|
On July 29 2012 23:19 Alvin853 wrote:
Students can't figure out how to plug algebra problems into their calculators, thus algebra is hard.
I have taken math classes at an american high school, and everybody was constantly using their TIs to solve the most basic problems. In german high school I almost never used a calculator, problems are set up so the numbers are incredibly easy, if you know basic multiplication tables you'll be much quicker doing them by hand than using a calculator, and if the numbers get hard you know you messed up on the way.
Math is not about being able to calculate the square root of 50 to 10 decimals (unless you're doing numerics), but to figure out the solution of the quadratic equation is the square root of 50, or even better 5 times the square root of 2. It's about knowing how to get a solution, that's what you're being taught in algebra classes, and you need to be able to solve problems all your life no matter what you decide to do after school.
High school is supposed to provide everyone with a general education, so after finishing high school you still have every option available, at least that's how it is over here. And you really don't want colleges to start teaching people 9th grade math because half the students thought it was useless. In high school you learn a little about everything, so you can figure out for yourself what you enjoy the most and what you want to do after high school.
This exactly goes back to what I was saying in my post, and why I believe that public high schools are doing it wrong. The education system should not be based upon getting the correct answer, but rather finding out the "mechanism" or equation to solving a problem and being able to apply this to any situation, even if the directions don't tell you what to do. I think that's where the true fault of the educational system is.
|
You ...solve high school algebra using calculators? o_O
This is news to me.
Sincerely though, how? As in, which buttons?
|
|
|
On July 29 2012 23:00 xrapture wrote:
Never used it outside of school and I knew when I was learning it it was pointless. Majority of the world don't need or use algebra, but they can't make algebra an elective because no one would take it and we'd have less of the people who need it (idk engineers and what not.)
so they basically shovel shit down all of our throats and hope the shit sticks to a few people and they get turned out by the system.
QFT. This is exactly what I have been talking about so far. I re-post my other point here: Science has a track record of such amazing success that it is worth the possibility of sounding foolish to say, that we are doing too little to promote science in school.
|
I'm going to be honest and say that I'm not that great at math. But I know the basics and I think everyone should know the basics of algebra. I think the problem is the teaching method. It's the same for every subject, but math itself is very much text book based in highschool and that itself can cause students to lose interest in studying it. The teachers too should be somewhat to blame. I'm not saying all teachers are bad (I'm going to school to become one myself), but some mathematics teachers are not invested in making sure that it's interesting and that everyone understands. Especially at the earlier stages of learning the subjects. I've found that I did poorly in subjects where I didn't get motivating teacher to teach me the fundamentals.
Meh.
|
math is opposite of literature in many ways. So why don't we stop teaching both and see how it goes? Maybe we should only teach how to read in schools so that people could read and learn things that they want to?
|
On July 29 2012 23:28 Kontys wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2012 22:56 paralleluniverse wrote:On July 29 2012 22:53 Kontys wrote:On July 29 2012 22:45 Smoot wrote:On July 29 2012 22:42 paralleluniverse wrote:Another point of view is the idea of comparative advantage from economics, which basically says that it's better for society if everyone specialized in doing what they're good at and traded for everything else. So we should make mathematicians better at mathematics, and mechanics better at fixing cars, and when a mathematician's cars brakes down, it is more efficient for him to call the service of a mechanic than for him to understand how to fix a car and do it himself. Of course, there are some basic knowledge common for most fields, for example mathematicians need to learn to write English, because that's part of being a better mathematician. Advertising executives need to learn basic math and statistics since it's part of the job, etc. But apart from the basic and necessary skills that are required to be proficient in a profession, it's socially optimal for people to specialize. Thus, to the extent that people do need to know algebra for their jobs, comparative advantage says it's better for them to learn about things that make them better at their jobs instead of algebra. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage This is true to a point. But do people aged 13-16 know what they want to do the rest of their lives? Not learning basic Algebra in high school limits their options later in life. I am of the mind that a teenager can CHOOSE to be good at anything they set their mind to. There are limiters, but I'll not go into that. Letting someone choose whether or not they want to do something hard, without realizing they are limiting their future career choices in life is a mistake in my opinion. The comparative advantage argument falls apart when you consider the achievements of hard science, for which learning mathematics is a required. The achievements of science haven't simply increased mathematicians capability of doing their stuff right, the achievements of scientists have tremendously increased the capabilities of others in completely unrelated tasks. Not really. The comparative advantage argument says we should make scientists better at science. But being better at science doesn't involve just learning and doing science but also learning and doing mathematics. It is true that science and mathematics has had a mutually beneficial relationship. I was clumping up mathematicians and scientists vs the rest of the world. As in, investing in mathematics and science has helped us increase, say, farm productivity by a thousand fold. The farming being the unrelated task.
