Why take a philosophy or history course? I have yet to have a need to know what happened in 1066 and where it was that something happened that year. Nor has anybody asked me about 'Meno' in since ... ever. For that matter, I can't think of a time when it was important whether or not I split an infinitive or read a work of "Great Literature."

Fundamentally, learning is it's own reward, or not, depending on whether one values it.

What is of practical importance is a different question, which is why for those folks who need a practical application to make education worthwile, I suggested a JuCo or trade school (or business college like Remington). It is disrespect that some folks prefer practicality to general learning and vice-versa. On the contrary, I would like to see stronger Juco's & trade schools so that folks who want a practical education can get one without being burdened with courses that are of no use to them --- allowing the student to concentrate more effectively on those courses that are of practical value.

B

I'm not arguing the value of practicality over learning for its own sake.
You don't find tens of thousands of students struggling semester after semester to fulfill a History, Philosophy or Sociology requirement. You don't even see it in the hard sciences.

There's something different about Math. Is this difference worth modifying its role in the curriculum?
I suspect that Math is somehow hard wired in the brain in a manner similar to the way in which language is hard wired although the differences in the quality of wiring differs more with Math than with language.

There are millions of dollars being spent in higher education on remedial classes necessary to get students through their college alegbra course. Would this money be better spent on higher level math courses for students who actually want to study Math?

*** Expand the options... ***
 

Kuan:

Expand the options to include: First, Second and Third - I understand...

I understand exactly what Bot is saying...being well-rounded in the math field is better than being structured in one disipline-vs.-another.

I had 8 years of business math (accounting) through Jr./Sr.-High School and in college, two years of calculus and algebra - I hated the college years - too "free-thinking" for my tastes.

Turns out, in my chosen field of endevor, I use the calculus/algebra math more than the business math. (Although, my business manager has NEVER thrown my Expense report back at me for errors! :D ).

.

I agree.

Obviously a grasp of basic math and geometry concepts benefits EVERYONE... You need to be able to balance your checkbook, do your taxes, count change... and at least have enough of a grasp of geometry to be able to fit a few boxes or pieces of luggage into the trunk of your Mercedes... ;)

But for someone who is not going into advanced engineering, programming, or other highly technical fields... Is highly advanced knowledge of calculus, trig, etc. really of any use to them? It certainly has not been of any practical use in my life.

For many students, I think that the time and effort that is too often spent pointlessly beating such subjects to death could be put to much better use.

Mike

Mightn't there be hard-wiring (and lack thereof) for any subject or discipline? Why not call it "a college for people who like sociology and art and stuff but think mathematics is too hard"?

This might be of benefit to people interested in science, engineering, and mathematics. They would no longer be burdened with smarty-pants PhD's forcing them into trivial classes like sociology and music and philosophy and other crap and could thus, concentrate on what is important to them.

Then we could have colleges separate from each other and get rid of that whole notion of universal education. The chances are we would be embarking on a new tower to replace the Ivory ones of Pointy-headed fame. It would be a tower of mutual incomprehensibility, where seemingly intelligent people would be unable to communicate, having no common educational paradigm. Instead, they would Babel.

B

Not picking on you Mike but your point pretty much sums up how a lot of folks feel about math.

And as an IS expert who minored in Math, even my most challenging career projects required at best, high school algebra know-how.

But the analytical requirements of the theoretical maths like differential calculus and such, allow a select few who choose to go the next level to think "outside the box".

Leading-edge technology is not developed by minds who are simply adept at balancing their checkbooks...

Agreed.

....But not everyone goes into a career where the goal is to "develop leading-edge technology".

I just think that the advanced math requirements are over-emphasized and pushed too far in many college and university curriculums.

For instance, I was in college for a BA in Music Performance. To require me to take advanced calculus, trigonometry, and other such nonsense (my university didn't, fortunately) would have been a big waste of time, money, and resources. COMPLETELY unrelated and not useful to my chosen field. I didn't need it then, and I don't need it now.

Mike

When Universities became "job training" instead of centers of education, this argument was lost.

A legitimate point to a degree, but....

As much as a college education costs nowadays, one should be able to tailor the course of study to fit one's goals and career choices as one sees fit, at least to a reasonable degree.

As Kerry already pointed out, math--highly advanced, specialized areas of math in particular--are not nearly as "universally applicable" to everyday life as language, psychology, and other common general-requirement courses.

Mike

That's sure the reality. And as we "dumb-down" so that more people can matriculate, we devalue that which they seek to accomplish. Welcome to the world of everybody's a genius.

There are some few things for which there is no substitute. Aristocracy of the intellect is one of them. Egalitarianism in education is self-defeating bull*****.

B

Bot..can you translate that for me??

My goodness.

B

LOL .. :D ...Its good see your back to normal!!..;)

I'm certainly not arguing that Universities should become job training centers, nor am I arguing that Math is not one of the greatest accomplishments of the human intellect or that Math is not central to almost all of modern technology.

I'm just saying there is something different about Math. We never hear of Sociology phobia or Welding phobia or History phobia, but we all know of Math phobia. Ask anyone who teaches Math at the kind of level we are talking about.

Take Art as a counter example. Most universities require some kind of exposure to Art in their core curriculum. However, since artistic talent is something that is often inborn, we don't require students to produce good paintings or sculpture, we allow them to study the history of Art instead of doing Art. We don't do this in Math. We don't allow students to study the history of Math (indeed such courses are extremely rare at the undergraduate level). We make them DO Math. Is this the equivalent of requiring students to DO sculpture or painting or play an instrument, rather than learning about these things?

Should we require a History of Math course as the logical equivalent of Art History? Maybe we could get people to go to Math museums the same way we get people to go to Art museums and get rid of the phobia at the same time?

That's not really fair is it? A philosopher querying a Mathematician about the notion of a limit? A Mathematician's standard answer to Zeno's paradox goes something like... "it's all solved with calculus." Trouble is, Zeno's paradox (and Heraclitus' too) is empirically shown to be false every single time we set something in motion, a la G.E. Moore's "plain man" philosophy. How do we know a hand exists? SLAP! There, it exists.