Joan Reinthaler on pseudo-educated "calculus" students
Dom
excellent letter by Joan Reinthaler ("Attacking the Problem, Not the
Symptoms." p.32-33) concerning the pseudo-educated students who "have
arrived at their freshman year in college armed with one or more high
school credits in 'Calculus,' have floundered in their first college
math course and have vowed never to take math again." The letter is
at:
http://www.maa.org/pubs/augsept09pgs32-33.pdf
Another excellent letter by Reinthaler, was published in the December
1999 issue of the AMS NOTICES, "Pressure To Study Calculus in High
School." This is available at:
http://www.ams.org/notices/199911/commentary.pdf
The letters follow the Commentary article.
Rowley
> The August/September 2009 issue of the MAA FOCUS contains another
> excellent letter by Joan Reinthaler ("Attacking the Problem, Not the
> Symptoms." p.32-33) concerning the pseudo-educated students who "have
> arrived at their freshman year in college armed with one or more high
> school credits in 'Calculus,' have floundered in their first college
> math course and have vowed never to take math again." The letter is
> at:
Question is - so? Is the earth going to stop because some college
student doesn't take math classes beyond the minimum required for
whatever degree program they are going for?
Is this a case of someone who "really really" wanted to learn calculus,
but their high school teacher was to unskilled to teach him/her? or is
it more a case of students taking calculus simply because they have been
told by the powers-that-be that they need to - even though they have no
interest in it?.... (didn't follow the link and read the paper...)
Martin
zzbu...@netscape.net
> The August/September 2009 issue of the MAA FOCUS contains another
> excellent letter by Joan Reinthaler ("Attacking the Problem, Not the
> Symptoms." p.32-33) concerning the pseudo-educated students who "have
> arrived at their freshman year in college armed with one or more high
> school credits in 'Calculus,' have floundered in their first college
> math course and have vowed never to take math again." The letter is
> at:
Well, these people still don't understand that Calculus was
oringanilly developed to study Newtonian Mechanics, not College.
And since it now 2009, some people have actually progressed beyond
Kepler Power to Electronic Books, Laser Disk Libraries, Holograms,
Microcomputers, mp3, mpeg, C++, Flat Screen Software Debuggers,
All-In-One Printers, Multiplexed Fiber Optics, Compact Flourescence,
Desktop Publishing, USB, XML, Distributed Ptocessing Software,
HDTV, Cyber Batteries, Home Broadband, GPS, Digital Terrain Mapping,
Weather Satellites, Data Fusion, Atomic Clock Wristwatches,
Light Sticks, Optical Computers, External Mini Hard Disks,
Cruise Missiles, Drones, Phalanx, UAVs, AAVs, Solar Energy, Pv Cell
Energy,
Biodiesel, Hybrid-Electric Engines, Gas Turbine Engines, Cell
Phones,
Self-Replicating Machines, and Self-Assembling Robots.
Jeffrey Turner
> Dom wrote:
>
>> The August/September 2009 issue of the MAA FOCUS contains another
>> excellent letter by Joan Reinthaler ("Attacking the Problem, Not the
>> Symptoms." p.32-33) concerning the pseudo-educated students who "have
>> arrived at their freshman year in college armed with one or more high
>> school credits in 'Calculus,' have floundered in their first college
>> math course and have vowed never to take math again." The letter is
>> at:
>
> Question is - so? Is the earth going to stop because some college
> student doesn't take math classes beyond the minimum required for
> whatever degree program they are going for?
>
> Is this a case of someone who "really really" wanted to learn calculus,
> but their high school teacher was to unskilled to teach him/her? or is
> it more a case of students taking calculus simply because they have been
> told by the powers-that-be that they need to - even though they have no
> interest in it?.... (didn't follow the link and read the paper...)
From the letter:
I suggest that many of the kids who have made it though a high school
calculus course, have done so at the expense of a solid algebra
background and their difculties aren�t so much with calculus as they are
with algebra. This is happening because increasing numbers of kids are
being pushed into the study of algebra while they are still concrete
thinkers and are pushing symbols around cluelessly because they�re not
ready to think abstractly.
[...]
What has come out at the end of high school too ofen recently, is a kid
with only the most tenuous grasp of algebra and who hasn�t had much fun
taking math but who is sporting the trophy of a credit in calculus.
--
The comfort of the wealthy has always
depended upon an abundant supply of
the poor. --Voltaire
Larry Hewitt
> Rowley wrote:
>> Dom wrote:
>>
>>> The August/September 2009 issue of the MAA FOCUS contains another
>>> excellent letter by Joan Reinthaler ("Attacking the Problem, Not the
>>> Symptoms." p.32-33) concerning the pseudo-educated students who "have
>>> arrived at their freshman year in college armed with one or more high
>>> school credits in 'Calculus,' have floundered in their first college
>>> math course and have vowed never to take math again." The letter is
>>> at:
>>
>> Question is - so? Is the earth going to stop because some college
>> student doesn't take math classes beyond the minimum required for
>> whatever degree program they are going for?
>>
>> Is this a case of someone who "really really" wanted to learn calculus,
>> but their high school teacher was to unskilled to teach him/her? or is
>> it more a case of students taking calculus simply because they have been
>> told by the powers-that-be that they need to - even though they have no
>> interest in it?.... (didn't follow the link and read the paper...)
>
> From the letter:
>
>
"*I suggest that*"
Opinion.
> many of the kids who have made it though a high school
> calculus course, have done so at the expense of a solid algebra
> background and their difculties aren�t so much with calculus as they are
> with algebra. This is happening because increasing numbers of kids are
> being pushed into the study of algebra while they are still concrete
> thinkers and are pushing symbols around cluelessly because they�re not
> ready to think abstractly.
> [...]
Algebra, as a subject, is not taught until 8th grade at the earliest in
most districts. This is well after the end of the concrete operations
phase (ages 7 - 11) of development for most kids.
Ironically, the OP is one of the people pushing to advaance math
instruction to earlier ages.
> What has come out at the end of high school too ofen recently, is a kid
> with only the most tenuous grasp of algebra and who hasn�t had much fun
> taking math but who is sporting the trophy of a credit in calculus.
>
Parents are the primary pushers for advanced instruction in HS. They
want their kid to get a head start. When I taught an 8th grade algebra
class fully half of e students did not meet the district guidelines for
admission but their parents demanded they be admitted. It is a part of
the current movement to deny that experts know better tan the lay
public. A school administrator cannot force a parent to admit that their
kid does not have the moxie to pass algebra if the parent refuses to listen.
I would suggest that a bigger problem is the diminution of math in
modern society. Few see the need to really learn math, especially when
technology can do the work simply by pushing a few buttons.
larry
Dom
> Dom wrote:
> > The August/September 2009 issue of the MAA FOCUS contains another
> > excellent letter by Joan Reinthaler ("Attacking the Problem, Not the
> > Symptoms." p.32-33) concerning the pseudo-educated students who "have
> > arrived at their freshman year in college armed with one or more high
> > school credits in 'Calculus,' have floundered in their first college
> > math course and have vowed never to take math again." The letter is
> > at:
>
> Question is - so? Is the earth going to stop because some college
> student doesn't take math classes beyond the minimum required for
> whatever degree program they are going for?
