actually i like the fact that i studied psychology for a quarter, philosophy for a quarter and sociology for a quarter. these were mind broadening things and contribute to a well rounded liberal arts educated individual.

my problem with the calc course was that it was packed with math majors and me. it is too esoteric for a non math major.

my youngest daughter who is in the architecture program at ball state as a freshman just took a biology course her first semester that was similar. it was not an introductory course and she shouldnt have been in there but her incompetent "counselor" put her there because all the other science classes were full. she got a D. i was pissed. i told her at the beginning she shouldnt take it...but you know...kids.

maybe she will listen next time. no probably not....she is too much like me!

tom w

I will say the lack of enthusiasm stems from the poor teaching in general in mathematics. Most professors/teachers seem to assign work without suggesting other resources for assistance besides the written text. They lecture until their time is done. Afterwards, they cannot be found for another week. Sometimes concepts are difficult to grasp, and the teacher simply keep pounding the turf without thoroughly covering a given topic. This is obviously non-effective for any person. They are NOT doing their job OUTSIDE of the classroom.

Math would be much more enjoyable if it weren't thrust in your face, and kids/adults will have greater success by practicing much more with it. Math requires an enormous amount of practice, and should be taught in-class just as such. Grill, grill, grill.

Every kid is pampered now, and many rely on machines to do the calculations for them. I know people at my level of education that can not manage 43 x 62 in their heads! My God, man! Sometimes they don't even know their powers of 2!!!

Math is a repetitious, but it is far more beneficial than anything a writing class offers. In a writing class, the skill is either there (in conveying a fictional tale) or not. In a math class, you either know it or you don't, but it CAN be learned with many hours of practice and vocal elaboration.

Back then I would have been happier if I didn't have to take it. That much is certain. Today, well, lets ask this question. I paid good money and had to drag myself thru things I don't, do not and probably will never like. If I can remember the bad times, is there really a getting over it?

Yes if you're not over it then you're not truly happy, hence not the best you can be. So, be the best you can and allow the past to be part of you.

It's hard to put into words. It's obviously not as simple as I make it out to be, but once you get there, it's clear as day.

Sorry, we can drop it and get back on topic.

I never took it that "personally".... It certainly wasn't "traumatic" for me or anything, just because I had to take a semester of this or that....

I just believe that the whole approach -- for instance, trying to force calculus upon a theater major, or art upon a finance major, merely to fill some arbitrary university credit-hour requirement-- is a flawed concept, and an inefficient use of the students' AND the school's time, money, and resources.

I'm not arguing that there is no value to be found in studying subjects that are vastly unrelated to one's field, because I feel that ALL knowledge is good knowledge....

But I don't think certain unrelated subjects should be FORCED upon students "just because". Since we ALL have a finite amount of time and energy, I feel that such time and energy would be much better spent elsewhere. That's all I'm saying...

Mike

Yeah like, why do drummers have to take harmony? ;)

CRASH! BANG!

Kidding Mike. Definitely time for me to get some sleep.

I mostly agree, Mike. To me the best solution is to change the way we look at advanced education. Up until fairly recently, most public high schools provided a rather uniform, basic education. The assumption was that the student would leave school and 1) go to work; 2) go to a trade school; or 3) go to a university. In the past dozen years or so high schools have been increasingly experimenting with different educational tracks for different students. The hope is that students will leave school with something close-akin to specialized knowledge that employers need. This model of education is radically different from the earlier model for public schools in which it was assumed that everybody needed the same basic education.

The university level is even more busted-up. There are people in universities who are so specialized that they wouldn't know a hammer dulcimer from an Erlenmeyer flask. To me, this is a fundamental abdication of what a university degree means. It is converting the university into a trade school where a universal education is looked upon as a hindrance rather than an accomplishment of the mind.

I'm in favor of strengthening trade schools and JuCos. More business colleges, etc. leave the universities for people who truly want a universal education.

B

I couldn't agree more with Botnst. My solution: less people in universities, more in trade schools. Most of what people end up doing involves utilizing their "trade" skills. And the cost of sending millions of people to university who are barely over the lip of the bell curve is bancrupting me.