But the farmers didn't do the math.
|
On July 29 2012 23:14 omgimonfire15 wrote:
We suck at algebra so we should get rid of it? Good logic. This just sounds like a ploy to make us seem smarter than we actually are. Its not about numbers and equations, its about critical thinking and showing that you are able to do something even when you don't like it. As stated numerous times, in many jobs, actually algebra is useless, but it shows employers that this guy can get through something most people hate, work hard, and think critically. In college, chemistry is mandatory, but the ones who make it through with good grades display their work ethic and set of priorities.
1) Nobody is saying it should be removed -- most are saying it should be something that's more optional or taught in a different way so students struggling can understand it or get something useful out of it.
2) Chemistry displaying work ethic and priority making is too black and white of thinking. I failed college algebra three times -- I have a great mathematical learning disability. I can't even do basic math. I miss 7+6 half the time. I had several private tutors and I studied much harder than those that were lazy and smoothly sailed by -- yet I still failed. I was literally making grades below those that were barely trying, yet many were making A's and B's.
I don't think it's that I'm completely stupid -- I simply have a learning disability when it comes to using numbers. So what happens to people like me? It's not because I didn't have priorities set. It's not because I displayed a poor work ethic. It's because of an innate problem with mathematics that I will always have (and have had since I started school as a wee child). For me, it's impossible to have any career related to math because I simply can not understand the type of abstract reasoning it presents.
So what use is a mathematics course being mandatory for me? I do fine in almost every single subject. My report cards in college literally read A A B F, and you can guess what I was failing every semester (and having to repeat). I took statistics three times too. It's not that I can't be taught and learn from schooling, it's that I'm absolutely terrible in one department of reasoning -- mathematics. I feel that some courses should be optional for this very reason, so people like me stand a chance at becoming educated without having to suffer through the ordeals of major learning issues like I have. So what am I to do -- not be able to pass regular schooling to get to something more specific (and unrelated) to math just because I can't pass one subject?
|
On July 29 2012 23:37 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2012 23:28 Kontys wrote:On July 29 2012 22:56 paralleluniverse wrote:On July 29 2012 22:53 Kontys wrote:On July 29 2012 22:45 Smoot wrote:On July 29 2012 22:42 paralleluniverse wrote:Another point of view is the idea of comparative advantage from economics, which basically says that it's better for society if everyone specialized in doing what they're good at and traded for everything else. So we should make mathematicians better at mathematics, and mechanics better at fixing cars, and when a mathematician's cars brakes down, it is more efficient for him to call the service of a mechanic than for him to understand how to fix a car and do it himself. Of course, there are some basic knowledge common for most fields, for example mathematicians need to learn to write English, because that's part of being a better mathematician. Advertising executives need to learn basic math and statistics since it's part of the job, etc. But apart from the basic and necessary skills that are required to be proficient in a profession, it's socially optimal for people to specialize. Thus, to the extent that people do need to know algebra for their jobs, comparative advantage says it's better for them to learn about things that make them better at their jobs instead of algebra. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage This is true to a point. But do people aged 13-16 know what they want to do the rest of their lives? Not learning basic Algebra in high school limits their options later in life. I am of the mind that a teenager can CHOOSE to be good at anything they set their mind to. There are limiters, but I'll not go into that. Letting someone choose whether or not they want to do something hard, without realizing they are limiting their future career choices in life is a mistake in my opinion. The comparative advantage argument falls apart when you consider the achievements of hard science, for which learning mathematics is a required. The achievements of science haven't simply increased mathematicians capability of doing their stuff right, the achievements of scientists have tremendously increased the capabilities of others in completely unrelated tasks. Not really. The comparative advantage argument says we should make scientists better at science. But being better at science doesn't involve just learning and doing science but also learning and doing mathematics. It is true that science and mathematics has had a mutually beneficial relationship. I was clumping up mathematicians and scientists vs the rest of the world. As in, investing in mathematics and science has helped us increase, say, farm productivity by a thousand fold. The farming being the unrelated task. But the farmers didn't do the math.
