 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Math Forum / Mathematics / General Topics / November 2008College Calculus: What We Don't Know
David Bressoud's complete article is available at: http://www.maa.org/columns/launchings/launchings_09_08.html It seems to me that Bressoud failed to mention the fact that "the tremendous growth in the number of students who study calculus in high school" has produced a tremendous growth in the number of pseudo- educated students. =============================== College Calculus: What We Don't Know ... The transition from high school to college mathematics is one of the most critical junctures in the preparation of individuals to meet the mathematical demands of the 21st century in engineering, in business, and in the natural, mathematical, biological, and social sciences. I’ve written in many of these columns about the discouraging number of students who pursue mathematics in college at the level of calculus and above, despite the tremendous growth in the number of students who study calculus in high school. It appears that we are losing many students who would like to pursue a mathematically intensive career and are capable of learning the mathematics they would need. As Elaine Seymour and Nancy Hewitt have documented [1], it is not just the under-prepared students we are losing. Poor teaching, an overwhelmingly fast paced curriculum, and poor advising and support are leading reasons given by students who abandon the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematical sciences) disciplines. But these characteristics were also described by students who stayed. Of those who completed a major in a STEM discipline, 74% identified poor teaching as a concern they experienced, 41% described the curriculum as overwhelming, and 52% felt that advising and help with academic problems was inadequate (page 33). David Bressoud's complete article is available at: http://www.maa.org/columns/launchings/launchings_09_08.html It seems to me that Bressoud failed to mention the fact that "the tremendous growth in the number of students who study calculus in high school" has produced a tremendous growth in the number of pseudo- educated students. =============================== College Calculus: What We Don't Know ... The transition from high school to college mathematics is one of the most critical junctures in the preparation of individuals to meet the mathematical demands of the 21st century in engineering, in business, and in the natural, mathematical, biological, and social sciences. I’ve written in many of these columns about the discouraging number of students who pursue mathematics in college at the level of calculus and above, despite the tremendous growth in the number of students who study calculus in high school. It appears that we are losing many students who would like to pursue a mathematically intensive career and are capable of learning the mathematics they would need. As Elaine Seymour and Nancy Hewitt have documented [1], it is not just the under-prepared students we are losing. Poor teaching, an overwhelmingly fast paced curriculum, and poor advising and support are leading reasons given by students who abandon the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematical sciences) disciplines. But these characteristics were also described by students who stayed. Of those who completed a major in a STEM discipline, 74% identified poor teaching as a concern they experienced, 41% described the curriculum as overwhelming, and 52% felt that advising and help with academic problems was inadequate (page 33). --- I find a few problems with this. One, how many of the student reported problems are whining, rather than true problems? Failing college students are notorious for their whining. How many students had a misconception of what a STEM major would entail, as far as work load and effort? What is an "overwhelmingly fast paced curriculum", and do we want students to determine what needs to be taught and at what pace? Can we slow the curriculum down and still graduate students in 4 years, especially with the credentials to pursue an advanced degree? Do students blame poor teaching and support for their own failures? My experience as a math major indicates that the problem is not with the faculty, but with the student body. Math, believe it or not, is difficult and requires much more of an investment of time , energy, and thought than most other majors. as do all STEM majors. I spent years in academic support for math, watching students of all majors look for shortcuts or easy ways out. Those of us who graduated, for example, would spend hours and hours every week in group study session, in some courses spending 20 hours a week on homework alone, while those that failed availed themselves of the social opportunities college afforded. And no, the curriculum cannot be slowed down. As recent reports in the press on careers point out, any degree less than a PHD will probably not provide employment as a mathematician, instead qualifying a graduate for teaching or finance, mostly. It would be criminal to prevent those who desire a career in mathematics the background they need to pursue a masters or a PHD because others cannot or will not keep up. Larry > David Bressoud's complete article is available at: > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > One, how many of the student reported problems are whining, rather than true > problems? Failing college students are notorious for their whining. There are many reasons for their whining, one of them being the bloated nature of current textbooks and the manner in which homework is submitted electronically, if at all. In my opinion one of the major reasons is that many of these students have been pseudo-educated, even though they have taken so-called honors courses and even calculus in high school. Andrei Toom's 1993 paper, "A Russian Teacher in America," which is reproduced at: http://www.inform.umd.edu/EdRes/Colleges/ARHU/Depts/CompLit/cmltgrad/JSchaub/ta_ main/toom.html did an outstanding job at exposing the pseudo-educated students being produced in the U.S. His 2002 article, "Wars in American mathematical education," which is available at: http://michel.delord.free.fr/toomwars.pdf does a truly superb analysis of the NCTM "standards" and of the "math reform" flimflam of the past 20 years. In article <05a718d2-42eb-4ee4-af93-ee35c852ce0c@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, > Andrei Toom's 1993 paper, "A Russian Teacher in America," which is > reproduced at: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > does a truly superb analysis of the NCTM "standards" and of the "math > reform" flimflam of the past 20 years. Loved the writing. Is it true that American students typically see maths as a set of algorithms for solving specific problems? That is the impression I had been getting from some discussion on mk. And where is Herman Rubin?  SignatureChookie -- Sydney, Australia (Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply) http://chookiesbackyard.blogspot.com/ > In article > <05a718d2-42eb-4ee4-af93-ee35c852c...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > set of algorithms for solving specific problems? That is the impression I had > been getting from some discussion on mk. One of the twisted objectives of mathematics education in the U.S. is to "boost scores" on "mastery tests," the testing rackets that are funded by both the State and Federal governments. These tests involve almost all multiple-choice problems. Students are taught a list of "strategies" for solving problems. The recipe of choice appears to be "guess-and check" with their graphing calculators. It is truly appalling to see the amount of nonsensical scribbling that so many students do when faced with a simple problem that does not involve multiple choices. In article <32257b47-fe89-4c11-bb8b-65d69e120ad7@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>, > One of the twisted objectives of mathematics education in the U.S. is > to "boost scores" on "mastery tests," the testing rackets that are > funded by both the State and Federal governments. These tests involve > almost all multiple-choice problems. I must admit I laughed in disbelief when I heard that the SAT was mainly multiple choice questions. SignatureChookie -- Sydney, Australia (Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply) http://chookiesbackyard.blogspot.com/ >In article ><32257b47-fe89-4c11-bb8b-65d69e120ad7@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>, >> One of the twisted objectives of mathematics education in the U.S. is >> to "boost scores" on "mastery tests," the testing rackets that are >> funded by both the State and Federal governments. These tests involve >> almost all multiple-choice problems. >I must admit I laughed in disbelief when I heard that the SAT was mainly >multiple choice questions. Not just mainly, but entirely, except for the "writing" part. And yet, it is still the best criterion of ability available. SignatureThis 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 hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 > >I must admit I laughed in disbelief when I heard that the SAT was mainly > >multiple choice questions. > > Not just mainly, but entirely, except for the "writing" part. Which is a joke -- a 25-minute essay on a general topic?! Bah. Wimps. In my day, the course for people *who wanted to go to Uni but not study English* involved two two-hour papers. The first included a 40-min essay on the compulsory Shakespeare text, a creative writing task and some short-answer questions; the second consisted of three 40-minute essays on set texts. The new syllabus is a bit different but the rigour is familiar: this is a sample question for a 40-min essay in the Standard course (ie for the average student): Choose a minimum of FOUR images from the prescribed poetry of Wilfred Owen. Explain why you have chosen them and discuss the ways in which Owen uses language to represent war in his poetry. The prescribed poems are: *The Send-Off *Anthem for Doomed Youth *Dulce et Decorum Est *Miners *Spring Offensive *Futility For the Advanced (I'm-going-to-do-a-BA) student, you might get questions like this: ŒThe process of transformation involves much more than just the adaptation of ideas and form to contemporary situations and audiences.