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

611–620 of 657 posts

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

#611

Post by raxxorraxor »

pyuser583 wrote: post #512
klodolph wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I suggest reading: https://publica.org.au/marriage-beliefs-un/ It’s an account of how a very diverse group of scholars advising the United Nations ignored research contradicted their ideological views. One of the scholars even admitted in private some of their recommendations were “wrong.” The group was chosen for its expertise and diversity. I’ve served on school boards. They’re heavily susceptible to group think. O…

That is just an overall terrible outlook for the UN, how can this be the common denominator for nations? It seems that it becomes the personal outlet for some people.

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

#612

Post by commandlinefan »

HWR_14 wrote: post #494
commandlinefan wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> limits, derivatives, integration (Newton), maybe even some high level talk about ODEs My son is taking high school BC Calculus (one step above "AP" calculus) this year. It includes limits, derivatives, integration (including integration by parts and partial fraction decomposition), ordinary differential equations, infinite series and taylor/mcluarin series.

> My son is taking high school BC Calculus (one step above "AP" calculus) this year. BC Calculus is the advanced version of AP calculus, not "one step above". Ideally people are moved into AB or BC Calculus based on skill level, but only take one AP course.

Ah, you're correct - I was mixing up AP with AB. My mistake.

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

#613

Post by zaroth »

ummonk wrote: post #602
zaroth wrote: post #558

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First of all, are we talking about “systematic” or “systemic” or “structural” racism. These terms are not interchangeable. Put that aside for a second… I assume your example is talking about Prop 58. [1] Is Prop 58 racist? Of course not, the CA Constitution prohibits racist and sexist laws and the courts are very good at enforcing that prohibition. Prop 58 means a lower property tax bill can be inherited by the child…

The original commenter obviously meant "systemic" racism, and you're not discussing in good faith if you're trying to misinterpret this. Ditto when you digress about calling people racists when no one in this thread has done that. As to estate tax exemptions, they aren't nearly as egregious. There can certainly be an argument for reparations of ill-gotten gains to level the playing field, but it's at least possible f…

I guess to me the words matter, and calling it “systemic racism” means that somewhere in there, there should be identifiable racism and not merely structural inequity, aka property ownership and capitalism.

I think saying you can’t go back in time and capitalize on an investment 60 years ago that also comes with an accrued property tax advantage is true, but has nothing to do with race. Anyone can start accruing their own tax advantaged status under the exact same Proposition, and no one can ever try to take it away from them on the basis of a protected trait, right?

I guess what I’m asking is, is there anything specific about this tax policy that accrues benefits to a historical capital investment which makes it “racist” over any other tax policy that accrues benefits based on historical capital investment?

There are so many race neutral policies that provide accrued benefits like this. Even social security benefits accrue based on historical wages. But also things like Roth IRAs which provide compounded tax free growth. You can’t contribute the same dollars today to a Roth IRA and get the same tax advantages as someone who contributed the same amount but over the last 60 years, the benefit can only accrue over time, just like the CA property tax benefit can only accrue over time.

Not everyone pays the same tax rate on their income or their property, nor are they provided the same level of government benefits. In many cases that tax rate or benefit level will be based on historical personal or family wealth. Often times it works out to be a progressive tax, sometimes it’s regressive depending on so many policy goals that are often in conflict with each other.

Simply put, any of your neighbors who have owned their (family) property for several decades have accumulated a several thousand dollar a year tax benefit for being a long-time owner. You too can accrue a several thousand dollar a year tax benefit the longer that you hold your property. You don’t get to buy in and get that benefit on Day 1, and neither did they.

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

#614

Post by micromacrofoot »

mbg721 wrote: post #515
colinmhayes wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People are still hungry. THe child tax credit cut child hunger by 26%. We let it end. Giving people food isn't an especially hard problem in the US, yet we're not able to do it. https://www.thebalance.com/new-child-tax-credit-cut-hunger-s... .

Increasing the eligibility and amount of the credit is helpful, but doling it out in repeated checks that you then have to go back and report on your 1040 is annoying. How many news stories are run about people who depend on their annual tax refund for living expenses? Reducing that refund by paying the money out earlier and celebrating it as a free handout is awfully manipulative.

Not really negatively manipulative IMO, I've worked with many people who don't really understand taxes and they think that a refund is some kind of free money "bonus" and often use it to make frivolous purchases and blow the whole refund at once. Most of these people don't really plan or budget on how to use their refund because they have no idea how much it's going to be, it's just treated as kind of a random winfall.

