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

641–650 of 657 posts

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

#641

Post by haberman »

deanCommie wrote: post #640
haberman wrote: post #632

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not the OP, but I would weigh in with D) it's worth trying, and we should learn what we can, but the phenomena being studied are too complex and/or subjective to yield the kinds of rigorous results that we expect from the harder sciences, and the opinions of experts are therefore necessarily more infused with personal opinion and bias. I think it is incumbent on all fields to be exceptionally clear about which of the…

I love that response because I think it gets to the point and the problem. Q1: "What is the worst-case runtime complexity of quick sort" is a question that has a rigorous answer that can be proven with fundamental scientific concepts. Q2: "What is the programming language/framework we should use for this next project" is one that absolutely cannot. Any answer to Q2 will invariably involve some personal opinion and bi…

I think your Q1 vs Q2 is a good start, but I would add:

Q3: "Should the US regulate Bitcoin?"

CS expertise will give a person much greater understanding about the details of how Bitcoin works. But any layperson can learn enough about how Bitcoin works to form an opinion on the question of whether the US should regulate it. I would never tell a non-CS person that they don't get to weigh in on this issue because they are not in the field. Would you?

Ultimately what we are talking about here is policy, which affects everybody, and value judgments, which everyone is entitled to make.

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

#642

Post by deanCommie »

haberman wrote: post #641
deanCommie wrote: post #640

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love that response because I think it gets to the point and the problem. Q1: "What is the worst-case runtime complexity of quick sort" is a question that has a rigorous answer that can be proven with fundamental scientific concepts. Q2: "What is the programming language/framework we should use for this next project" is one that absolutely cannot. Any answer to Q2 will invariably involve some personal opinion and bi…

I think your Q1 vs Q2 is a good start, but I would add: Q3: "Should the US regulate Bitcoin?" CS expertise will give a person much greater understanding about the details of how Bitcoin works. But any layperson can learn enough about how Bitcoin works to form an opinion on the question of whether the US should regulate it. I would never tell a non-CS person that they don't get to weigh in on this issue because they a…

OK, let's bring it back full circle: The context was maths education - not "Should the US teach math?" (to which every layperson can have an opinion), but "How should the US (California) teach math to high schoolers?"

That's as complex of a question as "How should the US regulate Bitcoin (if it were to)". And while it's true that laypeople do have lots and lots of opinions on financial regulations, if there's one thing that HackerNews can agree on is that most lay opinions on financial regulations are not rigorous or serious, and come with unexpected side effects and consequences. (Whether it's taxing billionaires on stock grants or restricting crypto).

So in that sense I do still this requires people with expertise. And gifted math nerds (which I were) that benefited from a dramatically accellerated program have as much knowledge about the subject as a stereotypical redneck saying "We don't need math out on the tobacco farm".

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

#643

Post by kortilla »

ummonk wrote: post #527
CryptoPunk wrote: post #462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>and 'systematic racism exists' - which of course it does Systematic racism only exists today to positively discriminate against people belonging to so-called disadvantaged races, at the expense of those belonging to so-called privileged races. That's why White and Asian kids are discriminated against in college admissions.

Oh yeah? Then why am I stuck paying a higher property tax rate than my white neighbors who inherited their house from their parents that purchased during an era of segregation?

The same reason I am? I purchased later than them (and am white).

Shitty taxation policies fuck all new home owners and have little to do with race.

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

#644

Post by leaflets2 »

lordnacho wrote: post #115
cortesoft wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the gist of the argument is that when you split students into 'normal' and 'advanced' classes at a young age, the students who are not put into the advanced classes will believe they are just naturally not good at math and will give up on trying to get better because they will think they just "don't have a math brain". Here is a short blurb about the idea: > The framework would not forbid districts from acc…

Why wouldn't you just let everyone take the same class and the same exams, but let the kids who have interest do extra work? Want to do calculus a year early? Here's the book, here's the exercises, why would I stop you?

I think the teacher sometimes says and explains things to the whole class, and if what the teacher says, or homework s/he has prepared, applies only to 5 out of 25 kids, the others can get bored and unmotivated, sometimes even start disturbing the others.

And sometimes the kids talk with each other about the maths problems. But that won't work so well if they're in different books.

Simpler for both the teacher and students, if those in a class are at roughly the same level.

But I do think that what you say, would work in a group where everyone is pretty good at maths, enjoy it so much so "yes I got a new book" they think (when they get the next book). And dive into it, no matter if there's a teacher there or not.

That's not generally the case though is it

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

#645

Post by jollybean »

thelock85 wrote: post #511
jollybean wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it's been going on for a while. Christians are fond if it: "You have an innate, direct relationship with God, in his eyes you are equal to the The King" etc.. But we've only had 'governance' in the broad sense for 100 years. And we've never really tried to apply such principles into education until the 1960s. Now we have actually made incredible progress on social issues, we have our 'wars' in Social Media with…

>> Racism is still pernicious, but it's not fundamental. How did you reach this conclusion in the face of 300+ years of verifiable, well-documented federal, state and local racist legislation and policies? If it’s pernicious now then it’s always been pernicious since generations have persevered irregardless of these policies… but that doesn’t make sense to me.

Institutional racism really does not exist, and in general, people really are not racist. Obviously, subtleties exist, and there is work to do - but by and large, people are treated fairly in 2020, moreover, there are numerous 'affirmative action' programs in place to try to make up for the issues.

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

#646

Post by native_samples »

raxxorraxor wrote: post #611
pyuser583 wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not really specific to the UN. These sorts of international NGOs all have the same problems. The WHO is worse. The whole idea of global governance is really only attractive to one particular type of person, and they aren't accountable to anything really, so of course you end up with this sort of groupthink.