¹ Discuss this statement in relation to the TWO prescribed texts you have studied. The prescribed texts are: € Prose Fiction and Film Jane Austen, Emma and Amy Heckerling, Clueless € Shakespeare and Drama William Shakespeare, Hamlet and Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead € Poetry and Film Geoffrey Chaucer, The Pardoner¹s Tale and Sam Raimi, A Simple Plan It is a bit harder to give an idea of our Maths questions because of the difficulties of reproducing the notation and graphs here, but here is a Standard (average student) question (worth 5 marks of the total of 120 in a 3-hour exam; ie, do it in ~7 mins): A market gardener plants cabbages in rows. The first row has 35 cabbages. The second row has 39 cabbages. Each succeeding row has 4 more cabbages than the previous row. (i) Calculate the number of cabbages in the 12th row. (ii) Which row would be the first to contain more than 200 cabbages? (iii) The farmer plants only 945 cabbages. How many rows are needed? And a question from our highest-level (gunna-be-an-engineer) course, again chosen for lack of notation difficulties (worth 2 marks of the total 120 in a 3-hour exam; ie, do it in 3 mins): (d) Consider the equation 2z^3 - 3z^2 + 18z + 10 = 0. (i) Given that 1 3i is a root of the equation,explain why 1 +3i is another root. (ii) Find all roots of the equation. My friends who took First-Year Maths at Uni told me that all the material from this high-level course, which they had sweated over for the entire previous year, was revised for the benefit of any students who hadn't done it... in the first six weeks of term! SignatureChookie -- Sydney, Australia (Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply) http://chookiesbackyard.blogspot.com/ > In article > <32257b47-fe89-4c11-bb8b-65d69e120...@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I must admit I laughed in disbelief when I heard that the SAT was mainly > multiple choice questions. The December 1992 issue of FOCUS, the newsletter of the Mathematical Association of America, contained a copy of a Japanese University Entrance Examination in mathematics. This examination is machine- graded, but it is not multiple-choice like our idiotic tests. The students must enter the answer to each problem on a grid, just as they do on a few math problems on our SATs. I cannot understand why this type of answer sheet is not used by the testing-racket crowd in the U.S. Is this crowd afraid that the pseudo-education of American students would be exposed more fully? >Loved the writing. Is it true that American students typically see maths as a >set of algorithms for solving specific problems? I think that those who love math might think otherwise, but the vast majority of American students want nothing more than to get back to their TVs, Gameboys, cellphones, IPods, to "hang with their buds" and/or with the opposite sex, and ALL school subjects stand in the way of that. Thus the object is to get the answer that the teacher or the tester wants as fast as possible. Math is no different from other subjects in this regard and probably takes more time than most, so indeed they seek to learn the fastest way to solve problems. lojbab Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist lojbab@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org >>Loved the writing. Is it true that American students typically see maths as a >>set of algorithms for solving specific problems? >I think that those who love math might think otherwise, but the vast >majority of American students want nothing more than to get back to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >subjects in this regard and probably takes more time than most, so >indeed they seek to learn the fastest way to solve problems. The problem started long before Gameboys and cellphones were around, and TV was not that much of a distraction. They want to do this largely because they have been taught this was from the beginning. The whole word method taught them to read strings of letters from memory, and not to be able to do anything if it was not memorized. The same holds for everything else. We can teach our children to be like robots, but this means we are not teaching them to do what robots can't. Those who are like robots will eventually be displaced by them. SignatureThis 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 hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 >>>Loved the writing. Is it true that American students typically see maths as a >>>set of algorithms for solving specific problems? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >They want to do this largely because they have been taught >this was from the beginning. They want to do this because they are human beings, and immature ones at that, who like to have fun, and who choose their own goals based on their own needs and wants, and as their age increases, increasingly resist authority in search of self-determination. No one has to teach them this - it is part of our biological programming. The particular outlet that the kid chooses is usually more strongly affected by his peers (as HE chooses them) and the media and sometimes an admired role model, than a parent or teacher (unless they are the admired role model, which isn't that common). lojbab Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist lojbab@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org >>>>Loved the writing. Is it true that American students typically see maths as a >>>>set of algorithms for solving specific problems? >>>I think that those who love math might think otherwise, but the vast >>>majority of American students want nothing more than to get back to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>>subjects in this regard and probably takes more time than most, so >>>indeed they seek to learn the fastest way to solve problems. >>The problem started long before Gameboys and cellphones >>were around, and TV was not that much of a distraction. >>They want to do this largely because they have been taught >>this was from the beginning. >They want to do this because they are human beings, and immature ones >at that, who like to have fun, and who choose their own goals based on >their own needs and wants, and as their age increases, increasingly >resist authority in search of self-determination. No, they have been taught NOT to think, but to memorize and regurgitate. There are a large number of children even now who would prefer to learn rather than play the "age-appropriate" games. >No one has to teach them this - it is part of our biological >programming. The particular outlet that the kid chooses is usually >more strongly affected by his peers (as HE chooses them) and the media >and sometimes an admired role model, than a parent or teacher (unless >they are the admired role model, which isn't that common). The idea that all are similar biologically is absurd. Ths schools are quite instrumental in forcing those of the same age as peers. Also, the teachers can no longer think in the basic concepts, but are trained to go for the type of primitive dross, and to evaluate by using "objective" tests. Instead of what is now done in algebra, I would like to see the students formulate the problems using many variables, and do the necessary reductions, having to take many steps. What they do should be graded on how accurate and reasonable are the steps, even if they are not the canonical ones. If a step is wrong, the rest should be graded as if it were right, although this is very likely to get the wrong overall answer. SignatureThis 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 hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 >The idea that all are similar biologically is absurd. Your genome and that of the stupidest person on earth are still 99% alike. That sounds similar to me. lojbab Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist lojbab@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org >>The idea that all are similar biologically is absurd. >Your genome and that of the stupidest person on earth are still 99% >alike. That sounds similar to me. With the great apes, it is more than 98%. The small additional portion makes a great deal of difference. I have read that two mutations, the chin and the heel, forced the normal behavior of the other genes to give a larger and more complex brain and an upright gait, presumably with natural selection on those. A few genes among the thousands are involved with the ability to do the type of thinking involved in a decent education, especially "higher" education. Nevertheless, having good genes does not help much if the corresponding development is hindered by lack of opportunity, or even by destructive measures, which can occur artificially as well. SignatureThis 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 hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 >>The idea that all are similar biologically is absurd. