Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

scottaaronson.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

591–600 of 657 posts

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

#591

Post by hither_shores »

whatshisface wrote: post #557
Spivak wrote: post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet people don’t feel the same way about “Calculus for Engineers” despite it also being a ridiculously dumbed down course full of rote memorization of formulas, “procedures,” and “strategies” with the bare minimum of hand-wavy theory. Compared to the courses for maths students it’s just as much pretending to learn calculus. dae STEM has got to be one of the most exhausting memes on the internet. Hell, I’m 3/4 of…

The theorems they prove in mathematician's calculus are useless for engineers, and they take time away from learning useful tricks for doing integrals, which if not that critical for a world with numerical methods, are crucial for solving problems on future tests.

An introductory math class is supposed to

- get you used to the general feel of the topic

- make you practice proving things

The specific theorems students prove are not really the point.

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

#592

Post by hither_shores »

leaflets2 wrote: post #586
rayiner wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I couldn’t think of a less douchey way to express that the math education was rigorous compared to even a good American high school.

What's TJ?

A magnet high school in northern Virginia.

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

#593

Post by MrJohz »

bendbro wrote: post #436
micromacrofoot wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn’t bother you sometimes that some people starve while others hoard wealth that rivals the gdp of entire countries? I don’t want everyone to be the same, but unbridled disparity seems equally as bad to me… especially considering how arbitrary it can be.

Nobody should care about disparity, people should care about maximizing benefit for every American. I'm not saying it is easy to evaluate this, but it is obviously all we should care about. The existence of gazillionares is fine so long as individual wellbeing in this system is higher relative to other potential systems.

The two problems with this philosophy are:

Firstly, evidentially, people do care about disparity: increasing disparity seems to adversely affect people physiologically, independently from wealth. That is, having someone else be significantly richer than you, independently of your own health, seems to create stress effects in a population. By the metrics of national health and well-being, it seems like wealth disparity is a bad thing in its own right.

Secondly, the problem with billionaires is not that they simply have so much money, it's that one's ability to influence society, including making and breaking the rules of society, is intrinsically tied to money. For example, consider the recent news about Bezos buying a new boat, and having to take down and rebuild a bridge to get it to sea. On the one hand, it doesn't really matter to me how much he spends on that boat - it's his money, and he can use it as he likes. However, the people of Rotterdam were promised that the bridge would remain put, yet Bezos' money (presumably via the shipyard that organised this) was enough to override the democratic process, presumably alongside adding a significant inconvenience to the people living there.

Or consider the recent trend of billionaires buying media companies. On the one hand, it's kind of irrelevant how they want to invest their money, but on the other hand, these media companies afford significant impact on the views and perspectives seen by society. If we really want to claim that we live in a democracy, it seems dangerous to also accept that one person can, essentially on a whim, buy one of the largest social media platforms with only vague hints as to what he plans to do with it. That sort of power is absolutely not something that you (I assume) or I personally can wield, yet it could well have a significant impact in shaping public opinion.

As long as money can be roughly equated to power, then wealth disparity will remain a very important thing to be concerned about.

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

#594

Post by SamReidHughes »

MatteoFrigo wrote: post #330
deanCommie wrote: post #130

Irrespective of specific educational curriculums, I'm curious what does HN think about Calculus? I absolutely loved learning Calculus in high school in Math and 1st and 2nd year of University. I consistently got 97+% on my grades. And I've never had to use it in my Computer Science degree or my 20 year Software Engineer career since. Am in a bubble because I don't spend much time in the Machine Learning domain?

It depends upon where you think calculus starts. If you take the position that calculus is the concept of limit and all its consequences, then things like exp() and log() are calculus and it's hard to get anything done in CS without those. In this view, saying that quicksort is O(n log n) is a statement of calculus. If you say that calculus is derivatives and integrals, then I'd say that calculus is not that importan…

Infinite series is part of calculus.

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

#595

Post by holden_nelson »

namelessoracle wrote: post #362
zozbot234 wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't get a college degree without passing the College Algebra weedout course (let alone Calculus, which is required for the bulk of STEM courses), and you can only realistically pass College Algebra by getting a lot of rigorous math in K-12. Lowering the bar is doing every student a disservice, and the most vulnerable students will be the hardest hit.

