The Math You Don't Learn is Harder Still

[0rthodontist]

Long division doesn't show you much about what division actually is. It just says to follow a process, which is no more insightful about the value of 3/6 than than reading the result off of a calculator. It's good because it teaches number manipulation skills, especially if it's done mentally rather than on paper. But it doesn't show you much about the number. Long division is useful for teaching polynomial division but I don't know of any other good application.

Also, I don't like the word "rote." Memorization need not be rote. If you learn to do basic algebra mentally, it drives you to develop a good memory for certain symbols and numbers. But it's hardly rote. Not that rote is bad, when appropriate--it's just that rote is the very first step in learning to remember things. You don't learn your multiplication tables by experimenting with rocks. But memorization through practice is the next step. Not all memorization is rote.

According to a "Scientific American" article a few months ago, a good memory for your subject is an essential part of being skilled about your subject. Chessmasters can remember board positions far better than lesser players. Other things I have read and experienced support this. Furthermore, memory is not a terribly difficult skill to teach. It's just a matter of the student practicing a lot; almost anyone can develop a phenomenal memory for anything, with enough practice. And in certain subjects, math being one of them, a phenomenal memory equals much better skills.

I completely disagree that most students are doing any kind of algebra before they learn the symbols. If you ask a child who has not taken any basic algebra to find 2 numbers a and b such that a + 2b = 30 and a + b = 12, they probably wouldn't be able to solve it. I can remember being presented with these kinds of things in 4th grade or so--guess and check was all I could come up with. I doubt that I was an unusual case. This only becomes more true as the math becomes better, because it really has no analogue to everyday experience.

 

[Moonbear]

Along a similar veign, though, I'm a little bit anal about loose change (pennies, especially) - I like to get rid of it. I'd say that unless a cashier can enter the number into his register, there is no hope of getting proper change by giving them $5.07 for a $4.82 purchase. So don't get me wrong - a certain amount of doing-it-in-your-head is useful.

I'm not exactly anal about change, but I'll accumulate it for a while, and then when my purse starts weighing too much, I'll remember it's there, and start trying to use change every chance I get, and to really try to minimize how much I'm going to get back of it (though, when it gets that bad, I can usually scrounge up the full 82 cents). But, yeah, I've done that, and they always stare at me like I misheard them or something when I do something like that...they'll often try handing back the 7 cents. It's not until they punch in the numbers that it dawns on them that there was a reason for it.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I often play grub-for-exact-pennies with the cashiers at Cub Foods where I mostly shop, and have never had any static or memorable gaffes either from those long suffering folks.

 

[physics girl phd]

I have a notion that all learning is rote at first.

Also, I don't like the word "rote."...it's just that rote is the very first step in learning to remember things.

Did you then mean to say that "memorization" is the first step to ALL learning? I still disagree. I will agree that a good memory of things improves your skills/capability... therefore memorizing things (both facts and procedures) is important in the learning process. Never disagreed with you there. As an aside, I am familiar with the SA article you refer to (my mother has me on a never-ending subscription from the cash-in of my deceased father's frequent-flier miles), and I have recently been playing chess at the brewpub several times a week with some folks that are high-ranked in state competitions -- and yeah -- they are impressive. I just get them tipsy so I have an occasional win.

My argument has been that "learning" is a building process that begins when you are very young, and that during that time, learning is "first" about experimentation.

It's been a fun debate... but within the next day I'm likely off on a 1400 mile road trip. I'll be sure confuse the undereducated personnel at all nasty fast-food joints by making change in a manner to confuse...

 

[Gza]

I had no idea things had gotten nearly this bad. Does anyone here have any experience of this? It is evidently only recently the increase in this "teaching" philosophy has ceased expanding.

From NYT:http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/14/education/14math.html"

Note that the NYT prevents you from accessing articles more than 14 days old. I've saved a copy in case the debate continues past that point.

I don't know if this point is even relevant, but I'm a second year physics graduate student working on a project in quantum computing, and I seriously don't remember how to do long division. Why long division constitutes the end-all in mathematical prowess according to the quote from the original poster evades me, I can assure you, there is far more to math than some dumb, memorizable math algorithms such as long division.