But the farmers could benefit from cost-benefit analysis and financial literacy beyond the heuristic. Both of these require some algebra or maths thinking to some degree.
|
On July 29 2012 23:37 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2012 23:28 Kontys wrote:On July 29 2012 22:56 paralleluniverse wrote:On July 29 2012 22:53 Kontys wrote:On July 29 2012 22:45 Smoot wrote:On July 29 2012 22:42 paralleluniverse wrote:Another point of view is the idea of comparative advantage from economics, which basically says that it's better for society if everyone specialized in doing what they're good at and traded for everything else. So we should make mathematicians better at mathematics, and mechanics better at fixing cars, and when a mathematician's cars brakes down, it is more efficient for him to call the service of a mechanic than for him to understand how to fix a car and do it himself. Of course, there are some basic knowledge common for most fields, for example mathematicians need to learn to write English, because that's part of being a better mathematician. Advertising executives need to learn basic math and statistics since it's part of the job, etc. But apart from the basic and necessary skills that are required to be proficient in a profession, it's socially optimal for people to specialize. Thus, to the extent that people do need to know algebra for their jobs, comparative advantage says it's better for them to learn about things that make them better at their jobs instead of algebra. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage This is true to a point. But do people aged 13-16 know what they want to do the rest of their lives? Not learning basic Algebra in high school limits their options later in life. I am of the mind that a teenager can CHOOSE to be good at anything they set their mind to. There are limiters, but I'll not go into that. Letting someone choose whether or not they want to do something hard, without realizing they are limiting their future career choices in life is a mistake in my opinion. The comparative advantage argument falls apart when you consider the achievements of hard science, for which learning mathematics is a required. The achievements of science haven't simply increased mathematicians capability of doing their stuff right, the achievements of scientists have tremendously increased the capabilities of others in completely unrelated tasks. Not really. The comparative advantage argument says we should make scientists better at science. But being better at science doesn't involve just learning and doing science but also learning and doing mathematics. It is true that science and mathematics has had a mutually beneficial relationship. I was clumping up mathematicians and scientists vs the rest of the world. As in, investing in mathematics and science has helped us increase, say, farm productivity by a thousand fold. The farming being the unrelated task. But the farmers didn't do the math.
How does a farmer know what to expect from a crop in any year? How does he calculate his return for investing in farm equipment to reduce time needed to harvest / plow / and seed his fields? How does he calculate the cost / benefit of hiring more workers for the farm? Etc.. etc... etc
Of course he could just pay me $50/hr as a consultation fee and I can do all that for him. Further disabling him to make good decisions on his own and without cost.
|
On July 29 2012 23:31 S_SienZ wrote:
You ...solve high school algebra using calculators? o_O
This is news to me.
Sincerely though, how? As in, which buttons?
They use calculators with computer algebra systems (CAS).
Basically like this: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=solve x^2 + x > a
Real mathematicians do it on a computer (Maple or Mathematica), not a calculator.
|
On July 29 2012 23:28 Kontys wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2012 22:56 paralleluniverse wrote:On July 29 2012 22:53 Kontys wrote:On July 29 2012 22:45 Smoot wrote:On July 29 2012 22:42 paralleluniverse wrote:Another point of view is the idea of comparative advantage from economics, which basically says that it's better for society if everyone specialized in doing what they're good at and traded for everything else. So we should make mathematicians better at mathematics, and mechanics better at fixing cars, and when a mathematician's cars brakes down, it is more efficient for him to call the service of a mechanic than for him to understand how to fix a car and do it himself. Of course, there are some basic knowledge common for most fields, for example mathematicians need to learn to write English, because that's part of being a better mathematician. Advertising executives need to learn basic math and statistics since it's part of the job, etc. But apart from the basic and necessary skills that are required to be proficient in a profession, it's socially optimal for people to specialize. Thus, to the extent that people do need to know algebra for their jobs, comparative advantage says it's better for them to learn about things that make them better at their jobs instead of algebra. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage This is true to a point. But do people aged 13-16 know what they want to do the rest of their lives? Not learning basic Algebra in high school limits their options later in life. I am of the mind that a teenager can CHOOSE to be good at anything they set their mind to. There are limiters, but I'll not go into that. Letting someone choose whether or not they want to do something hard, without realizing they are limiting their future career choices in life is a mistake in my opinion. The comparative advantage argument falls apart when you consider the achievements of hard science, for which learning mathematics is a required. The achievements of science haven't simply increased mathematicians capability of doing their stuff right, the achievements of scientists have tremendously increased the capabilities of others in completely unrelated tasks. Not really. The comparative advantage argument says we should make scientists better at science. But being better at science doesn't involve just learning and doing science but also learning and doing mathematics. It is true that science and mathematics has had a mutually beneficial relationship. I was clumping up mathematicians and scientists vs the rest of the world. As in, investing in mathematics and science has helped us increase, say, farm productivity by a thousand fold. The farming being the unrelated task.