Doling that out in smaller increments and making the purpose specific (child credit, instead of tax refund) seems like a good nudge into better spending habits... especially when the amount is known ahead of time.

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

#615

Post by micromacrofoot »

strangeattractr wrote: post #468
micromacrofoot wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Economic disparity is a more obvious answer with the benefit of being backed by actual data. No need for personal boogeymen based on social mores.

While the original post borders on a cliche at this point, the criticism seems to be correct in this case. Equalising math outcomes by destroying math education for the gifted is akin to levelling wealth by destroying all the houses.

I mean, there's also a massive generational wealth gap that some propose curbing in a more metaphorical "destroying all houses" sense.

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

#616

Post by raxxorraxor »

idoh wrote: post #120

SF CA resident, parent of two school age children chiming in. The direction with math seems pretty dismal, in that as of right now, everyone is singly tracked together for math through freshman year of high school. This results in children who have higher aptitudes[1] to not be well served by schools. The majority of people I know who have the means opt out of the public school system, which probably makes the proble…

Worse, if some faster pupils get bored, the chance is very high that they begin to sabotage classes as they are for everyone.

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

#617

Post by eezing »

“[current curriculum] creates students who see mathematics as an exercise in memorized procedures that match different problem types. Yet, university professors and employers want graduates with critical thinking and reasoning skills.”

I agree with this problem statement.

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

#618

Post by rayiner »

ummonk wrote: post #516
rayiner wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's mind boggling to me that this Twitter fight gone wrong is a bigger deal to people than the lack of scientific rigor in Boaler's work.

No, the point is that the fight undermines Boaler’s use of the racism / equity card which she uses in response to critics of her work.

Oh, I missed the context: https://stanfordreview.org/boaler-professor/. I didn’t realize Boaler had a history of doing that (though I guess I’m not surprised). Prof. Nelson sounds like a champion.

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

#619

Post by xyzzyz »

zozbot234 wrote: post #590
ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #588

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> " In the 1980s it was Japan. " For those of who were around in that era and watched as the US auto industry and consumer electronics industry were devastated as their Japanese counterparts ran rings around them, Japan did eat America's lunch and with considerable gusto. Sony products were everywhere , as were Toyotas and Hondas. Japan doesn't support your case. (Neither does China really.)

Isn't Toyota making cars in the U.S. now? Aren't iPhones proudly "designed in California"? The old factory jobs were doomed by technical change either way, so picking up the slack and looking for newly-opening opportunities (including in consumer tech) was an entirely sensible response on the U.S. side. But that requires fixing the dysfunctional K-12 public education system.

> Isn't Toyota making cars in the U.S. now?

Yes, because of tariffs. They wouldn’t do it if imported cars weren’t heavily penalized for being manufactured elsewhere.

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

#620

Post by juve1996 »

caddemon wrote: post #538
juve1996 wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "high-level mathematics achievement is not dependent on rare natural gifts, but rather can be cultivated" I mean, I would hope this is true. I'm not "naturally" gifted at mathematics, but like reading, writing, and other things, I can learn them in school and got quite good at them. Public education is like mass transit. Not everyone gets their own Lamborghini. Most have to take the bus. Its goal should be providin…

It really depends on how you define "high-level". Yeah the attitude that some people "just can't do math" is not good, I don't disagree with you there. But that's not the same as acknowledging that some people may pick up math more quickly. Holding kids back is really the opposite of cultivating mathematical achievement. To use the reading analogy, do you think a kid that can read at 4th grade level should be forced…

> But that's not the same as acknowledging that some people may pick up math more quickly.

Certainly some people are better at things than others - but so what? I know plenty of people that excelled in math in grade school and struggled in high school, also many more that excelled in high school and struggled in college. Some, like myself, struggled in grade school and excelled in high school. The difference was motivation.

> Holding kids back is really the opposite of cultivating mathematical achievement. To use the reading analogy, do you think a kid that can read at 4th grade level should be forced to only read 1st grade books anyway because that's what their age is? I'm not sure what that accomplishes.

And how many brilliant kids moved just a bit too fast and lost interest? The thing is you only view things one way. You forget that a fast ramp-up in difficulty can turn away many students who could've turned out to be brilliant scientists and engineers.

> It'd be one thing to make a resource allocation argument but that's not even what this is. This curriculum is clearly a philosophical statement and personally I don't get it.

I don't agree that it is a philosophical statement, having read it, it seems pretty straightforward. The alarmism about the woke mob is overstated.

Post reply on HN