 

[0rthodontist]

Did you then mean to say that "memorization" is the first step to ALL learning?

Yes, that's also a good representation of what I want to say. Rote comes first, then more sophisticated memory, then understanding. I just object to the comparison of rote learning to experimental learning--somewhat who is at the stage of being able to perform experiments and judge their results is so far above "rote" that it's not a fair comparison. The negative connotations of "rote" just seemed to be too prominent.

I still disagree. I will agree that a good memory of things improves your skills/capability... therefore memorizing things (both facts and procedures) is important in the learning process.

Do you believe that understanding should come before memory? How can you understand some concept whole if you can't remember its components?

Also, it's not just memorization. A chess master's memory for board positions is not the result of "memorization" but of mental practice.

Never disagreed with you there. As an aside, I am familiar with the SA article you refer to (my mother has me on a never-ending subscription from the cash-in of my deceased father's frequent-flier miles), and I have recently been playing chess at the brewpub several times a week with some folks that are high-ranked in state competitions -- and yeah -- they are impressive. I just get them tipsy so I have an occasional win.

My argument has been that "learning" is a building process that begins when you are very young, and that during that time, learning is "first" about experimentation.

Well, from a physical standpoint when you are very young you are building on instincts that you already have. It's quite a different process from learning something academic. Learning addition is not about experimentation. It's not by experimentation that I know 5 + 7 = 12. 12 is a number that is too large for a human brain to grasp without symbolic help--even if I had learned it through experimentation with pebbles, I would therefore not have been able to remember what I actually saw; I would only have been able to remember the symbols. I only know 5 + 7 = 12 because I memorized it once and then made it familiar through mental practice.

You need a framework to experiment on. In math this framework comes largely from developing a good symbolic memory. You need to learn all of the rules--addition, multiplication table, etc.--before you can do much with them.

It's been a fun debate... but within the next day I'm likely off on a 1400 mile road trip. I'll be sure confuse the undereducated personnel at all nasty fast-food joints by making change in a manner to confuse...

 

[Gza]

Yes, that's also a good representation of what I want to say. Rote comes first, then more sophisticated memory, then understanding. I just object to the comparison of rote learning to experimental learning--somewhat who is at the stage of being able to perform experiments and judge their results is so far above "rote" that it's not a fair comparison. The negative connotations of "rote" just seemed to be too prominent.

Wow orthodontist, from talking to you today, I've found the first person I've met (relative to me) at the polar opposite of the cognitive spectrum. I can't believe you'd put rote memorization as coming first before any kind of actual, creative thought. You must be a chemist, or some other similar discipline (perhaps dentist ) where simply knowing a fact is more important than knowing where that fact came from, and knowing how that fact can build many more facts that lead to more complex ideas. Rote memorization does not provide that sort of understanding; the understanding that leads to new ideas.

 

[0rthodontist]

I'm not a dentist. I'm a computer science and math major. I certainly believe in the value of creativity; I believe that nothing is more important than creativity. But I also believe that creativity is impossible without a firm foundation, which comes chiefly through developing a memory for the subject. In addition, you can't really teach creativity. But you certainly can teach memory, with easily measurable results.

I've made the distinction before, but I'd like to make it again, that developing a memory for a subject is completely different from, but builds on, memorizing the basics of the subject.


Part of this stems from my memories of middle school and high school math texts before calculus being extremely lightweight. One chapter might contain three facts, as compared to a chapter in a standard history text for the same age level which might contain a hundred facts and be covered in about as much time. The only possible reason for such a huge difference in content density is that most kids were unable to remember as many math facts as they could history facts, presumably because history is written in English and is a collection of stories, both of which they have a lot of practice with. I remember seeing laughable "formula sheets" that contained maybe twenty or thirty formulas at the outside. Why does a student need a formula sheet for twenty math formulas that were accumulated over a year or more when he or she can pick up fifty facts about history in an evening just by reading a chapter? It's a question of specialized memory--for math, they don't have it, for history, they do. Why not close that memory gap by training the students specifically to remember and mentally work with mathematical symbols, and then make the math texts as dense in information as the history texts?