The issue is not the fact that "some college student doesn't take math
classes beyond the minimum required for whatever degree program they
are going for?" The issue is the fact that so many students are being
rushed into taking calculus in high school at the expense of sound
algebra, geometry and trigonometry. When these students retake
calculus in college they flounder. Does this make any sense to you?
Bob LeChevalier
It makes a LOT of sense. Parents dictate the courses that their kids
will take, or push them into attending college, encouraging them to
take courses that will give them a better chance of being admitted to
the "right" college.
As kids get older they don't necessarily wish to follow their parent's
wishes. They end up enrolled in courses that they don't wish to take,
and therefore are less likely to learn anything.
Nothing will change so long as parents make educational decisions for
their kids, colleges decide admission on the basis of course titles
taken and passed, and there is little motivation nor requirement to
retain knowledge in a subject after the final exam. Unfortunately,
none of these three conditions are likely to change in the near
future.
lojbab
---
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
loj...@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
Stephen J. Herschkorn
I agree very much with Reinthaler. Unfortunately, she is making the
same point ten years apart. This does not bode well for change.
The 1999 editor of Focus alludes to another part of the problem at the
end of her commentary. She points out that mathematicians would prefer
to stick to doing math without getting involved in politics. (I am as
guilty of that as anyone.) Unless mathematicians engage in a struggle
to bring points like Reinthaler's to the fore, we will see no change.
Patricia Clark Kenschaft has another brief article, entitled "Is
Elementary Education a Concern of MAA Members?"
(http://www.maa.org/pubs/augsept09pgs22-23.pdf), in the current issue of
MAA Focus. Kenschaft discusses how many students at a very early age
have teachers who are both incompetent and poor role models in the
context of mathematics education. These teachers inculcate poor habits,
misinformation, and a fear of math very early on. Kenschaft does have
suggestions to improve this situation, and the following article (D.
Beers, "As Massachusetts Goes, So Goes the Nation?"
http://www.maa.org/pubs/augsept09pgs24-26.pdf) provides examples where
some U.S. states seem to be trying to do so. However, it seems to me
from Reinthaler's article and others' comments that we need to overcome
pernicious misunderstandings of parents and administrators to implement
any real change.
--
Stephen J. Herschkorn sjher...@netscape.net
Math Tutor on the Internet and in Central New Jersey
Herman Rubin
Dom <DR...@teikyopost.edu> wrote:
As long as they get cookbook course in the subjects, they
cannot understand calculus. Those who take calculus first
at the college level flounder when they have to USE calculus;
this can be done without memorizing the formulas.
The engineer needs to understand what a derivative is; this
is enough to be able to formulate differential equations.
Knowing how to solve some of them does not provide this.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Rowley
Since when did public education make sense?....
Martin
Herman Rubin
>>>Dom wrote:
It made much more sense before the educationists got in and
placed social adjustment above learning.
>Martin
Dom
> Symptoms." p.32-33) concerning the pseudo-educated students who "have
> arrived at their freshman year in college armed with one or more high
> school credits in 'Calculus,' have floundered in their first college
> math course and have vowed never to take math again." The letter is
> at:
>
> http://www.maa.org/pubs/augsept09pgs32-33.pdf
>
> Another excellent letter by Reinthaler, was published in the December
> 1999 issue of the AMS NOTICES, "Pressure To Study Calculus in High
> School." This is available at:
>
> http://www.ams.org/notices/199911/commentary.pdf
>
> The letters follow the Commentary article.
The Oct/Nov 2009 issue of FOCUS contains three letters--by Agnes M.
Rash, John T. Ward and Mary Murphy--commenting on Reinthaler's letter.
The three letters are at:
Tim Norfolk
>
> - Show quoted text -
I hate waste of any kind, including talent. I have too many students
who were pushed through their mathematics sequence without mastering
the necessary material. Once that happens, it is much more difficult
(even impossible) to go back and fix the deficiencies.
Rowley
Talent gets wasted... and has for years for all sorts of reasons....
Martin
pubkeybreaker
> > The August/September 2009 issue of the MAA FOCUS contains another
> > excellent letter by Joan Reinthaler ("Attacking the Problem, Not the
> > Symptoms." p.32-33) concerning the pseudo-educated students who "have
> > arrived at their freshman year in college armed with one or more high
> > school credits in 'Calculus,' have floundered in their first college
> > math course and have vowed never to take math again." The letter is
> > at:
>
> Question is - so? Is the earth going to stop because some college
> student doesn't take math classes beyond the minimum required for
> whatever degree program they are going for?
>
> Is this a case of someone who "really really" wanted to learn calculus,
> but their high school teacher was to unskilled to teach him/her? or is
> it more a case of students taking calculus simply because they have been
> told by the powers-that-be that they need to - even though they have no
> interest in it?....
The latter, for the most part.
There really is a simple solution to this problem....
Give a truly comprehensive exam in algebra, geometry and trig to
incoming students. Do not let students take calculus unless they
are prepared, even if they have already taken it in high school.
I would go even further. Do not allow remedial algebra courses
to count for credit. Students should come to college prepared to
do college level work.
BTW, the same should apply in e.g. English. Give every student a
comprehensive English exam, including writing an essay. Require
those whose English and writing skills are inadequate to take a
non-credit remedial course.
As a taxpayer, part of whose taxes pay for my state's University
system, I object to the acceptance of students who are unprepared
for college level work, no matter which subject it is in which they
lack preparation.
Tim Norfolk
>
> - Show quoted text -
We do our best, but part of the problem is the administrators and
elected officials who are pushing 'retention and completion'. What has
me worried this semester is the students in 400-level analysis who
still can't take partial derivatives, or do simple algebra (on
homework), and my other students who did well on the AP Calculus test,
and are just as bad.
Herman Rubin
Tim Norfolk <tims...@aol.com> wrote:
.............
>I hate waste of any kind, including talent. I have too many students
>who were pushed through their mathematics sequence without mastering
>the necessary material. Once that happens, it is much more difficult
>(even impossible) to go back and fix the deficiencies.
In my opinion, even worse than failing to master material
is mastering material in such a way that it blocks later
understanding of the subject matter. This holds at all
levels, including those who get up to the doctoral level.
Knowing facts and routine procedures does NOT help much,
if at all, in learning what it means. But it can make it
harder to learn it. On a different topic, those who learned
to read by the whole word method often never could understand
phonics. Similarly, teachers who have learned arithmetic by
rote seem unable to get out of it and understand the structure
of the natural numbers.
The calculus courses now have become leaning how to do the
mechanics, with POSSIBLY a lack of understanding the poorly
presented concepts keeping a student from getting an A. On
the other hand, the concepts now presented a year or two
later should be presented BEFORE calculus; one needs to learn
the concepts, and only possibly the computations.
I am supposedly good at both, but often I have to go back to
the basic expressions to do the computation. This is not a
drawback. The engineer does not need to be able to solve
differential equations; on the other hand, anyone understanding
the basic concepts of calculus can formulate the differential
equations for an understood application, and not fall into the
trap of instead posing an incorrect differential equation which
the poser knows how to solve.
