is to show the true and beautiful ...

There are not enough resources to let people explore like that anymore. That is an insane luxury. In 1920, being a high school graduate was considered well educated. In almost every country in the world, college is explicitly job training. Now you may think, what can humanities majors do to possibly make themselves more employable? Turns out, lots. Translation, advertising psychology, international finance...

They use the extra year to take more major classes and for a required internship or thesis.

I think that's much better than letting people "explore their interests". I also think that an engineering degree is a great and broad education. I see far more differences between fluid mechanics and semiconductor physics than I see between British literature and European art history. I also think I broadened my mind much more learning chemical kinetics, quantum mechanics and thermodynamics than I would have if I learned sociology and literature.
 
  • #22
Robert1986 said:
Because college education \neq job training.

THIS THIS THIS. I hate when people say "I'll never use this". A job isn't the end all be all of knowledge or of education. I hate when people say things like that. Honestly, if you're going to college for a job, you're doing it wrong.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #23
YAHA said:
P.S. Commenting on the poster of engineering background who was lamenting the uselessness of the English courses in his engineering tenure, I could only commiserate with the readers of the poster's possible scientific works in their attempts of dealing with run-on sentences and finding their way through impenetrable communique. By the way, the secondary purpose of those English courses is to help one communicate clearly. Needless to say, the primary reason is to show the true and beautiful ...

A typical english class in the states is very far removed from a grammar class. And you failed to address that almost all kids in the US have ALREADY been taking such classes since secondary education proper had been entered. Why keep on going if one does not want to? Such humanities requirements are unnecessary shackles imo.
 
  • #24
RandomGuy88 said:
If the english classes had focused more on writing technique or public speaking rather than interpreting poetry or Shakespeare then I probably would not have minded. So perhaps instead of forcing students like me to take British Literature there should be an option like a public speaking course. Same could go for students majoring in english. They could have an option for some type of math or science related course that is more practical for everyday life.

There are some colleges in the US that have "writing requirements" and they can be fulfilled by courses other than English lit ones. Yale offers "Writing seminars" for freshman (god knows what that consists of...besides a fancy title), as does some liberal arts colleges. Reed and MIT offer intro literature/western civilisation courses where the main focus is on writing and expression. (actually, I'm not sure if that's the *main* focus for Reed but I believe they do mention something like that)

chill_factor said:
There are not enough resources to let people explore like that anymore. That is an insane luxury. In 1920, being a high school graduate was considered well educated. In almost every country in the world, college is explicitly job training. Now you may think, what can humanities majors do to possibly make themselves more employable? Turns out, lots. Translation, advertising psychology, international finance...

They use the extra year to take more major classes and for a required internship or thesis.

I think that's much better than letting people "explore their interests". I also think that an engineering degree is a great and broad education. I see far more differences between fluid mechanics and semiconductor physics than I see between British literature and European art history. I also think I broadened my mind much more learning chemical kinetics, quantum mechanics and thermodynamics than I would have if I learned sociology and literature.

Now, I happen to be a big fan of the liberal arts model.

Your experience with the sciences shows that you approached it with an open mind. If you did the same with the humanities, perhaps you'd be able to see its relevance. Maybe you just didn't have good teachers for the humanities and social science courses you took. Maybe you didn't get your hands on a good book. Maybe you didn't bother looking for one. A good book or instructor can get one totally hooked on or put off by any given subject.

Studying the human condition is inherently interesting but that's just my opinion. I look forward to taking a class in literature because I've only had bad teachers, save for one but I didn't get to take a proper lit class with him. Through reading various books, the way I approach things has changed greatly and I've done a lot of growing up through the stuff I've read. Sure, the same thing happened with math and science but in a very different way. The other thing that I learned when looking at books from a critical angle is doing the same for movies. Some might say it's a bad thing because I'm very picky when it comes to films but I'm quite content with the result. Also: humanities courses can be fun! Again, it all boils down to one's own approach to it, one's peers, their teacher and the books used.
 
  • #25
YAHA said:
This is the most sensible post I have seen on this board in awhile.

Amazingly, most people equate education and job training. The two, of course, have very little in common. Before 1920's (with the advent of specialization and rising popularity of the term "specialist"), no college majors even existed. When one went to college, he was obtaining a Bachelor of Arts by being exposed to a wide range of disciplines. Amongst those were literature, mathematics, LOGIC, etc. The importance of such approach was that it taught one how to think and QUESTION the views he was presented. Upon receiving such education, if one chose to become, say, a doctor, he attended a specialized medical school where he received TRAINING (compare with the EDUCATION above) in medical field. The same applied to accounting, actuarial science, banking, and others. Studying engineering, accounting, finance, and other similar fields does not constitute "getting an education." In fact, getting an education is an oxymoron. Education is a life-long process by which an individual finds his place in society, exposes himself to the true and beautiful, and answers to himself the questions of "Why, How, and What".