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist > lojbab@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org Actually, we are pretty close to chimps, even though the number of chromosomes differ. Whether it's the stupidest chimp is a matter of conjecture. "Heredity... it's all in your jeans!" "Juan M" <juanmSPAMMENOT@hotmail.com> > >>The idea that all are similar biologically is absurd. > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Actually, we are pretty close to chimps, even though the number of > chromosomes differ. True, we have one fewer pair of chromosomes -- but human chromosome #2 is just weird-looking: it has two centriomeres where "normal" chromosomes have only one, and has telomeres in the middle...in fact, if you start in the middle of our second chromosome, and start tracking outwards in both directions, you find that you're mapping something which looks suspiciously like chimp chromosomes #12 and #13, stuck end to end... Very much like those two great ape chromosomes, stuck together, in fact. Isn't that just the most intersting thing? -- cary > Whether it's the stupidest chimp is a matter of conjecture. > > "Heredity... it's all in your jeans!" >In article ><05a718d2-42eb-4ee4-af93-ee35c852ce0c@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, >> Andrei Toom's 1993 paper, "A Russian Teacher in America," which is >> reproduced at: >> http://www.inform.umd.edu/EdRes/Colleges/ARHU/Depts/CompLit/cmltgrad/JSchaub/t >> a_main/toom.html >> did an outstanding job at exposing the pseudo-educated students being >> produced in the U.S. His 2002 article, "Wars in American mathematical >> education," which is available at: >> http://michel.delord.free.fr/toomwars.pdf >> does a truly superb analysis of the NCTM "standards" and of the "math >> reform" flimflam of the past 20 years. >Loved the writing. Is it true that American students typically see maths as a >set of algorithms for solving specific problems? That is the impression I had >been getting from some discussion on mk. You are soooooo right! Oh, they also get a set of formulas to memorize, like a table of integrals. It is not their fault; this is how they are taught, and have been, from first grade on. >And where is Herman Rubin? I have been posting; have you not seen my posts on this subject? SignatureThis 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 hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 Interesting. At my public high school the only formula we every had to memorize (K through calculus) was the quadratic equation, and that's after we had derived it. My kids (in middle school) haven't memorized any equations yet, either. They tend to get tested with straight math problems and then words problems which require them to apply the straight math they've been learning. Which just goes to show that math making generalizations about education in the US isn't a good idea. --Beth Kevles bethkevles@gmail.PUT-THE-COM-HERE http://web.mit.edu/kevles/www/nomilk.html -- a page for the milk-allergic Disclaimer: Nothing in this message should be construed as medical advice. Please consult with your own medical practicioner. NOTE: No email is read at my MIT address. Use the GMAIL one if you would like me to reply. > >Loved the writing. Is it true that American students typically see maths as > >a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > memorize, like a table of integrals. It is not their fault; > this is how they are taught, and have been, from first grade on. Should I mention that standard equations are usually provided to our students in their final exams? What we consider important is the ability to solve the problem. > >And where is Herman Rubin? > > I have been posting; have you not seen my posts on this subject? I suspect some weren't cross-posted to mk and I may have missed others as I have been on holiday. SignatureChookie -- Sydney, Australia (Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply) http://chookiesbackyard.blogspot.com/ >> >Loved the writing. Is it true that American students typically see maths as >> >a >> >set of algorithms for solving specific problems? That is the impression I >> >had >> >been getting from some discussion on mk. >> You are soooooo right! Oh, they also get a set of formulas to >> memorize, like a table of integrals. It is not their fault; >> this is how they are taught, and have been, from first grade on. >Should I mention that standard equations are usually provided to our students >in their final exams? What we consider important is the ability to solve the >problem. I consider this the item of second importance. Of first importance is the ability to formulate involved word problems. For those who are NOT going to be mathematicians or doing theoretical work in their disciplines which requires doing manipulations, this is the only important part. The routine engineer needs to formulate the problem as it comes from engineering, not as one he can solve. But when it comes to solving equations, these should be ones which involve much use of the rule of equality. They should be complex enough that one can expect many to make "trivial" errors, so the work must be graded, and not the answers. >> >And where is Herman Rubin? >> I have been posting; have you not seen my posts on this subject? >I suspect some weren't cross-posted to mk and I may have missed others as I >have been on holiday. SignatureThis 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 hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 > I consider this the item of second importance. Of first importance > is the ability to formulate involved word problems. > > For those who are NOT going to be mathematicians or doing > theoretical work in their disciplines which requires doing > manipulations, this is the only important part. Glad you are happy and work as a mathematician. Did you tell about your deja vu. The ability to formulate word problems requires the ability not to freak out because of the absence of periods. So just to help you so you stop freaking out all over the place, bureaucrat that you are, here's a pile of periods for you, in stockpile, whenever word problems manage to drop them. ............................................................. Come and see me if you need more. I wouldn't want you to have a heart attack just because literate and numerate people type crappily. >The > routine engineer needs to formulate the problem as it comes > from engineering, not as one he can solve. The people in the engineering groups tells me things are still crumby in their job market. Glad I am not there. The ability to solve problems, whether it comes from engineering or "as one he can solve" (whatever that impenetrable phrase means) is somewhat useless in this economy either way. > But when it comes to solving equations, these should be ones > which involve much use of the rule of equality. Oh I forgot to tell you, management refused the alternate dispute resolution, so you shold proceed with formal rule of equality of opportunity complaint. That is where we are at the moment. Don't know why they didn't want to do that. But, on we go. mk5000 "Johhny my love, get out of the business The odds are getting fatter by the minute That I have got a bright and shiny platter And I am gonna get your heavy head"--Dance of the Seven Veils, Liz Phair >> I consider this the item of second importance. Of first importance >> is the ability to formulate involved word problems. >> For those who are NOT going to be mathematicians or doing >> theoretical work in their disciplines which requires doing >> manipulations, this is the only important part. >Glad you are happy and work as a mathematician. Did you tell about your >deja vu. >The ability to formulate word problems requires the ability not to freak out >because of the absence of periods. On the contrary, I prefer more periods; this means more variables than the small number preferred. I think you will find my sentences grammatically correct. .................. >>The >> routine engineer needs to formulate the problem as it comes >> from engineering, not as one he can solve. >The people in the engineering groups tells me things are still crumby in >their job market. Glad I am not >there. The ability to solve problems, whether it comes from engineering or >"as one he can solve" (whatever that impenetrable phrase means) is somewhat >useless in this economy either way. >> But when it comes to solving equations, these should be ones >> which involve much use of the rule of equality. >Oh I forgot to tell you, management refused the alternate dispute >resolution, so you shold proceed with formal rule of equality of opportunity >complaint. That is where we >are at the moment. Don't know why they didn't want to do that. But, on >we go. It seems you do not understand mathematical concepts. SignatureThis 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 hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 > On the contrary, I prefer more periods; this means more > variables than the small number preferred. You are abusing infinity theory > I think you will find my sentences grammatically correct. Sure Herman, sure I will. Imagine what you wish. > .................. > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > It seems you do not understand mathematical concepts. It seems you do not understand management. We own the rule of equality mk5000 "You'll come and find the place where I am lying, And kneel and say an "Ave" there for me. And I will know, 'though soft ye tread around me, And then my grave shall richer sweeter be, "--Danny Boy > > "Dom" <DR...