In article <AdKdnQc1u-gl3uDV4p2dnAA@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Larry Hewitt <larryhewi@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>"Herman Rubin" <hrubin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>news:g5j9cu$6iqa@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> In article <GJWdnXmZ_tO-S-HV4p2dnAA@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>> Larry Hewitt <larryhewi@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
[References deleted.]
..............
>>>>>>>>>Herman doesn't consider "basic high school-level algebra" to
include
>>>>>>>>>the "basic mathematical concepts" that he is talking about, which
>>>>>>>>>are
>>>>>>>>>theoretical and abstract. He thinks that "basic high
school-level
>>>>>>>>>algebra" is mostly plug and chug recipes for solving problems,
and
>>>>>>>>>rote memorization of terminology, and he considers neither of
these
>>>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>>>be real "mathematics".
>>>>>>>>>>> The following includes essentially all of algebra, except
>>>>>>>>>>> for technical terms not used at the high school level:
>>>>>>>>>>> A variable is a tem****ary name for something,
>>>>>>>>>>> which must maintain its meaning in a given context.
>>>>>>>>>>> The same operation performed on equal entities
>>>>>>>>>>> yields equal results.
>>>>>>>>>>I respectfully disagree. For whatever reason, the term
*algebra*
>>>>>>>>>>has
>>>>>>>>>>taken on some mythical status as something extremely difficult
and
>>>>>>>>>>fear-inducing.
>>>>>>>>>The reason, as I learned from raising two kids who got that
>>>>>>>>>attitude,
>>>>>>>>>is that *algebra* IS extremely difficult and fear-inducing.
>> It is, because of the atrocious way it is taught.
>> The problems set for one variable require the student
>> to mentally make lots of substitutions. NO word
>> problem should limit the number of variables used.
>No, it is becaue of scoietal attitudes created in large part from
attempts
>to make intor math rigorous.
And why did that approach, which is the hard one but looks
simple, fail? It was because the teachers COULD NOT understand
the simple concepts, but could only do memorization and drill.
We need teachers who have been taught concepts, not trained in
managing the type of class which should not even exist.
The societal attitudes of grade a year, all at the same pace,
were easy for the Dewey socialists to brainwash during the
Depression, and we cannot have good schools except as this
attitude is utterly DESTROYED.
>I had parents in PTOassemblies talk about how hard math was, how boring
it
>was, and how a reward for meeting fund raising goasl was a pass to ditch
>math.
They do not have any better an understanding of mathematics
than the most ignorant tribesman. They may be able to do
some arithmetic operations trained into them, but they do
not know what it means. It IS that bad.
>In college I had fellow students in other disciplies ooh and ahh about me
>being a math major --- it was just "so hard".
If they were given some understanding instead of poor
training, they might not think of it that way.
>I had parents debate the need for math with me when I called them in
becauee
>theur kid slept through first period.
....................
>> They may or may not be available. It is not unusual for even
>> good students not to take the proof geometry course. The
>> more usual course is terminology, and how to compute perimeters
>> and areas, and maybe a little more. This was the result of the
>> educationists in NSF around 1960, who did not accept the
>> excellent book produced by the committee.
>Not around here.
>The proof aren;t as riorous as the grad level geometry course. but they
are
>proofs.
They aren't? There are a few axioms which Euclid assumed, and
the high school book not adopted had those included, but the
level of rigor was the same. There are no levels of rigor;
there are of completeness.
>An they learn far more than simple area and perimiter ccalcs for tri- and
>quadrilaterals.
>About half the course is proofs of the angle theorems and extensions of
>these theorems into the larger multilaterals.
Gee whiz.
>Even this is betyond many students --- ther eis a high failure rate. A
dirty
>little secret is thattwo failures puts you into a "math for dummies"
section
>open to seniors on;y who ar ein jeopardy of mot graduating if they don;t
>pass geometry and algebra ii/.
The assumption of the educationists that anyone can learn
anything anyone else can is just that, and is false.