You'd think that but there are work arounds. Yes pretty much every college requires "college algebra". But some schools have "college algebra for stem majors" vs "college algebra for non stem majors". Guess which one is easier, has lots of bonus credit and extra curricular stuff to earn extra credit. (You attended the college showing of "vagely related math movie?! Here's 10 points on your final!") And also grades on…

I’m a math tutor at a run-of-the-mill state university and I can tell you for certain that the average student in college algebra and especially in pre-calculus has to work hard to pass. Both classes have a substantial amount of easy credit like mandatory lab time, credit for filling out notes, etc. with tutors there on the clock and available, but in both classes student struggle mightily with the material and spend a ton of time in the lab beyond the requirement.

For cheating we proctor all of the tests, which are worth by far the highest portion of the grade. I’m sure people have cheated on the proctored tests, but there’s not rampant purchasing of passing grades. This is specifically to rebut your implication that students are cheating or being carried by the grading structure, not necessarily to discount your position in the overall discussion.

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

#596

Post by woojoo666 »

vkou wrote: post #539
dahfizz wrote: post #524

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be most equitable and inclusive for everyone to be equally destitute. Let's drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator...

So, the solution is to instead decide at ~grade 6 or 7 that some people are going to get dragged down, instead?

Why would adding higher level courses drag anybody down? They aren't removing low level courses

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

#597

Post by WalterBright »

mdavis6890 wrote: post #582
WalterBright wrote: post #550

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW, I feel the same way about "Calculus for Engineers". Even though I'm an engineer. It just screams "dumbed down". I want the real thing.

I don't think that's fair. I can't say anything about Calculus for Artists, but Calculus for engineers won't be dumbed down. It will be focused more on the practice of using calculus to solve real-world problems, while a 'regular' Calculus course will be focused more on the development of theory, proofs, etc. Both have their place.

I've seen the real world result of dumbed down math for engineers - applying the wrong formula for the task, inability to adapt the formula to the task, and poking around in the dark because they were terrified of math. "Walter, can you go help him out" is what I'd hear.

So, yeah, in the real world, it doesn't work out so good.

I eventually learned to appreciate that Caltech never taught how to use formulas, but instead taught where the formulas came from. I recall a class on jet engines (really, an awesome class!), where the prof spent the entire lecture deriving the formula for a jet engine's performance. It was breathtaking. I knew where every term came from. I finally understood how the damned thing worked. All those other handwavy explanations mystified me.

If I was just handed the formula, it wouldn't have meant much of anything to me.

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

#598

Post by zozbot234 »

hither_shores wrote: post #591
whatshisface wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The theorems they prove in mathematician's calculus are useless for engineers, and they take time away from learning useful tricks for doing integrals, which if not that critical for a world with numerical methods, are crucial for solving problems on future tests.

An introductory math class is supposed to - get you used to the general feel of the topic - make you practice proving things The specific theorems students prove are not really the point.

> The specific theorems students prove are not really the point.

Right, that's why they should skip the calculus and start students directly on Real analysis. Then they might actually have some use for what they prove in the class.

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

#599

Post by random314 »

FFRefresh wrote: post #166
kurthr wrote: post #27

From the original letter: While well-intentioned, we believe that many of the changes proposed by the CMF are deeply misguided and will disproportionately harm under-resourced students. Adopting them would result in a student population that is less prepared to succeed in STEM and other 4-year quantitative degrees in college. The CMF states that 'many students, parents, and teachers encourage acceleration beginning i…

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…

You are simply attacking a strawman.

Absolutely no one I have met believes 1 and 2.

As for 3, "average observable differences" in mental ability can largely be explained by socio economic factors. Case in point, East Asian IQs stagnated behind US IQ averages 50 years ago, but are significantly ahead now. I dont think they underwent a general transformation in 50 years time.

4. Is again a strawman. Affirmative action is used for a limited number of historically discriminated populations in very limited contexts.

If you are interested in an actual debate don't invent a caricature of the opposing position.

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

#600

Post by vkou »

woojoo666 wrote: post #596
vkou wrote: post #539

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, the solution is to instead decide at ~grade 6 or 7 that some people are going to get dragged down, instead?

Why would adding higher level courses drag anybody down? They aren't removing low level courses

The problem is that these higher level courses aren't 'extras', they are table stakes for getting an education.

If you think a high-achieving student won't get a good education in an curriculum where they are 'dragged down' by the low-level course... Why on earth do you think that a non-high-achieving student isn't going to get 'dragged down' by being pigeonholed into the low-level course?

If your goal is to just write those people off as lost causes, then sure, by all means, bifurcate the coursework. But then the criticism of this approach starts to sound rather on point.

Post reply on HN