I have university degrees. 3 to be exact. But I make my money and almost always have at tasks which are best learned at the trade school level.

Writing can be learned, most people do it. And few good writers are good from the beginning. Some seem to be born that way, but many famous, good writers have had to work at learning it. There aren't many jobs out there that require a four year degree that don't require some writing skill. Correct spelling, punctuation, etc., are essential, especially now that we're in the email era.

I partially agree with you as well...

But I also appreciate the advantages of "specializing"...

The quandary is: Is it better to be an "expert" at one or two things, or merely "average" at many things?...

There are certainly merits to both arguments.

For instance, as you know, I'm a professional drummer. And although I do play a few other instruments at a "functional" level, I chose to "specialize" in drums. Some folks even say that I'm very good at it. ;) Regardless, it has earned me a reasonable living for quite a few years, and has led to a lot of travel, interesting experiences, and quite an enjoyable life so far.

This has been possible because I spent a great majority of my time over the past 20-something years concentrating my efforts on THAT endeavor. Being the best that I can be at my chosen "specialty". If I had spent less time on the drums, and more time trying to learn many different instruments, then my development as a drummer would have definitely suffered, and I would most likely be "mediocre" at ALL of the instruments that I attempted to play, and most likely would not have enjoyed the same opportunities and success.

On the other hand, there are definite musical and practical advantages to a musician having at least a working knowledge of other instruments that he/she doesn't normally play. Having this knowledge alters and improves one's approach to writing and playing music, and just makes working with other musicians easier all around.

So although it may distract from one's primary instrument, it is advantageous to study other instruments to some degree.

However, I believe there is a line that can be crossed, past which trying to absorb too much extraneous information is a detriment.

And then there are things, as I have already stated, that are simply unrelated and largely
useless.... For instance, the time that I spent studying advanced algebra. It was a waste back then, and the space that it still occupies in my brain is a waste now. Hell, I'm even wasting time writing about it NOW! hahaha... :D

It's all about investing one's time and efforts in areas that will yield the greatest returns.


Mike

That depends.

There are two different kinds of "good" when it comes to writing.

Almost anyone can eventually learn good grammar, spelling, punctuation, etc....

But good CREATIVE writing is quite similar to artistic ability, musical ability, etc... There is that intangible aspect of it that simply cannot be taught. You either "have it" or you don't.

For instance: I could sit down tomorrow and write a story about vampires, and with minimal effort, I could make sure the spelling, grammar, and punctuation are spot-on.

But I doubt that my vampire story would sell the millions of copies that those of Anne Rice have sold!

Mike

Perhaps in private business, but not to be President of our country.

Product of your parents and sum of your experiences and you're an exponent of mathematics.

Manifoldly imaginary.

B

One of the greatest failings of our education system in general is failing to help students understand why math is useful.

I use algebra on a regular basis. Trigonometry has been very handy in construction, stairs and roofs primarily, and gives me a leg up on some of my more experienced brehtren, not in a competitive way, but just as a means of making myself valuable to the job.

Trig was useful when I used to make musical instruments as you often have a limited supply of some rare wood to make the neck out of and you need to cut it in just the right place when you're making the angled cut to get the headpiece from the neckstock.

Calculus is less useful for the average person but it can sorta be like weight lifting for the mind. Knowing how it works can help to understand how scientists might use it.

I did a fun project in one of my computer classes in college where I wrote a program to find the zero roots for complex polynomials of up to x to the tenth power using Newton's method, as in Isaac Newton, the co-inventor/discoverer of calculus along with Leibnitz (some controversy on that point). Absolutely of no use to me but it was fun when it worked. A complex polynomial might be 12 x cubed minus 4 x squared plus 121 x minus 571. A zero root is a number when plugged in to that which will yield a value of zero, or within a specified number of decimal places close to zero as in .000001.

Economists use it all the time as do aerospace engineers when caluculating how objects fall or react to forces of acceleration.