Those willing and able to learn should not be held back.
Anyone holding a student back, even in ONE subject, should
be financially responsible for trying to undo it, and
pay substantial damages. Only this will scare the teachers
into doing something remotely intelligent.
You can lead a child to educational op****tunities, but
you cannot make him learn.
>>>Did you know that also in every district I am aware of --- 4 entire
>>>states --- that 2 algebra and 1 geometry course, in different orders,
are
>>>all more than 80% of students are required to take to graduate? Public
>>>and
>>>private.Some require even less, especially private schools.
>>>And that, as you note, geometry is the "formal" math class, requiring
more
>>>rigor in answering questions?
>> I do not trust the contents of ANY of these courses, except
>> possibly at the best high schools. Most come out not knowing
>> what a proof is, or even that there is such a thing as a theorem.
>So you say.
My colleagues have seen the output.
>Truth is, there are very few texts in circulation, most texts are very
>simialr, and courses tend to look alike.
Yes; the educationist fraternity sees to that.
When subject matter scholars object, they are not even
cursorily listened to.
>>>In every one of those states geometry is taught in the 10th grade or
later
>>>for these 80% (god, I hate block scheduling), who take algebra i in the
>>>9th
>>>grade.
>> Does it matter if the course is low?
>I do not understand.
A poor course can be worse than no course at all. With no
course at all, the colleges will not assume that there is
knowledge of the subject.
>>>This is what society has deigned to be the standard for education. I
>>>agree,
>>>it is probably not enough. But even this much is more than much of
society
>>>wants. And this even includes colleges.
The inmates running the asylum.
>>>Most colleges require no more than 2 high school credits in math for
>>>admission. But some require only 1.
>> And the college courses have mostly sunk. A good student
>> might not get any of the "standard" upper division mathematics
>> course, and will not have any way of knowing it.
>Thye willnot take it because they do not need it.
That is not what I meant. They will take courses with
that title, but not the content.
>A journalist does not need topology.
Agreed. But algebra, and an understanding of
mathematical rigor, is needed.
>A registered dietician doe snot need a linear algebra course.
Wrong. How else can one balance a diet.
>A lawyer deos not need differential equations.
No, but he might well need to know what a differential
equation is; anyone with a calculus course which stresses
the concepts already knows this. And this should be
required for the FIRST physics course.
>>>You must understand the resistance teachers and HS administrators get
when
>>>advising college bound students to take more math courses than
admission
>>>to
>>>the college of their choice requires, risking their precious gpa and
>>>possibly even admission.
Some of the private colleges already discard these. And many
Indiana high schools, including West Lafayette, will no longer
provide the GPA or class rank, arguing that it hurts their
students who are capable of going to good schools.
You might find this surprising, but I believe that an "A"
in a course should mean the course was too easy.
>>>If you want to change high school math education stop blaming high
>>>schools,
>>>blame colleges, get them to change. Get them to require trig for
>>>admission.
>>>Get them to require calc II for graduation.
>> It will not matter. Cookbook calculus is still bad.
>So ther eis no hoep.
>All you want to do is complain?
No; I want to start getting good education. Those with
attitudes like you are not likely to be a part of
providing it. Nor, alas, are most of the current
teachers or teacher candidates.
>>>Won't happen. Half their student bodies will flunk out.
>> At this time, they should. How else is Joe Sixpack going
>> to understand how poor the education is? I do not consider
>> more than 1/3 of the college students prepared for college,
>> and I am not sure what ****tion of the college graduates are
>> so prepared. There is great pressure not to fail too many.
>That is your whine.
Is it not justified?
>But hte people paying the bills are satsdisfied.
Most of the bills are not paid by the students or
their families.
>AS I said vefore, who am I to tell others how to think?
As a libertarian, I do not want the government to tell
anyone how to think. I believe in providing op****tunities
to those who can take advantage of them, and not yelling
discrimination by those who cannot.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
|
