« prev   random   next »

2
0

Higher Order Math not necessary...

By HonkpilledMaster following x   2019 Jan 5, 6:03pm 1,054 views   31 comments   watch   nsfw   quote     share    


... and takes time away from other critical thinking and useful knowledge, like learning the standards for Reasonable Doubt and learning about Statistics and how they are manipulated.

Elementary Algebra is all 95% of what students will ever need. Doctors and Network Admins don't need Calculus to do their jobs. Nor do Pharmacists. Why set up students to fail by requiring advanced Mathematics as Undergrads or worse, HS Students.

Most College Math requirement courses are taught by socially retarded Grad Students, not tenured faculty.

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2016/03/10/dana-goldstein-advanced-math-is-pointless-and-only-causing-our-students-to-fail
1   d6rB   ignore (1)   2019 Jan 5, 6:16pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

If you read through the article, the Social Justice Warrior colors of the writer are obvious. Purpose of abolishing advanced math courses is the following - everyone DESERVES to succeed! Basically math and other hard sciences make it difficult to pass lazy dumbasses as their lack of intelligence and knowledge can be easily quantified. Lets replace math with a feel-good course in civics where everyone gets an A!
WRT to who teaches classes, schools should hire more profs instead of diversity councilors, and then TA's would not teach classes. Diversity people are the ones who push for grade inflation and watering down courses. There are special "math for education majors" courses which are teaching what students needed to learn in high school.
2   ThreeBays   ignore (0)   2019 Jan 5, 7:30pm   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

I agree with this article, and I don't think it's because "everyone DESERVES to succeed". There's no point in having a barrier which is not a useful determinant of success for the degree you're earning. I'm a fan of allowing specialization earlier, instead of spending more years on a "general" education. I did my studies across the pond, where an equivalent college degree takes 1 year less than in the states, which is possible by narrowing focus earlier.
3   HonkpilledMaster   ignore (5)   2019 Jan 5, 7:31pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

d6rB says
If you read through the article, the Social Justice Warrior colors of the writer are obvious. Purpose of abolishing advanced math courses is the following - everyone DESERVES to succeed! Basically math and other hard sciences make it difficult to pass lazy dumbasses as their lack of intelligence and knowledge can be easily quantified. Lets replace math with a feel-good course in civics where everyone gets an A!


She has SJW bias to be sure. But many of today's schools do not have a basket weaving Math Course to pass (Yes, Evergreen does and probably some other schools) It's a great way to generate cash by requiring hundreds of students to take, fail, retake, fail, retake, barely pass, taught by a Foreign Graduate Student who barely speaks English to 100 students who simply have neither the interest nor especially the aptitude for the subject to begin with.

But here's a meritocracy truth: Probably about 80% of the population can only get the higher mathematics beyond Algebra I/II with extreme effort, and probably 50% will never get it to the point they could reliably employ it, period. Only about 20% can really get it and employ it, with or without effort. In other words, through extreme effort, they might get by, but could seldom actually identify and employ opportunities to use it.

Wasting the time of 2/3rds of the top 50% learning shit they will never use anyway is a waste. Learning Statistics, Probability, etc. in greater depth will actually help them more than learning Calculus. And far more useful in a plethora of modern occupations (and daily life) than multivector differential calculus. They could learn a lot more about employment and usage of the "lower" Mathematics (or Chemistry, Law, etc.) in the time they waste by requirement studying something they'll never really understand and never know when to employ, and never employ it anyway. It simply is a time suck and frustration creator for most.
4   HonkpilledMaster   ignore (5)   2019 Jan 5, 7:49pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

ThreeBays says
I agree with this article, and I don't think it's because "everyone DESERVES to succeed". There's no point in having a barrier which is not a useful determinant of success for the degree you're earning. I'm a fan of allowing specialization earlier, instead of spending more years on a "general" education. I did my studies across the pond, where an equivalent college degree takes 1 year less than in the states, which is possible by narrowing focus earlier.


Agreed. The British system also allows more breadth in your field of study, because you're focused on the field, not spending 2/3 of your time learning general crap you should have learned in Grade School, like History or Essay Writing.
5   d6rB   ignore (1)   2019 Jan 5, 8:29pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

ThreeBays says
I agree with this article, and I don't think it's because "everyone DESERVES to succeed". There's no point in having a barrier which is not a useful determinant of success for the degree you're earning. I'm a fan of allowing specialization earlier, instead of spending more years on a "general" education. I did my studies across the pond, where an equivalent college degree takes 1 year less than in the states, which is possible by narrowing focus earlier.


