How to improve U.S. math and science education?

Great Debates
21

Hyperelastic, by way of clarification, the term “professional” as used in U.S. immigration law (either for H-1B visa or permanent residency purposes) means that the position normally requires a minimum of a bachelor’s degree or equivalent (either equivalent foreign degree, work experience, or a combination of education and experience). That means it applies to all sorts of jobs, most of which also do not require a professional license or advanced degree of any kind. Biologists, finance and marketing people, accountants, teachers, lawyers, human resources professionals, management consultants – all these positions have historically been classified as “professional” under U.S. immigration law.

Also, it’s a common misconception that to hire a foreign worker in H-1B status, an employer has to show that no U.S. workers are available. That’s true for permanent residence purposes in most cases, but not generally true in the H-1B context. And honestly, my heart does not bleed for some of the U.S. IT workers complaining that foreigners are driving down their salaries when they were making six figures for jobs that don’t require any higher level of education and experience than mine does (and in some cases, far less). I ain’t makin’ no six figures, nor is my father, who is an Ivy-degreed engineer with an MBA and 40 years of professional experience, most of it in management. Besides, I’d be greatly indebted to the person who can explain to me how an annual quota of 65,000 H-1Bs can make an appreciable dent in the wages of U.S. workers, even if every single H-1B went to someone in a technical field.

Eva Luna, U.S. Immigration Paralegal

22

Eventually, one gets to the point where math has little to do with numbers and number crunching; that tends to be the last step of a long game of logic in higher math. That’s what ultrafilter is getting at, I believe.

With that in mind, it would be great if we could skip all that tedious work, but symbolic math - though potentially having less grunt work - is much more abstract and thus more difficult to grasp.

Truth be told, I saw very, very little use in math until I got midway through calculus; discrete math, linear algebra, and differential equations really showed me the challenge and the utility of mathematics. However, there was a critical time between algebra I and II where I hated math, and it had to do with the drudgery of it. Algebra II focused too heavily on how to do it, not why. It became the same old crap, but only more complex and more time consuming.

(Luckily, when I was forced to go on with math in JC, I had a string of charismatic and interesting teachers that made the process look logical, interesting, and above all - effortless. Except for combinatorics. I’ll be damned if there’s a soul that approaches combinatorics effortlessly.)

I have a feeling that a lack of challenge and utility in the way we teach math and science is hurting things, on the school side. As for the student, the social stigma of being a good student can do it. Plus, kids these days - watching TV, playing video games, doing a billion-and-one extracurricular activities… in my day, math meant a pencil and paper, and maybe a calculator - but a cheap, solar Casio, and we had to walk threemilesuphillbothways just so we could point it at the sun, for the privilege of crunching some numbers… :wink:

It’s a two-way street, for sure. But if my teachers were poor, the cost/benefit analysis of pursuing math - even though it was critical to my advancement - would not have been so clear-cut. Eventually it does get to the point where the way the subject is taught can impact how well it is learned.

Taken to the extreme, I could ask if you have a PhD, and if not - can’t you be bothered to get one?! :stuck_out_tongue:

23

I was stuck for weeks in math in highschool. I just could not wrap my head around what the teacher was saying. He refused to explain in a meaningful way. I stayed home for a week from school and spent that week studying on my own learning. I came back and aced the test. During that week, I found that much of what the teacher asserted in class was simply false. It did not make sense because it was actually nonsense. Sure, if you followed his rote “this times this plus this times this, it is just a little sing song!” you would get some of the answers, but you would never know why or what they really meant.

I had smaller blocks earlier in school when there was a topic that did not connect logically to what we had done before. Sometimes I was lucky enough to have a teacher that could explain it one on one, or another adult who could, but other times, I did badly at that topic until I either figured out how prove it to myself or found a book to guide me through the proof.

So at what point is it not the learner and it is the teacher? never?

24

The problem with math and science is, it’s hard. I say this as someone who pretty much maxed-out at calculus and never had much desire to go beyond that. I like science, but I would be a piss-poor physicist or phsycial chemist, because the more abstruse the maths, the less able I am to perform well at it.

The sad fact: I’m not smart enough to really excell in the area of maths, and by extension, the physical sciences. I work as a biologist because that’s about as much as I can cope with. There’s no one to blame; it’s just the way things are.

Is the US system really so bad, or do we just have, on average, fewer smart people? This seems to be a question that simply doesn’t get asked. The assumption is always: American students underperform, and hence there’s something wrong with the system. Is that the reality? Do we have that baseline assumption throughly established?

