Re: Don't Call It "Algebra"; Call It Something Warm And Fuzzy

On Jul 13, 7:57=A0pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "Larry Hewitt" <larryh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> Herman is a statistics professor of significant repute, and he seems
> not to consider that sort of stat class to be proper statistics.
> "Cookbook" statistical algorithms are frequently used without
> understanding, leading to misleading results (sometimes intentionally
> misleading).
>
>
> >My legislature demands that I teach this, failure to do so will result
i=
n my
> >termination.
>
> Herman doesn't think that legislatures should have the right to decide
> curriculum - only subject matter academicians.

And he is correct.  The idea that the legislature, who knows nothing
abouth math, chemistry, physics, literature, sociology, etc.  should
decide course content is absurd....  The inmates are running the
asylum.


> Other countries that outperform us in science and math tests are also
> noted for being envious of American initiative and creativity. =A0It
> could very well be that there is a tradeoff between rigor and
> creativity for all but the most intelligent (and maybe even them).

However, it is precisely the "most intelligent" who are responsible
for the creativity.   And creativity in math/science DEMANDS rigor.

We have the 3rd largest population in the world. And the most of any
*developed* country.  (China & India are getting there.  I expect
China
to overtake the U.S. in science and technology during this century).
It is not surprising that we would have more creative people than most
other countries.

Perhaps what we need to do  (this is VERY politically incorrect)
is to separate those who can from those who can not very early on
in school.  Provide training (in the sense under discussion) for those
who can't,  and provide education (in the sense under discussion) for
those
who can.  It is my understanding that at least some countries already
do
this (e.g. Germany).   One might argue that this will lead to a 2-
tiered
society, but I would argue that this is what we already have.  The
widening
income gap in this country is driven by (IMO) the gap in education
between
the poor and the economically well-to-do.   The poor are poor
precisely because
they have below average intelligence and hence get "training" instead
of
"education".