Herman Rubin
Tim Norfolk <tims...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Oct 5, 8:41=EF=BF=BDam, pubkeybreaker <pubkeybrea...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 9, 9:03=EF=BF=BDpm, Rowley <industry3dREM...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > Dom wrote:
.................
>We do our best, but part of the problem is the administrators and
>elected officials who are pushing 'retention and completion'. What has
>me worried this semester is the students in 400-level analysis who
>still can't take partial derivatives, or do simple algebra (on
>homework), and my other students who did well on the AP Calculus test,
>and are just as bad.
If they understood algebra, which belongs in primary school,
not the manipulations but the concepts, one could present
the 400-level rigorous analysis without previous calculus.
It should precede it.
Mark Murray
> Give a truly comprehensive exam in algebra, geometry and trig to
> incoming students. Do not let students take calculus unless they
> are prepared, even if they have already taken it in high school.
>
> I would go even further. Do not allow remedial algebra courses
> to count for credit. Students should come to college prepared to
> do college level work.
>
> BTW, the same should apply in e.g. English. Give every student a
> comprehensive English exam, including writing an essay. Require
> those whose English and writing skills are inadequate to take a
> non-credit remedial course.
You might like the system used in better South African universities.
Rather than destroy the reputation of their exit standards, they
accept poorly-prepared students into a support programmme. This is
a "year zero", and the results of the year may-or-may-not count
towards the degree depending on the exit level of that "year".
"Year zero" entitles passing students to proceed to "real"
university courses.
For the rurally trained, but talented students, the "year zero"
might give them the equivalent of good high school. For more
fortunate others they might get 1/2 - 1 credit (out of 9)
towards a degree.
The usual year year's study for a diligent student would be
2-to-4 credits (4-3-2 or 3-3-3 are common over three years).
Seems to work.
M
--
Mark Murray
Bob LeChevalier
>On Aug 9, 9:03�pm, Rowley <industry3dREM...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Dom wrote:
>> > The August/September 2009 issue of the MAA FOCUS contains another
>> > excellent letter by Joan Reinthaler ("Attacking the Problem, Not the
>> > Symptoms." p.32-33) concerning the pseudo-educated students who "have
>> > arrived at their freshman year in college armed with one or more high
>> > school credits in 'Calculus,' have floundered in their first college
>> > math course and have vowed never to take math again." The letter is
>> > at:
>>
>> Question is - so? Is the earth going to stop because some college
>> student doesn't take math classes beyond the minimum required for
>> whatever degree program they are going for?
>>
>> Is this a case of someone who "really really" wanted to learn calculus,
>> but their high school teacher was to unskilled to teach him/her? or is
>> it more a case of students taking calculus simply because they have been
>> told by the powers-that-be that they need to - even though they have no
>> interest in it?....
>
>The latter, for the most part.
>
>There really is a simple solution to this problem....
>
>Give a truly comprehensive exam in algebra, geometry and trig to
>incoming students. Do not let students take calculus unless they
>are prepared, even if they have already taken it in high school.
Then no one will take calculus, and the science, math and engineering
departments of universities will go out of business for lack of
students.
>I would go even further. Do not allow remedial algebra courses
>to count for credit.
Remedial courses usually DON'T count for credit.
>Students should come to college prepared to do college level work.
And if they don't? Kick them out and close down the college for lack
of students?
>BTW, the same should apply in e.g. English. Give every student a
>comprehensive English exam, including writing an essay. Require
>those whose English and writing skills are inadequate to take a
>non-credit remedial course.
>
>As a taxpayer, part of whose taxes pay for my state's University
>system, I object to the acceptance of students who are unprepared
>for college level work, no matter which subject it is in which they
>lack preparation.
A lot more taxpayers would object if their kids were turned away. They
outvote you.
Bob LeChevalier
>> As a taxpayer, part of whose taxes pay for my state's University
>> for college level work, no matter which subject it is in which they
>> lack preparation.- Hide quoted text -
>
>elected officials who are pushing 'retention and completion'. What has
>me worried this semester is the students in 400-level analysis who
>still can't take partial derivatives, or do simple algebra (on
>homework), and my other students who did well on the AP Calculus test,
>and are just as bad.
I suspect that most of them COULD do so at the time they took the
test. But it was useless information/skill the day after the test,
and a college senior is as many as 9 years out of algebra - plenty of
time to forget that which is utterly useless to them outside of
certain classrooms, and which they don't really care about anyway.
Most of them are perfectly capable of regaining that skill, if they
are given a reason they care about to put in the time and effort.
Alas, by the senior year in college, they are usually only interested
in getting the piece of paper so they can go out and MAKE MONEY
FAST!!! (and pay off the college loans).
Herman Rubin
>>> Dom wrote:
...............
>>> Question is - so? Is the earth going to stop because some college
>>> student doesn't take math classes beyond the minimum required for
>>> whatever degree program they are going for?
No, but that student will not be able to understand
anything which involves the knowledge of how the
universe really operates. How can one intelligently
discuss problems which involve science without knowing
any science?
>>> Is this a case of someone who "really really" wanted to learn calculus,
>>> but their high school teacher was to unskilled to teach him/her? or is
>>> it more a case of students taking calculus simply because they have been
>>> told by the powers-that-be that they need to - even though they have no
>>> interest in it?....
>>The latter, for the most part.
Unclear. The current high school curriculum in mathematics
is a total abomination. Learning how to calculate does not
help in understanding, nor does learning facts and formulas.
The old-fashioned "Euclid" course was recognized in the past
as the only real mathematics course below the advanced level;
it need not be, but few of the present teachers have any
understanding of mathematics.
>>There really is a simple solution to this problem....
>>Give a truly comprehensive exam in algebra, geometry and trig to
>>incoming students. Do not let students take calculus unless they
>>are prepared, even if they have already taken it in high school.
More and less is needed. A real understanding of algebra as a
language might even be adequate without the computational
material assumed, along with an UNDERSTANDING, not the knowledge
of problem-solving techniques, in geometry. But knowing how to
solve all kinds of problems in algebra, geometry, and trigonometry
is not enough for a good calculus course.
>Then no one will take calculus, and the science, math and engineering
>departments of universities will go out of business for lack of
>students.
This is not the case, and some of them should go out of business.
>>I would go even further. Do not allow remedial algebra courses
>>to count for credit.
>Remedial courses usually DON'T count for credit.
Too many of them do.
>>Students should come to college prepared to do college level work.
>And if they don't? Kick them out and close down the college for lack
>of students?
Admit students who do not have the high grades in high school,
and tell them in advance that they will have to think, NOT
memorize and regurgitate. THIS is fundamental; at this point,
someone who teaches the course content might get fired because
the students will downgrade the teacher, while someone teaching
junk may end up with tenure.
>>BTW, the same should apply in e.g. English. Give every student a
>>comprehensive English exam, including writing an essay. Require
>>those whose English and writing skills are inadequate to take a
>>non-credit remedial course.
