NYT: Is Algebra Necessary

[Botched]

So, the major change you're proposing is that a student decide on a major upon enrolling as a freshman. In that scenario, would we increase the number of major-related classes to fill up 4 years or reduce the number of credits required to graduate?

I'm not sure how things look right now, but when I was in college from 1995-1999, we took about 2 years of liberal arts classes to fulfill those basic requirements and then about 2 years of classes that were relevant to our major.

Just remove algebra/calculus from being a universally required course. That's it really. There's no reason it needs to be since so few people realistically need it for their major. If somebody decides later on that they want to pursue a math-related major, they can do it. Either drop the number of required credits, or replace math with something that is more useful to a larger percentage of people.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Just remove algebra/calculus from being a universally required course. That's it really. There's no reason it needs to be since so few people realistically need it for their major. If somebody decides later on that they want to pursue a math-related major, they can do it. Either drop the number of required credits, or replace math with something that is more useful to a larger percentage of people.

OK, but why just the math requirement? So, you're fine with the 120 credits and the liberal arts (science, history, literature, etc.) requirements but you'd remove math?

[renaissance]

I don't think we want students just picking and choosing their entire curriculum.

This would seriously de-value the degrees that school gives out.

[No Excuses]

In college? If it is harming otherwise intelligent students and helping nothing... YES.

How much should it legitimately harm them? Besides training people for their respective fields, colleges should (and do) teach kids to step out of their comfort zones and develop skills that they may not use everyday, but can come in handy any time.

And how do you define "intelligent" student? I don't have any statistics to back this up, but I'd be willing to wager that most intelligent kids don't fail pre-calc math. There is obviously something wrong going on in our education system when pre-calc is considered tough to the point that students are failing.

These days, you can get a C in most college courses by doing just minimal work. In intro level math courses, at least 20% of the grade is usually homework and in class quizes (which are reworded homework problems almost all the time).

[sportjunkie07]

Algebra is not just a math skill, it's an exercise in rational thought processes.

bingo.

[Botched]

OK, but why just the math requirement? So, you're fine with the 120 credits and the liberal arts (science, history, literature, etc.) requirements but you'd remove math?

I'd be fine with removing literature or replacing it with a more fundamental writing class. I find it amazing how many people who are otherwise very smart, are barely able to string two words together. Communication in written (or more likely typed) form is important for just about any job that would require a degree.

Biology and history are also more useful to the average person than advanced algebra. I emphasize removing algebra because it's the least practical of any of the universally required courses, in addition to being the one that probably causes the highest number students to drop out.

[DjTj]

All three of those have more practical use in real life than advanced math. And yes, if something is totally unrelated to your major, you shouldn't be required to take it. It's your money and the school shouldn't be able to tell you which classes you have to pay for based on some arbitrary outdated criteria.

But you knew that these were requirements when you enrolled at the school, didn't you? It's not like universities are lying to everyone about what classes they need to take to graduate. If you don't want to take any general education requirements, there are many options other than a 4-year university.

How many people actually go on to careers in their majors anyways? How often do you use anything specific that you learned in college? College has never really been about job training; I think the real value in a college education is being forced to study one thing very hard (your major) and also being forced to struggle in areas where you might not be comfortable (general education requirements). A school can't completely prepare you for your career, especially since the world is going to change drastically over time.

You know what would make a hell of a lot more sense to force students to learn than calculus or advanced algebra? Auto mechanics. That is something that would be extremely useful to anyone who drives a car, which is virtually everyone. But unlike math, that will never be anything more than an elective.

I never took a class in auto mechanics. But when I blew a fuse trying to install a new car radio, I was able to read the manual, go to Radio Shack, and replace it. I can change a tire and change my oil. Like most things in life, you can figure out these things on your own without a teacher.

But college is a place where you can be taught and challenged with things that you can't figure out on your own, and you might not even figure out in college. We shouldn't need to teach a class in basic writing. We teach difficult and complex literature, and people should figure out how to write on their own. We shouldn't need to teach classes in balancing a checkbook. We teach Algebra, and people should figure out the easy stuff. Tens of thousands of dollars in tuition shouldn't be for basic life skills; it should be for higher education.

[endzone_dave]

I spent four years getting an engineering degree where all I did was solve for x. I never solved for x when I got out of college. The only thing I got out of it was a piece of paper that people require you to have.

The first time I had to go to an electrical substation the guy said "Don't drive under that bus bar". I asked "Why?". He said "Becaue you'll kill us!"

I hope colleges do a better job of preparing kids for the real world.