 

[arildno]

I don't know if this point is even relevant, but I'm a second year physics graduate student working on a project in quantum computing, and I seriously don't remember how to do long division. Why long division constitutes the end-all in mathematical prowess according to the quote from the original poster evades me, I can assure you, there is far more to math than some dumb, memorizable math algorithms such as long division.

What's your problem?
First of all, long division isn't "dumb", secondly, if you actually claim to understand the concept of division, you'd be able to develop that algorithm in about two minute's time.

 

[Gza]

"Originally Posted by Gza
I don't know if this point is even relevant, but I'm a second year physics graduate student working on a project in quantum computing, and I seriously don't remember how to do long division. Why long division constitutes the end-all in mathematical prowess according to the quote from the original poster evades me, I can assure you, there is far more to math than some dumb, memorizable math algorithms such as long division."

What's your problem?
First of all, long division isn't "dumb", secondly, if you actually claim to understand the concept of division, you'd be able to develop that algorithm in about two minute's time.

I don't have any sort of disdain for long division, and meant it was "dumb" in the way its taught as some sort of memorizeable math trick, and yes, i'll go out on a limb here and "claim to understand the concept of division." And as far as me developing the algorithm for long division, why would I need to do that when there's a nifty little invention called a calculator/computer/cellphone/watch/etc, that is faster and more accurate than i am at such simple computations. I suppose you still handwash all of your clothes, use a slide rule, and have to build a fire every time you cook something.

 

[physics girl phd]

I suppose you still handwash all of your clothes, use a slide rule, and have to build a fire every time you cook something.

Some clothes say "handwash," I still occasionally use a slide rule, and (ala. beavis and butthead) "fire!fire!"

 

[arildno]

there is far more to math than some dumb, memorizable math algorithms such as long division.

Shut up if all you can do is to lie about what you ACTUALLY said, which I re-quote here.

Sure, I assume you are some sort of calculation parrot who can come up with whatever formula you've been given, but your posts does not show that you have much understanding about maths.

 

[Gza]

Shut up if all you can do is to lie about what you ACTUALLY said, which I re-quote here.

Sure, I assume you are some sort of calculation parrot who can come up with whatever formula you've been given, but your posts does not show that you have much understanding about maths.

So you're implying that since I don't pull out a pen and paper and start doing long division every time I'm faced with dividing two large numbers, and instead reach for a calculator, I'm some sort of "calculational parrot," with little understanding of math? Do you rail on people who decide to program computers in c/c++ instead of typing long lines of 010100101010?

 

[BobG]

I don't have any sort of disdain for long division, and meant it was "dumb" in the way its taught as some sort of memorizeable math trick, and yes, i'll go out on a limb here and "claim to understand the concept of division." And as far as me developing the algorithm for long division, why would I need to do that when there's a nifty little invention called a calculator/computer/cellphone/watch/etc, that is faster and more accurate than i am at such simple computations. I suppose you still handwash all of your clothes, use a slide rule, and have to build a fire every time you cook something.

I have handwashed my clothes and know enough about washing clothes to realize the type of detergent you use really doesn't matter. In fact, for normal washing, clothes washed with no detergent are usually rated higher than clothes washed in detergent (at least if you follow the directions on the box or bottle of laundry detergent, which are designed to sell more detergent; not produce better clothes for you - in fact, the main reason you need fabric softener in the dryer is to counter the effect of the detergent that didn't come out in the rinse).

I still use a slide rule more often than a calculator. Unless you're solving matrices, simultaneous equations, or really need those extra significant digits, it's usually quicker and simpler. But, then, it's only quicker and simpler if you're comfortable rearranging your calculations to avoid excess movements of the slide and cursor.

Hell, I've eaten raw eggs because I couldn't start a fire (it rained all night long is one good excuse - putting out the fire on a snowy day because it's the only way I could get a buch of 11 year old boy scouts to leave the fire and actually do something wasn't such a good idea when I didn't have a ready supply of dry firewood - aw, who am I kidding - it's always humiliating when you can't a build a fire to cook the food no matter what the excuse, but at least I'm able to console myself that I know the theory behind building a fire).

