"Is Algebra Necessary?" (Page 3)

nm

This may sound stupid, but I had to look up what algebra actaully is...  It was such a long time ago and has just become second nature.

My honest opinion, people use algebra much more than they think in day to day thinking.  I know I do (I'm an engineer).  But I think it becomes more intuitive.  We don't sit around writing out formulas and solving for x all the time but I'm always thinking how many of X do I need to get Y or whatever.  It's basic math.  It's basic match, but still algebra.  I probably don't deal with polynomials outside of work much, but straight up ratios are used all the time.

I have to admit, even in my engineering, I probably have used very little of the 3-4 years of calculus I was taught.  I use my statistics on a somewhat regular basis.

I'm an engineer, and I would have to say, that would confuse me as well.  Not because I can't do the math - but not understanding the intent.

Maybe it depends on what you are giving me.  If you give me a quater and nickle and penny to get to 31 cents so I give you that quarter BACK plus another?  Why not just give me the 6 cents and I give you one quarter?

Or if you just give me a pile of change without a request to "chip up" as they call it in Vegas, I would not be sure what your intent was even if I can do the math.  It would sort of like giving me a ten and 5 ones for a 10 dollar purchase.  I would be confused what you wanted me to do with the ones without some direction.  Give them back?  Tip?  Give you a five?

I was just using this as an example.  Yes if I had 6 cents I'd just do that.  But if I had 3 dimes and a penny I'd go the way I posted.  The exact amounts are not important.  The point is that when people do not have their "tools" to rely on they need the ability to do simple math in their heads.

I do not think your example of the $10 and 5 ones is at all the same.  It's pretty common to try to make things come out even. 

Fine.  Your example, good, mine, bad...

I do think peole rely on their tools too much a lot of times.  But I'm not sure if we can critsize TOO much.  I'm curious how many people know/remember phone numbers anymore.  Other than mine, my wife's, and my parents (since they have the same number I did growing up), I don't know anyone's.  I rely on my phone to do that for me.

Yes, other than the basics this is the most useful set of math skills to learn.

In general, math and logic are skills that are applicable to daily life. The lack of critical thinking skills in recent graduates is one of my pet peeves.

Certainly more so than political science. Most days when I read the news the latter seems like an oxymoron.

Yeah, in my opinion if you're in college today and your course of study doesn't include a significant math component, you should have a required minor in creating cappucino foam art...

facepalm to this entire thread.

master? maybe not. understand? yes. definitely. why is this even a question? 

it is basic problem solving taught to 6th graders.  as an engineer i use it daily at work, but i also use it so much outside of work i cannot fathom living in a society where it was acceptable to not be able to perform this basic skill.  

"if i have 4 post-its and need 6 how many more do i need? i dk phuck algebra." 

HA!  We should train together.  If we swim 1100 and need to swim 1500, how many more 100's do we need to swim............uh......we're done.  

HA!  We should train together.  If we swim 1100 and need to swim 1500, how many more 100's do we need to swim............uh......we're done.  

Bro....you are just BEGGING for links to all manner of studies.....get a helmet.

sweeping generalizations always help the discussion get better, never worse!!

Gee way to make new friends.  I'm guessing the engineers are the one MORE likely to have read the entire article (I know I did).  And algebra is not "advanced math".  It is only a slight step above basic operands. 

x2.  It's "advanced math" in the same way that grammer, spelling, and punctuation are "advanced english".

And Socrates was arguing about the definition of rhetoric, not the value per se. What he did was, in it's own way, a form of rhetoric. Aristotle (a philo...oh, just google him) endorses rhetoric as a necessary set of skills.

tee-hee

grammAr

(oh wait i'm just an engineer, i should be fighting about calculus!)

D'oh! (Well, at least you've proven my point about spelling....)

As a Professional Engineer I would disagree with the article.  I use it every day

Spoken like someone who is not an engineer and generalizing.  I am a PE and use it every day.  Literally every day.

