« How much math and science do students really need? | Main | A bizarre argument against ticket scalping: Olympic edition »
February 16, 2006
How much math? (continued)
If you haven't read the previous post and the comments, start there and come back.
Frequent commenter "Lord" writes in:
Schools can teach it but only the students can learn it. Is basic competency all we are talking about though? It barely makes for a globally competitive workforce. At the same time, how many positions do you see for math and science graduates? Not many at all. One takes math and science to pursue a graduate degree in it, or one doesn't take it at all. The demand must change for any serious change in supply.
Is basic competency all we are talking about? Yes and no. You see, I'm not sure that the people surveyed in the poll know enough about math to be able to judge whether they or their kids are getting enough. I'll say it again. To most people, math is arithmetic. And for a lot of jobs, arithmetic is all that is necessary. But even for those jobs where arithmetic or simple algebra (cf. Donald Coffin's comment) is all that is required, people need to be able to carry out calculations and estimations quickly, accurately, and with confidence. Perhaps many of the parents surveyed think that if you can do that, it's enough math. But ask junior high and high school students if they think it's necessary and I know what they'll say. (They'll say the same thing college students say about general education requirements, for the same reasons--and be wrong, for the same reasons.)
Basic competency in math and science is now, and will continue to be, necessary for people who want to be flexible enough to survive in an ever changing job market.
What about going beyond that? The good news is that colleges and universities make an effort (imperfect, yes, but an effort) to ascertain the level of technical skills required in the jobs for which they prepare their students. I was just reading in a professional newsletter that the math department at the University of Iowa had recently reworked their engineering math sequence as a result of meetings with the engineering department. In their case, the changes were driven by accreditation, but this need not always be the driving force. (Note: The link is to the home page of FOCUS, articles seem to be archived to the web with a lag, so the article I refer to is not on that page... yet.)
When we require calculus (and more), we usually have a pretty good idea why. And we do so in the context of a market that demands the services of those graduates. We aren't perfect. There is much that can be done to improve, but overall the market is pretty efficient. Students who take advanced math in college get a good rigorous background in the subject. Some pursue advance degrees, while some work on the applied side of things. Future engineers should take differential equations, those who do will be more employable as engineers. Future lawyers don't need to--it won't affect their ability to find a job as a lawyer much at all.
But future lawyers need to be able to compute percentages just as much as anyone!
To be continued... (in the meantime, keep the conversation going)
Posted by William Polley at February 16, 2006 3:02 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.williampolley.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/492
Comments
Parents probably have a good idea of the amount of math and science that is important for their jobs. Future work may have greater needs, or may not. Calculators did reduce the amount of rote arithmetic needed after all. Needs will vary according to the work involved, and calculations and estimations, quickly, accurately, and with confidence come with use. Application would be more constructive than theory for basic competency. One area largely neglected is finance though this is more critical and more important for flexibility and survival. Perhaps we should be talking about finance. Percentages are necessary to compute and compare returns. The more we know the better, but how much of a problem is there?
Posted by: Lord at February 17, 2006 1:16 AM
There was a time—over forty years ago—when even humanities majors were required to take calculus, when a “well-rounded” education meant something, not merely a good job but the ability to think. By measuring education in terms of financial rewards, we have missed its real benefits.
Posted by: stormy at February 18, 2006 9:42 AM
When was younger my father prohibited me and my brother from using any kind of calculator. Not until I was about 12 years old or more was I aloud to do my first subtraction without the use almost exclusively of my small (but growing) brain! I say almost because a piece of paper and a pencil were always helpful.
I hated it!
The years have passed… and I very grateful!
Posted by: Benny at February 20, 2006 5:30 AM
For basic competency, the greatest problem is probably the number of high school dropouts. For instructors, it is probably the ability of the students entering their classes. For CEOs, the problem is the number of American math and science graduates, http://www.forbes.com/home/careers/2006/02/08/pfizer-accenture-sas-cx_jh_0209ceos.html. Isn't this just so much complaining as opposed to proposals for improvement? Markets are touted as the cure for all evils but the supply society, instructors, or businesses demand. Anyone contending so should identify the market failure involved, why it occurs, and preferably how to remedy it. Anything less is simply meaningless talk.
Posted by: Lord at February 20, 2006 12:46 PM
The treatment this topic got on NPR in the NW here was that Singapore was "beating the pants off us". That we were behind the rest of the country. That although the standards have increased in the past few years, we are still falling behind.
Attaining that goal (the international respectability goal),'No child left behind', appears to be harder than just throwing money at it (as Mr Gates discovered in the Seattle area).
How important is the international comparison and if we are casting our eyes further afield, how important is it to limit our standards to math and science, and not say the arts, physical education, health, community?
The thrust seems to be, if you don't get the math and science, not only will you be relegated to the unskilled worker ranks, but the country will have to import those brains you neglected to develop.
The underthrusted may be that those jobs requiring graduate level sophistication are few and the many candidates more than qualified (like the CEO market). The rest, the largely service jobs requiring at most, modest levels of 'math and science' may not be the most sought after (with the exception of real estate). So the Invisible Hand should be allowed to work: compensation should rise --to regain the attention of all those underemployed, 'math and science lite' real estate agents.
Nothing personal against RE agents, nor the 11 million illegal aliens working in their proximity.
Posted by: calmo at February 22, 2006 2:29 PM