@teikyopost.edu> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > does a truly superb analysis of the NCTM "standards" and of the "math > reform" flimflam of the past 20 years. I like the word "pseudo-educated". These bloated curriculum, instead of giving them the solid basic is killing the inquisitive nature of children to become more curious about science. >>> David Bressoud's complete article is available at: >>> http://www.maa.org/columns/launchings/launchings_09_08.html [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > of giving them the solid basic is killing the inquisitive nature of > children to become more curious about science. Ok, I'll admit to being confused. First, I've never experienced, nor does anyone I know in college, let alone public school, now experience electronically submitted math homework. Papers, yes, to check for plagiarism. Math, no. Outside of TEK or a similar program it is very difficult to type mathematically. And all this whining about "bloated curricula" is puzzling? What do you suggest be thrown out? How do you expect HS students to be prepared for college? How do you expect baccalaureate graduates to succeed in graduate school without a thorough education? Or are you suggesting a two tiered system? A college track and a retail track? A BA track and a grad school track? It wasn't too long ago that curricula were criticized for being light, for not covering necessary subjects. I cannot but suspect that this is more evidence of the shift of the public attitude against math. No longer is it only girls who are ridiculed for being good at math, now boys are being discouraged from succeeding, too. This seems just another facet of the social ostracism of the subject. "Writing in the Notices of the American Mathematical Society, Mertz and colleagues described their analysis of data from international math competitions going back to 1974. They also looked at surveys of U.S. students. "It is deemed uncool within the social context of USA middle and high schools to do mathematics for fun; doing so can lead to social ostracism. Consequently, gifted girls, even more so than boys, usually camouflage their mathematical talent to fit in well with their peers," they wrote." International students now outnumber native born students in college math programs, not because of HS curricula, but because of attitude and preparation. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081010/lf_nm_life/us_math_usa Larry > International students now outnumber native born students in college math > programs, not because of HS curricula, but because of attitude and > preparation. > > http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081010/lf_nm_life/us_math_usa So how many British folks are studying in Russian colleges vs. say Russians? mk5000 "(But Left Eye's the dime piece) Yeah, you know it's all good But I hear...it was a hood... It's like that y'all"--introlude, tlc >>>> David Bressoud's complete article is available at: >>>> http://www.maa.org/columns/launchings/launchings_09_08.html >>>> It seems to me that Bressoud failed to mention the fact that "the >>>> tremendous growth in the number of students who study calculus in high >>>> school" has produced a tremendous growth in the number of pseudo- >>>> educated students. =============================== This is not surprising. The college calculus courses are bad enough, but the high school teachers do not themselves know the meaning of limit, derivative, and integral. So they teach how to mechanically compute derivatives and anti-derivatives. The "Fundamental Theorem of Calculus" states that integrals can be computed by anti-derivatives. Most students then confuse them, and assume that is the only way. ................ >>> http://michel.delord.free.fr/toomwars.pdf >>> does a truly superb analysis of the NCTM "standards" and of the "math >>> reform" flimflam of the past 20 years. How many members of NCTM understand mathematics? >> I like the word "pseudo-educated". These bloated curriculum, instead >> of giving them the solid basic is killing the inquisitive nature of >> children to become more curious about science. >Ok, I'll admit to being confused. >First, I've never experienced, nor does anyone I know in college, let >alone public school, now experience electronically submitted math homework. >Papers, yes, to check for plagiarism. >Math, no. In some classes, it is done. What is the difference between submitting a paper electronically or having it printed? >Outside of TEK or a similar program it is very difficult to type >mathematically. Agreed. But it is done. >And all this whining about "bloated curricula" is puzzling? >What do you suggest be thrown out? The teaching of computation without foundations. Probability is taught as combinatorics. Now that is one way of getting probability answers, but is not of any other importance in probability. A few elementary textbooks now start with unequally likely events. Also, not all events are mutually exclusive or independent. In algebra, the long period of having students do word problems with a single variable. The whole idea of doing this is counterproductive. Use as many variables as convenient, and substitute using the rule of equality. These two ideas could eliminate at least half of the time of the current algebra courses, and the students will have some idea of what it means, not just how to do problems like those in the book. In ALL courses, do not give facts or procedures to be memorized as if they are the words of God. >How do you expect HS students to be prepared for college? How do you >expect baccalaureate graduates to succeed in graduate school without a >thorough education? Or are you suggesting a two tiered system? A >college track and a retail track? A BA track and a grad school track? >It wasn't too long ago that curricula were criticized for being light, >for not covering necessary subjects. >I cannot but suspect that this is more evidence of the shift of the >public attitude against math. By teaching how instead of why, the public no longer can understand mathematics. But this does not mean they should oppose it. The opposition is partly because many have great difficulty with it, even to the point that they could not pass a good course. Having courses their children cannot handle has become taboo, and this cannot but lower the level. >No longer is it only girls who are ridiculed for being good at math, now >boys are being discouraged from succeeding, too. This seems just another >facet of the social ostracism of the subject. Learning mathematics, and the science which depends on it, is not looked upon with favor by the Humanists, who believe that human actions should be based on ethics alone. We have teachers in the humanities, and in some of the "social science", who are proud of their not using mathematics. Now science cannot tell you what to do, but it can tell you much about what you can and cannot do. Do any of our present candidates know enough science to make a good decision? I believe not, and their advisers likewise do not know enough. >"Writing in the Notices of the American Mathematical Society, Mertz and >colleagues described their analysis of data from international math >competitions going back to 1974. They also looked at surveys of U.S. >students. >"It is deemed uncool within the social context of USA middle and high >schools to do mathematics for fun; doing so can lead to social >ostracism. Consequently, gifted girls, even more so than boys, usually >camouflage their mathematical talent to fit in well with their peers," >they wrote." This is a strong argument for desocializing the schools. Teach children according to their individual abilities, and make holding a child back because of any reason other than lack of ability a crime punishable by massive fines and compensation to the child for future lost income. >International students now outnumber native born students in college >math programs, not because of HS curricula, but because of attitude and >preparation. HS curricula have a lot to do with it, and the currently dumbed-down college curricula lead to graduate schools not even having any idea of what real mathematics, the important courses being abstract algebra and foundations of real analysis, which may be listed, but what is taught? >http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081010/lf_nm_life/us_math_usa >Larry SignatureThis 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 hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 >I find a few problems with this. