patrick.net

FP says

Then you have unqualified teachers, who have no idea what a good math education consists of (yes, there are a exceptions too, but not much).

The chances are if you think most of your Math teachers in HS and college were bad, it's becasue you are not good at Math. Although I have found that even a lot of students that have failed or gotten a D with me, don't blame me. On the other hand, I have seen a lot of non-Math people in the education world that blame their low Math aptitude on Math teachers they had. They think less tracking would be good - which is wrong.

I do believe that in the early elementary years - grade 1 - 6, there are some teachers that don't do their student's Math instruction justice. Some of those teachers I think do pass on their bias against Math to some of their students.

Talk to people that are extremely good at Math and you will find that they respect virtually all of their Math teachers, including the ones in High School. Maybe some of that can be attributed to their being in honors or high track courses, but I think Math teachers at the decent and better high schools are on average pretty good.

marcus says

It is naturally impossible to succeed in calculus without being way better in algebra and trig than you were going in

Actually it is, which is precisely my point, when algebra, geometry, and trig are taught properly. I know it because i have gone through such an education.

marcus says

"The chances are if you think most of your Math teachers in HS and college were bad, it's becasue you are not good at Math."

You must be joking.

1. I did not go to HS in the US.

2. My HS math teachers were outstanding beyond anything you can imagine. Many of my classmates (myself included) were members of my country's math or physics olympiad squads.

3. I did not say anything about college instructors.

4. I'm a theoretical physicist.

5. I live in a top schools district and my opinion of the math teachers here is shared by colleagues.

Nice!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Nice!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Nice!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Nice!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Nice!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Nice!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

marcus says

The chances are if you think most of your Math teachers in HS and college were bad, it's becasue you are not good at Math.

I have a UCLA engineering degree, so my math is ok (I think).

In HS (east bay, CA), it chilled me to the bone to see how bad the math class scene was my freshmen and sophomore years before I went to Pre-calc my junior year and calc my senior year.

I will fully admit that those early teachers didn't have much to work with and their jobs weren't easy. I acknowledge that it may not have been entirely (or even mostly) their fault

I have nothing but great things to say about my AP teachers. But they were also teaching kids that were there mostly by choice.

FP says

marcus says

"The chances are if you think most of your Math teachers in HS and college were bad, it's becasue you are not good at Math."

You must be joking.

1. I did not go to HS in the US.

Theoretical physicist ?

I don't know if you are telling the truth or not, but if you are, it's not really a fair comparison to a U.S. high school. My office mate when I was in graduate school was Russian (went to school in Russia). From him I learned about their system which is like several other countries where students are often essentially majoring in a subject already when they are 11 or 12 years old. Everyone doesn't even go to high school where the college option is kept on the table until they are 17 or 18. They are tracked for higher education or not at a much earlier age. This is especially true in subjects such as Mathematics and Science.

FP says

marcus says

It is naturally impossible to succeed in calculus without being way better in algebra and trig than you were going in

Actually it is, which is precisely my point, when algebra, geometry, and trig are taught properly.

There's something is amiss here (actually I think you're lying your ass off), or being argumentative for the sake of arguing, or, well I can think of other possibilities.

If you are as great at Math as you say you are you would still have to understand the following

1) Most people aren't naturally super gifted in Math

2) For them and even for the gifted ones, great instruction alone accounts for a lot, but still very little compared to the amount of work and time that the student puts in to doing Math.

So you are saying that you had done so much Math before calculus, that the many hundreds of hours you put into the calculus sequence(much of which was computational - algebra and trigonometry) didn't improve your algebra and trig skills substantially. Okay. Whatever. There are probably a few others here that know how full of it you are.

FP says

and outright ridiculas ones (e.g College Preparatoty Math).

MAy I ask, how do you know about this ?

marcus says

For them and even for the gifted ones, great instruction alone accounts for a lot, but still very little compared to the amount of work and time that the student puts in to doing Math.