[mcsluggo]

Just remove algebra/calculus from being a universally required course. That's it really. There's no reason it needs to be since so few people realistically need it for their major. If somebody decides later on that they want to pursue a math-related major, they can do it. Either drop the number of required credits, or replace math with something that is more useful to a larger percentage of people.

what POSSIBLE subject is more useful to a larger percntage of people than basic math????

possibly basic english... (meaning grammar and composition) but THAT also should've been taught looooonnnnnggggg before college

[Going Commando]

I don't think its absurb for a neuroscience major to have a humanities/literature requirement. Being able to write effectively is a critical skill for any field. Not just in technical journals, but often scientists have to communicate ideas to non-technical audiences. Having some education in the humanities comes in handy. Maybe you don't have to take Victorian Fairy Tales, but some I believe there is a benefit to study some sort of non-technical writing.

Also, with respect to science, there was a history to it. It didn't just pop up into existence 400 some years ago. There was a philosophical background that had to develope, going as far back as the Greeks, Egyptians and Chinese.

You make good points, but I think you can teach sufficient writing skills in about a semester of a basic writing class. At a school like mine, all students had to take eight, semester long full classes of GEN EDs plus one year long class, 8 full semesters of a foreign language, and a bevy of other smaller workshop style classes. Only two of those Gen Eds were STEM classes. All of the rest were pretty much humanities and language courses. It ended up being nearly half your degree, with very little degree overlap for the STEM and Business departments.

I question how much value there is in studying literature and history for most science students. If there is a scientist who is interested in writing for a non-technical audience, let him study humanities of his own choice. For a lot of STEM students, I think humanities requirements get in the way. They take up so much time for something that's of questionable practical relevancy.

I also question how essential/useful it is for a psychology student studying cognitive behavior and neuroscience to get a rundown of the history of human thought/science dating back thousands of years. The course loads are full as is. Every field has its historians. Let people elect to study the peripheral or super specialized aspects of a field if they choose to, including the history. The core requirements should only be those that are deemed most relevant.

I went to a selective school with an elite student body and one of my roommates was a finance and accounting major and another was a science major/pre med student. Both struggled with some of their core humanities classes and they hated taking them. I don't feel like either took much away from them, it was a situation where they just had to put their head down and get through it. This was at an elite school where they were probably in the top 98 percentile of students nation wide. This really isn't even the type of school that I'm talking about dropping these types of onerous gen ed requirements. What's it like for the average student at a non-selective school? Why are 42% washing out? What is the academic reason? I'd bet its a handful of roadblock courses of minimal relevancy that every school seems to require.

[NavyDave]

If Generation Ipod and the Generation of Twits want to embrace being part of the dumbing down demographic, they should shut the heck up when businesses decide to go abroad to find a more intelligent, excuse free employee that took the initiative to exercise their brain in High school and college.

Algebra, Calculus, Chemistry and Physics were my favorite subjects when I went to Ballou HS back in the day, which eventually put me on the path of becoming a Data Systems tech as well as getting into programming.

[elkabong82]

The idea behind gen ed classes early on in college is so that students develop a more complete knowledge base before going on to their specializations. A more well-rounded knowledge base activates a wider array of thinking capacity and greatly increases one's synaptic connections so that their capacity in a specific field is not only greater, but capable of greater diversity and wider array of application and connection to other subjects/topics/themes, etc.

Gen ed. helps the undecided new students find a major they like by being informed enough in several to make the decision.

For those who already have their specialization as freshmen, then I think what should be done is for an interdisciplinary unit program to be installed. They would take some of the gen ed. courses, but those courses would also have various lessons be taught with a perspective/application in their specialization. For example, a pre-med. student could take early U.S. history, or early western civ, and part of that course would have a unit on medicine/doctors.

But a purely specialized education that completely neglects at least some exposure to higher education in other fields leaves one lacking. It may not be easily understandable to some as to why an engineer should take a foreign language or a psych. major should take art history, but there are connections and benefits to a complete knowledge base. Much of educational philosophy is based on the idea that people should be exposed to a wide array of knowledge, even at the higher levels, and that the last 2 years of college, masters' and speciliizations after and/or PhDs are when things become purely specialized.

[Spaceman Spiff]

The idea behind gen ed classes early on in college is so that students develop a more complete knowledge base before going on to their specializations. A more well-rounded knowledge base activates a wider array of thinking capacity and greatly increases one's synaptic connections so that their capacity in a specific field is not only greater, but capable of greater diversity and wider array of application and connection to other subjects/topics/themes, etc.

Gen ed. helps the undecided new students find a major they like by being informed enough in several to make the decision.

For those who already have their specialization as freshmen, then I think what should be done is for an interdisciplinary unit program to be installed. They would take some of the gen ed. courses, but those courses would also have various lessons be taught with a perspective/application in their specialization. For example, a pre-med. student could take early U.S. history, or early western civ, and part of that course would have a unit on medicine/doctors.