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >How many students had a misconception of what a STEM major would entail, as >far as work load and effort? Why should any degree require more work than any other degree? >What is an "overwhelmingly fast paced curriculum", and do we want students >to determine what needs to be taught and at what pace? Can we slow the >curriculum down and still graduate students in 4 years, Maybe we should stop trying to graduate students in 4 years (as the norm) if there really is that much more to be covered than for other degrees. Two and four year degrees in this country are supposed to be granted for credit hours in the field of interest, which are based on teaching (and learning) time, as opposed to being based on achieving a certain level of competence (though passing the courses is supposed to indicate some level of competence). >especially with the credentials to pursue an advanced degree? As I see it, STEM should reinvigorate the Master's degree as a meaningful degree, but make it more like an undergraduate degree in STEM. Then the admissions to a true advanced degree (PhD) comes from demonstrating Mastery, which would require 5-6 years of coursework at a more sane level of intensity. The only people who would take a 4 year degree would be those going into K/12 teaching. >Math, believe it or not, is difficult and requires much more of an >investment of time, energy, and thought than most other majors. It shouldn't. Or rather, if it should, then the rewards for that extra investment should be a more prestigious degree even for someone not going on to a PhD. >Those of us who graduated, for example, would spend hours and hours every >week in group study session, in some courses spending 20 hours a week on >homework alone, I class that requires 20 hours of work a week, which is roughly "half-time" in the working world, should be worth 8 credits towards the degree. Of course this isn't counting class time, which would probably raise it to 10 credits. >while those that failed availed themselves of the social opportunities college afforded. ... are normal and sane human beings who should not be punished for seeking a balanced life (not to mention a BROAD education that university was supposed to be about, something that is increasingly difficult as STEM requirements are made tougher). >And no, the curriculum cannot be slowed down. Why not? Why is it necessary to *require* more of students than the adult working world requires. I have no problem with ALLOWING a Type A who wants to spend 100 hours a week studying one subject to do so, but I reject the idea that the curriculum should be designed for those people. >As recent reports in the press on careers point out, any degree less than a PHD will probably not provide >employment as a mathematician, instead qualifying a graduate for teaching or >finance, mostly. So then a PhD takes a year or two longer. Just like an MD takes more years than it did a hundred years ago. And getting an MD does require ridiculous hours of very hard work. But in the case of an MD you get out and make double what most other professions make. If you can guarantee that kind of pay to other STEM people, maybe there would be less "whining", but I doubt if there are many mathematicians who make as much as a medical doctor with a few years experience, even by the end of their careers. Study time is an investment. If the future isn't lucrative enough to justify the investment, people will choose other fields that require less work to get the same pay. lojbab Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist lojbab@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org >>I find a few problems with this. >>One, how many of the student reported problems are whining, rather than true >>problems? Failing college students are notorious for their whining. >>How many students had a misconception of what a STEM major would entail, as >>far as work load and effort? >Why should any degree require more work than any other degree? It does, it always has, and it always will. It is not more work, but different work. A bright student can learn far more than is now taught in elhi, and with far less physical work. The time needed for the mental work and physical work to get all that is far less than the time now spent in the mideducational prisons. >>What is an "overwhelmingly fast paced curriculum", and do we want students >>to determine what needs to be taught and at what pace? Can we slow the >>curriculum down and still graduate students in 4 years, >Maybe we should stop trying to graduate students in 4 years (as the >norm) if there really is that much more to be covered than for other [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >certain level of competence (though passing the courses is supposed to >indicate some level of competence). I suggest we get rid of credit hours completely. It is possible to accumulate credit hours at a snail's pace, and get enough credit hours for a junk degree, while the student taking a decent program learns far more with fewer credits. It is irrelevant how much time has been spent, but how much the person knows and can do with it is what counts. At many schools, the important courses are not even being taught. >>especially with the credentials to pursue an advanced degree? >As I see it, STEM should reinvigorate the Master's degree as a >meaningful degree, but make it more like an undergraduate degree in >STEM. Then the admissions to a true advanced degree (PhD) comes from >demonstrating Mastery, which would require 5-6 years of coursework at >a more sane level of intensity. The only people who would take a 4 >year degree would be those going into K/12 teaching. Coursework, coursework. A PhD is supposed to be not just mastery, but a demonstrated ability to do original research as well. This can even be the case for someone who does not yet have the mastery. I was doing original research, and being paid for it, even with some basic material lacking, which I made up not by course work, but by study. Those capable of getting a good undergraduate STEM degree, of the type before the dumbing down, are capable of getting it in less than the usual length of time, especially if the educationists let them go at their pace, not that of the educationists who are incapable of a decent STEM degree. >>Math, believe it or not, is difficult and requires much more of an >>investment of time, energy, and thought than most other majors. >It shouldn't. Or rather, if it should, then the rewards for that >extra investment should be a more prestigious degree even for someone >not going on to a PhD. It shouldn't, and it wouldn't without the dumbing down. Teach those with ability honest courses, without the creepy-crawlies put in for those who cannot learn the honest stuff. The geometry course I took in high school was essentially a no prerequisite course, only requiring the ability to think logically and with some degree of originality. This was recognized then as the only real mathematics course in high school. Many high schools do not give it now; it should be restored as a prerequisite for college, and it would weed out a large number. >>Those of us who graduated, for example, would spend hours and hours every >>week in group study session, in some courses spending 20 hours a week on >>homework alone, >I class that requires 20 hours of work a week, which is roughly >"half-time" in the working world, should be worth 8 credits towards >the degree. Of course this isn't counting class time, which would >probably raise it to 10 credits. Most good universities expect two hours outside class for one hour of "lecture". Again, bright students do not need to spend the time. >>while those that failed availed themselves of the social opportunities college afforded. >... are normal and sane human beings who should not be punished for >seeking a balanced life (not to mention a BROAD education that >university was supposed to be about, something that is increasingly >difficult as STEM requirements are made tougher). I had a broad curriculum. Much of that I studied and took by examination. After many decades, I remember most of the ideas, and even many details. Should I have sat in class instead? It used to be that a man did not look for a wife until he had a steady job and could support her. Now, it is the opposite. >>And no, the curriculum cannot be slowed down. >Why not? >Why is it necessary to *require* more of students than the adult >working world requires. I have no problem with ALLOWING a Type A who >wants to spend 100 hours a week studying one subject to do so, but I >reject the idea that the curriculum should be designed for those >people. It is not Type A, but the 20% of bright people and the 2% of gifted that need to be able to zoom ahead in FAR less time than the system now allows. As for those not at least above average, no amount of time will get them the knowledge and ability for a decent degree. >>As recent reports in the press on careers point out, any degree less than a PHD will probably not provide >>employment as a mathematician, instead qualifying a graduate for teaching or >>finance, mostly. You are correct. There are positions for applied masters in statistics and computer science, but not much in mathematics. >So then a PhD takes a year or two longer. Just like an MD takes more >years than it did a hundred years ago. And getting an MD does require [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >as much as a medical doctor with a few years experience, even by the >end of their careers. Most PhD's in the mathematical field take much longer to go beyond the master's than to go from the bachelor's to the master's. It is not a year or two of course work; there is often little additional course work, but being able to do original research, and carrying it out. I suspect the same is true in the other STEM fields. It is only the few who are capable of even a decent BA in the STEM fields. Why produce and certify those not able? SignatureThis 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 hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 >>As I see it, STEM should reinvigorate the Master's degree as a >>meaningful degree, but make it more like an undergraduate degree in [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >mastery, but a demonstrated ability to do original research >as well. Of course. But I am talking about achieving the mastery that must be demonstrated before starting on a PhD program, and that is what I think Larry was talking about too. >>>Those of us who graduated, for example, would spend hours and hours