That is not the purpose of people like one who wrote this article. Her and her cohorts want to dumb down education -- I see it at our university. It is not just math, it is also physics and chemistry which is either not needed, or needs to be dumbed down so that everyone can pass. Why bother teaching anyone anything then? Just collect tuition and let them print out diplomas.
The other side of question is of course that university education is not really needed for many occupations for which it is now required. Why do many med techs need a university degree? A years worth of trade school would be enough. And contrary to what article says, Art and similar majors at least in our school do not need advanced math. Chem and physics majors though need a slew of easy and retarded courses outside their specialty, which no one complains about...because cancelling those classes will not increase percentage of womyn of whatever color in STEM.
6   d6rB   ignore (1)   2019 Jan 5, 8:30pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says
general crap you should have learned in Grade School, like History or Essay Writing.

Note that author and xer cohorts do not complain about these subjects, because they are easy and everyone gets an A!
Also, higher (university) education has to be by definition an elite endeavor. I do not see any problem with teaching topic that 80% of population can not understand, as 80% of population probably should not be studying at university.
7   theoakman   ignore (0)   2019 Jan 5, 9:04pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

The article's point is moot. I teach AP physics in high school. No one is failing kids in math. We create a crappy Algebra II course to put them through. Moreover, the idea that a Calc 1 requirement prevents you from a particular major is nonsense. If you are the least bit competent at all, you should be able to squeak by with a C-. If you can't do that, you certainly have no business being a doctor as I'm pretty sure the concept of a dosage is completely foreign to such a person.
8   marcus   ignore (8)   2019 Jan 5, 10:59pm   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

How are counselors and individuals themselves to know if they have the aptitude for a science, or engineering, or any other rigorous program ? For that matter how are colleges or anyone else supposed sift through applications for rigorous programs, selecting the most talented applicants?

AS many note, kids these days are pampered and told they can do anything they put their mind to. And if they have discipline and follow through, and have at least an above average aptitude for what they want to pursue, I believe that's pretty much true. (by the way - if they have discipline and follow through when are they first going to experience that ?)

Our current system uses Math in part for exercising the young minds in various types of reasoning, and problem solving, as well as in reading comprehension and even something as simple as following instructions. That is, traditional curriculum has for centuries used math to give growing minds practice in these things,, before they have even decided what they want to do, or for that matter what they are really good at. . It's not perfect. Some smart students just aren't up for the homework.

But many students who find they do have a high aptitude for Math, are learning they are likely to also have a good aptitude for science, economics, tech fields etc.

If a student isn't willing to go to at least Calculus 1, then I think it's perfectly reasonable that the door not be open to them for majoring in a science or engineering track in college. Because if they don't do it, it doesn't mean that they couldn't if they wanted to. But if they are not able to make it through Math up to Calculus if they wanted to, then the chance of their being able to make it through those programs is pretty slim.

I'll grant you that it's not a perfect system. You could have some genius student who was bored in high school or went through whatever difficulties as a child, preventing them from learning even basic arithmetic and algebra. For that person, however smart they are, doing trigonometry and Calculus is going to be next to impossible.

AS an educator, I'm obviously biased, but I believe there are many things that are worth learning just for the sake of learning. Higher Math included. That doesn't mean I think it's for everyone, but I do think it has it's place.

My issue with the way Math is taught, is to some extent a by product of the thinking of educators that are not in to Math (for whatever reason), and of people like the author. They are usually strongly opposed to tracking, and believe that all students should be doing the same course of study at the same age. This is one of the things that hurts students in Math. Students are routinely "socially promoted."

IF I were emperor, I would start an education system where students study the same thing up through 5th or 6th grade. But after that, it would be like college. And courses would have prerequisites. You don't take Algebra 2 until you've achieved proficiency in Algebra one. Competition would be natural, but some students would get to Algebra 2 in ninth, others wouldn't get there until 12th. This is just how Math is.

We have this already, but it's implemented terribly with a lot of stigma. Under a system I imagine, the guy that wants to write could be taking a college level writing class, while still struggling with their Algabra 2 in 12th or even 13th grade.

As long as students make sure they get each stage under their belt, before moving on to the next, there would be WAY less failure in Math, except for those substantially below average in Math aptitude. And if someone is in that boat, hopefully they have other gifts, but finding out their weaknesses isn't a bad thing, or maybe it is a bad thing in a way, but it's also necessary.

We need to find ways to make our education system stronger, not new ways to dumb it down.
9   HonkpilledMaster   ignore (5)   2019 Jan 6, 12:34am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

d6rB says
Note that author and xer cohorts do not complain about these subjects, because they are easy and everyone gets an A!
Also, higher (university) education has to be by definition an elite endeavor. I do not see any problem with teaching topic that 80% of population can not understand, as 80% of population probably should not be studying at university.

You'd be surprised how many freshman show up for school and have NO CLUE that an essay is:

Thesis
3-5 Facts regarding/supporting that thesis
A Conclusion tying in all the facts/arguments to the thesis.

