ideas for what the journal should be

[David Ash]

Hi everyone,

It has gotten a bit quiet here lately--so far there have been no replies to my earlier query of what KöMaL offers that we aren't currently doing in the US, but that we need and that it would be exciting to implement. So I'll put out my own $.02 worth but replies to my earlier query are still more than welcome:

We need to be getting high school math students more involved in actual mathematical research and the journal should facilitate this.

The sidebar on page 231 of "the book" notes the distinction between talent search and talent development, describing many math competitions as talent search efforts but CC and USAMTS, the name notwithstanding, as talent development efforts. I completely agree with that distinction. However I also feel that a monthly problem solving competition, although definitely an important step towards talent development, is really only the first step in developing mathematical talent. The journal could be promoting actual mathematical research by high school students, not just working on prepackaged problems, and I'd propose that it do so.

I'm a volunteer interviewer for Stanford undergraduate admissions through Stanford's OVAL program, so every year (starting tomorrow this year) I interview dozens of aspiring Stanford students with interests in many fields (not just math) and learn a lot about their high school and middle school experiences.

Many of these students with interest in many fields, including various non-math STEM fields, are getting very active in these fields even in high school. They understand the big problems of our time and are getting involved in research. They expect to be treated, and are being treated, as junior researchers and colleagues in these fields.

My impression is that math is significantly lagging when it comes to talent development compared to other fields, including other non-math STEM fields. In math we don't seem to be able to offer much more than to work on canned puzzles with known solutions. If math is as relevant as we claim it is to today's world, we should be working on ways to get involved in real mathematical research, both pure math (because pure math is the foundation of the field and we need a good foundation) and applied math (because this is where the highly relevant problems get worked on).

The same sidebar from page 231 also notes the many people who have gone on to careers as "engineers, ..., software developers, ..., chemists, physicists, ..., musicians, ..." I would argue that for any of these other fields, you actually don't need to develop the mathematical talent all that much. CC or USAMTS (in its existing form) is more than adequate for the people who will be steered away from math to other fields--and, as I've noted before, I consider computer programming a separate field. Software development is part of the 'T' of STEM--math is the 'M' of STEM. If someone aspires to a career as a software developer, they should be focusing on developing the 'T' of their talent, not the 'M'.

Although I agree, and strongly so, with most of the sidebar on page 231, I do disagree a bit with the last point. I actually don't think solving mathematical puzzles is a worthwhile skill to develop deeply for other careers. When I worked as a quant on Wall Street, I actually did not find that solving mathematical puzzles was particularly relevant to the job. I would concede that having such skill may have helped me to get the job, but weren't especially useful in the job once actually hired.

However it is very relevant to mathematical research, and I think we should be focusing on getting more high school students involved in doing actual research. One thing I've noticed about those who go on to successful math research careers is that they often got involved in research quite early and outgrew math competitions quickly. Math competitions, although a good place to start, can be a trap if one doesn't move on from this phase.

The other point I will make is that several folks have commented that any effort will be much more likely to succeed, in the current climate, if we reach out strongly to communities that have been traditionally underserved. At a minimum, I assume this would require meaningfully addressing the racial bias in math education that Gabriella and István noted.

I definitely agree with this. Our effort needs to be strong enough to meaningfully reach girls/women and people of color. However we still need to decide what that effort is going to be. My contention is that we need to be getting high school students much more involved in actual research--treating them as potentially mature junior members of the field, rather than relegating them to the somewhat artificial task of working on canned puzzles.