every >>>week in group study session, in some courses spending 20 hours a week on [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Most good universities expect two hours outside class for >one hour of "lecture". In which case the 20 hours of outside work a week that Larry referred to would mean the course should be worth 10 credits, which is what I said. >Again, bright students do not need to spend the time. I rather doubt that many DUMB students are taking STEM majors in the first place. Larry said that he and others had to spend 20 hours a week. If they hadn't been bright students, they would have taken even longer. >It used to be that a man did not look for a wife until he >had a steady job and could support her. Depends on who and where you were. There were people who got married in their teens, too. >>Why is it necessary to *require* more of students than the adult >>working world requires. I have no problem with ALLOWING a Type A who [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >of gifted that need to be able to zoom ahead in FAR less >time than the system now allows. Most people really aren't that interested in zooming ahead in college, and there are plenty of bright kids that have more than enough challenge even with the status quo. >>So then a PhD takes a year or two longer. Just like an MD takes more >>years than it did a hundred years ago. And getting an MD does require [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >beyond the master's than to go from the bachelor's to the >master's. I know. >It is not a year or two of course work; No - that is from the Bachelors to the Masters. But in some (many?) universities, PhD candidates don't even bother with a Masters - it is the consolation prize for someone who doesn't complete a PhD because they can't pass their orals or complete their research. >It is only the few who are capable of even a decent BA in >the STEM fields. Why produce and certify those not able? What YOU consider able, and what industry wants and needs in a BA graduate are two different things. lojbab Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist lojbab@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org >>>As I see it, STEM should reinvigorate the Master's degree as a >>>meaningful degree, but make it more like an undergraduate degree in >>>STEM. Then the admissions to a true advanced degree (PhD) comes from >>>demonstrating Mastery, which would require 5-6 years of coursework at >>>a more sane level of intensity. The only people who would take a 4 >>>year degree would be those going into K/12 teaching. >>Coursework, coursework. A PhD is supposed to be not just >>mastery, but a demonstrated ability to do original research >>as well. >Of course. But I am talking about achieving the mastery that must be >demonstrated before starting on a PhD program, and that is what I >think Larry was talking about too. >>>>Those of us who graduated, for example, would spend hours and hours every >>>>week in group study session, in some courses spending 20 hours a week on >>>>homework alone, >>>I class that requires 20 hours of work a week, which is roughly >>>"half-time" in the working world, should be worth 8 credits towards >>>the degree. Of course this isn't counting class time, which would >>>probably raise it to 10 credits. >>Most good universities expect two hours outside class for >>one hour of "lecture". >In which case the 20 hours of outside work a week that Larry referred >to would mean the course should be worth 10 credits, which is what I >said. Again, I doubt that the bright, or gifted, students need to spend that much time. On the other hand, spending 20 hours working with a group tossing ideas back and forth probably gets more thinking done. >I rather doubt that many DUMB students are taking STEM majors in the >first place. Larry said that he and others had to spend 20 hours a >week. If they hadn't been bright students, they would have taken even >longer. Those planning to teach math in high schools seem to be among the worst. I again remark that in the probability class I taught for students with the full calculus program, but not with real analysis, of the 21 prospective math teachers, only 5 could set up problems like those discussed in detail in the last several weeks of the course, and this on a take-home part of the final exam. The course was not intended for them, but they should have been fully qualified. Even worse, those teaching the calculus courses were not surprised that their understanding of the basic concepts was that low. >>It used to be that a man did not look for a wife until he >>had a steady job and could support her. >Depends on who and where you were. There were people who got married >in their teens, too. Yes, there were, But in most places, this was frowned upon. >>>Why is it necessary to *require* more of students than the adult >>>working world requires. I have no problem with ALLOWING a Type A who >>>wants to spend 100 hours a week studying one subject to do so, but I >>>reject the idea that the curriculum should be designed for those >>>people. >>It is not Type A, but the 20% of bright people and the 2% >>of gifted that need to be able to zoom ahead in FAR less >>time than the system now allows. >Most people really aren't that interested in zooming ahead in college, >and there are plenty of bright kids that have more than enough >challenge even with the status quo. There are far more mediocre-to-dull in college than bright. In fact, our miseducational system even drives many of the very bright out. And the bright kids are being kept busy with junk which makes it harder for them to learn later. >>>So then a PhD takes a year or two longer. Just like an MD takes more >>>years than it did a hundred years ago. And getting an MD does require [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>>as much as a medical doctor with a few years experience, even by the >>>end of their careers. >>Most PhD's in the mathematical field take much longer to go >>beyond the master's than to go from the bachelor's to the >>master's. >I know. >>It is not a year or two of course work; >No - that is from the Bachelors to the Masters. But in some (many?) >universities, PhD candidates don't even bother with a Masters - it is >the consolation prize for someone who doesn't complete a PhD because >they can't pass their orals or complete their research. >>It is only the few who are capable of even a decent BA in >>the STEM fields. Why produce and certify those not able? >What YOU consider able, and what industry wants and needs in a BA >graduate are two different things. There are a few dead end positions, unless one goes into management, for those with BA's in the STEM fields, except for high school teaching. It is even worse now than it was 30 years ago, where in most fields the basic material has left the undergraduate curriculum at many schools. When a student applies to graduate school, it is often impossible for the members of the graduate committee to tell what the courses taken contained. SignatureThis 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 hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 > In article <g1h0e45snp6pk1elt1p7o4g3a22hoi4...@4ax.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 108 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I'm a graduating Math major (BA) at my university right now, and I can say that our numbers are few. I did, however, work as a Peer Counselor for freshman orientations. As such I had access to things such as SAT scores and high school backgrounds; I was advising the students who would be entering STEM fields. When we say "dumb" students do not choose these majors, I have to hold up the red flag. Many students who barely are accepted into university (poor class rank, SAT scores, for example) actually choose a pre-medical Biology or Chemistry track, and many of them actually start out in the Math requirement course. Working with a very prestigious professor from the department of Math, we could only shake our heads and wonder why the university admitted students with, say, a class rank in the bottom 30% and a Math SAT score of 240 into the Math BA program, only to place them in the makeup Math course-already a semester behind. Sometimes they would take exams during the orientation and many would score only 2 or 3 out of 25 very basic math problems correct. But can we truly label those students as dumb? I wouldn't. But, the excuse of not being able to test well simply does not fly in a program like Math or other STEM majors, where being able to produce proper solutions on paper is difficult to measure outside of general testing. It is here that I must say after the two years of freshman orientation leadership, I've helped push and advise students into departments like Biology, where the school has the highest fail rate... either high schools aren't doing their job in preparing these students for real college work, or universities are admitting too many students who simply aren't capable of college work yet, all in the name of diversity. On Oct 6, 12:35 am, barryl...@gmail.com wrote: > It is here that I must say after the two years of freshman orientation > leadership, I've helped push and advise students into departments like > Biology, where the school has the highest fail rate... >"either high > schools aren't doing their job in preparing these students for real > college work, or universities are admitting too many students who > simply aren't capable of college work yet" Both. >all in the name of diversity.