Because they've spent English classes reading "Heather has two Mommies" by Periwinkle Lunarwoman and "Shut up, High Yellow Real Hair Bitch" by Malia Abdul-Mkumbo.
10   HonkpilledMaster   ignore (5)   2019 Jan 6, 12:52am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says
Our current system uses Math in part for exercising the young minds in various types of reasoning, and problem solving, as well as in reading comprehension and even something as simple as following instructions. That is, traditional curriculum has for centuries used math to give growing minds practice in these things,, before they have even decided what they want to do, or for that matter what they are really good at. . It's not perfect. Some smart students just aren't up for the homework.


Nope.Classical Education made Math a secondary part of the curriculum and limited to Basic Arithmetic and Geometry. Music and Astronomy considered equal to Basic Arithmetic. Trigonometry you might learn as a (warrant) officer on a ship, but more likely depended on the rutter, log, experience, and dead reckoning.

In the Enlightenment Era to just about the end of the Civil War, somebody good at math was a "Mere Mathematician"

Expressed by Alexander Pope:
Know then thyself; presume not God to scan,
The proper study of mankind is Man.
Placed on this isthmus of a middle state,
A being darkly wise and rudely great:
With too much knowledge for the Sceptic side,
And too much weakness for the Stoic's pride,
He hangs between; in doubt to act or rest;
In doubt to deem himself a God or Beast;
In doubt his mind or body to prefer;
Born but to die, and reas'ning but to err.
Alike in ignorance, his reason such,
Whether he thinks too little or too much.

Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Humphrey Davies, Michael Faraday, Lavoisier - all products of a Rhetorical Based Education system.

Hic Haec Hoc, but du nein say fast enough, young Werner, so you get ze vhipping.

And getting smacked with a ruler if they couldn't instantly identify Hector, his Father, and his exploits at Troy on demand, and explain it in Latin, around age 11.

If you are just desperately plugging in formulas so as not to fail, you're not learning shit about reasoning. Why bother?

My point isn't that higher maths aren't useful, indeed vital, on several subjects. The point is that the higher maths are not for everybody and it's retarded to expect everybody to be conversant. Better that instead of wasting time failing calculus repeatedly, or barely passing by desperately plugging in formulas but having no real understanding of when and why, somebody could be studying more Statistics, Probability, or Logic Statements that is more relevant in their lives.
11   Sunnyvale94087   ignore (0)   2019 Jan 6, 12:54am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

If you want to just learn the skills needed for a specific job, then go to a trade school.

The "elite" universities are supposed to be ... "elite"! An undergraduate degree is supposed to mean you have mastered both breadth and depth in math, science, language, history, arts, etc.
12   HonkpilledMaster   ignore (5)   2019 Jan 6, 1:03am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Sunnyvale94087 says
The "elite" universities are supposed to be ... "elite"! An undergraduate degree is supposed to mean you have mastered both breadth and depth in math, science, language, history, arts, etc.



Yep, Arithmetic, Algebra, Basic Geometry, some Elementary Stats and Probability - that's quite a bit of math. More than enough. Most people can get by with just Arithmetic and non-systemic, dead reckoning "Algebra". Anybody college bound should have all of those done by graduation from HS.

If you have to learn Algebra in College, you shouldn't be in College. Nobody who needs more than 1 remedial course should be able to get a Federal loan.

Similarly, nobody should have to learn how to write an essay in college. If you don't know the first thing about writing in that format to begin with, you have no business going to college.

So have college freshmen who can't summarize a book using essay format, describe a covalent bond, or identify one Founding Father and say something meaningful about him, but they can 20*5=100, solve for X+3=5, and plot X,Y on a graph. But lack of integral calculus is the problem? Nah.

It's like not allowing anybody to graduate unless they not only took Chemistry 101/102, but Organic Chemistry 321 and 322 as well, in order to be a Music Teacher, because a apparently foundational knowledge of Chemistry isn't deep enough knowledge - though they've gained a rough familiarity - for a Music Instructor. Nope,they have to learn about all those amino acids and organic compounds even though it has bupkiss relevance to their field.
13   marcus   ignore (8)   2019 Jan 6, 1:24am   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says
The point is that the higher maths are not for everybody and it's retarded to expect everybody to be conversant.


From my perspective, it's ridiculous to think that barely scratching the surface of logarithmic functions (simply the inverse of exponential functions), is somehow very far into higher Math. (that's an "advanced" algebra 2 topic). At that point students barely have a handle on functions and graphing. But at least they are getting an idea of whether they are interested. The thing about Math (beyond arithmetic) is that you don't really get an idea of how powerful or interesting it is until pre-Calculus or so. People think the answer for kids must be more real world applications. That's like saying that learning how to read at the age of six would be better if there were more real world applications. I guess there are in that they can spell dog or put a simple sentence together. But the really cool applications don't come until when they can read Tom Sawyer or whatever introductory fiction they use these days.

