Live data from Hacker News

An update on the campaign to defend serious math education in California

scottaaronson.blog

291–300 of 657 posts

Re: An update on the campaign to defend serious math education in California

#291
Here's my experience as a parent of a 20yo who went through the MVLA school district in Mountain View.

It's a warning to any parents of younger children: Unless something has changed radically in the past 8 years, your child will be put into a math track in 6th grade: Separated into standard, accelerated and advanced classes. Which track you're in is determined by grades, standardized tests and teacher input after 5th grade.

This track determines which classes you can take in 7th and 8th. If you were in the advanced class, you will have finished Algebra 1 by the end of 8th grade. This allows the student to begin 9th grade taking Algebra 2, and then extending from there so that by their senior year they can take AP Calculus.

If you want little Suzy to be in more advanced classes, you better be prepared to be the most vocal Tiger Mom Karen you can imagine, because you'll have plenty of competition. As a result, almost no child moves between tracks. And in fact, in my opinion, the difference between normal and accelerated is so little, I'm pretty sure it's there just to give those children somewhere to go.

In other words, if your child doesn't demonstrate math skills as an 11yo, they will unlikely be able to take AP calculus 7 years later without doing something extra like taking summer classes, redoing an entire school year (an option a fellow parent I know took), or extraordinary effort like that.

Even if the MVLA education system isn't exactly the same now, or you live in a district that does something totally different, or even if you're in another state, I suspect this sort of thing is happening everywhere.

I personally was happy my son was in accelerated classes, right up until 9th grade when I realized how this circumscribed his future options for classes. In the end he would never have wanted to take AP Calculus, so it was fine. But I personally felt like I had fucked up as a parent because I simply wasn't paying attention. Planning out your kid's future math classes in detail in the 5th grade never crossed my mind, or if it had, I would have dismissed it as ludicrous overparenting! Had I known, I might have sent him to a math camp or something if I had realized how important the difference between a B+ and an A in math was at that moment. And he my have really gotten into mathematics as a subject. I really don't know.

So anyways, that's my experience. California is such a massive change from where I grew up in rural NH, I honestly can't imagine where to begin to fix a system with so many millions of children from such a varied socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds. I barely got my one kid through the system unscathed, and I live in one of the wealthiest districts in the country.

Re: An update on the campaign to defend serious math education in California

#292

Ultimately the solution is better STEM foundation at the very very early ages. Universal pre school would probably be very useful. Empirically [edit: n = 1 or 2], it seems that drilling basic arithmetic and then multiplication tables early in pre K and earlier elementary will give students a better intuitive math foundation to do algebra very well. That would enable everyone to go into more advanced classes at the sa…

I wish we did probability with equal gusto as kids. I very occasionally multiply 7 and 6 in my head, but have to reason with probabilities and statistics all day long.

Arithmetics is absolutely the most important topic to learn, since it is the basis for all other quantitative reasoning.

For example, it is really important to understand that 1 / 3 chance is the same thing as 3 / 9 chance. It is obvious to you now since you have done so much arithmetic's, but to someone who never properly learned it they wouldn't be able to properly compare those two and could think that one is a very different number than the other. Without basic understanding about quantities all other quantitative skills become worthless.

Re: An update on the campaign to defend serious math education in California

#293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't doubt that the people crafting these proposals care. I think they truly believe they are doing the right thing. I personally think it's just increasingly popular, mistaken moral beliefs that inform these types of proposals. Some of the underlying beliefs: 1. Blank slate - All humans are of equal ability 2. Any observable differences between humans are merely the result of social factors 3. Any observable diff…

I never understood why people try to make “blank slate” into a binary thing. Can people not have varying degrees of physical and neural plasticity? Perhaps some people are more like blank slates and can adapt more readily than others? Maybe plasticity changes with age?

Of course they do. Even if someone actually believed in some 'hard' type of ideology, they might not act that way.

It's just a 'general set of principles', intuitions, pop culture ideals that lead a large group of people to assumptive believe that 'unequal outcomes are driven mostly by systematic racism' and that's that.

Ergo 'the world is deeply racist' and 'there is racism around every corner' including in your math textbooks and teaching.

Ad nauseum.

Some of it is actually correct.

Some of it is reasonable from an intellectual perspective, but it's hard to take anything from it.

Much of it just ends up being toxic.

Re: An update on the campaign to defend serious math education in California

#294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it has to be related to any point you put in here. I think when STEM people comment on math education, they easily forget K-12 math education is for all students, not future college STEM students. Lots of controversies in math education between STEM professors (especially mathematicians) and K-12 math educators/researchers are rooted in this. In the community of math and science education, we educators/…

That's fine, but it's the reason we have tracks. Future STEM workers can go into the advanced track and everyone else can go into their own track. Germany separates people into vocational school and something closer to what we'd consider high school in the US by 9-10th grade. If you embrace the idea that some people are simply less suited for intensive math - whether it be because of work ethic, inherited IQ, lack of…

Totally agree. That's why there is a CTE (career and technical education) movement in the US now. Perkins V is the strong push in this regard. https://cte.ed.gov/legislation/perkins-v

Re: An update on the campaign to defend serious math education in California

#295
post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because, without it you will be at a great disadvantage in entering any STEM undergraduate program in the US.

Maybe for most of them, however i found calculus totally useless for my CS degree (the only time i recall it mentioned was defining big-oh notation). Otoh i liked calculus so still time well spent. Of course, that's not counting "mathamatical maturity" which is super important or if you're doing some specific thing that needs calculus (hello machine learning.)