Grrr. Well, in two out three cases, a good background knowledge is more important than some mere ritual that happens to yield results.

 

[ChemGuy]

I take great offense to GZA when he said Chemistry is just mindless memorization. Having degrees in both Chemistry and Physics I can tell you there is just as many principles in chemistry as there are in physics. The chemistry you learn as an undergrad is a lot of memorization buy a deeper understand is required to predict the out come of experiments which you have never seen.

There is also just as much memorization in physics and math as there is in chemistry. Just think of all the formula's you have to memorize to be able to do the problems. Formulas and mathematical methods are just a language used to describe the principles. Reactions are just a language used to describe chemical processes. If Chemistry were all memorization we could never build the molecules we build today. You can't just throw stuff in a pot and hope you get the material!

 

[arildno]

So you're implying that since I don't pull out a pen and paper and start doing long division every time I'm faced with dividing two large numbers, and instead reach for a calculator, I'm some sort of "calculational parrot," with little understanding of math? Do you rail on people who decide to program computers in c/c++ instead of typing long lines of 010100101010?

Nope.

NOWHERE in OP's post was it said that "long division is the be-all of mathematical prowess", and NOWHERE was that implied.
YOU were the one that perverted OP's post into that meaning.
YOU were the one showing unwarranted contempt for long division.

YOU were the one insinuating that others hand-wash their clothes rather than using the washing machine.

YOU are the one showing even more unwarranted contempt of chemistry.

YOU are the one consistently throwing abuse at everyone else.

This is an extremely typical behaviour of someone who is lacking fundamental competence, but manages to hide this by scaring off others with his persistent dirt-throwing.

THAT is why I said that your posts certainly don't show much understanding of maths; I couldn't care less whether you actually belong in the mentioned group of incompetents or not.

 

[Gza]

Nope.

NOWHERE in OP's post was it said that "long division is the be-all of mathematical prowess", and NOWHERE was that implied.
YOU were the one that perverted OP's post into that meaning.
YOU were the one showing unwarranted contempt for long division.

YOU were the one insinuating that others hand-wash their clothes rather than using the washing machine.

YOU are the one showing even more unwarranted contempt of chemistry.

YOU are the one consistently throwing abuse at everyone else.

This is an extremely typical behaviour of someone who is lacking fundamental competence, but manages to hide this by scaring off others with his persistent dirt-throwing.

THAT is why I said that your posts certainly don't show much understanding of maths; I couldn't care less whether you actually belong in the mentioned group of incompetents or not.

Fair enough, I LOVE LONG DIVISION! In fact I'm off to divide 24234235 by 2354 for kicks. It was fun having a level-headed, reasonable debate with you arildno. For the record I am completely incompetent in all aspects possible. Now please relax and make yourself some tea

 

[arildno]

Perhaps it is time you apologize for your behaviour towards Orthodontist and other posters.

Your posts have been, and remain, wholly unwarranted ridicules of other posters' views.

 

[Gza]

Perhaps it is time you apologize for your behaviour towards Orthodontist and other posters.

Your posts have been, and remain, wholly unwarranted perversions of other posters' views.

I'd like to see some quotes where you can show this. I don't apologize unless its necessary. And perhaps you can apologize to me for your remarks as well (scroll up to the top of the page, and read how you've been adressing me, including telling me to "shut up," and "f*ck off." At no point have I had to resort to such adolescent belittling language).

 

[Quaoar]

There are 4 elementary mathematical procedures kids should learn: Addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. Just because one of the operations is a little more difficult than the others does not mean we should not teach it! I don't even see how someone can function in the modern world without being able to do long division...

 

[arildno]

Since you were actually lying about what you said, as shown by my re-quote, you do not deserve to be adressed with a grown-up's language.

 

[Gza]

ORIGINAL QUOTE:
"I can assure you, there is far more to math than some dumb, memorizable math algorithms such as long division."