- Colleges are admitting too many students. But not in the name of diversity.... They will admit anyone who can pay the tuition. It is $$$ that is driving such admissions. > On Oct 6, 12:35 am, barryl...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > diversity.... They will admit anyone who can pay the tuition. > It is $$$ that is driving such admissions. Absolutely, especially in the public colleges. Government aid to higher education has plummeted, requiring a higher and higher percentage of costs being paid for by tuition. Larry >> Colleges are admitting too many students. But not in the name of >> diversity.... They will admit anyone who can pay the tuition. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Government aid to higher education has plummeted, requiring a higher and >higher percentage of costs being paid for by tuition. There ya go.. Capitalism and the free market at work. SignatureDorothy There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens .. The Outer Limits >On Oct 6, 12:35 am, barryl...@gmail.com wrote: >> It is here that I must say after the two years of freshman orientation [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Both. I think high schools aren't doing that preparation. It was a severe culture shock when I went to college, even though I was a bright kid, and it was an even more severe shock to go from a community college to a university. But it wasn't the difficulty of the academics per se, but the independence and self-management. Key elements: Classes are mostly lectures, and not spent "going over the homework" as in high school. Students having problems do not ask questions in class, but are expected to approach the professor during office hours, on their own, for which there is no parallel in high school. Office hours might be scheduled during a different class, making them difficult to take advantage of. Classes are rarely every day, and missing even one or two can put someone way behind. If such a thing as an excused absence exists, it is entirely on the student to find a way to make up the work, get notes, do the homework on their own. High schools have lax attendance policies, allow makeup work for excused absences and excuses are easily obtained, and teachers bend over backwards to accommodate such students. In college, students are expected to study and read their textbooks without any explicit assignment. High schoolers are used to having their study time budgeted, and indeed there are policies in place to prevent someone from getting overloaded from multiple classes having big assignments due on the same day. No such policies in college. College has very few class hours and much expected out-of-class work. Increasingly, high schools have eschewed homework, and considered in-class work in its stead. Thus a full time student goes from 30+ hours of structured class time per week with relatively little homework to 15 hours of class time, with students expected to set aside and self-manage 30 hours of time on their own. Very few kids have the self-discipline to do this, and many are working full time, and simply don't have the time even if they had the self-discipline. If students are living off-campus and away from home, many of them are also for the first time experiencing not having mom and dad around to pay the bills, do the food shopping and meal preparation, clean the house, and deal with the trials and tribulations of roommates skipping out without paying rent, having cars break down, needing a home repair in a hurry. Being an adult itself takes a time investment, and most kids don't face this until they first are out on their own, which is increasing the first day of college. Without any mentor, most kids have to figure out all these changes on their own and then figure out how to deal with them on their own. There are many more such distractions these days than there were when the parents were in school, so even parents cannot necessarily give optimal advice. lojbab Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist lojbab@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org On Sep 30, 5:34 pm, hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote: > In article <g1h0e45snp6pk1elt1p7o4g3a22hoi4...@4ax.com>, > Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 113 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I'm a graduating Math major (BA) at my university right now, and I can say that our numbers are few. I did, however, work as a Peer Counselor for freshman orientations. As such I had access to things such as SAT scores and high school backgrounds; I was advising the students who would be entering STEM fields. When we say "dumb" students do not choose these majors, I have to hold up the red flag. Many students who barely are accepted into university (poor class rank, SAT scores, for example) actually choose a pre-medical Biology or Chemistry track, and many of them actually start out in the Math requirement course. Working with a very prestigious professor from the department of Math, we could only shake our heads and wonder why the university admitted students with, say, a class rank in the bottom 30% and a Math SAT score of 240 into the Math BA program, only to place them in the makeup Math course-already a semester behind. Sometimes they would take exams during the orientation and many would score only 2 or 3 out of 25 very basic math problems correct. But can we truly label those students as dumb? I wouldn't. But, the excuse of not being able to test well simply does not fly in a program like Math or other STEM majors, where being able to produce proper solutions on paper is difficult to measure outside of general testing. It is here that I must say after the two years of freshman orientation leadership, I've helped push and advise students into departments like Biology, where the school has the highest fail rate... either high schools aren't doing their job in preparing these students for real college work, or universities are admitting too many students who simply aren't capable of college work yet, all in the name of diversity. I have taught at both public school and grad school levels. My favorite way to engage my students is to have them use casino games to calculate odds and probability. It's quite something to see 25 or so adults rulling dice during class. To make a long answer short, th;e house wins. (big surprise) . >> In article <g1h0e45snp6pk1elt1p7o4g3a22hoi4...@4ax.com>, >> [quoted text clipped - 135 lines] > simply aren't capable of college work yet, all in the name of > diversity. In my experience, as noted, the problems is not intelligence or ability. At my university many students admitted conditionally, required to spend their first semesters in remedial English and Math, were quite intelligent, and a few even graduated. The problem was a lack of commitment to education. While some have pooh poohed the amount of time I claimed I and my math major pals spent on homework, one truism of college success is the requirement to do the work, often hard work. And many, many college students are not willing to do the work, as evidenced by the high drop out rate. About half of the math majors I matriculated with changed their majors because they were not willing to do the work, not because they were unable to do it. Even more disheartening, many students have a bias against certain subjects. The most amazing thing in my experience was to have business majors with the requirement to pass just a single math class paying me hundreds of dollars to tutor them half way through the spring semester of their senior year. And about a quarter failed to graduate because they were more interested in the graduation parties than in studying or turning in assignments. And they got to pay me hundreds more to tutor them that summer!! Every one eventually graduated. Larry >In my experience, as noted, the problems is not intelligence or ability. >At my university many students admitted conditionally, required to spend >their first semesters in remedial English and Math, were quite >intelligent, and a few even graduated. > >The problem was a lack of commitment to education. or rather a lack of understanding what "commitment to education" means. In high school, it means paying attention in class, doing any apecific assignments, and then party, party!, PARTY!. For many college kids it is the same way, but college professors expect self-direction and self-management from kids who never had a reason to learn how. >The most amazing thing in my experience was to have business majors with >the requirement to pass just a single math class paying me hundreds of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >assignments. And they got to pay me hundreds more to tutor them that >summer!! Every one eventually graduated. And then went on to make a thousand times what they paid you, thus showing they had mastered the concept of business %^) lojbab Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist lojbab@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org >>I find a few problems with this. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Why should any degree require more work than any other degree? Because they do. Graduation requirements are determinied by regulatory agencies (like for Ed or Eng or nutrition) or by individual departments or colleges which may have different agendas, not least of which is preparaton for grad school. At my alma mater, for example, a degree in elementary ed required no more than survey courses in the 4 basic subjects, yet a degree in secondary education required the very same survey courses AND the same education courses, plus a BA in your subject. It is the nature of college course work that a 400 level Asian History course is more difficult than a 200 level history of the world course. A similar dichotomy exists across majors. At first blush a major in music might seem to be easy. but the requirement for proficiency in at least 2 different types of instrument and requirements for 4 performances a year meant huge amounts of practice time were necessary. A degree in performing arts required participation in one performance a semester, on stage or back stage.. Degrees in computer science required 2 physics courses without calculus. Math degrees required 2 physics courses with calculus. Now yes, math majors were better able to do the calc work, but the work load was much more sgnificant (4 credit vs 3 credit) in the calculus based courses AND they required a lab ( I know, I took the calc physics courses and tutored the non-calc courses). And math majors did not get the same break --- the 12 required credits of comp sci were not second tier, but the same courses comp sci majors took. Some degees had different requirements for graduation. A degree in education ( a requirement for certification) or math ( to meet grad school requirements) required a 3.0 in your major and overall while a business degree (ugh) for ex, required a 2.0 overall. A math also degree required a minimum of 9 graduate level credits (from a menu) for a BS, a degree in communication required none. Some degrees, like language, business, journalism, and English requried little course work outside of the major. Others, like social work, history and philosophy required much course work outside of the major. Yes, this is anecdotal and does not map directly to other schools, but I have rarely seen it not played out in some form or another (except in degree mills like Falwell U). Larry >>What is an "overwhelmingly fast paced curriculum", and do we want students >>to determine what needs to be taught and at what pace? Can we slow the [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist > lojbab@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org >David Bressoud's complete article is available at: >http://www.maa.org/columns/launchings/launchings_09_08.html >It seems to me that Bressoud failed to mention the fact that "the >tremendous growth in the number of students who study calculus in high >school" has produced a tremendous growth in the number of pseudo- >educated students. >College Calculus: What We Don't Know ... >The transition from high school to college mathematics is one of the >most critical junctures in the preparation of individuals to meet the >mathematical demands of the 21st century in engineering, in business, >and in the natural, mathematical, biological, and social sciences. It should not be so, and was not always so. The problem is the throwing away of any mathematical, as distinct from algorithmic, material in the elementary and high schools. The great bulk of those graduating high school do not know any of the fundamental material; the use of variables for anything, the ideas of proof, of rigorous construction, etc. They do not know, and it is difficult to teach in the so-called remedial course, induction, which is a key property of the natural numbers. >I've written in many of these columns about the discouraging number of >students who pursue mathematics in college at the level of calculus >and above, despite the tremendous growth in the number of students who >study calculus in high school. It appears that we are losing many >students who would like to pursue a mathematically intensive career >and are capable of learning the mathematics they would need. Are they capable? They might have been capable as children, but the curriculum drives that ability out of them, Restore proofs, and teach the concepts, not just the manipulation. Then we will not have college students who complain, "Don't teach me the `theory'! Just teach me how to do the problems which will be on the exam!" >As Elaine Seymour and Nancy Hewitt have documented [1], it is not just >the under-prepared students we are losing. Poor teaching, an [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >as overwhelming, and 52% felt that advising and help with academic >problems was inadequate (page 33). If the concepts are stressed, and if the course can proceed in this manner despite the pleas of the physicists and engineers that their students need calculus manipulations "yesterday", it can be done. Anyhow, they do not need the manipulations, which computers can do, but they need to know what a derivative and an integral MEAN. Right now, very few of them have any understanding whatever, and this does not come from learning the tricks of computing. Only those doing original research or computer programming need that. Making student like machines, and TESTING them that way, can never provide the understanding. I believe, and so do others, that the reason the Greeks never developed calculus was the lack of adequate notation; adequate algebraic notation was late 16th century, and it was not until the 18th that Euler introduced the idea that a function could be denoted by a symbol. Do not expect students to develop the concepts by some osmotic method; just teach them! SignatureThis 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 hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 > David Bressoud's complete article is available at: > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > the under-prepared students we are losing. Poor teaching, > an overwhelmingly fast paced curriculum, I am glad to know that I - just started subbing this fall; have a master of science degree - am not the only one who thinks so. I was teaching a 7th grade last week where the topics was "Measurement of Length". After stating the topic, I explained to them that "meter" was the unit for meter, etc. Of course, they were not paying attention and then were confused and asking what is the unit for "Measurement of Length". makes me wonder what and how their regular teachers (not just current one but in previous years) has been teaching them. After reading this I, originally from Asia, now understands why most people in US grew up to be majoring in something other than Math and Science. > and poor advising and support > are leading reasons given by students who abandon the STEM (Science, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > as overwhelming, and 52% felt that advising and help with academic > problems was inadequate (page 33). > I am glad to know that I - just started subbing this fall; have a > master of science degree - am not the only one who thinks so. I was > teaching a 7th grade last week where the topics was "Measurement of > Length". After stating the topic, I explained to them that "meter" > was the unit for meter, etc. That is *a* unit of length. > Of course, they were not paying > attention and then were confused and asking what is the unit for > "Measurement of Length". makes me wonder what and how their regular > teachers (not just current one but in previous years) has been > teaching them. Probably they were usually taught that length is usually measured in inches, feet, yards, and miles, since those are the units most commonly used by ordinary people in the US. And when kids do measure in the metric system, they measure in cm, which means that the unit of length for them is the centimeter. That the centimeter is a derived unit from a meter may or may not be understood - it is still *a* unit. It isn't clear from your paraphrasing the situation, but the confusion might have come from a misunderstanding of your use of "the" unit when there are many different units used to measure length > After reading this I, originally from Asia, now understands why most > people in US grew up to be majoring in something other than Math and > Science. Backwards. BECAUSE most people do not major in math and science, whatever they know about the metric system is forgotten once they leave school, and they aren't especially supportive of efforts to teach their kids that "other" system that is used by "pointy-headed elites" and "foreigners". lojbab On Oct 13, 11:27 am, curious <curiousnfirew...@yahoo.com> wrote: > I am glad to know that I - just started subbing this fall; have a > master of science degree - am not the only one who thinks so. I was > teaching a 7th grade last week where the topics was "Measurement of > Length". After stating the topic, I explained to them that "meter" > was the unit for meter, etc. That is *a* unit of length. > Of course, they were not paying > attention and then were confused and asking what is the unit for > "Measurement of Length". makes me wonder what and how their regular > teachers (not just current one but in previous years) has been > teaching them. Probably they were usually taught that length is usually measured in inches, feet, yards, and miles, since those are the units most commonly used by ordinary people in the US. And when kids do measure in the metric system, they measure in cm, which means that the unit of length for them is the centimeter. That the centimeter is a derived unit from a meter may or may not be understood - it is still *a* unit. It isn't clear from your paraphrasing the situation, but the confusion might have come from a misunderstanding of your use of "the" unit when there are many different units used to measure length > After reading this I, originally from Asia, now understands why most > people in US grew up to be majoring in something other than Math and > Science. Backwards. BECAUSE most people do not major |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message