I found it incredibly useful for learning all sorts of probability theory despite hating calculus. And I really think to be a well rounded CS graduate you need some background in stats/ML nowadays. So many of our systems have some element of ML-based recommendation and it's important that a new grad can meaningfully engage with those systems in research and in industry.

Re: An update on the campaign to defend serious math education in California

#296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't doubt that the people crafting these proposals care. I think they truly believe they are doing the right thing. I personally think it's just increasingly popular, mistaken moral beliefs that inform these types of proposals. Some of the underlying beliefs: 1. Blank slate - All humans are of equal ability 2. Any observable differences between humans are merely the result of social factors 3. Any observable diff…

I don't think that those beliefs are a workable explanation here. These proposals come from committees and groups of people, and it's just not realistic to write off the entire group of people behind these proposals as having some uniform set of beliefs like that, especially when they give other rationales for the proposals! The current school system makes decisions in middle school (8th grade and earlier) which dete…

It sounds like you and OP differ only in that he thinks the people on the committee have these beliefs, while you’re implying that they’re afraid of “political pressure” from people who hold these beliefs. Which I suspect is correct.

Re: An update on the campaign to defend serious math education in California

#297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't doubt that the people crafting these proposals care. I think they truly believe they are doing the right thing. I personally think it's just increasingly popular, mistaken moral beliefs that inform these types of proposals. Some of the underlying beliefs: 1. Blank slate - All humans are of equal ability 2. Any observable differences between humans are merely the result of social factors 3. Any observable diff…

> Blank slate - All humans are of equal ability This is generally true. People can find extreme examples that “disprove” this but they’re generally wrong. Most things people do aren’t that hard and people have the ability to learn to do them — they either choose a different path, have fewer choices, or just don’t care. And yes, before you ask, this includes computer programming.

>Most things people do aren’t that hard and people have the ability to learn to do them

That's true, but it's the small minority of tasks that require real intelligence that often matter the most. A regular person can probably be trained to 95% the skill of an anesthesiologist just by following instructions, but then they would kill the patient during edge cases.

The same thing applies to programming too. I had an internship at a regular company, and now work at a FAANG. The developers at the regular company are likely better at programming than me, especially when it came to regular tasks, but some of their technical decisions just didn't seem to make any sense.

Re: An update on the campaign to defend serious math education in California

#298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That logic isn’t used in any other discipline: “We only cover bad art — we don’t focus on students who go on to be professional artists.” “We only focus on bad English — we don’t focus on students who go on to be professional writers.” “We only focus on bad history - we don’t focus on students who go on to study history or social science.” Each of those has an AP and IB track, competitions to find elites, etc — just…

Students do learn art in K-12, but they could be considered as "bad art" by professional artists...

No — you should fact check that.

Middle and high schools start auditioning and training students into “advanced” art, preparing them to go onto competitions and onto serious careers in programs differentiated from the casual art classes.

Learning calculus won’t be enough as a professional in STEM either — but AP Calculus is the equivalent of audition-only advanced art classes. (Which exist all over.)

Re: An update on the campaign to defend serious math education in California

#299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You are right that this is a lot of nonsense. Specifically, 'you aren't good at math/math is hard' is the nonsense meme that gets hammered into student heads so frequently during school that most of them actually start to believe it. No, the nonsense is the idea that we are all cut out for math. That's the fundamental underpinning behind the "wokies" push for equity, a silent conflation of equality of opportunity wi…

> No, the nonsense is the idea that we are all cut out for math. I think the nonsense is making a decision about who is and isn't cut-out for math at such a young age, and keeping them hemmed into that path for the duration of their education. That's not merely recognizing the top, middle, and bottom - it's creating it. I see that as a worthy thing to try to avoid. I also think we should strive to avoid falsely concl…

Perhaps a simple solution is worth a try: publicly praise/acknowledge those who excel, while also teaching that it's okay to not be at that level [yet]. Encourage peer mentorship, so that the more advanced ones can help someone who struggles. For the outliers who are absolutely stuck in the "I don't care" mindset, apply additional resources to find alternate ways to make the material matter to that individual (practical examples, scenarios, hands-on application, etc.). Ask other students who are interested what real world uses they can think of for the material/topic/equation/concept. If something works, consider implementing that method for the entire class earlier on for the next class.

This is where the goalposts generally get shifted toward teacher resources and/or pay. That's fine to discuss as well, but likely not a significant factor for the above suggestions.

Re: An update on the campaign to defend serious math education in California

#300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. This is kind of a founding principle of the country, so... 2. This follows from #1, if we rule out nature then it must be nurture. Also, you must not be a parent if you'll accept "some kids are just dumb" as an excuse 3,4. Replace "oppression" with "competition". I think it might sound better to you. But the conclusion is the same. You want to prevent winners from accumulating an advantage, eliminating all others…

a founding principle is not everyone is of equal ability. The founding principle equality of opportunity. The government won't hold you back because you are a (peasant|lower caste|other arbitrary decision). i.e. Everyone gets to go to school, but not everyone learns the same (qualitatively or quantitatively).

'Equal opportunity' is not a 'founding principle'.

Just that they are 'equal' i.e. before God, or before the Law.

That one man is not from some superior lineage, that makes him a superior being.

I would be the founding fathers would have no problem if one man decided to 'discriminate' among others for some arbitrary reason - even if they were landholding men of high status etc..

Post reply on HN