The analogy for Math would be that barely spelling dog or cat at age six is to reading what algebra or even algebra 2 is to doing Math.

Why should students not even get to learn what Math is (not talking about arithmetic) ?

I know you like to argue, but maybe you would consider just rereading the last two lines and pondering them at least a little.
14   HonkpilledMaster   ignore (5)   2019 Jan 6, 1:54am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says
From my perspective, it's ridiculous to think that barely scratching the surface of logarithmic functions (simply the inverse of exponential functions), is somehow very far into higher Math. (that's an "advanced" algebra 2 topic).


I said "Algebra", and yes, I mean to include Algebra 2.

marcus says
That's like saying that learning how to read at the age of six would be better if there were more real world applications.


Chemistry is also interesting, with a ton of real world applications and the building blocks of literally everything. The gateway to Medicine and Astrophysics.

Why, Avogadro's Number and Acid-base reactions is just the beginning! Surely kids must be analyzing Rubisco and presenting at least 3 different thermite reactions using various metals(!!!FUN!!!). Why without Rubisco, complex life would be impossible! See how vital it is?!

marcus says
I know you like to argue, but maybe you would consider just rereading the last two lines and pondering them at least a little.


Please explain why we don't require 4 years of Organic Chemistry on top of a foundational Chemistry Course in order to graduate College to be a Speech Pathologist. Stopping after covalent bonds is like stopping reading instruction at age 6. How can a member of the Speech Pathology Profession not fully comprehend Chemistry to the point where they can describe Square Ice and explain why it depends on the van der Waals reaction?

Chemistry teaches you how to think!
15   Reality   ignore (5)   2019 Jan 6, 4:58am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

I agree that Probability/Statistics is more important to real life (and the forming of a viable/realistic perspective on real life; i.e. rejecting much of the laughable SJW fallacies) than Calculus is.

More importantly, the real problem with the teaching of calculus is in the way calculus is typically taught: rote memorization of derivative formulae and integration formulae, instead of understanding the philosophical underpinning behind calculus. For example, how many students after taking calculus (even acing it) would recognize the philosophical problem/fallacy with the foundational assumption in Economics:

Supply == Demand ??

How many students would recognize that equality assumption is essentially restating one of the Zeno's Paradoxes, Arrow Paradox : at any given instant in time, an arrow is stationary at a specific location, not moving; since it's not moving, how can it ever reach its target. Newton and Leibnitz eventually solved the paradox by recognizing the concept of Derivative (in this case, Velocity is a derivative of the arrow's Displacement), i.e. time can not be sliced into points but only small segments, even in the smallest infinitesimal segment of time, the arrow is still moving. Likewise, there is no point in time Supply = Demand exactly, but only movement of price over time as Supply and Demand leads each other due to external happenings in real life. When supply leads demand to the upside (regarding goods and services), consumers feel abundance (as those who previously couldn't afford it now can); when demand leads supply to the upside, consumers feel poverty (as those who could afford it marginally now can't). So government bidding up demand as in Keynesianism is essentially a mathematical fraud fooling minds that don't understand the basic philosophical underpinning of Calculus. Such a mind can't grasp how motion or dynamics take place in the real world.

If anything, the most important (philosophical) lesson in Calculus is that "a slice of time" is not a point but a segment . . . just like in Quantum Physics, the lesson is that distance and time slices/segments have a lower size limit (Planck Length and Planck time). These are important reality checks on human minds that tend to pursue logical extremes and silliness (such as the Zeno Paradox and "supply == demand" fallacy above).
16   Quigley   ignore (0)   2019 Jan 6, 9:29am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Thanks @reality for that example of the philosophical underpinnings of calculus and how they relate to something in the real world like economics. I’d honestly never considered using derivatives to examine the supply/demand relationship and how the result could be a gut-level indictment of the economy.

I agree that every subject has its merits. I took waaay too much chemistry and some physics and some calculus as well as statistics. But it’s been forever since then and I barely use algebra now and then in my daily life. I use Geometry now and then. I can’t say I’ve ever used Trig, although I’ve used calculus-derived formulas for scaling height based on the time an object spends in free fall. Mostly, simple grammar school math is all that’s needed for life and work. And that can be done on a phone calculator app.

So yah I don’t see math as being that terribly important to most careers.

But rhetoric and essay writing seem applicable to most white collar work.
17   Onvacation   ignore (4)   2019 Jan 6, 9:53am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says
requirement studying something they'll never really understand and never know when to employ, and never employ it anyway. It simply is a time suck and frustration creator for most.