But a purely specialized education that completely neglects at least some exposure to higher education in other fields leaves one lacking. It may not be easily understandable to some as to why an engineer should take a foreign language or a psych. major should take art history, but there are connections and benefits to a complete knowledge base. Much of educational philosophy is based on the idea that people should be exposed to a wide array of knowledge, even at the higher levels, and that the last 2 years of college, masters' and speciliizations after and/or PhDs are when things become purely specialized.

These are good points but I knew I hated math by the time I got to college. High school taught me enough to let me know where my strengths were and I knew math wasn't one. However, my schools (transferred colleges) had math courses and I subsequently beat my head against the wall trying to learn stuff that I knew I'd never need in real life.

I was largely undecided when I got to college as to what my major would be, but I knew it wouldn't be anything math related. And in my two positions since college, there hasn't been any math needed that wasn't simple addition, subtraction, multiplication or division...or percentages. No algebra at all.

I think it should be taught in high school for reasons you eloquently stated....but by the time people get to college, even if they're undecided in their major I think most probably know what they hate and want to stay away from. And if that's math, so be it.

[HoustonSkin]

To answer the question: Yes.

A high percentage of undrafted free agents never make an NFL roster. Should the requirement to effectively compete at an NFL level be dropped and the roster size expanded to allow for more people that can say they made an NFL team?

[Ignatius J.]

from: http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/college_bound/2011/05/new_study_tracks_lifetime_income_based_on_college_major.html

Here's the breakdown of median earnings by major groups:

1. Engineering, $75,000

2. Computer and mathematics, $70,000

3. Business, $60,000

4. Health, $60,000

5. Physical sciences. $59,000

6. Social sciences, $55,000

7. Agriculture and Natural Resources, $50,000

8. Communication and Journalism, $50,000

9. Industrial Arts and Consumer Services, $50,000

10. Law and Public Policy, $50,000

11.Biology and Life Sciences, $50,000

12. Humanities and Liberal Arts, $47,000

13. Arts, $44,000

14. Education, $42,000

15. Psychology and Social Work, $42,000

And take a look at number eight, the first one that doesn't require algebra. How many reporters right now do you think can look a college student in the eye and say yeah, go ahead and stake your living on this growth industry? Over the past 30 years, we have seen a decimation in the career prospects of unskilled ( and by unskilled I mean non mathematically literate ) labor. How can anyone imagine that this trend isn't going to continue?

[zoony]

I spent four years getting an engineering degree where all I did was solve for x. I never solved for x when I got out of college. The only thing I got out of it was a piece of paper that people require you to have.

The first time I had to go to an electrical substation the guy said "Don't drive under that bus bar". I asked "Why?". He said "Becaue you'll kill us!"

I hope colleges do a better job of preparing kids for the real world.

Why do we feel like we should know everything upon graduating? To me, college should only begin your learning process, and should specifically cover areas that it is not profitable and/or practical for private industry to train their people on.

[HoustonSkin]

Why do we feel like we should know everything upon graduating? To me, college should only begin your learning process, and should specifically cover areas that it is not profitable and/or practical for private industry to train their people on.

There is a tremendous amount of information a BS EE learns in college that they never use in their jobs. I am an engineer and I could train someone to do what I do without them needing to know any more math than high school level (assuming that the trainee was not just passed through to make graduation numbers). I guess I agree with you on this. We shouldn't just learn what we need for a job.

[Botched]

But you knew that these were requirements when you enrolled at the school, didn't you? It's not like universities are lying to everyone about what classes they need to take to graduate. If you don't want to take any general education requirements, there are many options other than a 4-year university.

How many people actually go on to careers in their majors anyways? How often do you use anything specific that you learned in college? College has never really been about job training; I think the real value in a college education is being forced to study one thing very hard (your major) and also being forced to struggle in areas where you might not be comfortable (general education requirements). A school can't completely prepare you for your career, especially since the world is going to change drastically over time.

I never took a class in auto mechanics. But when I blew a fuse trying to install a new car radio, I was able to read the manual, go to Radio Shack, and replace it. I can change a tire and change my oil. Like most things in life, you can figure out these things on your own without a teacher.

But college is a place where you can be taught and challenged with things that you can't figure out on your own, and you might not even figure out in college. We shouldn't need to teach a class in basic writing. We teach difficult and complex literature, and people should figure out how to write on their own. We shouldn't need to teach classes in balancing a checkbook. We teach Algebra, and people should figure out the easy stuff. Tens of thousands of dollars in tuition shouldn't be for basic life skills; it should be for higher education.

I'm all for challenging students in college, but wouldn't it make more sense to challenge them in skills that they might actually be able to use later on?