I listed several things that I find wrong with the math education on CA. Poor instruction is only one of them. See my earlier comment.

marcus says

So you are saying that you had done so much Math before calculus, that the many hundreds of hours you put into the calculus sequence(much of which was computational - algebra and trigonometry) didn't improve your algebra and trig skills substantially.

That is not what I said. Your statement was: "It is naturally impossible to succeed in calculus without being way better in algebra and trig than you were going in". It implies that the training/improvement in algebra and trig. during the calculus course is critical. This is what I dispute. Of course a student will improve with more practice, but he/she can become very proficient in the pre-calc. subjects without calculus.

marcus says

I would agree that too many students take Calculus in High school

In 10 years of being an engineer, when I used to do that, never had to use Calculus.

More importantly, do you personally know of any slutty teachers?

To be more specific, the calculus topics that I think are not necessary in HS are Integration and Series.

I myself studied these topics in HS as part of my preparation for the international olympiads. In the university (undergrad not in the US), we had a very rigorous and theoretical 4-semester mathematical analysis course (+ a bunch of other math and math methods in physics courses during the first 2.5 years). I had classmates who had followed the regular HS program in my country and had not studied the above calculus topics. Nevertheless, they had no difficulty with these university courses because of their good foundation.

My point is that rather than trying to teach advanced topics in high school, it is better to have universal standards (including using the same textbooks at least state-wise) and teach the basics well. Here students start very slowly the first 7-8 years, and then there is a rush in HS.

marcus says

FP says

and outright ridiculas ones (e.g College Preparatoty Math).

MAy I ask, how do you know about this ?

One of my children is subject to this abomination. My opinion is shared by all parents, students and colleges that I have talked to, who have become familiar with it. I have also done research, which confirms my conclusion.

FP says

That is not what I said. Your statement was: "It is naturally impossible to succeed in calculus without being way better in algebra and trig than you were going in". It implies that the training/improvement in algebra and trig. during the calculus course is critical.

Not that it's critical, but simply that it happens. Therefore it's worthwhile. That was my point. But Calculus is also interesting, and finally students are applying these skills they have been learning for the past several years. This is important becasue it gives students the experience of taking Math to the next level.

I get your point though. There's much more we could do in HS Math without doing Calculus. We short change conic sections and probability,to name just a couple of topics.

The other thing about Calculus, is that I think the powers that be like having it in high school as an additional metric or indicator for colleges as they evaluate their applicants. Earning a 4 or 5 on the more challenging AP courses is one more feather in the cap of the highest performing students and probably makes a difference when considered along with all of the other criteria colleges are considering.

Ever hear of the Longhorns?

NuttBoxer says

This is the 2nd or 3rd incident I've heard of at a high school in that state. WTF is going on in Texas?

Ask him to post his tax returns...it's all in the tax returns...

marcus says

Theoretical physicist ?

I don't know if you are telling the truth or not, but if you are, it's not really a fair comparison to a U.S. high school.

So which perspective are you stating this from?

Logan Mohtashami says

Kid will be fine.. trust me ;-)

marcus says

We short change conic sections and probability,to name just a couple of topics.

Marcus, I find that most topics are not taught sufficiently well. For example, my child who follows the CPM program recently studied exponential functions in school. Despite the textbook being about 1000 pages thick, all problems in it on exp func (as on any other topic) are essentially identical (the teacher of course, only follows the book). I came up with bout 20 types of problems that challenge the understanding of exp. functions from different angles. After one afternoon with me, my kid told me that what they study in school now looks very easy.

marcus says

Earning a 4 or 5 on the more challenging AP courses is one more feather in the cap of the highest performing students and probably makes a difference when considered along with all of the other criteria colleges are considering.

Ah, this is another issue withe the AP classes - students trying to take as many of them as possible, even on subjects that they are not interested in, just because of college acceptance.

FP says

For example, my child who follows the CPM program recently studied exponential functions in school. Despite the textbook being about 1000 pages thick, all problems in it on exp func (as on any other topic) are essentially identical (the teacher of course, only follows the book).