EXPLANATION:
"I don't have any sort of disdain for long division, and meant it was "dumb" in the way its taught as some sort of memorizeable math trick"

At no point did I "lie" or go back on what I said. Is there some sort of language barrier here that's keeping you from understanding what I'm saying? Or do you just need some improvement in reading comprehension?

 

[arildno]

Comparison:

"I can assure you, there is far more to math than some DUMB, memorizable math algorithms SUCH AS long division."

"I don't have any sort of disdain for long division"

In the first, you show disdain for long division, in the second one, you contradict that.

 

[Evo]

Ok, stop the fighting.

 

[Gza]

Comparison:

"I can assure you, there is far more to math than some DUMB, memorizable math algorithms SUCH AS long division."

"I don't have any sort of disdain for long division"

In the first, you show disdain for long division, in the second one, you contradict that.

Well, you can make me say pretty much anything you want me to by taking a quote out of context; the FULL quote:

I don't have any sort of disdain for long division and meant it was "dumb" in the way its taught as some sort of memorizeable math trick


I qualified my use of "dumb" to be different than its usual negative connotation. Any more clarifications before we can have any semblance of intelligent communication?

 

[arildno]

Yes. Anyone else with a shred of respect for others would have said something along the lines:"Ah sorry, what I meant to say was...". That's not what you did.

Furthermore, you are ridiculing Orthodontist as a chemist (goodness knows why), and to my first reply (which wasn't at all disrespectful towards you), you ridicule it by insinuating I wash my clothes by hand, and cook my food on a fire.

 

[Gza]

Yes. Anyone else with a shred of respect for others would have said something along the lines:"Ah sorry, what I meant to say was...". That's not what you did.

Furthermore, you are ridiculing Orthodontist as a chemist (goodness knows why), and to my first reply (which wasn't at all disrespectful towards you), you ridicule it by insinuating I wash my clothes by hand, and cook my food on a fire.

Agreed, the comment to orthodontist was over the line, and I apologize to him. As for your first reply:

" What's your problem? First of all, long division isn't "dumb", secondly, if you actually claim to understand the concept of division, you'd be able to develop that algorithm in about two minute's time."

First you assume I have some sort of problem. Then you posit that i don't "understand the concept of division." As far as the -washing clothes by hand and cooking on a fire- comment, I meant it as an analogy, and by no means any sort of personal attack.

 

[arildno]

Agreed, the comment to orthodontist was over the line, and I apologize to him. As for your first reply:

" What's your problem? First of all, long division isn't "dumb", secondly, if you actually claim to understand the concept of division, you'd be able to develop that algorithm in about two minute's time."

First you assume I have some sort of problem.

Yes.

Then you posit that i don't "understand the concept of division."

No. What stands there quite simply express that anyone understanding maths (including you, I happen to presume) wouldn't need to REMEMBER long division, since we are able to develop it from scratch, if need ever be.

And I still cannot see whether a 20-30 year old remembers a formula is relevant to the OP's question/theme whether long division should be taught or not in school.

Besides, you owe OP an apology by your rendering of the quote as coming with the ridiculous message that long division is the end-all of mathematical prowess. You know damn well that was not implied in the original post.

 

[physics girl phd]

Ok, stop the fighting.

Well put! arildno and Gza... Agree to disagree... 0rthodontist and I had a good time debating, defining our positions WITH NICE LANGUAGE, and then moving on. I think we probably respect each other (right 0-guy? and I DO like chemists!). I don't think we EVER insulted each other...

So if you guys don't stop we'll send you to the corner to hold hands for an hour! ( worse punishment my parents ever inflicted on my siblings and I).

 

[0rthodontist]

Well put! arildno and Gza... Agree to disagree... 0rthodontist and I had a good time debating, defining our positions WITH NICE LANGUAGE, and then moving on. I think we probably respect each other (right 0-guy? and I DO like chemists!). I don't think we EVER insulted each other...

So if you guys don't stop we'll send you to the corner to hold hands for an hour! ( worse punishment my parents ever inflicted on my siblings and I).

Of course! I have a lot of respect for anyone educated in a technical subject.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Long division is wrong anyway.

 

[Quaoar]

Long division is wrong anyway.