Math is definitely a way to shake out those unworthy of holding a bachelor of science with all the rights and privelages pertaining thereto.

Calculus was hard. Today I couldn't solve a problem that required integration by parts.
Hell, I would have a problem doing a derivative without a textbook. But I made it through calculus.

I understand the purpose of math. Math is our feeble attempt to model nature. And it works, for the most part.
College is dumbed down enough. We don't need more peoole claiming to be "scientists" that don't even understand advanced math much less how to apply it.

We don't need more pseudoscientists.
18   HonkpilledMaster   ignore (5)   2019 Jan 6, 10:43am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Reality says
I agree that Probability/Statistics is more important to real life (and the forming of a viable/realistic perspective on real life; i.e. rejecting much of the laughable SJW fallacies) than Calculus is.


Exactly. Stats and Probability arm people against BS. The little things like Statistical Significance and Margin of Error goes a long way to seeing through the garbage.

Basic Stats and Probability should be taught in HS. As you noted are used in everything, not just Physical Sciences but in the "Social" Sciences. I think having Intermediate/Advanced Stats and Probability is more useful for most while greatly facilitating critical thinking.

Statistics 101 was the best course I took in college, and the Professor made everybody interview for 10 minutes and discuss Statistics with him for the final exam. He didn't give a shit if you remembered the exact definitions, but he wanted to know that you UNDERSTOOD things like Standard Deviations and could reasonably explain it. I think that was a great method because you can't bullshit standing in front of the professor and respond to his questions. Most classes should have final exams where you stand up and start talking about the subject and answering questions.

Reality says
If anything, the most important (philosophical) lesson in Calculus is that "a slice of time" is not a point but a segment . . . just like in Quantum Physics, the lesson is that distance and time slices/segments have a lower size limit (Planck Length and Planck time). These are important reality checks on human minds that tend to pursue logical extremes and silliness (such as the Zeno Paradox and "supply == demand" fallacy above).


This. I've always felt that intermediate and higher math should spent half the time dwelling on the WHY and HOW of math, instead of slapping equations up on a board with minimal to no context. More people would be eager to learn or be able to understand the point of what they are actually doing.

I dropped several Math courses in the first week or two before I found the Statistics class I rocked out because as you probably can guess, I'm the kind of guy who found it fascinating and relevant, so I was inspired to give it a strong effort. Rather than gobbleygook put on the board by an eye-rolling stinky Grad student who an accent thicker than a London Fog in October.
19   HonkpilledMaster   ignore (5)   2019 Jan 6, 10:48am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Onvacation says
Math is definitely a way to shake out those unworthy of holding a bachelor of science with all the rights and privelages pertaining thereto.


What about Bachelor of Arts, Speech Therapists, Sports Marketing, etc.?

Again, my Organic Chemistry comparison stands. If you suck at Organic Chemistry, why should you be required to pass that instead of Statistics or Systemic Logic, in order to get a Marketing or Earth Science/Education degree? Stats and Probability would serve you better in those fields. Time and Money is limited.

Let the Students take a course or two in Stats and Probability and Formalized Logic, and let's fix HS and toss out Whole Math and Whole Language.
20   marcus   ignore (8)   2019 Jan 6, 11:11am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Quigley says
. I’d honestly never considered using derivatives to examine the supply/demand relationship and how the result could be a gut-level indictment of the economy.


I don't see that he did that, although the part about Zeno's argument about infinity or an infinitesimal incremental changes in position implied by motion made sense. This goes back to Zeno's debates with Aristotle who claimed there was no such thing as infinity, but Aristotle's focus was on enumerating physical things which he argued were always finite. Zeno essentially argued that motion was impossible without infinitely small movement. Reality's explanation of this part made complete sense.

But his connecting that to supply and demand ?

Reality says
Likewise, there is no point in time Supply = Demand exactly, but only movement of price over time as Supply and Demand leads each other due to external happenings in real life


I would agree of course that there is no point in time when it's literally true that supply = demand, or for that matter that an exact numerical value of either can even be known. I can see that one of Zeno's paradox's might be used in a very round about and indirect way to get students thinking about how there is no mathematical identity, supply = demand, and that if and when people informally talk about supply equaling demand, they are simply addressing a conceptual balance between the two in a mature economic situation as it pertains to price.

I guess I see that you might use one of Zeno's arguments to talk about how we could not go from a situation where supply < demand to a situation where supply > demand without going through infinitesimal incremental changes in supply or demand or both, and also without having an "instant" when supply equals "demand" (but we wouldn't know when that instant is).

But how the leap is made from that, to this ?

Reality says
So government bidding up demand as in Keynesianism is essentially a mathematical fraud fooling minds that don't understand the basic philosophical underpinning of Calculus.