I do not know any way to teach how to write an essay. The
mathematical equivalent is formulating word problems, and
possibly this should be accepted. Notice that I have said
nothing about solving them; formulation is the conceptual
situation, and proof the validation. Computation should
come after the concept is learned, and should definitely
be taught, but machines can do it. They cannot "think".
>>As a taxpayer, part of whose taxes pay for my state's University
>>system, I object to the acceptance of students who are unprepared
>>for college level work, no matter which subject it is in which they
>>lack preparation.
>A lot more taxpayers would object if their kids were turned away. They
>outvote you.
At this point, the taxpayers are NOT supporting the state
universities. The best ones are in real financial trouble.
We need educational processes; it is unclear that the present
types of schools are in any way an answer. The elementary
schools were reasonable before the Depression, and the high
schools until the early 50s; the educationists, who do not
understand how different students are, and made age grouping
mandatory, and only taught details rather than concepts, got
control, by telling people who could not understand the problems
that this was best for all. There were quite a few who saw
through this, but the effective public school monopoly made
their efforts futile.
Now, we need affordable academic schools, and standards set by
subject matter scholars who have not taken the miseducation
courses. As a statistician, I can state that anyone who sets
up a scale by using the normal distribution, which is how IQ
scales are now set up, flunks miserably.
As a mathematician, I can say that the present teachers
have NO understanding of mathematics, and apparently cannot
learn. My late wife ONCE taught mathematics for elementary
teachers, an was nauseated by the bulk of the students.
She also taught many classes for prospective high school
teachers, and was able to somewhat get to the best ones.
Rowley
> On Aug 9, 9:03 pm, Rowley <industry3dREM...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Dom wrote:
>>
>>>The August/September 2009 issue of the MAA FOCUS contains another
>>>excellent letter by Joan Reinthaler ("Attacking the Problem, Not the
>>>Symptoms." p.32-33) concerning the pseudo-educated students who "have
>>>arrived at their freshman year in college armed with one or more high
>>>school credits in 'Calculus,' have floundered in their first college
>>>math course and have vowed never to take math again." The letter is
>>>at:
>>
>>Question is - so? Is the earth going to stop because some college
>>student doesn't take math classes beyond the minimum required for
>>whatever degree program they are going for?
>>
>>Is this a case of someone who "really really" wanted to learn calculus,
>>but their high school teacher was to unskilled to teach him/her? or is
>>it more a case of students taking calculus simply because they have been
>>told by the powers-that-be that they need to - even though they have no
>>interest in it?....
>
>
> The latter, for the most part.
>
> There really is a simple solution to this problem....
>
> Give a truly comprehensive exam in algebra, geometry and trig to
> incoming students. Do not let students take calculus unless they
> are prepared, even if they have already taken it in high school.
Why limit this to algebra, geometry and trig? Why not do the same for
ALL classes / subjects? Use "truly comprehensive exam" to determine
qualifications for everything....
>
> I would go even further. Do not allow remedial algebra courses
> to count for credit. Students should come to college prepared to
> do college level work.
>
> BTW, the same should apply in e.g. English.
Agreed...
> Give every student a
> comprehensive English exam, including writing an essay. Require
> those whose English and writing skills are inadequate to take a
> non-credit remedial course.
>
> As a taxpayer, part of whose taxes pay for my state's University
> system, I object to the acceptance of students who are unprepared
> for college level work, no matter which subject it is in which they
> lack preparation.
Problem I see with that... is that the student (or their parents) are
footing the bulk of the bill...
Martin
Rowley
I doubt that - there would still probably be enought foreign students to
keep at least a few classes going....
Martin
Tim Norfolk
>
> - Show quoted text -
Actually, I am in favour of giving a real exam each year, starting
around grade 6, say the second week of the school year. Any student
who gets less than 50% on the previous year's material gets sent back.
Rowley
Sent back to where? To who? As a taxpayer - would you be willing to foot
the bill for the additional teachers and classrooms that would be needed
to do that? Or are you suggesting just cramming them into the existing
grade 6 classes with kids a year or so younger than them? What sort of
impact would that make on the current class of 6th graders?
And do you think that many of those students would greatly benefit from
a repeat cycle?
I got to "repeat" a class when I was in the 5th grade - Spelling...
Didn't help... I still have issues with the subject.... I think it was
cuz I never got hooked on phonics....
Martin
Herman Jurjus
> pubkeybreaker wrote:
>> As a taxpayer, part of whose taxes pay for my state's University
>> system, I object to the acceptance of students who are unprepared
>> for college level work, no matter which subject it is in which they
>> lack preparation.
>
> Problem I see with that... is that the student (or their parents) are
> footing the bulk of the bill...
Is that so? Is it known what percentage of the total cost of keeping
universities up and running (buildings, teachers, research, security
people, coffee machines, etc.) is paid by students/parents?
--
Cheers,
Herman Jurjus
Rowley
Ok, I'll bite...
So you're saying that "I" as a taxpayer am paying state taxes on those
expenses (for the running of state universities / colleges)? How am I
doing that exactly? Where is the money being collected? Part of the tax
on gasoline? Part of the state sales tax on purchases?
Personally, I find it hard to be angry as a "taxpayer" on how things are
run or money is wasted - if I can't easily see 1) where this money is
supposedly coming from [which of my pockets], and 2) how much money are
we talking about...
As for coffee machines... the high school where I was teaching - we (the
teachers in the hall I was in) provided our own machine and took turns
buying the coffee... If I was going to be angry about something, it
might be all that "free" coffee you college professors are apparently
drinking on my dime..... it better be Costco brand...
Martin
Tim Norfolk
I would send them back to a class in the previous year's material. You
clearly don't like the idea, but I am very seeing the results of
students who have squeezed into the next level time after time, thanks
to 'extra credit' and bizarre grading methods. What about the other
students, who are then held back in their learning? Ask yourself if we
in the US do this in any sport.
Tim Norfolk
In Ohio it is about 60%. About 25% from the State, the rest from
research grants, etc.
Tim Norfolk
>
> - Show quoted text -
I supply the coffee and machines for our department, and it's usually
cheap. The salary of a university professor of 26 years experience is
less than a 35-year-old teacher in many of the local schools, far less
than the UAW guys were earning two years ago, and about what MD
interns are earning locally. Our state only pays about 25% of the cost
of running the university.
Herman Rubin
Tim Norfolk <tims...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Oct 5, 6:54=EF=BF=BDpm, Rowley <industry3dREM...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> pubkeybreaker wrote:
>> > On Aug 9, 9:03 pm, Rowley <industry3dREM...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>Dom wrote:
.................
>Actually, I am in favour of giving a real exam each year, starting
>around grade 6, say the second week of the school year. Any student
>who gets less than 50% on the previous year's material gets sent back.
This is a mistake. Sending a child back to repeat the
previous material in the same way is not good pedagogy,
as what is not learned is likely not to be learned again.
This is especially true for conceptual material, which is
the most important part.
I do not have an easy answer. This is a major problem,
and must be treated, and I suspect with some manner of
individual approach.
Also, the proposal will end up with students studying
for the exam, and quickly forgetting it. This even
happens with graduate students.