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

#647

Post by CryptoPunk »

ummonk wrote: post #527
CryptoPunk wrote: post #462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>and 'systematic racism exists' - which of course it does Systematic racism only exists today to positively discriminate against people belonging to so-called disadvantaged races, at the expense of those belonging to so-called privileged races. That's why White and Asian kids are discriminated against in college admissions.

Oh yeah? Then why am I stuck paying a higher property tax rate than my white neighbors who inherited their house from their parents that purchased during an era of segregation?

The difference in your experience from that of your neighbor is not a case of racial discrimination. Even if this afflicted more black people in general, a racial disparity in the impact of a policy is not evidence of it being systemically racist, so would not validate the claim that the US is systemically racist toward black people.

This can be trivially demonstrated: ten times more men are arrested and incarcerated than women, yet no one would claim this suggests the US criminal justice system is systemically sexist toward men.

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

#648

Post by haberman »

deanCommie wrote: post #642
haberman wrote: post #641

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think your Q1 vs Q2 is a good start, but I would add: Q3: "Should the US regulate Bitcoin?" CS expertise will give a person much greater understanding about the details of how Bitcoin works. But any layperson can learn enough about how Bitcoin works to form an opinion on the question of whether the US should regulate it. I would never tell a non-CS person that they don't get to weigh in on this issue because they a…

OK, let's bring it back full circle: The context was maths education - not "Should the US teach math?" (to which every layperson can have an opinion), but "How should the US (California) teach math to high schoolers?" That's as complex of a question as "How should the US regulate Bitcoin (if it were to)". And while it's true that laypeople do have lots and lots of opinions on financial regulations, if there's one thi…

Yes, many policies have unexpected consequences. The question is whether the experts are doing better at predicting them. The most sweeping educational policy in my lifetime, No Child Left Behind, passed with large bipartisan support, only to be abandoned 15 years later for failing to achieve its goals. I cannot find any expert opinion from the time that accurately anticipated these unintended consequences. If experts are much better than the general public at predicting the effects of policy, I would expect to see education experts on the record predicting the ultimate effects of the policy.

> And gifted math nerds (which I were) that benefited from a dramatically accellerated program have as much knowledge about the subject as a stereotypical redneck saying "We don't need math out on the tobacco farm".

I think the "nerds" would know enough to understand that they benefitted from the accelerated program and would have not achieved as much if it were taken away.

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

#649

Post by RC_ITR »

prepend wrote: post #624
RC_ITR wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the argument (though not necessarily one I agree with) is a spin on what you said: The current system pushes 50% of the kids into calculus and 50% into 'I hate math.' Of the 50% that go into calculus, 50% go into STEM. That leads to (hyperbole) 25% A's / 25% B's / 50% F's. The intent of the new rule is to maybe be more like 25% A's / 10% B's / 50% C's / 15% F's. The key questions are 1) Is that actually bette…

I like your example breakdown, but my understanding that by removing calculus as an option it’s lowering the ceiling so we’d end up with: 0% A, 25% B, 25% C, 25% D, 25% F. I guess there is a societal discussion to be had if we should trade off losing As to reduce Fs. But I think that first there’s not a dichotomy between approaches so the only way to get fewer Fs is to reduce the number of As. I think there are ways…

I think you should do some primary research. This threads article argues that calculus is impossible, but the actual reality is [0]:

The draft Mathematics Framework includes calculus in the possible high school pathways, and also suggests ways to enable more students to get access to calculus. It notes that many high schools currently organize their coursework in a manner that requires eighth grade acceleration in order to reach calculus or other advanced mathematics courses by senior year. While some students succeed with this approach, acceleration has proved a problematic option for other students who could reach higher level math courses but would benefit from a stronger foundation in middle school mathematics.

There is nothing in this about actually removing calculus for high achievers, and this there’s an argument against it, it’s what I laid out: “is it better to push more kids into calculus at all costs or should we focus on raising the floor?”

It’s honestly a very similar argument to the (popular on HN) argument of “not everyone needs college”

And to be quite frank, this isn’t coming from nowhere, this is modeled on the success of other western countries with higher math scores across the board.

[0] https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/cf/mathfwfaqs.asp

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

#650

Post by WhyOhWhyQ »

caddemon wrote: post #554
WhyOhWhyQ wrote: post #453

I'd be interested in trying out the following idea: How about we don't mandate mathematics and science courses in high school, and especially in early college? The benefits of this are two-fold. The people who want to pursue other interests are freer to do so. And, more importantly to me as a mathematics graduate student, the people who are interested in math and science can go much much faster, and attain a higher l…

Most colleges I'm aware of these days have a completely softball core math/science requirement. "Rocks for jocks" and that kind of thing. Whether it's a waste of time or not, I don't think it really impedes the serious math learners. I think you are right that we need more flexibility on the high school level though, at least for juniors/seniors that have safely passed the earlier requirements. I like that we have a…

"Whether it's a waste of time or not, I don't think it really impedes the serious math learners."

I thought about this for a bit. Suppose we kept the number of teachers (or courses) fixed, but eliminated the gen-ed math requirement. You would end up with a better teacher : student ratio, and I believe this would benefit the serious math learners. And so by not doing this, I believe we may be implicitly impeding them.

My guess is there are lots of ways wasted resources (and I do believe any class which could be perceived as "rocks for jocks"-type is wasted resources, and may actually be a damaging use of resources - I say this as a TA for the pre-major courses*, where the students are constantly and overwhelmingly negative about the whole thing) are implicitly impeding the serious students.

(And, as a positive note, I think the students not characterized as "serious students" for the above discussion could have a chance at meaningful and valuable contribution elsewhere, if we weren't putting so much effort into wasting their time.)

Edit: Changed "lower level courses" to "pre-major courses"

Post reply on HN