Wrong? What do you mean?

 

[mathwonk]

i can't find anything to respond to here. what gives?

 

[Office_Shredder]

i can't find anything to respond to here. what gives?

On the other hand, there have been no argumentative posts for 8 hours.

It's kind of like in the simpsons, when Prof. Frink stands up and shouts "Pi is exactly three!"

 

[arildno]

Well put! arildno and Gza... Agree to disagree... 0rthodontist and I had a good time debating, defining our positions WITH NICE LANGUAGE, and then moving on. I think we probably respect each other (right 0-guy? and I DO like chemists!). I don't think we EVER insulted each other...

No, you didn't. But Gza insulted several, without any prior provocation. I simply critisized him for doing that.

 

[Alkatran]

So the current math is based on the idea that when kids come up with their own algorithms, they do better in math?

Guess which kids come up with their own algorithms regardless of how math is taught. What?! The ones that are good at math?!

 

[arildno]

So the current math is based on the idea that when kids come up with their own algorithms, they do better in math?

Guess which kids come up with their own algorithms regardless of how math is taught. What?! The ones that are good at math?!

Guess&check has been elevated to the deepest method available, since the teachers are unsure of other methods, in particular of those based on systematic thinking.

 

[Office_Shredder]

So the current math is based on the idea that when kids come up with their own algorithms, they do better in math?

Guess which kids come up with their own algorithms regardless of how math is taught. What?! The ones that are good at math?!

It's interesting, my 8th grade math teacher said something similiar. One of the kids who had to stay after for extra help asked how some kids could answer so many more questions, and get them right more often, in the same amount of time (I wasn't staying after for help then, I was busy scribbling on the board in my misguided attempt at eliminating a variable from an algebraic equation Those were the days). She said that the reason why is that the kids who get higher grades do the problems in a way that's easier and faster, because they know how to answer the problem better.

 

[twisting_edge]

Guess which kids come up with their own algorithms regardless of how math is taught. What?! The ones that are good at math?!

If you read that article, it's probably the kids who are sent out for private math tutoring.

That has evidently become pretty common, although there aren't many hard numbers given in the article.

 

[Gza]

No, you didn't. But Gza insulted several, without any prior provocation. I simply critisized him for doing that.

Arildno the saint . Thank you for playing "post police", but I'm sure that most posters here are intelligent enough to defend themselves in a debate. And as far as insults go, read back a few pages and see who was the one delivering the largest number of -not so subtle- insults (Although I see you've deleted a few involving a certain 4-letter word) .

 

[twisting_edge]

I forwarded that same article I linked to start this thread to one of my brothers. His response was interesting.

Yep. That's me. Well, actually, I'm the sorry b_st_rd who is left to pick up the pieces. I teach physics to 11th and 12 graders, and many students cannot solve for t in the equation d=(1/2)at*t. (One-half a t squared). Just ridiculous. I teach a class in "conceptual physics" where there is literally almost no math, and what little there is (see example above) will kill my students. I've faced the same stupid dilemma over and over: bring everything to a complete stop, teach the math for a few days, then start over, or just simply drop material from the curriculum. I've done it both ways. I was going to try to teach the Pythagorean theorem to 11TH GRADERS. Holy sh_t, man, these are not even kids really. Luckily, I chose to drop it. I teach vectors in one dimension to those kids, which is to say that I do not teach them vectors at all. I've used the 3-4-5 right triangle, and 45-45-90 to keep the math simple. They can swallow that, but only after relentless drilling, etc. F_cking joke. The title of the class is "college physics". The idea that anyone who can't handle the Pythagorean theorem at the age of seventeen is going to go anywhere near a college campus in the capacity of anything other than a food-service or maintenance worker is not just laughably optimistic, but pathologically delusional. Oh well.

Thanks for the article. I haven't had a chance to read the other thing you sent me yet. I've just been too busy trying to translate the science of physics from the language of mathematics to the patois of today's youth.

 

[turbo]

I forwarded that same article I linked to start this thread to one of my brothers. His response was interesting.