Herman Rubin
>>>pubkeybreaker wrote:
>>>>On Aug 9, 9:03 pm, Rowley <industry3dREM...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>Dom wrote:
...............
>> Actually, I am in favour of giving a real exam each year, starting
>> around grade 6, say the second week of the school year. Any student
>> who gets less than 50% on the previous year's material gets sent back.
>Sent back to where? To who? As a taxpayer - would you be willing to foot
>the bill for the additional teachers and classrooms that would be needed
>to do that? Or are you suggesting just cramming them into the existing
>grade 6 classes with kids a year or so younger than them? What sort of
>impact would that make on the current class of 6th graders?
As I said in my other post on this, the issue must be treated.
As for the age issue, we need to get age out of consideration
for student placement. Completely desocialize the schools,
it necessary.
>And do you think that many of those students would greatly benefit from
>a repeat cycle?
Not too many; it is a misconception that repeating a class
will help much, unless the lack of learning is due to laziness
in the first place, or just missing enough that it can be made
up. In the latter case, repetition is time wasting.
>I got to "repeat" a class when I was in the 5th grade - Spelling...
>Didn't help... I still have issues with the subject.... I think it was
>cuz I never got hooked on phonics....
This is a common effect of the whole word method.
But how serious is it? As I have pointed out, understanding
the "natural numbers" and knowing what the operations mean
is far more important than memorizing the tables.
>Martin
Herman Rubin
In the United States, for state schools it used to be
about 15%, but is now more than 1/3. For private schools,
it can vary from about 1/3 to most of it.
That is for those not on scholarships, most of which are
based on need with moderate ability. The idea of making
education available to those without ability is quite
strong now in the US. One reason for the high cost of
medical care in the US is that doctors leave medical school
with huge debts, often in excess of $100,000.
>Cheers,
>Herman Jurjus
Herman Rubin
>>> pubkeybreaker wrote:
>>>> As a taxpayer, part of whose taxes pay for my state's University
>>>> system, I object to the acceptance of students who are unprepared
>>>> for college level work, no matter which subject it is in which they
>>>> lack preparation.
>>> Problem I see with that... is that the student (or their parents) are
>>> footing the bulk of the bill...
>> Is that so? Is it known what percentage of the total cost of keeping
>> universities up and running (buildings, teachers, research, security
>> people, coffee machines, etc.) is paid by students/parents?
>Ok, I'll bite...
>So you're saying that "I" as a taxpayer am paying state taxes on those
>expenses (for the running of state universities / colleges)? How am I
>doing that exactly? Where is the money being collected? Part of the tax
>on gasoline? Part of the state sales tax on purchases?
It comes from general revenues, such as sales tax, income tax,
and possibly property tax. Of course there are also "tourist"
taxes, such as taxes on hotel rooms, sporting events, etc.
>Personally, I find it hard to be angry as a "taxpayer" on how things are
>run or money is wasted - if I can't easily see 1) where this money is
>supposedly coming from [which of my pockets], and 2) how much money are
>we talking about...
I am not precise on my figures. Much comes from my
knowledge of what is happening at Purdue, which is a
state university, and about schools in the US in general.
The recent major budget problems at the University of
California are because the state reduced the budget by
1/4; the state financed roughly half the cost before,
the rest coming from government grants, endowment income
(also going down), and tuition and fees. Most of the
costs are rather fixed; there is not much hiring after
the state budget is given, much of the faculty has
tenure, and no good university wants to lose its early
faculty who are reasonable candidates for future tenure;
if they did, they would have difficulty hiring good
junior people in the future.
For state schools not at the level of the University of
California, the amount from government grants and
endowment income is likely to be considerably less.
>As for coffee machines... the high school where I was teaching - we (the
>teachers in the hall I was in) provided our own machine and took turns
>buying the coffee... If I was going to be angry about something, it
>might be all that "free" coffee you college professors are apparently
>drinking on my dime..... it better be Costco brand...
Forget the coffee machines; they are not a major cost.
They are probably paid for by the income from the soft
drink machines, and other such.
>Martin
Herman Rubin
Tim Norfolk <tims...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Oct 5, 9:21=EF=BF=BDpm, Rowley <industry3dREM...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Tim Norfolk wrote:
>> > On Oct 5, 6:54 pm, Rowley <industry3dREM...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>pubkeybreaker wrote:
>> >>>On Aug 9, 9:03 pm, Rowley <industry3dREM...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>>>Dom wrote:
..................
>I would send them back to a class in the previous year's material. You
>clearly don't like the idea, but I am very seeing the results of
>students who have squeezed into the next level time after time, thanks
>to 'extra credit' and bizarre grading methods. What about the other
>students, who are then held back in their learning? Ask yourself if we
>in the US do this in any sport.
In a sport, if they cannot perform they are not sent back
for learning. They may get sent back to get experience.
Going into a course without the full "prerequisite" is not
necessarily bad; I got into the high school "Euclid" course
a month late, as it took this long to convince the teacher
that I knew firs year algebra, which took me less time than
this to learn fully. It was no problem. Those with ability
SHOULD often be in this situation. The overachievers who
work hard, less so.
Bob LeChevalier
>In article <tlkkc550rfodqp8q0...@4ax.com>,
>Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>>pubkeybreaker <pubkey...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>On Aug 9, 9:03pm, Rowley <industry3dREM...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Dom wrote:
>
> ...............
>
>>>> Question is - so? Is the earth going to stop because some college
>>>> student doesn't take math classes beyond the minimum required for
>>>> whatever degree program they are going for?
>
>No, but that student will not be able to understand
>anything which involves the knowledge of how the
>universe really operates. How can one intelligently
>discuss problems which involve science without knowing
>any science?
The local Thomas Jefferson *high school* has kids working on
publishable scientific research, while being well short of a college
degree.
There is plenty of science that can be done with the understanding of
math that college students achieve. Obviously, given the American
track record.
>>Then no one will take calculus, and the science, math and engineering
>>departments of universities will go out of business for lack of
>>students.
>
>This is not the case, and some of them should go out of business.
Alas, they won't. Economic reality triumphs over your ideals.
The largest, and fastest growing, college in the country is University
of Phoenix. Private, for profit, quite expensive, and low standards.
In the libertarian world you idealize, things would be even worse and
MOST education would be at the U of Phoenix level.
>>>I would go even further. Do not allow remedial algebra courses
>>>to count for credit.
>
>>Remedial courses usually DON'T count for credit.
>
>Too many of them do.
Not the ones that are actually labeled "remedial" by the university.
>>>Students should come to college prepared to do college level work.
>
>>And if they don't? Kick them out and close down the college for lack
>>of students?
>
>Admit students who do not have the high grades in high school,
>and tell them in advance that they will have to think, NOT
>memorize and regurgitate.
And if they don't (and they won't)? Kick them out and close down the
college for lack of students?
>THIS is fundamental; at this point,
>someone who teaches the course content might get fired because
>the students will downgrade the teacher, while someone teaching
>junk may end up with tenure.
In libertarian capitalism, the customer is always right.