Keynes advocated temporary manipulative stimulation of the economy as a way of dealing with a situations we have seen when supply exceeding demand was not a stimulus to economic activity. Because we know the following to be false (or at least only true in a relative sense):

Reality says
When supply leads demand to the upside (regarding goods and services), consumers feel abundance (as those who previously couldn't afford it now can)


That is, we know that in times of economic recession or depression, that sometimes supply > demand without consumers feeling abundance.

Even with a ridiculously oversimplified simple economic situation, without money lending, and without all the elaborate money games that our banking system has evolved, and with say a money supply tied to gold, even with all of this, you would still get inequality and the hoarding of wealth leading to times of excess supply created and demand not meeting it through falling prices. WE know from history that we would get more frequent and more extreme "booms and busts," if such a simple system could even support the highly dynamic and complex market based economy we have.

But I'm not arguing that there aren't any imperfect or even corrupt elements to our banking and finance system, as it related to the federal reserve and fiat money. . If the fed temporarily increasing the money supply to stimulate the economy in difficult economic times is fraud, then how many times more fraudulent is it for the government to explode the deficit in good economic times (by doing tax cuts) for the purpose of what ?
21   marcus   ignore (8)   2019 Jan 6, 11:31am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Back to the subject of the thread, sort of.

I have often thought that math curriculum should and and hopefully will evolve. We are in the computer age, and the main impact that has had on Math curriculum, is the use of computer tools in Math classes such as graphing calculators.

Students should be offered classes in all of the following: logic, discrete Math, probability, programming, and statistics, as well as the traditional engineering/physics track. But not that they should take all of these. Some would. (but algebra 2 would be a prerequisite for all of these)

In a system I imagine, where requirements are more broad, and high school is more like college, students would have choices to meet their "quantitative/analytic" requirement. But then there still are the questions:

Wouldn't taking AP Calculus and getting a good score on the AP exam, still be used by students and admissions people to more or less prove Math aptitude, if they are competing for a spot and or a scholarship to one of the better schools ? (By the way - the exam is more oriented on the conceptual then it was before 1998 - if you are someone that thinks it's just formulas. Just knowing your derivatives and antiderivatives won't even get you a passing score).

Doesn't there still need to be a certain (and somewhat limited) Math content trajectory, represented by the MAth content of the MAth part of the S.A.T. and A.C.T. tests ?

If we are going to continue with our belief in meritocracy, what does this mean if not the best colleges and universities basing admissions on the proven abilities (and past performance) of applicants ? (And I'm making this argument as someone that did not nearly have the combination of attributes that would have gotten me in to Stanford, or MIT, Harvard or any Ivy League school).

How do you propose we do that ?
22   Quigley   ignore (0)   2019 Jan 6, 11:36am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says
I don't see that he did that


That was my summary of his argument: that people feel more prosperous when they can afford more stuff more easily. This can happen more readily when supply > demand, and since this relationship is in constant flux, you can use calculus to map its trajectory and effectively find the spot at which people feel the most able to buy what they want. This is the spot which should also correspond to a gut level feeling of prosperity which indicates that what people refer to as “the economy” is Good!
23   Sunnyvale94087   ignore (0)   2019 Jan 6, 12:33pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says
Classical Education made Math a secondary part of the curriculum and limited to Basic Arithmetic and Geometry. Music and Astronomy considered equal to Basic Arithmetic. Trigonometry you might learn as a (warrant) officer on a ship, but more likely depended on the rutter, log, experience, and dead reckoning

What you say is all true, but times change. 200 years ago calculus, chemistry, physics, etc. were all new subjects! Would you rather have the requirements of students 200 years ago? Elite universities are no longer requiring Latin AND ancient Greek (thank goodness, although I did take Latin in high school). Classic (western) literature is vastly scaled down as well. Back when calculus wasn't required, there were no Cliff Notes for your Nietzsche or Plato!

My university had core requirements for all undergraduates. Most students that got in on academic merit had already fulfilled most of the core requirements in high school. To the extent that they didn't quite already have credit (for example, only getting a 3 in AB calculus), they could just take the easy-track calculus course. Everyone knew which courses were the fluff courses required to fulfill the various requirements. Since it would be easy the second time through and there were generous limits on the number of courses you could take each term, this would just be an easy A. I knew students that took some of those courses at a community college over the summer and transferred the credits.