So then what am I missing? You have said several times about "how" it is taught. What is your answer then? How would help those "achieve that mastery or evaluate it" that would foster a broader acceptance, use and understanding?

... but just remember, the author was arguing the mere teaching of at all for most students. He wasn't arguing that it could be taught better.

Helmet on?  Ok.  Here goes.

I am an engineer, I read the article, I chimed in.  I also use algebra and good bit more math in my job routinely.  On a good day at work, I develop mathematical simulations of nuclear power plants and design controls. It is really, really fun.  So much for my bona fides.

One of the underlying notions of the article is that math ability is innate.  You have it or you don't.  This leads to the author's conclusion is that the lack of math ability should not be used to hold back individuals who, though lacking in math, are gifted in other ways.  I see the point but the premise may be false.  I had the opportunity to meet Carol Dweck recently.  She is a researcher in the workings of the brain at Stanford, a self-described "brainologist."  Although she does not discount innate ability, her research points to a much larger contribution of attitude of the learner for aptitude than the genetic component.  She describes abiltity to learn as a "growth mindset"   She has developed many tactics that develop a positive growth mindset in learners that had previously failed academically and turned them around.  It is exactly what the education system needs to fill the ranks of the future workforce with people who have the skills and attitude to do the work.

So, I would disagree with the author of the article.  I would suggest that, instead of simply capitulating on algebra and higher math, we need to learn how to teach it so that more, nearly all, kids can learn effectively.  

I would disagree on the second part of the premise as well that only a few people actually need math.  I would say that what the workforce actually needs is people who are well-rounded and good at everything, including math.  Every job, every person needs to be competent in using the data in front of them and performing quantitative reasoning to make the best possible decisions.  You actually need math skills to understand the economics arguments of the current political debates to make an informed vote in an election.  The notion that we do not need math to get along is simply wrong.  Quantitative reasoning is a critical skill for the 21st century.  It is how we can do more with less by understanding and using the data we have around us.

Engineering certainly wants people that are in top 25% of math skills (or some percentile of the current population that has the math skills to match the job), but so does everybody else.  Business leaders, government workers, doctors, marketers, stock clerks, need to know, understand, and use the data that is available to make intelligent decisions.  There are not enough "mathematically gifted" to go around. We need people who make decisions based on data and lots of them.  Moreover, Dr. Dweck says we can have them if we do it right.  That is, we can increase the percentage of people who have mastered algebra through education.

Better teaching of math is possible.  It was a sad day in Oak Ridge High School when a revered high school calculus teacher announced her retirement.  Benita Albert wrote the book on how to teach AP calculus.  Mrs. Albert is a USA Today All-American Educator. One of her students said "She has a conviction that's heroic: There's no such thing as a dumb person, a stupid person or a person who is not a math person — just people who have gotten it and people who have not gotten it yet." Kids in Oak Ridge started picking their classes in 8th grade to be able to get into Mrs. Albert's AP calculus class in senior year.  I could go on and on about the novel ideas that she used to get kids to focus on the concepts and the early (5:30 AM!) tutoring sessions but the proof is in the pudding.  Did her methods work? I have three daughters who took her class and did well academically in college in technical fields (1 PhD, 1 PhD candidate, one MBA. All from top 10 schools) and went on to professions with reqirements for high math skills.  Their accomplishmets would rank about median.  A recent NPR program stated that "her students’ inventions include the revolutionary DaVinci surgical robot – eyes for the Mars Rover – the world’s leading voice-recognition software – and more."  I know of a lot more.

So my point is that algebra is necessary for more people than have a grasp of it now, the notion that some people cannot learn math is false, that what we need is better math education, and that too is possible. 

I am in no position to comment about this... leave it for the educators.

I just hope that, when I am 70 years old and some 35 year old investment broker handles my money, he will be able to understand the idea of compound interest.