>>>As a taxpayer, part of whose taxes pay for my state's University
>>>system, I object to the acceptance of students who are unprepared
>>>for college level work, no matter which subject it is in which they
>>>lack preparation.
>
>>A lot more taxpayers would object if their kids were turned away. They
>>outvote you.
>
>At this point, the taxpayers are NOT supporting the state
>universities.
Of course they are. If they stopped, the universities would be
bankrupt.
>The best ones are in real financial trouble.
They would be far worse off if the taxpayers weren't contributing.
>Now, we need affordable academic schools,
In most of the country there isn't enough market. Here, we have
Thomas Jefferson, and across the river they have Montgomery Blair.
Most places with less than a million population couldn't support even
one school of such quality.
Bob LeChevalier
>I would send them back to a class in the previous year's material.
Having had a kid who repeated classes, it does no good.
>You clearly don't like the idea, but I am very seeing the results of
>students who have squeezed into the next level time after time, thanks
>to 'extra credit' and bizarre grading methods.
My daughter tended to learn more in classes that were too hard for
her. Not enough to get better than a creatively graded D-, but more
than she would have learned by repeating.
The reason is that she did not have the study skills nor
self-discipline to meet grading standards at any level, and we parents
couldn't seem to remedy the problem.
Now as an adult, she is constantly overperforming in jobs suited to
someone with little college education. Without a single college
course in the subject, hired as a receptionist, in merely a few months
she was outperforming the degreed and certified paralegal in the law
office that she worked in. She'd probably still flunk the classes
without "creative" grading, but in an environment tailored to her
learning style, she zooms past those who were successful students.
>What about the other students, who are then held back in their learning?
What about them? The national policy is "No Child Left Behind", not
Some Children Get Ahead". I don't approve of NCLB, but the implied
alternative would be even less acceptable to the people who pay the
bills.
>Ask yourself if we in the US do this in any sport.
Actually, we do. Most sports participants are mediocre. Varsity
sports at some institutions do better because they have enormous
quantities of outside money coming in to pay for an elite to get
superior training. The public is willing to pay a lot more for
entertainment, than for education.
Such is life.
John Gilmer
>I hate waste of any kind, including talent. I have too many students
who were pushed through their mathematics sequence without mastering
the necessary material. Once that happens, it is much more difficult
(even impossible) to go back and fix the deficiencies.
In many ways "advanced" math is easier than "ordinary" math.
I suspect part of the "problem" is that the criteria for entering the G&A
program is heavily weighed on subjective opinions of the teachers. (In
case you miss my point, many of these kids just aren't all that smart!)
Math is a very cruel subject; as students advance they come to realize that
they just are't "wired" for the subject and they drop out. Frankly, better
they find out in high school or middle school than waste 4 years majoring in
math.
Rowley
Which is where? And taught by who? And paid for by?....
> You
> clearly don't like the idea,
I don't really have any feelings for the idea... just wanting to know
how you plan on making it work...
> but I am very seeing the results of
> students who have squeezed into the next level time after time, thanks
> to 'extra credit' and bizarre grading methods.
Then get the local taxpayers / voters there to do something about it..
Get people to polls to vote for administrations that will put their foot
down and get the taxpayers to agree to pay for the extra expense to
operate such a program....
> What about the other
> students, who are then held back in their learning? Ask yourself if we
> in the US do this in any sport.
Of course something like that isn't going on in something as important
as sports....
Martin
Rowley
> In article <haf9u...@news3.newsguy.com>,
> Rowley <industry...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Herman Jurjus wrote:
>>
>>>Rowley wrote:
>
>
>>>>pubkeybreaker wrote:
>
>
>>>>>As a taxpayer, part of whose taxes pay for my state's University
>>>>>system, I object to the acceptance of students who are unprepared
>>>>>for college level work, no matter which subject it is in which they
>>>>>lack preparation.
>
>
>
>>>>Problem I see with that... is that the student (or their parents) are
>>>>footing the bulk of the bill...
>
>
>
>>>Is that so? Is it known what percentage of the total cost of keeping
>>>universities up and running (buildings, teachers, research, security
>>>people, coffee machines, etc.) is paid by students/parents?
>
>
>
>>Ok, I'll bite...
>
>
>>So you're saying that "I" as a taxpayer am paying state taxes on those
>>expenses (for the running of state universities / colleges)? How am I
>>doing that exactly? Where is the money being collected? Part of the tax
>>on gasoline? Part of the state sales tax on purchases?
>
>
> It comes from general revenues, such as sales tax, income tax,
> and possibly property tax. Of course there are also "tourist"
> taxes, such as taxes on hotel rooms, sporting events, etc.
So basically - it's something that is pretty much "invisible" to me...
Unlike my property taxes which I have to write a check for....
It also sounds like something that isn't evenly distributed across the
general population... If I don't use hotel rooms or attend sporting
events - I ain't paying for your daily cup of coffee.... people who do
those things are....
Still - why isn't that "profit" from the soda machines being used for
something more important?
Martin
>
>
>>Martin
>
>
>
>
Tim Norfolk
I agree about your point, but that is considered 'unamerican'.
Somehow, we are magically supposed to have every student master any
level that the politicians impose, by 'teaching better', or
'motivating students'. It is a no-win situation. I would like to see
the MAA and associated societies develop national Algebra and
PreCalculus tests, on the lines of the AP Calculus.
Tim Norfolk
It is the voters (and parents) who have the belief that it is all due
to the work of the teachers, not the ability or effort of the
students. I am fully aware that ignorant teachers can hold back
talented students, as do the weaker students. However, the best
(whatever that is) teacher in the world cannot educate a student
without talent or interest. If you claim otherwise, please show me how.
Bob LeChevalier
>On Oct 6, 6:31?pm, "John Gilmer" <jlgil...@localnet.com> wrote:
>> >I hate waste of any kind, including talent. I have too many students
>>
>> who were pushed through their mathematics sequence without mastering
>> the necessary material. Once that happens, it is much more difficult
>> (even impossible) to go back and fix the deficiencies.
>>
>> In many ways "advanced" math is easier than "ordinary" math.
>>
>> I suspect part of the "problem" is that the criteria for entering the G&A
>> case you miss my point, many of these kids just aren't all that smart!)
>>
>> Math is a very cruel subject; as students advance they come to realize that
>> they find out in high school or middle school than waste 4 years majoring in
>> math.
>
>I agree about your point, but that is considered 'unamerican'.
>Somehow, we are magically supposed to have every student master any
>level that the politicians impose,
The politicians, and society, wants standards set at a level where
every student, properly taught, can master. Anything higher is not a
"standard", but rather an "elite" level. And the taxpayers often
don't like paying extra for the benefit of elites.
Rowley
There was a good editorial cartoon in the paper a few weeks ago -
showing something like that... wished I had time to hunt for a link on
the web...
> I am fully aware that ignorant teachers can hold back
> talented students, as do the weaker students. However, the best
> (whatever that is) teacher in the world cannot educate a student
> without talent or interest. If you claim otherwise, please show me how.
Why are you asking "me" that question? Where am I claiming otherwise?
Martin
Tim Norfolk
I'm not. I'm just fed of of 'solutions' that make the problem worse.