As it happens mathematicians are scientists, and there are no scientists active in their field who do not require mathematics in their day-to-day work.
|
On July 29 2012 23:42 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2012 23:31 S_SienZ wrote:
You ...solve high school algebra using calculators? o_O
This is news to me.
Sincerely though, how? As in, which buttons?
They use calculators with computer algebra systems (CAS). Basically like this: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=solve x^2 + x > aReal mathematicians do it on a computer (Maple or Mathematica), not a calculator.
The calculators computer algebra systems is really just a lot of methods developed by people 100 years ago. I still remember having to use Newton's Method in solving some systems from Numerical Analysis.
|
I just don't understand how American students have so much difficulty in algebra. The article makes the subject seem like rocket science, but honestly it really isn't that difficult.
|
On July 29 2012 23:27 one-one-one wrote:
Social scientists have been on the offensive lately.
We had a similar article as in the OP in one of the major newspapers here about a month ago.
Today I read a debate article written by 3 university principals demanding more money for
social science research. They were upset that most government funding goes into technology
and medicine research.
As a whole I think our western society is getting a bit too complacent. We demand less and less from kids in compulsory school systems. It is not a surprise to my why questions like these are asked.
Why torture some kids with algebra when our countries are doing better than ever ?
It is a very dangerous path to take though. One that might end up in a state of idiocracy.
The problem is very large and complex. Seemingly a lot of people don't even know why the hell they should know some mathematics. If maths is something a kid struggles with it is easy for him/her to become very defensive and question the purpose of learning it.
What is scarier though is that teachers often are completely clueless as well. I never got a good answer from any of my math teachers why I should learn maths . They believed very strongly that it was very important, but didn't manage to explain why.
In this country the system has completely collapsed. If you fail mathematics in the fourth grade or whatever, you should not just be passed on to the fifth grade math course as if everything was fine. Fifteen-twenty years ago this would never happen. These days it happens all the time. The result is that high school students struggle like hell with maths because they don't have the knowledge that you are supposed to have if you have passed previous maths courses.
Some of them do just fine anyways, and then rightfully ask themselves why they were put through x years of mathematical torture from which they learned close to nothing.
We are slowly but surely creating an underclass. The sad thing is that this is because we don't require our school kids to know the stuff that they are supposed to know by the curriculum. It is as much a right to be given the education the law is supposed to guarantee as it is an obligation by politicians, teachers , parents etc. to demand and make sure that the system works as it is supposed to work.
Why should one know some mathematics then? What is a good answer?
I think you could write a very thick book about this. It is not something you just answer with a few sentences.
Therefore it is actually good to say this to the students; You should study maths because wise old men and women has decided so.
To understand news papers and news broadcasts on TV while maintaining a reasonable ability of source criticism I am of the opinion that you need to know at least high school level mathematics. This could be some kind of bottom line statement to build more detailed arguments off.
To be able do discuss more advanced topics you need more mathematics of course. One such topic is interpreting statistics. This forum is full of threads where 95% of all posters talk completely out of their ass about statistics.
For example you can go look at the monthly TLPD win rate statistics threads.
I love you, definitely the best post in the thread.
On another note, tell the kids that science (science needs math) has tripled human life expectancy.
