hrubin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Herman Rubin) wrote:
>>> 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?
Because the public had no interest in that approach, and indeed didn't
consider that stuff to be the sort of mathematics that they wanted
their non-mathematician kids to be taught. They wanted practical
skills and not useless theory.
>It was because the teachers COULD NOT understand
>the simple concepts, but could only do memorization and drill.
Whether they could understand or not, there was no political will to
sup****t the teaching of mathematical theory at early ages at the
expense of arithmetical mastery.
>We need teachers who have been taught concepts, not trained in
>managing the type of class which should not even exist.
That type of class DOES exist, and will continue to exist, and one of
the major skills that a teacher needs is to be able to manage it, or
they won't last a single year in the classroom.
>>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.
But "we the people" run the country, whether ignorant or not, and "we
the people" decide what will be the focus of the schools that we pay
for.
>They may be able to do
>some arithmetic operations trained into them, but they do
>not know what it means.
It means that they get the right answer in everyday applications, and
that is all that 90% care about.
>>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.
That is the assumption of, and the REQUIREMENT of both the state and
national legislatures. It was not "educationists" that adopted "No
Child Left Behind" which quite clear evinces that assumption.
>You can lead a child to educational op****tunities, but
>you cannot make him learn.
Correct. But the legislatures are quite willing to punish the
teachers for failure to make him learn anyway, so that is what the
teachers have to focus on.
>>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.
The economics of textbook publi****ng, and the existence of state
standards in Texas and California which select and purchase textbooks
at the state level, sees to that.
>When subject matter scholars object, they are not even
>cursorily listened to.
College professors are quite willing to choose a textbook that no one
else uses, because they can, and because the enormous cost of the
textbooks comes out of their students' pockets and not out of their
department budgets. If your department had to pay for the textbooks
and materials that your students used, there might be more pressure on
YOU to standardize your choice of textbook.
>>>>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.
The colleges know what the textbooks are, and therefore should assume
that the knowledge corresponds to what the textbook covers.
>>>>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.
That is the nature of free markets.
>>A journalist does not need topology.
>
>Agreed. But algebra, and an understanding of
>mathematical rigor, is needed.
Not really.
>>A registered dietician doe snot need a linear algebra course.
>
>Wrong. How else can one balance a diet.
By guess and by golly.
>>A lawyer deos not need differential equations.
>
>No, but he might well need to know what a differential equation is;
Why?
>anyone with a calculus course which stresses
>the concepts already knows this. And this should be
>required for the FIRST physics course.
A lawyer doesn't need to know calculus-based physics, either.
>>>>Won't happen. Half their student bodies will flunk out.
>
>>> At this time, they should.
Not acceptable.
>>> 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?
If it is justified at the university level, where you have nominal
academic freedom, then it is at least as justified at the K/12 level,
where there is little academic freedom, and much higher political
pressure to not fail ANYONE.
>>But hte people paying the bills are satsdisfied.
>
>Most of the bills are not paid by the students or
>their families.
The taxpayers are satisfied by such things as NCLB. They would NOT be
satisfied by courses that flunked half the students.
>>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.
Then pay for it yourself.
What government pays for, government controls, which means "we the
people" determine the goals.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
lojbab@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lojban language www.lojban.org
|