The people who make the decisions are never the ones who have to carry
out the process.
Rowley
My bad... didn't realize that you were agreeing with me...
Martin
pubkeybreaker
> hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote:
> >>>Students should come to college prepared to do college level work.
>
> >>And if they don't? Kick them out and close down the college for lack
> >>of students?
Actually, YES. There are too many people today who are unqualified,
yet go
to college for the credentials it provides. They don't care if they
learn anything,
they just want the degree.
>
> >Admit students who do not have the high grades in high school,
> >and tell them in advance that they will have to think, NOT
> >memorize and regurgitate.
>
> And if they don't (and they won't)? Kick them out and close down the
> college for lack of students?
Yep.
>
> >THIS is fundamental; at this point,
> >someone who teaches the course content might get fired because
> >the students will downgrade the teacher, while someone teaching
> >junk may end up with tenure.
>
> In libertarian capitalism, the customer is always right.
And in such cases, the inmates are running the asylym.
pubkeybreaker
Would you want such students designing a bridge over which you will
drive???
For any technical field of knowledge anything LESS than elitist
translates
to "INCOMPETENT".
Our technical society functions ONLY because of such 'elitists'.
Bob LeChevalier
I am sure that I have driven across bridges designed by normal people.
I am sure that I will continue to do so.
>For any technical field of knowledge anything LESS than elitist
>translates to "INCOMPETENT".
We'll have to agree to disagree. Competence is NOT rated against the
best possible as a standard, but rather against the minimum acceptable
for the price we are willing to pay. And this country is not willing
to pay the price to raise standards above what they are.
>Our technical society functions ONLY because of such 'elitists'.
Nonsense.
Bob LeChevalier
>On Oct 6, 3:13�pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>> hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote:
>
>> >>>Students should come to college prepared to do college level work.
>>
>> >>And if they don't? �Kick them out and close down the college for lack
>> >>of students?
>
>Actually, YES. There are too many people today who are unqualified,
>yet go
>to college for the credentials it provides. They don't care if they
>learn anything,
>they just want the degree.
So what? The customer is always right, or the professors get tossed
out on their ear.
>> >Admit students who do not have the high grades in high school,
>> >and tell them in advance that they will have to think, NOT
>> >memorize and regurgitate.
>>
>> And if they don't (and they won't)? Kick them out and close down the
>> college for lack of students?
>
>Yep.
There goes the employers for your "elite". We aren't willing to pay
them merely to be the "elite".
>> >THIS is fundamental; at this point,
>> >someone who teaches the course content might get fired because
>> >the students will downgrade the teacher, while someone teaching
>> >junk may end up with tenure.
>>
>> In libertarian capitalism, the customer is always right.
>
>And in such cases, the inmates are running the asylym.
Such is life.
pubkeybreaker
And in providing technology which, if it fails, costs lives, the
minimum
acceptable standard IS excellence.
I don't want people who got a C in their physics or structural
engineering
class designing our bridges and buildings.
>And this country is not willing
> to pay the price to raise standards above what they are.
>
> >Our technical society functions ONLY because of such 'elitists'.
>
> Nonsense.
You clearly have no idea how much competence is required to
(say) design an airplane. Or an ASIC. or a new drug....or......
Such things are designed by people who ARE the academic
elite, regardless of your opinion.
Rowley
You don't realize that pretty much 'everything' you use has been
designed / engineered / built by someone? The car you drive, the road
you drive on, the bridge... Our society is pretty much dependent on such
things - most of us probably couldn't survive without the products that
we use on a daily basis.... Still, there is no guarantee that stuff has
to be perfect... stuff fails to work all the time... bridges break,
tunnels collapse, towers topple... usually it ain't due to poor
engineering - most times it can be traced to someone trying to save a
few dollars on materials, or using unskilled labor, or not doing proper
maintenance..
But even if your bridge was badly designed - chances are it would still
be sturdy... most times such things are over engineered to the point
that even a bad design works...
> For any technical field of knowledge anything LESS than elitist
> translates
> to "INCOMPETENT".
Heh.. keep in mind that not everybody can graduate in the top ten
percentage of their class...
>
> Our technical society functions ONLY because of such 'elitists'.
It functions because of darwinism.. successful designs get copied,
unsuccessful ones don't...
A good book to read is...
"To Engineer Is Human: The Role of Failure in Successful Design", by
Henry Petroski
or
"Why Things Bite Back: Technology and the Revenge of Unintended
Consequences", by Edward Tenner
or
"The Axe Maker's Gift", by James Burke and Robert Ornstein
Martin
pubkeybreaker
> pubkeybreaker wrote:
> > On Oct 7, 6:22 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
> Heh.. keep in mind that not everybody can graduate in the top ten
> percentage of their class...
A pointless comment. We are not discussing the top 10%, but rather
if the bottom 40% (give or take a few percent) should be going to
college.
Bob LeChevalier
>> >Would you want such students designing a bridge over which you will
>> >drive???
>>
>> I am sure that I have driven across bridges designed by normal people.
>> I am sure that I will continue to do so.
>>
>> >For any technical field of knowledge anything LESS than elitist
>> >translates to "INCOMPETENT".
>>
>> We'll have to agree to disagree. �Competence is NOT rated against the
>> best possible as a standard, but rather against the minimum acceptable
>> for the price we are willing to pay. �
>
>And in providing technology which, if it fails, costs lives, the
>minimum acceptable standard IS excellence.
Clearly not the case, since most technology is NOT designed to such an
ultimate standard, even when the best engineers design them.
>I don't want people who got a C in their physics or structural
>engineering class designing our bridges and buildings.
Tough. You've got them now.
>> >Our technical society functions ONLY because of such 'elitists'.
>>
>> Nonsense.
>
>You clearly have no idea how much competence is required to
>(say) design an airplane. Or an ASIC. or a new drug....or......
>
>Such things are designed by people who ARE the academic
>elite,
Sometimes. Not always.
Thomas Edison was a school dropout after 3 months. The Wright
brothers invented the airplane, but did not finish high school, in an
era when high school math did not go beyond algebra and did not always
require it. Many effective drugs were discovered by ancient peoples
who never went to school at all.
Howard Brazee
<pubkey...@aol.com> wrote:
>A pointless comment. We are not discussing the top 10%, but rather
>if the bottom 40% (give or take a few percent) should be going to
>college.
Much of the world only let in the top 10% as determined by testing a
head of time. That has some advantages - but misses quite a few late
bloomers.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Herman Rubin
Tim Norfolk <tims...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Oct 6, 6:31=EF=BF=BDpm, "John Gilmer" <jlgil...@localnet.com> wrote:
>> >I hate waste of any kind, including talent. I have too many students
>> who were pushed through their mathematics sequence without mastering
>> the necessary material. Once that happens, it is much more difficult
>> (even impossible) to go back and fix the deficiencies.
>> In many ways "advanced" math is easier than "ordinary" math.
>> I suspect part of the "problem" is that the criteria for entering the G&A
>> program is heavily weighed on subjective opinions of the teachers. =EF=BF=
>=BD (In
>> case you miss my point, many of these kids just aren't all that smart!)