As for calculus, specifically: It would probably be better that students master less-advanced mathematics and also take a course in logic or number systems so that they have a little bit of exposure to some intellectual concepts. I'm not sure if my requirements were for calculus or if students could take something like modern algebra. As far as "science" requirement... there were easy intro chemistry and physics without calculus classes.
24   HEYYOU   ignore (26)   2019 Jan 6, 1:16pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Lower order math.
Be a loser & go into debt for crap that one doesn't need & then pay more back with interest than one borrowed.
Budget Genius-ry!
25   rocketjoe79   ignore (0)   2019 Jan 6, 1:46pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

I have a young friend in College about to finish her 2nd year. She's going to go to UA in Huntsville finish her last two years in Chemical Engineering! She needs advanced math to actually DO STUFF IN THE REAL WORLD, like building processes to MAKE THINGS PEOPLE USE. Thank goodness someone is willing do the hard work, and then GET PAID, for their investment. BTW, she's working 30 hrs a week and has not taken out one student loan yet. /salute

We don't need people apologizing because some folks aren't cut out to do hard math science, math and engineering. We will need lots of super-techs to help build things and make things work. We need people with tech degrees and Skilled Craftspeople. My brother was a former marine with Electronics training, who then worked with the folks at General Atomics to make prototype fusion machines, making $160k a year. He was a guy who would look at the design proposed by the physicist and say "yeah, that's not gonna work, but if we can do it this way..." Never had a day of college in his life, yet, still "smarter" than the guy who could do the math. The military, thank goodness, still doesn't care too much about color - if you score well on standardized tests, show aptitude, and work hard, you can go anywhere.
26   HeadSet   ignore (1)   2019 Jan 6, 2:11pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

I have a young friend in College about to finish her 2nd year. She's going to go to UA in Huntsville finish her last two years in Chemical Engineering! She needs advanced math to actually DO STUFF IN THE REAL WORLD, like building processes to MAKE THINGS PEOPLE USE. Thank goodness someone is willing do the hard work, and then GET PAID, for their investment. BTW, she's working 30 hrs a week and has not taken out one student loan yet. /salute

I think I am in love........

We don't need people apologizing because some folks aren't cut out to do hard math science, math and engineering. We will need lots of super-techs to help build things and make things work.

As I recall, one of my core required Electrical Engineering Courses (Circuits and Devices) required the use of calculus to figure out what the circuits did. I had a hard time with this, so I did not major in EE. I am glad for all the smart people out there who can master this and make like better for us all.
27   HonkpilledMaster   ignore (5)   2019 Jan 6, 2:22pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Sunnyvale94087 says
What you say is all true, but times change. 200 years ago calculus, chemistry, physics, etc. were all new subjects! Would you rather have the requirements of students 200 years ago? Elite universities are no longer requiring Latin AND ancient Greek (thank goodness, although I did take Latin in high school). Classic (western) literature is vastly scaled down as well. Back when calculus wasn't required, there were no Cliff Notes for your Nietzsche or Plato!


Lots of Stats and Probability is new, past few centuries as well.

Note, I'm NOT saying Calculus is useless crap. It most certainly is not.

I would rather have Speech Pathologists, Pre-Meds, Sociologists, and even History and English majors with a broad and deep knowledge of Statistics (or Probability, or Logic), investing more time in that, than barely passing a mandatory Calculus prerequisite. Passing it, solely by plugging in memorized formulas with a weak command of when and how to use it.

Probability and Statistics are more relevant to the above mentioned fields and far more important for a host of frequently encountered issues. I'd rather the Podiatrist use his two mandatory college courses to take intermediate and advanced statistics and later call BS on a study recommending a new drug over a cheap generic, than have him waste 6-9 credits in college in Calculus I and II he'll never use.

Engineers and Physicists MUST have calculus, and they see the beauty and importance of it, but they tend to hold it above specific subjects more useful to a wide array of fields and to life in general.
28   Reality   ignore (5)   2019 Jan 6, 7:08pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says
I would agree of course that there is no point in time when it's literally true that supply = demand, or for that matter that an exact numerical value of either can even be known. I can see that one of Zeno's paradox's might be used in a very round about and indirect way to get students thinking about how there is no mathematical identity, supply = demand, and that if and when people informally talk about supply equaling demand, they are simply addressing a conceptual balance between the two in a mature economic situation as it pertains to price.


The analogy was with one specific Zeno Paradox, as I pointed out in the previous post: the Arrow Paradox. The so-called "mature economic situation" can never exist just like a singular point in time (Zeno's "instant in time when the arrow is stationary in a specific spot"): for example, if a stock is held at 2500 by law, there wouldn't be trade in the stock at all: there wouldn't be enough profit in buying and selling the stock to cover commission expense. All transactions involve two sides having different views on the value: one side believing the (future) value being lower than the agreed price (seller), the other side believing the (future) value being higher than the agree price (buyer); the difference between the two parties' opinions has to be big enough to cover the transaction cost for there to be a transaction at all. The price being in motion is a fundamental necessary condition for price to exist at all.



marcus says
But how the leap is made from that, to this ?