We have seen some of that social scientist aggression here in Finland as well. I find it delusional at best and self-destructive at worst. I would go so far as to say that social sciences are sustained because their adherents are good at arguing for their own existence, rather than providing any actual contributions to society. This may be because many of these disciplines were founded as political movements (Liberalism, Marxism as branches of political science and economics, etc).
|
Honestly, the article in the OP did everything right, except picking on Algebra. Algebra is not all that difficult, and has uses. In fact, we use basic versions of it without even realizing it.
But, there is some merit to taking things like Trig. I do not remember a single piece of the Trig I took in HS. I couldn't use any of it, honestly, I don't even remember the class. I don't remember anything about it, and all it has done for me is bring down my HS grade average. My lack of knowledge of it has never affected anything, but I had to take it.
Algebra is useful, and easy enough. Working with those who don't get it can get them through it.
But when they have to take anything above that, like geometry, Trig, Calc, whatever, those are useless except for professions which require them...and if you're having problems with any of those, you probably aren't going into one of those professions.
|
On July 29 2012 23:39 elt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2012 23:37 paralleluniverse wrote:On July 29 2012 23:28 Kontys wrote:On July 29 2012 22:56 paralleluniverse wrote:On July 29 2012 22:53 Kontys wrote:On July 29 2012 22:45 Smoot wrote:On July 29 2012 22:42 paralleluniverse wrote:Another point of view is the idea of comparative advantage from economics, which basically says that it's better for society if everyone specialized in doing what they're good at and traded for everything else. So we should make mathematicians better at mathematics, and mechanics better at fixing cars, and when a mathematician's cars brakes down, it is more efficient for him to call the service of a mechanic than for him to understand how to fix a car and do it himself. Of course, there are some basic knowledge common for most fields, for example mathematicians need to learn to write English, because that's part of being a better mathematician. Advertising executives need to learn basic math and statistics since it's part of the job, etc. But apart from the basic and necessary skills that are required to be proficient in a profession, it's socially optimal for people to specialize. Thus, to the extent that people do need to know algebra for their jobs, comparative advantage says it's better for them to learn about things that make them better at their jobs instead of algebra. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage This is true to a point. But do people aged 13-16 know what they want to do the rest of their lives? Not learning basic Algebra in high school limits their options later in life. I am of the mind that a teenager can CHOOSE to be good at anything they set their mind to. There are limiters, but I'll not go into that. Letting someone choose whether or not they want to do something hard, without realizing they are limiting their future career choices in life is a mistake in my opinion. The comparative advantage argument falls apart when you consider the achievements of hard science, for which learning mathematics is a required. The achievements of science haven't simply increased mathematicians capability of doing their stuff right, the achievements of scientists have tremendously increased the capabilities of others in completely unrelated tasks. Not really. The comparative advantage argument says we should make scientists better at science. But being better at science doesn't involve just learning and doing science but also learning and doing mathematics. It is true that science and mathematics has had a mutually beneficial relationship. I was clumping up mathematicians and scientists vs the rest of the world. As in, investing in mathematics and science has helped us increase, say, farm productivity by a thousand fold. The farming being the unrelated task. But the farmers didn't do the math. But the farmers could benefit from cost-benefit analysis and financial literacy beyond the heuristic. Both of these require some algebra or maths thinking to some degree.
Yes, the farmer could benefit from that.
What I meant was that he didn't do the math that contributed to scientific innovations that increased crop yield. Nor would he understand this math, nor would he need to understand this math.
According to the principle of comparative advantage, farmers should understand the math required to be a better farmer, basically the stuff you said.
|
On July 29 2012 23:42 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2012 23:31 S_SienZ wrote:
You ...solve high school algebra using calculators? o_O
This is news to me.
Sincerely though, how? As in, which buttons?
They use calculators with computer algebra systems (CAS). Basically like this: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=solve x^2 + x > aReal mathematicians do it on a computer (Maple or Mathematica), not a calculator.
That is quite an eye opener for me. Thanks for explaining.
Back when I was in secondary school (high school equivalent) calculators were only there for values with lots of decimals, logs and trig.
|
On July 29 2012 23:30 MtlGuitarist97 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2012 23:19 Alvin853 wrote:
Students can't figure out how to plug algebra problems into their calculators, thus algebra is hard.
I have taken math classes at an american high school, and everybody was constantly using their TIs to solve the most basic problems. In german high school I almost never used a calculator, problems are set up so the numbers are incredibly easy, if you know basic multiplication tables you'll be much quicker doing them by hand than using a calculator, and if the numbers get hard you know you messed up on the way.