>> Math is a very cruel subject; as students advance they come to realize th=
>at
>> they just are't "wired" for the subject and they drop out. =EF=BF=BD Fran=
>kly, better
>> they find out in high school or middle school than waste 4 years majoring=
> in
>> math.
>I agree about your point, but that is considered 'unamerican'.
>Somehow, we are magically supposed to have every student master any
>level that the politicians impose, by 'teaching better', or
>'motivating students'.
The educationists have sold this bill of goods. Those
who have more ability will get it faster, and teaching
understanding (can the teachers even learn it) will help
get the students to understand. But a large number will
not get it as presented; some of them may be able to get
it if presented differently, or if they have a smaller
academic load. But the educationists prefer age grouping
to anything else.
It is a no-win situation. I would like to see
>the MAA and associated societies develop national Algebra and
>PreCalculus tests, on the lines of the AP Calculus.
I suggested, at an MAA meeting 45 years ago, that the MAA and
associated societies develop standards, etc. This was not
received at all well.
One problem is, how do you get a state legislator to accept
that a high school student who has almost straight A's in
high school mathematics is a mathematical ignoramus.
Frankly, I am not so much worried about admission standards
as I am about the decline in the level of college courses.
I recall that at a former university one of the students
receiving the highest undergraduate mathematics reward had
to start out with high school algebra and geometry, non-credit
remedial courses. This was before any reduction in the level
of the good university courses or requirements for a degree.
Herman Rubin
Tim Norfolk <tims...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Oct 6, 7:12=EF=BF=BDpm, Rowley <industry3dREM...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Tim Norfolk wrote:
>> > On Oct 5, 9:21 pm, Rowley <industry3dREM...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>Tim Norfolk wrote:
>> >>>On Oct 5, 6:54 pm, Rowley <industry3dREM...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>>>pubkeybreaker wrote:
>> >>>>>On Aug 9, 9:03 pm, Rowley <industry3dREM...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>Dom wrote:
>> >>>>>>>The August/September 2009 issue of the MAA FOCUS contains another
>> >>>>>>>excellent letter by Joan Reinthaler ("Attacking the Problem, Not t=
>he
>> >>>>>>>Symptoms." p.32-33) concerning the pseudo-educated students who "h=
>ave
>> >>>>>>>arrived at their freshman year in college armed with one or more h=
>igh
>> >>>>>>>school credits in 'Calculus,' have floundered in their first colle=
>ge
>> >>>>>>>math course and have vowed never to take math again." The letter i=
>s
>> >>>>>>>at:
>> >>>>>>Question is - so? Is the earth going to stop because some college
>> >>>>>>student doesn't take math classes beyond the minimum required for
>> >>>>>>whatever degree program they are going for?
>> >>>>>>Is this a case of someone who "really really" wanted to learn calcu=
>lus,
>> >>>>>>but their high school teacher was to unskilled to teach him/her? or=
> is
>> >>>>>>it more a case of students taking calculus simply because they have=
> been
>> >>>>>>told by the powers-that-be that they need to - even though they hav=
>> >>>>Agreed...
>> >>Sent back to where? To who? As a taxpayer - would you be willing to foo=
>t
>> >>the bill for the additional teachers and classrooms that would be neede=
I agree with you. But about 75 years ago, a philosophy of
education was introduced, and it spread, which does not at
all agree.
Anyone with the idea that all of a given age should be
learning the same is opposed to real education, but they
are the ones in charge.
Herman Rubin
Would they be paying any more for the elites? They can be
taught with textbooks and computer connections.
However, attempting to get EVERY student to master something
is impossible. Lack of brainpower cannot be compensated for.
They might be able to come close in some respects with a
slower program, but they still cannot do the "average" in
anything like the same amount of time.
This is like saying that everyone should be running a
four minute mile, because some can. Or even a five minute
mile, which more can, but far from all.
Herman Rubin
No; you have driven over bridges designed by graduate
engineers, and not just by one. Also, they know enough
to "overengineer" the bridge, so there are safety factors.
>>For any technical field of knowledge anything LESS than elitist
>>translates to "INCOMPETENT".
>We'll have to agree to disagree. Competence is NOT rated against the
>best possible as a standard, but rather against the minimum acceptable
>for the price we are willing to pay. And this country is not willing
>to pay the price to raise standards above what they are.
On this, you are wrong. People are expecting the impossible
in medicines; there are NO "safe and effective" medicines.
Then they blame the drug companies, who clearly state the
possible dangers, and the FDA, who have approved the drug,
with the warnings, for allowing "dangerous" drugs.
But most foods are dangerous to some people. As I said,
nothing is safe and effective. If we want reasonable treatment,
we must expect risks, and it is up to the individual, not the
government, to make the assessment as to the balance.
>>Our technical society functions ONLY because of such 'elitists'.
>Nonsense.
Very definitely sense. Right now, our students are mainly
learning what could be called technology. But future
technology depends on learning the basic science, and it
is not the case that one can pick it up when needed, because
if it is not known, one cannot recognize the need.
Herman Rubin
pubkeybreaker <pubkey...@aol.com> wrote:
Very well said. One problem is, how does one decide who is
in the bottom 40%? It may be the class valedictorian, while
the student who is learning but not adept in coming up with
the garbage which the teachers are testing may be among those
who really have ability. I would not be able to tell from
the information available to the admissions offices and to
the counselors.
Herman Rubin
>>> Nonsense.
>Sometimes. Not always.
You have seen my comments about selection processes.
Edison had to rely on others for the basic science to achieve
his use of technology. Likewise the Wright brothers.
As for the finding of drugs by the ancients, one can use years
of observations, and the "witch doctors" and shamans were not
that dull. The Babylonian astronomers, without even algebra,
were able to do a good job of creating a calendar. Brains can
overcome lack of training.
Rowley
Even if you removed people in the bottom 40% - there will still be
people in the bottom 40%...
Martin
Mark Peters
Rowley <industry...@yahoo.com> wrote:
There is always a bottom 40%. However, the overall bottom 40% would not
be going to college and the bottom 40% in college will not be in the
lowest 40% overall.
Juan M
"Mark Peters" <mpe...@nospam.wideopenwest.com> wrote in message
news:mpeters-9FA3C6...@newsfarm.iad.highwinds-media.com...
I will be satisfied when every single student in the world is above average
;<)
Rowley
There is a place like that... Lake Wobegon.... :)
Martin
Juan M
"Rowley" <industry...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:haq17...@news4.newsguy.com...
I was wondering how long it would take somebody to come around to that!
:<)
Rowley
> In article <haofh...@news5.newsguy.com>,
> Rowley <industry...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> There is always a bottom 40%. However, the overall bottom 40% would not
> be going to college and the bottom 40% in college will not be in the
> lowest 40% overall.
Ah... the "overall bottom 40%" vs the "lowest 40%".... the overall who I
assume use to be somewhere in the 41~79%... wonder how happy they are
going to be with their drop in status... and what about the people who
are now the 41~79%? or the ones above that who have now shifted down to
somewhere in the 80s?
Martin