25

How early do we absorb the cultural idea that math is hard and boring, and that girls do not do math? I can’t remember when I got that idea, but I know that by 7th or 8th grade, it was something I knew–despite my parents’ braininess and my dad’s efforts to teach us fun with math (which I did enjoy, but not by the time I was 12 and he tried to show me how algebra worked).

Bad teachers also have a lot to do with it; not necessarily high-school teachers but elementary teachers who do not teach arithmetic thoroughly or well. Since math is cumulative, one lost or badly taught step means possible years of math difficulty. (My 4th-grade teacher was very nice, but failed completely to bother to teach us long division, so I floundered in 5th grade. My 8th grade algebra teacher, too, was not helpful. And my brother never even memorized the multiplication tables, which becomes a life-long problem.)

I was in college, taking trig, before I realized that I had actually enjoyed math for the past few years. And all these stories are pretty pointless except for the fact that I’m one of the lucky ones! I did better than an awful lot of other girls, all of whom knew by age 10 that math is not for girls and it’s boring and hard besides.

I think the situation is probably similar with science. We don’t have fun with it early enough, the early textbooks (which aren’t as good as hands-on experiences anyway) aren’t very good, elementary teachers aren’t very often enthusiastic or well-grounded in their knowledge (a first-grade teacher I worked with didn’t think there was any water in milk), and everyone over 10 knows, for an absolute fact, that science is boring and for nerds.

I think we’d have to change the cultural knowledge we have and have really good elementary teachers for things to get better. High school is frequently too late to try to repair the damage.

26

This is a topic very dear to my heart. I agree with John Allen Paulos that “innumeracy” is as big a social problem as illiteracy, and ignorance (and lack of respect for) science is also quite a problem. Articulating why it’s a problem is difficult. So what if people are stupid? Less competition for the good jobs, right? I just imagine that a more reasonable and enlightened population will handle problems better, and an ignorant population will create those problems.

27

Oh, and how about I take a wild shot at answering the question?

Kids don’t learn much in school, really. To learn they need to spend more time on the subject, at home. They might read, watch documentaries, or whatever, to help bolster knowledge of things like reading and history. They rarely spend any time on math.

That is why, with my own kids, I will do things like challenge them to guess the number of miles we’ve driven, the number of steps we’re about to climb, etc. I get them to think in numbers. I also talk to them about why the leaves change color, how things work, etc. Even very young children can begin to learn about math and science. No, I would never brutalize them with flash cards, but just talk to them about the math and science that’s involved with our every day activities.

28

I ask once again: Can we say, with certainty, that the reason US students do more poorly in math and science than students in other industrialized nations, is because our educational system is inferior? Has that been firmly established, or are we asking the wrong questions? What are the alternative hypotheses? Have those been explored fully?

It just seems to me that pedagogy is a very imprecise science, and that there isn’t much in the way of hard data to insure that, with the vastly complicated issue we’re dealing with, all the possible explanations for American underperformance have been approached thoroughly.

29

For the first question, why do you assume that students in the US do more poorly than students in other industrialized countries. This data is always based on tests, but there is no “global test” (chuckle) that all kids take. They take different tests! Any assumptions made by different standardized tests is suspect.

For the second point, see my previous post. It’s not about the system. There is actually a lot of really good and innovative stuff in K-12 math and science. Kids need to have that work reinforced by their parents and the culture for it to stick.

30

It’s not an assumption. Every study I’ve ever seen published about it states the same thing: Americans, despite our wealth, are mediocre math students.

Example:

http://www.ncpa.org/pi/edu/pdedu/pdedu96.html

31

It’s often said that those with a true aptitude for math and science are in high demand for other careers. You do find some who also love to teach and will pursue teaching despite the lure of industry, but the overall hypothesis is that there is a shortage of those types. And that this is part of the problem–not enough students have these truly great, enthusiastic, math- and science-gifted teachers.

Math really can be beatuiful and interesting. I’m intrigued by new methods and programs that try to breed enthusiasm for math and science early. Montessori schools are set up to start concepts of multiplication and division at the preprimary level.

32

Note that the NCPA is a conservative “think-tank” committed to privatizing education. It is therefore their mission to show that the schools are broken and failing. They cherry pick the results of the study, failing to mention, for example, that US schools fared above the international average. They also say that the US scored 28th when it was really 19th. I guess they can’t count because they went to schools in the US. :wink:

This is the study their referring to:

http://nces.ed.gov/timss/results.asp#mathscience1999

You may have the impression that the schools did worse than average after reading the results as encapsulated on the NCPA site. In fact, US schools are above average. The poor quality of US schools is an urban legend. I say that because it’s one of those things everyone has heard and assumes is true, without really looking into it.