That is really pathetic and disheartening. I blame some of this on the the resistance to "tracking" in Junior High and High Schools. Back in the '60's I was in the "College" track (and had been assigned lots of extra work in grade school to keep me from being a bored behavioral problem). The HS math teacher created and taught an advanced math class just so 3 other seniors and myself could keep learning when we had absorbed all the available math curriculum. Recently, I have watched my nieces and nephews float through HS, essentially unchallenged, earning A's because they are graded with a pool of other kids who just don't measure up. "All men are created equal" might be a fine ideal, politically, but every child should be challenged to their limits because children all have their strengths and weaknesses.

 

[Evo]

The title of the class is "college physics". The idea that anyone who can't handle the Pythagorean theorem at the age of seventeen is going to go anywhere near a college campus in the capacity of anything other than a food-service or maintenance worker is not just laughably optimistic, but pathologically delusional. Oh well.

If they're learning grade school math in high scool, maybe they can catch up to high school level in college.

It's really patheitic. On this forum we see yuoung people that are definitely above the curve when it comes to learning, I sometimes forget about the "average" kids shlepping along out there. The child of Evo tutored kids in English which is called "communication arts" when she was in high school. She was appalled.

 

[Knavish]

I forwarded that same article I linked to start this thread to one of my brothers. His response was interesting.

I graduated from high school about a year and a half ago, and let me be the first to say that this is complete bull****. My high school, if anything, was below average, and virtually all sophomores (and a large number of freshman) could do simple algebra and knew of the Pythagorean theorem. Your brother either (a) teaches at an extremely lousy high school or (b) is exaggerating.

The problem with our school system is not that students aren't learning these methods. It's that they aren't learning the reasons for them. For example, nearly all students know of the Pythagorean theorem, but most don't know why it is.

 

[Evo]

I graduated from high school about a year and a half ago, and let me be the first to say that this is complete bull****. My high school, if anything, was below average, and virtually all sophomores (and a large number of freshman) could do simple algebra and knew of the Pythagorean theorem. Your brother either (a) teaches at an extremely lousy high school or (b) is exaggerating.

The problem with our school system is not that students aren't learning these methods. It's that they aren't learning the reasons for them. For example, nearly all students know of the Pythagorean theorem, but most don't know why it is.

Knavish, you'd be surprised. I'm only guessing where T_E's brother teaches, but I'm inclined to say it's a very high income area, which means most students go to private schools, and if he teaches at a public school, no one (the majority of the populace) there cares about what happens because their kids don't attend.

 

[Moonbear]

I forwarded that same article I linked to start this thread to one of my brothers. His response was interesting.

That's really sad, especially since it's the same attitude my high school physics teacher had, and was what completely turned me off to physics. Has he taken a look at what math courses the students are in? In my high school, trig was a co-requisite for physics, and calculus not required (we took physics in 11th grade and calculus in 12th), yet the physics teacher taught us with the assumption we all knew calculus (some students on the fastest math track did...we had two honors tracks for math, which to this day I couldn't explain the reasoning behind how they assigned us into them...I guess that was enough to convince him the rest of us were just dummies).

Perhaps he would serve the students better to talk to the school administration and get the course pre-requisites clarified so that students who haven't been taught calculus yet aren't trying to learn it in their physics course. There's no excuse for lack of communication among teachers to ensure that the prerequisites for junior and senior level classes are indeed being met in their earlier classes. What chance do those students have when their teacher looks down on them so badly?

 

[twisting_edge]

I graduated from high school about a year and a half ago, and let me be the first to say that this is complete bull****.

Yes, I am sure you know far more about my brother's school than he does, esp. since you were not even a student there, let alone a teacher.

I shall e-mail him your commentary and demand he correct his opinions forthwith. The fellow is clearly useless.

 

[FrogPad]

What's with all the hostility in this thread?

 

[Quaoar]

What's with all the hostility in this thread?

I would tell you the percentage of hostility in this thread, but no one taught me long-division so I can't divide 101 into 62...

 

[FrogPad]

I would tell you the percentage of hostility in this thread, but no one taught me long-division so I can't divide 101 into 62...

hehe nice