Reality says
So government bidding up demand as in Keynesianism is essentially a mathematical fraud fooling minds that don't understand the basic philosophical underpinning of Calculus.


Keynes advocated temporary manipulative stimulation of the economy as a way of dealing with a situations we have seen when supply exceeding demand was not a stimulus to economic activity. Because we know the following to be false (or at least only true in a relative sense):

Reality says
When supply leads demand to the upside (regarding goods and services), consumers feel abundance (as those who previously couldn't afford it now can)


That is, we know that in times of economic recession or depression, that sometimes supply > demand without consumers feeling abundance.


Over-supply (at previous price) leading to massive price drop and liquidation would of course make consumers feel better off through being able to purchase the surplus at liquidation prices. It was the government intervention policies (under Hoover, Hitler and Roosevelt) preventing liquidation from taking place that was gumming up the economic engine (preventing transaction from taking place), and making almost everyone feel poor. The dumping of milk into the ocean took place before Keynes wrote his book. Keynes wrote the book justifying government policies that were already taking place in Nazi Germany as well as in the US: essentially fascist economic intervention policies to guard the well being of existing manufacturers and bankers at the expense of consumers and upcoming more efficient manufacturers . . . by preventing a price adjustment from take place and preventing big creditors eating the crows of their own malinvestment. Keynes came up with his silly theory by exploiting the stasis-mindset behind "supply == demand" falsely proposing that price could be maintained by artificially goosing demand without the consumer public experiencing something similar to disaster taking place (i.e. the broken window fallacy on a massive scale).



marcus says
Even with a ridiculously oversimplified simple economic situation, without money lending, and without all the elaborate money games that our banking system has evolved, and with say a money supply tied to gold, even with all of this, you would still get inequality and the hoarding of wealth leading to times of excess supply created and demand not meeting it through falling prices. WE know from history that we would get more frequent and more extreme "booms and busts," if such a simple system could even support the highly dynamic and complex market based economy we have.


The biggest boom and bust cycle took place right after the installation of the 3rd central bank in US history, to finance upcoming WWI, then boom in the 1920's and bust after that. Previous boom an bust cycles were invariable caused by previous central banking and government banking and financial policies, dating all the way back to the South Seas Bubble and the French Mississippi Speculation Bubble at the time of John Law's invention of the first modern fiat money, as well as the boom-and-bust cycle that gave birth to Amerian Revolution. Individual investors can indeed make mistakes on their own, but the massive synchronized across-board mistakes have usually been the result of central-banking and other government banking and financial policies and their changes over time. Of course, the boom-bust cycles benefit the insiders who control those cycles: if you have a few million dollars you time your buying and selling houses/stocks to economic cycles; if you have hundreds of billions of dollars to invest, you generate your own cycles, either in a country or across the world, in order to create investment opportunities for your massive portfolio; otherwise, you wouldn't be able to enter or exit huge positions without the price moving at your expense.


But I'm not arguing that there aren't any imperfect or even corrupt elements to our banking and finance system, as it related to the federal reserve and fiat money. . If the fed temporarily increasing the money supply to stimulate the economy in difficult economic times is fraud, then how many times more fraudulent is it for the government to explode the deficit in good economic times (by doing tax cuts) for the purpose of what ?



To the extent that taxes will have to be raised at a later less prosperous time, it's part and parcel of the same government policies to exacerbate the swings, in order to help big position movers to enter and exit. However, I didn't see you advocating tax-cut during recession, so tax-cutting at all time is still better than tax-raising at all time . . . because tax is fundamentally a barrier to trade (within a society) and division of labor. The more you tax something, you get less of it.
29   HeadSet   ignore (1)   2019 Jan 6, 7:27pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

This is an awesome thread. The discussions here show how educated, well versed, and intelligent PatNetters really are.
30   Ceffer   ignore (1)   2019 Jan 6, 7:54pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

I'd agree that statistics and probability are the most useful because they demonstrate the limitations and difficulties of defining 'fact' and then drawing conclusions from them with confidence levels. Anybody with a good grounding in stats would automatically veer away from many fake arguments. I would also add game theory, which can run quite deep. People who are too dumb to do the basic maths are probably also too dumb to appreciate statistics and probability, however.
31   mell   ignore (2)   2019 Jan 6, 9:26pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

I agree with d6rb on this, there are enough programs that don't require higher math or math at all. To say it's not necessary is ludicrous. Go study something else if you can't make the cut. I had to take higher math, EE, prob/stat, physics and many more exams for an international degree. It was fucking hard (barely passed some) and I didn't like some of the topics, but you can at least barely pass on your weaker skills. People like the idiot who wrote this are dangerous to society. What's next, relaxing skills on vocational degrees just because some useless SJW thinks it shouldn't be necessary? Or how about relaxing surgeon skill requirements! Please.

about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions