How Much Math Do We Really Need? 1153
Pickens writes "G.V. Ramanathan, a professor emeritus of mathematics, statistics and computer science at the University of Illinois at Chicago, writes in the Washington Post that although a lot of effort and money has been spent to make mathematics seem essential, unlike literature, history, politics and music, math has little relevance to everybody's daily life. 'All the mathematics one needs in real life can be learned in early years without much fuss,' writes Ramanathan. 'Most adults have no contact with math at work, nor do they curl up with an algebra book for relaxation.' Ramanathan says that the marketing of math has become similar to the marketing of creams to whiten teeth, gels to grow hair and regimens to build a beautiful body, but even with generous government grants over the past 25 years, countless courses, conferences, and books written on how to teach teachers to teach, where is the evidence that these efforts have helped students? A 2008 review by the Education Department found that the nation is at 'greater risk now' than it was in 1983, and the National Assessment of Educational Progress math scores for 17-year-olds have remained stagnant since the 1980s (PDF). Meanwhile those who do love math and science have been doing very well and our graduate schools are the best in the world. 'As for the rest, there is no obligation to love math any more than grammar, composition, curfew or washing up after dinner. Why create a need to make it palatable to all and spend taxpayers' money on pointless endeavors without demonstrable results or accountability?'"
Re:Not much (Score:3, Informative)
The rule for that is really simple: if someone owes you 12.75, and they pay you 20.75, then just pretend they owed you 12 and paid you 20. As long as the value of the coins is exactly the same, they just cancel out and all you have to do is deal with the bills.
Re:In Soviet Russia (Score:3, Informative)
That reminds me!
The article looks at math from an anti-capitalist angle:
"Unfortunately, the marketing of math has become similar to the marketing of creams to whiten teeth, gels to grow hair and regimens to build a beautiful body.
There are three steps to this kind of aggressive marketing. The first is to convince people that white teeth, a full head of hair and a sculpted physique are essential to a good life. The second is to embarrass those who do not possess them. The third is to make people think that, since a good life is their right, they must buy these products."
Now go ahead guys and gals, have fun with this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Student_Olympiads [wikipedia.org]
http://www.kidsmathbooks.com/2010/10/2nd-all-soviet-union-mathematical.html [kidsmathbooks.com]
I mean, why is he targeting the left wingers with his anti intellectual propaganda?
Re:Language (Score:1, Informative)
"... empirical evidence seems to indicate that we cannot conceive of ideas that we do not have language to express"
Many linguists (including Noam Chomsky) do not agree with your assertion; see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapir-Whorf_hypothesis#The_universalist_period
Re:Just look at China (Score:4, Informative)
Re:What we do/don't need in Calculus. (Score:3, Informative)
The same without forcing kids to waste huge numbers of hours.
Let them use those hours learning something else(I know, I know, it's heresy to suggest that other subjects might be more useful than math for some people.) rather than pissing their time away on something they don't need.
Re:Not much literature either (Score:3, Informative)
No: you're just reading the wrong journals.
Said Schroedinger," isn't this fun
Shot a cat in a box with a gun
I'll be sure it survives
'Cause the cat has nine lives
And I'll only be using just one."
Schroedinger should not have done that
It was cruel "playing God" with a cat
Which, by the way, mister
Belonged to your sister
The next time please make it a rat.
Said Schroedinger poison is nifty
To dispose of this cat, God is shifty
We can't tell if it died
Till we all peer inside
And the odds are at just that, 50/50.
The cat in the box still has growth
Or it's dead, and infested with sloth
One should not get unnerved
Till the cat is observed
It's a superposition of both.
So that is the way that you tell it
Leave a cat in a box with a pellet
Should the trigger let go
The poison will flow
And you'll know the cat's dead when you smell it.
Said Schroedinger, "let Physics advance
Though it might be kitty's last dance
When we open the box
Be prepared for some shocks
But there's only a 50% chance."
Said Schroedinger, "let's take a chance
Though it might be kitty's last dance."
"The poor cat," he then joked
"is alive, or it's croaked"
But you can't know these things in advance.
(more) [xs4all.nl]
Re:A little more (Score:3, Informative)
Apparently he liked Mark Twain also:
Re:Math is the foundaton for physics yet to be (Score:3, Informative)
jdb2
Re:Why anything else? (Score:4, Informative)
However, that comment suggests that it may be you who is confused about the origin of the term 'Separation of Church and State,' as it appears in no law or other official document related to the US Constitution or the founding of the United States of America.
Your comment suggests your reading comprehension skills are ... suboptimal. I said the CONCEPT of Separation of Church and State. The concept flows from the part of the First Amendment which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" and is the result of a Supreme Court decision from a long time ago. You just made the exact same mistake that TEA Party super-star/wacko Christine O'Donnell made during a debate recently. Congratulations on feeling superior through your ignorance. You now qualify as a TEA Party candidate! It really IS just that easy.
Re:Why anything else? (Score:2, Informative)
Yeah, until you start voting for TEA party candidates because you've never heard of the Know Nothings.
Another self-referential.
You do know that the name of that movement stemmed from its secretive nature, right (when asked about their participation, members were supposed to reply that they "know nothing")?
So, yes, I support the "tea party" philosophy not because I agree that we should have a limited government and increased individual freedom, but because I didn't know that they were so secretive.
Re:Why anything else? (Score:2, Informative)
First of all, since when has the "Tea Party" ever fully-capitalized the word "Tea"? It's not like it's an acronym or something. And you're the one harping about reading comprehension?
Secondly, what do the "Know Nothings" (an anti-immigration platform) in any way have to do with the Tea Party (a largely libertarian platform)? The Tea Party isn't a secretive platform either. Your vague correlation between the two leaves much to be desired, even by one familiar with historical events.
Well, Obama claimed to be a constitutional scholar, and yet most of his political agenda is unconstitutional. Government mandated medical insurance for instance -- show me where the government is legally allowed to mandate that in the Constitution. And please don't demonstrate the common general comprehension failure of what "General Welfare" means (especially given the fact you've already painted yourself as a history buff).
Umm, _all_ political parties have members with widely differing degrees of intelligence. Or shall I assume all Dems have the same mental deficiencies as Hank Johnson? Why don't you pick on Rand Paul or Ken Buck rather than the easy-pickings of Christine O'Donnell (who for very good reason stands no chance at winning the election).
The belief that you can lump-sum an entire political party, all of its candidates, and all of its constituents simply by their dumbest members is ludicrous and wildly naive. You sir are what is wrong with modern-day politics. Instead of seeing past the lunatic fringe and trying to actually understand a major political movement, you instead allow the loudest and stupidest to taint your viewpoint of an entire group of people. Well, as a libertarian, I disagree with you, but I'm pretty sure you're not Hitler.