P.S. Commenting on the poster of engineering background who was lamenting the uselessness of the English courses in his engineering tenure, I could only commiserate with the readers of the poster's possible scientific works in their attempts of dealing with run-on sentences and finding their way through impenetrable communique. By the way, the secondary purpose of those English courses is to help one communicate clearly. Needless to say, the primary reason is to show the true and beautiful ...

The problem is that the liberal arts system forces you to get an education. Yeah, if you like poetry, literature and music you can go to a "liberal arts school" but if you want to go straight to engineering or law school why not? Why the REQUIREMENT that you first take classes in English?
You're not really letting people explore, you're just forcing them to do something they do not want to show them the true and beautiful.
 
  • #26
Mépris said:
There are some colleges in the US that have "writing requirements" and they can be fulfilled by courses other than English lit ones. Yale offers "Writing seminars" for freshman (god knows what that consists of...besides a fancy title), as does some liberal arts colleges. Reed and MIT offer intro literature/western civilisation courses where the main focus is on writing and expression. (actually, I'm not sure if that's the *main* focus for Reed but I believe they do mention something like that)



Now, I happen to be a big fan of the liberal arts model.

Your experience with the sciences shows that you approached it with an open mind. If you did the same with the humanities, perhaps you'd be able to see its relevance. Maybe you just didn't have good teachers for the humanities and social science courses you took. Maybe you didn't get your hands on a good book. Maybe you didn't bother looking for one. A good book or instructor can get one totally hooked on or put off by any given subject.

Studying the human condition is inherently interesting but that's just my opinion. I look forward to taking a class in literature because I've only had bad teachers, save for one but I didn't get to take a proper lit class with him. Through reading various books, the way I approach things has changed greatly and I've done a lot of growing up through the stuff I've read. Sure, the same thing happened with math and science but in a very different way. The other thing that I learned when looking at books from a critical angle is doing the same for movies. Some might say it's a bad thing because I'm very picky when it comes to films but I'm quite content with the result. Also: humanities courses can be fun! Again, it all boils down to one's own approach to it, one's peers, their teacher and the books used.

It is interesting; I myself like looking at economics articles, even if I have little idea what they mean. But I would not say "Introduction to Economics should be required!"

That is to say, there are realistic resources and time constraints for everyone, constraints that are growing tighter and tighter with time, such that we do not have the luxury of forcing people to "broaden their horizons" when that is simply not going to happen - the horizons are closing in, after all. What we need are people trained specifically in a certain field at high competency, but broad enough to understand most parts of that field.

For example, I have been a strong critic of most BS Chemistry programs in the past for they do not fulfill the "high competency" part in many cases - many graduates simply have no ability to work in the chemical or biotech industries as analysts or formulation chemists, previously the most common jobs for BS holders. The education is broad, but NOT deep enough. But if some of the liberal arts requirements got canceled and a few more practical upper level classes were required that would benefit 99% of working chemists like "colloids and soft materials", "statistics in the physical sciences", "computational chemistry", etc. there will be a major improvement. It could be written into the ACS certification requirements, for instance. There's also things that physics majors could benefit from such as a requirement for "statistics in the physical sciences" or "introduction to signal processing", but aren't required.

This is just one aspect of one subject. Other majors have similar problems that could be solved by cutting liberal arts requirements and adding core classes. Sure, you might say, it is the student's problem if they don't get job skills, and college isn't for a job, but the fact remains: most students aren't that active so you have to think for the majority, and college is for job training.
 
  • #27
One of the intentions of a college education is to be well-rounded, i.e., science/engineering majors would have some experience/exposure to humanities and arts, and humanities/arts majors would have some exposure to math and science. There are other factors like citizenship, e.g., learning some history and political science, since we live in a society that has a history and is strongly influenced by a political system.

For science and engineering majors, the ability to communicate is rather critical. I'm rather discouraged when I read simple communications from engineers with undergraduate degrees, and the writing is full of mis-spellings and other errors. Poor writing undermines the quality of the work, as well as undermining the confidence of the recipient (e.g., client) of the work.

Coincidentally, I read an opinion in the NYTimes that raises a similar issue expressed in the OP, but at the level of Algebra - Is Algebra Necessary? I found Algebra rather easy.

