The true problem with math is not that you'll never use it in life, it's that you use it all the time in life and noone realizes it. Math also promotes positive correlations between art and 3-dimensional space and abstract thinking. Abstract algebra (and some other gleeful maths) are necessary for accounting and chemistry, and chemistry is actually incredibly beneficial for a pastry chef
( ... )
The true problem with math is not that you'll never use it in life, it's that you use it all the time in life and noone realizes it.
I agree, which is basically what you learn in grades K-6 IMHO.
Math also promotes positive correlations between art and 3-dimensional space and abstract thinking.
Which is why I was more of a fan of Geometry, and was able to fake my way through the trig section of the ACT.
Abstract algebra (and some other gleeful maths) are necessary for accounting and chemistry, and chemistry is actually incredibly beneficial for a pastry chef.In the sense for a pastry chef, you see the math in action, but I don't know any full time pastry chefs that I can hand a bunch of chemistry related math problems too and have them solve it. At the same time, you get the exact drift I'm talking about
( ... )
Algebra is not chemistry related math. That's trigonometry and calculus.
The main problem is actually the textbooks, which don't put the math in context.
Graphing, for example, is incredibly useful for predicting and modeling finances. If it were taught in the context that you need it to balance your budget, it would seem way more useful.
The other thing that needs to happen is allowing use of calculators once the basics are mastered. It makes math less frustrating, and in the real world most people use calculators or excel for the numeric part calculations.
The important concepts in math are how to arrange the numbers in order to figure out the answer. That's stuff that is easier to focus on when you know the sums, quotients and products aren't going to take you 10 minutes to count by hand.
Honest opinion - and I know this only addresses a tiny part of the whole, but most people have no idea in high school what they want to do "when they grow up". And a majority of them don't really even know what they're good at, just what they want to be good at, which isn't usually the same thing at all.
When I was in high school I wanted to do things that were based around English or history, maybe journalism, to which my mind kept going "How is algebra going to help me write a book? Will I have a villian that bamboozles the hero with algebraic equations?"
The math that I do on a day to day basis, if I can't do it in my head, I can always bust out a calculator.
I promised I would respond, and respond I shall!tiffbertMarch 11 2010, 13:10:57 UTC
OK, i'm about ten pages in, and i don't know where you're saying they're changing the nature of kindergarten. As I remember it, story time was one of the biggest parts of kindergarten, and the teacher would point out each word as she read it to us. In the reading section at least it seems they are proposing nothing that forces kids to sit in desks and be there all day
( ... )
Re: I promised I would respond, and respond I shall!mrcorvinMarch 11 2010, 13:51:02 UTC
When I was in 7th grade, we went through some of the basic maths,to get a taste for them. I knew I liked Geometry coming out of 7th grade, and when they put me into Algebra in 8th grade, it was because they told me "It's got alot of geometery in it
( ... )
I went to full day Kindergarten, so that bit is not surprising to me.
I'll read through these standards fully when I get a chance. (Right now I'm really busy with work for classes, and getting my apartment in a fit state for my parents to see when they get here today.)
These standards sound like an interesting idea, but some states will never give up the power to make their own standards, even if they are offered a lot of money. Doing this in a time when education is hurting for money is a fairly good plan, because a few states that aren't sure might accept out of desperation. However, I doubt that certain states (like ones that insist that they won't teach evolution in school) would ever accept national control of standards unless they are forced to.
Comments 8
Reply
I agree, which is basically what you learn in grades K-6 IMHO.
Math also promotes positive correlations between art and 3-dimensional space and abstract thinking.
Which is why I was more of a fan of Geometry, and was able to fake my way through the trig section of the ACT.
Abstract algebra (and some other gleeful maths) are necessary for accounting and chemistry, and chemistry is actually incredibly beneficial for a pastry chef.In the sense for a pastry chef, you see the math in action, but I don't know any full time pastry chefs that I can hand a bunch of chemistry related math problems too and have them solve it. At the same time, you get the exact drift I'm talking about ( ... )
Reply
The main problem is actually the textbooks, which don't put the math in context.
Graphing, for example, is incredibly useful for predicting and modeling finances. If it were taught in the context that you need it to balance your budget, it would seem way more useful.
The other thing that needs to happen is allowing use of calculators once the basics are mastered. It makes math less frustrating, and in the real world most people use calculators or excel for the numeric part calculations.
The important concepts in math are how to arrange the numbers in order to figure out the answer. That's stuff that is easier to focus on when you know the sums, quotients and products aren't going to take you 10 minutes to count by hand.
Reply
Reply
When I was in high school I wanted to do things that were based around English or history, maybe journalism, to which my mind kept going "How is algebra going to help me write a book? Will I have a villian that bamboozles the hero with algebraic equations?"
The math that I do on a day to day basis, if I can't do it in my head, I can always bust out a calculator.
Reply
Reply
Reply
I'll read through these standards fully when I get a chance. (Right now I'm really busy with work for classes, and getting my apartment in a fit state for my parents to see when they get here today.)
These standards sound like an interesting idea, but some states will never give up the power to make their own standards, even if they are offered a lot of money. Doing this in a time when education is hurting for money is a fairly good plan, because a few states that aren't sure might accept out of desperation. However, I doubt that certain states (like ones that insist that they won't teach evolution in school) would ever accept national control of standards unless they are forced to.
Reply
Leave a comment