Math is not about being able to calculate the square root of 50 to 10 decimals (unless you're doing numerics), but to figure out the solution of the quadratic equation is the square root of 50, or even better 5 times the square root of 2. It's about knowing how to get a solution, that's what you're being taught in algebra classes, and you need to be able to solve problems all your life no matter what you decide to do after school.
High school is supposed to provide everyone with a general education, so after finishing high school you still have every option available, at least that's how it is over here. And you really don't want colleges to start teaching people 9th grade math because half the students thought it was useless. In high school you learn a little about everything, so you can figure out for yourself what you enjoy the most and what you want to do after high school. This exactly goes back to what I was saying in my post, and why I believe that public high schools are doing it wrong. The education system should not be based upon getting the correct answer, but rather finding out the "mechanism" or equation to solving a problem and being able to apply this to any situation, even if the directions don't tell you what to do. I think that's where the true fault of the educational system is.
That is the most likely source of the problem. Maybe they should work on a way to change the way math is taught instead of saying "our pupils are too bad to understand math, lets stop teaching them the most important stuff in their lives".
I mean you need basic algebra for so much in your life, no matter in which job you work you need at least a basic grasp of math every time you handle anything related to money, even if it's just your paycheque. "I applied to job X where i get paid Y but i have to move. How much can i spare for rent after deductions and stuff?"
|
On July 29 2012 23:41 Smoot wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2012 23:37 paralleluniverse wrote:On July 29 2012 23:28 Kontys wrote:On July 29 2012 22:56 paralleluniverse wrote:On July 29 2012 22:53 Kontys wrote:On July 29 2012 22:45 Smoot wrote:On July 29 2012 22:42 paralleluniverse wrote:Another point of view is the idea of comparative advantage from economics, which basically says that it's better for society if everyone specialized in doing what they're good at and traded for everything else. So we should make mathematicians better at mathematics, and mechanics better at fixing cars, and when a mathematician's cars brakes down, it is more efficient for him to call the service of a mechanic than for him to understand how to fix a car and do it himself. Of course, there are some basic knowledge common for most fields, for example mathematicians need to learn to write English, because that's part of being a better mathematician. Advertising executives need to learn basic math and statistics since it's part of the job, etc. But apart from the basic and necessary skills that are required to be proficient in a profession, it's socially optimal for people to specialize. Thus, to the extent that people do need to know algebra for their jobs, comparative advantage says it's better for them to learn about things that make them better at their jobs instead of algebra. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage This is true to a point. But do people aged 13-16 know what they want to do the rest of their lives? Not learning basic Algebra in high school limits their options later in life. I am of the mind that a teenager can CHOOSE to be good at anything they set their mind to. There are limiters, but I'll not go into that. Letting someone choose whether or not they want to do something hard, without realizing they are limiting their future career choices in life is a mistake in my opinion. The comparative advantage argument falls apart when you consider the achievements of hard science, for which learning mathematics is a required. The achievements of science haven't simply increased mathematicians capability of doing their stuff right, the achievements of scientists have tremendously increased the capabilities of others in completely unrelated tasks. Not really. The comparative advantage argument says we should make scientists better at science. But being better at science doesn't involve just learning and doing science but also learning and doing mathematics. It is true that science and mathematics has had a mutually beneficial relationship. I was clumping up mathematicians and scientists vs the rest of the world. As in, investing in mathematics and science has helped us increase, say, farm productivity by a thousand fold. The farming being the unrelated task. But the farmers didn't do the math. How does a farmer know what to expect from a crop in any year? How does he calculate his return for investing in farm equipment to reduce time needed to harvest / plow / and seed his fields? How does he calculate the cost / benefit of hiring more workers for the farm? Etc.. etc... etc Of course he could just pay me $50/hr as a consultation fee and I can do all that for him. Further disabling him to make good decisions on his own and without cost.
These kinds of arguments are close to useless.
When arguing why people should learn mathematics you can't take this approach. You give examples of practical real life situations where it is good to know some very small subset of mathematics. Not even if you make a whole list in the spirit of trying to cover all areas of mathematics would it be good.
You are reducing the subject of mathematics by arguing like this.
What you have to catch is the more general reasons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