I took a first course in algebra in Grade 9. In Grade 10, I had a class in Geometry (honors level - with proofs - in which we did a one year course in one semester) and Trigonometry. I transferred to a new high school for 11th and 12th grade. In 11th grade, I took a second year of Algebra with Trig. This course was in preparation for the 12th grade Calculus class, in which I did one trimester of Analytical Geometry, then two trimesters of Calculcus. At the same time, I did two years of Chemistry (11th and 12th grade). During the second year of chemistry, we studied rate equations/kinetics using differential equations. I had one year of physics, and eventually, we used some calculus. I was one of only 20 or so students (~3% of the graduating class) who took the same math and science program (some opted for advanced biology rather than a second year of chemistry). Most of us went on to top level schools and majored in math, science, engineering or medicine.

I also noticed a considerable disparity in programs among schools - even in the same school district. Had I remained at the first high school, I would not have had the opportunity to do the math and science program that I did at the second high school. When I was teaching at university, I encountered freshman students who struggled with simple word problems in introductory engineering courses. Most were only beginning introductory calculus, or were taking pre-calculus.

The educational system is faced with a spectrum of students with varying interests and capabilities/proficiencies. Yet somehow, society (or most) seems to expect, or wish, all to succeed. The question perhaps then is - 'how literate and numerate should we expect folks of different interests to be?'

In my freshman year, I took an English literature class, because my entry essay wasn't good enough. For me, the literature class was less about writing and more about analysis. It was a waste of my time (especially analysis of poetry and plays). It would have been better for me to take a course in writing - with some emphasis on technical writing. I finally did take a course in technical writing, and that proved useful.

Personally, I think algebra and certain concepts in linear algebra, geometry, trigonometry and calculus should be introduced earlier than they are - as early as 4th or 5th grade.


The author of the article in the NYTimes indicates that "considerable training occurs after hiring, including the kinds of computations that will be required." This seems to me to infer that training for work-related mathematics skills should be pushed off onto the employer. I thoroughly disagree with this, since students should already have some proficiency in mathematics and analytical skills. In fact, for one summer job, I took a proficiency test in math and technology. The highest ranking students got the best jobs - working as process operators.
 
Last edited:
  • #28
thetaobums said:
I'm a science major, but I don't see the point of students from fields outside of science, engineering, and finance taking calculus. Most, if not all, colleges require these students to take at least one semester of calculus.

1) I don't think that most colleges *do* require a semester of calculus. MIT requires a year of calculus, but University of Phoenix doesn't even teach calculus. I just checked UTexas Austin doesn't require calculus either

http://www.utexas.edu/ugs/core/requirements/2012-2014
http://www.ma.utexas.edu/academics/courses/descriptions/M302.php

2) If you are a technical person that works for someone who has a non-technical background, you'll be glad that they have some math background

If colleges would only replace calculus with intro programming, at least some students would enjoy it and learn a new skill that can contribute to the economy.

Calculus hasn't changed in 300 years. Computer programming has changed a lot in ten years.
 
Last edited:
  • #29
Cuauhtemoc said:
Why the REQUIREMENT that you first take classes in English?

In the United States, it's largely because we have a decentralized educational system and a lot of college is intended to make up for deficiencies in high school. This isn't necessarily a bad system. In a lot of other countries, people go through insane stress in high school, but college is a cake walk.

There are also funding issues. Lower division classes are cash cows that are used to subsidize upper division classes and research. There's also "weed out". If you can't pass Freshman English then that keeps you from even applying to the more advanced stuff.

There's also issue of keeping the market closed. If it was easy to be a doctor or lawyer, then everyone would be one, which would cause salaries to plummet. In a lot of countries, doctors and lawyers are bachelor degrees but in those countries, doctors and lawyers handle a lot of the things that in the United States would be done by nurses and paralegals (and doctors and lawyers get paid accordingly).

Besides, what's the hurry? It's not as there's a ton of jobs waiting for you...

You're not really letting people explore, you're just forcing them to do something they do not want to show them the true and beautiful.

Thereby training them to be cogs in the corporate machine. A large part of the educational system is intended to whip people into shape. Complying with silly requirements so that you don't get fired is going to be something you have to learn to do.
 
  • #30
Astronuc said:
The author of the article in the NYTimes indicates that "considerable training occurs after hiring, including the kinds of computations that will be required."

And this is the sort of clueless non-sense that one expects from academics that have never spent a day in the corporate environment. There's very little math training that takes place in the workplace. If the job requires algebra, and you don't know algebra, you aren't getting the job. Period. If they are teaching you algebra that means that they are expecting you to work really cheap.

One equation

(your salary) + (cost of training) < (salary of someone that knows the skills)

As far as the citizen math nonsense, I don't see how you can even *BEGIN* to understand something like the CPI statistics without algebra.

Part of this is may be because I work in finance. Not knowing algebra is like being ***totally illiterate***, you cannot do *ANYTHING*. Even the most basic jobs involve punching numbers into spreadsheets. For that matter, there isn't a skill that I learning in college that isn't useful.

That essay is just total garbage.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
6K