I'm in partial agreement with you on CPM. IF used, it need to be supplemented. And also some of the explorations students do are much better than others. That is, not every topic needs to be "discovered" by students. But on the other hand, can you see what they are going for ? Better understanding of the meaning and application ? The other thing CPM advocates always argue is that it spirals, that is, for the rest of the year problems dealing with exponential functions will be mixed in to homework sets. So compared to traditional texts it's very different and you need to go through it for a few cycles to really judge its effectiveness. But I'm in 100 % agreement that it needs to be supplemented. And I would tend to skip some of the more contrived explorations, when I believe I have a more efficient approach.

FP says

Ah, this is another issue withe the AP classes - students trying to take as many of them as possible

True, but I was only addressing AP Calculus and the value of a high score in making the very strongest applicants competitive.

FP says

Marcus, I find that most topics are not taught sufficiently well.

Part of what's going on is you are way up there in Math knowledge and experience, so you are naturally going to be critical of public school education which is aimed at the American student. Even though Math here is tracked, it's not tracked to the extent you would like, plus your child may end up on a track that's very frustrating for you to observe from the point of view of your background and your ego.

You have no idea what it's like to be in my shoes. IF you were to teach Mathematics in an American public high school, do you think you could do so much better than most American teachers ? Do you think you could bend the world to your vision and help all the average students become just like you ? Perhaps you could inspire them to do an additional 12 hours of work a week to counteract their intellectual laziness of the first 8 years of school ?

marcus says

So compared to traditional texts it's very different and you need to go through it for a few cycles to really judge its effectiveness.

But the evidence is out there that this method is NOT effective. The method is not new. The only new now is that it is implemented within the common core standards. There is plenty of evidence, in addition to the opinion of hundreds of university professors, that it is inferior to traditional methods.

If you open the Geometry textbook by A. P. Kiselev, there is a Forward by Prof. Givental from UC Berkeley. On page vi he writes: "Kiselev himself formulated the following three virtues of good textbooks: precision, simplicity, conciseness. And competence in the subject - for we must now add this fourth criterion, which could have been taken for granted a century ago."

The contemporary textbooks in our schools fail all four criteria!!

marcus says

You have no idea what it's like to be in my shoes. IF you were to teach Mathematics in an American public high school, do you think you could do so much better than most American teachers ? Do you think you could bend the world to your vision and help all the average students become just like you ? Perhaps you could inspire them to do an additional 12 hours of work a week to counteract their intellectual laziness of the first 8 years of school ?

Well, we have an excellent middle school teacher in our district who gets outstanding results. His classes are very hard but the students love them. I wouldn't have complaints if the other teachers were like him. As for me personally, I have had pretty good results teaching physics at an American university.

FP says

Well, we have an excellent middle school teacher in our district who gets outstanding results.

Let me guess. Honors Math in a relatively expensive district. I teach those kinds of classes too, and get good results. But I paid my dues first, teaching mainstream classes and struggling to get engagement and effort out of many of the students.

Newsflash: The group of students you are working with, their background, their parental involvement is probably a more important factor in the success of the students than who the teacher is. That's not to say that the teacher doesn't still make a huge difference. But it's far easier and more fun pushing students who are hungry for knowledge and that already have good work habits, than it is trying to actually change students that have neither of these attributes going for them.

marcus says

Let me guess. Honors Math in a relatively expensive district. I teach those kinds of classes too, and get good results. But I paid my dues first, teaching mainstream classes and struggling to get engagement and effort out of many of the students.

Correct. But then the same is valid for the HS. Why can't the HS teachers get the same results with the same kids?

marcus says

their parental involvement is probably a more important factor

In a good system parental involvement should not be required. My parents had zero involvement with me. Same was true for my classmates. In contrast, if I don't tutor my kids (one of them is more talented in math than me), they will get A's but have no chance of learning the subject properly before going to university.

Can we get back on track here for gawd's sake?

The kid won the sex lotto! That's pretty damn awesome! 🙌

BayArea says

The kid won the sex lotto!

Is there a picture of her neck down?