Changing a fuse or a tire is the equivalent of doing basic multiplication or division. The math that is forced on people in college is more like changing out a transmission. Of course in the real world, at some point lots of people will need a new transmission for their vehicle, while virtually nobody will need to solve complex algebraic equations.

We're forcing a subject that has no practical applications for 99% of people in real life. Teaching students advanced algebra makes as much sense as teaching them to fly an airplane.

[PeterMP]

Historically, it has been considered that a diverse liberal arts education has its benefits and is an advantage. There is plenty of information out there on the topic.

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=benefits+of+a+liberal+arts+education&oq=benefits+of+a+liberal+arts+education&gs_l=serp.3..0j0i7i30j0i8i30.2092.8102.1.9341.8.8.0.0.0.0.265.1584.0j5j3.8.0...0.0...1c.SvR48Dbckvg&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=4c682113b7e1b4cf&biw=1179&bih=424

And a liberal arts education generally means taking classes that you see no use in for your career or otherwise, especially at the time you are taking them.

It means making non-science majors taking math and science classes to try and learn things they will never use and hard core science majors taking things like mythology.

This probably is even more relevant today than ever with the way people change career.

For most people, the days of having essentially one job for 30 years is over. The world is changing too fast.

Though, if we can't come up with ways to control costs, it might start to price itself out, though there is no evidence of that yet.

[Elessar78]

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/07/29/opinion/sunday/is-algebra-necessary.xml

I have to say I completely disagree with this article. The lack of basic math skills of Americans is becoming a worldwide joke, perhaps even more so now than our legendary inability to speak another language.

Speak another language? Americans can hardly speak, read or write our own.

[zoony]

In our defense, a big part of the reason we don't speak other languages is simply because we don't have to. If we had to, we would

Just to get around in Belgium you'd better be fluent in German, Flemish, and French. And chances are you've been watching American movies your entire life with subtitles so you're fluent there.

In Switzerland, just to be able to read th print on paper currency you have to be fluent in four languages. Multi lingualism is as much a part of some cultures as learning to operate an iPod is in our own.

It's not really fair to compare to Americans IMO. And actually, in a lot of border states (i.e. where they've had to much like Europe) there are very large percentages of bilinguals

[BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93]

just ban ******* Calculus please. Never got lower than an A in math in HS until I took Pre-Calc and Calc Junior/Senior year. Thennnnn, I get to Drexel and I see both are required for a SPORT MANAGEMENT major...dammit lol. I aced pre-calc in fall term and passed Calc with a C+ in winter term. Needless to say, I'm glad I'm done math forever but I do believe it had its benefits as I learned a lot about how college works/accountability because of those classes

[Busch1724]

One of the big failures in education during the testing age is the resistance to change. Schooling previous to the 80s was regimented. You focused on the three Rs. As we became more advanced technologically in the 80s, the teachers didn't go with it. So fast forward to the 90s when students are being educated in the technological age, teachers failed to adapt. The big thing that got overlooked was that kids are now learning differently than before. I'm generalizing here, but people 35 and younger learn much differently that people 36 and older. Besides learning styles being different and getting overlooked, the other big factor for struggling math students is the lack of change in teaching methods. Only recently has there been a real focus in changing teaching methods around the country. Obviously there are many other factors, but the big two are the ones I've mentioned.

So...getting back to algebra. Students have always asked, "What do I need to know this for? I won't ever use it." Many older teaches are not quick enough to relate the information for them. They don't say it is a way to learning a rational decision making process, problem solving process, etc.

What I've seen lately (I'm a Technology Education teacher), is that many kids have a light bulb go off when the albegra is taught in context...meaning that when we do engineering related math they will understand how to do it. They realize at that point, that they learned it in algebra, geometry, trig., calc. etc. As a result many studies have recently shown there is a high correlation between teaching math in context (related subject matter) to make the math they are learning more relevant to their lives.

We (our high school) have been implementing a program at our school by the folks that have created the "High Schools That Work" framework. Their big push is to increase rigor and relevance, espcially in math and science. We create problems for the math teachers to use in class and vise versa. We teach the same higher level math they are teaching the kids in algebra, geo., trig., and calc. Once the the kids relate to it, they understand it. Granted it has always been that way in education, but with so much being taught and more learning styles being identified, we as a society must push more for education to go in this direction. There was an occupations list posted earlier in this thread and all the top professions require some kind of higher level math. My parents were able to get by without algebra, but it was taught to them anyway. That is not the case anymore. The job market these kids are entering, they require higher level math. Look at people in art related fields. One of the reasons for the high rate of failure among those professions, is that lack of math artists, musicians, etc. actually possess. They don't have the math skills to succeed.