33

I find it ironic to look at the thread list for great debates, and see a single-page discussion entitled “how to improve US math and Science education.” The thread directly above it is a 7±page thread titled “Can ghosts be scientifically proven to exist?”

34

I characterized engineers as “quasi-professional” only to make the point that most engineers are in it for the money and do not view the profession as a “calling”. The general drift of this thread, like most discussions of the supposed shortage of engineers, therefore completely misses the point. Trying to get kids interested in science is like trying to get them to like peanut butter - all you can do is get them to try it, and then they either like it, or they don’t.

You say it is a common misconception that employers have to prove that no U.S. worker will take a job before hiring an H-1B - it’s a common misconception because it’s common sense! It’s the law that is nonsensical. The cap is as high as it is only because of incessant corporate whining and meddling.

Whether anyone “deserves” a certain standard of living is a whole different topic. The country is full of rich sociopaths. But the fact is that we have a capitalist economy, and people are paid what the market will bear. The thing that grinds me is how corporations will do absolutely anything to prevent their employees from unionizing on the pretext that it’s antithetical to free markets, then turn around and bribe the government into changing the immigration laws when that same free market starts to drive wages higher than they feel like paying.

There is no shortage of engineers in America. There may well be too few engineers to keep the economy healthy, but that’s because the country thinks it can get along without them. When more engineering positions open up, wages will go up, more people will be attracted to the profession…no problem.

35

A 16 year old enrolled at the “best in the county” public highschool checking in.

Reiterating what others have posted above: from what I have seen the US does NOT stress learning why things work, rather than the fact that they do. Most lower-level teachers use their ignorance to condemn the students, in all actuality. Owing to the nature of their course, they should be significantly well versed in the topics. This, however, is most often not the case. If asked a question most teachers will either ignore the student if said student is historically known to be “bright” or will employ circle logic to return to a prior taught example, to show to the class who wasn’t “paying attention.” Since a rebuttal always encounters the same treatment, a series of questions, dodging, and hopefully embarassment has the desired result of reducing student participation in class. This, regrettably, is notorious for classes with unmotivated students, which obviously does little to inspire them. The most advanced classes, while not always an attempt to embarass kids into apathy to cover the teacher’s ineffiencies, will sometimes subcumb to this as well.

Advanced classes in math and science are equally frustrating for someone engaged in the topics discussed; the theoritical opposite class and student from those mentioned above. “College level classes,” while cleverly disguising themselves behind a title, are horribly misconstrued attempts to promote the growth of a basic knowledge without, once again, teaching why things work. As my AP Calculus teacher has said about me, one of the few kids who has managed to escape the confinements of the education system: “Oh, he knows calculus. It is the basics that he is here for.” Cookie cutting is what it boils down to. Kids are taught essentially that true genius is in memerizing formulas or other trivia, which is not correct regardless of your stance on intelligence. “Why do these attract? Uh, they just do… see? I have a ‘+’ on this one and ‘-’ on this one. Those always attract.” “Why do elements try to get to a noble gas configuration? Geez, I just told you! All elements try to go to a noble gas configuration!” “That is a really cool conjecture, mathematically sound and really clarifies the work, but regardless I won’t question it. My way is right and has been proven to be right, so we will go with that.”

For those who hate math and science, only to complete what they ask of you to graduate, it is a frustrating barage of regurtation and medal parading. For those who absolutely love math and science, who go to classes to learn all there is to learn, it is a frustrating barage of regurtation and medal parading. This is not going to be anything more than dentrimental to the body of science and math. Uninspired, unmotivated kids are not going to become highly significant pioneers in any given field, be it science or math. This is the case in America.

36

Pretty damn difficult, at least in my case.

I went from grade-level math in 8th grade (California school) to below-grade level in high school (Texas school). I didn’t get more stupid over the summer; I ended up with teachers who couldn’t teach, and didn’t care that they couldn’t teach. They were sports coaches who had to teach something to justify their existence, so they were assigned math. All they’d do was write out a few examples from the book and let us go at it while they diagrammed football plays. I didn’t get it because I don’t learn that way. And when I’d ask for help, I was told to sit down and shut up because I should have been paying attention. So I quit asking anyone for help. In any event, admitting that I couldn’t even do basic algebra meets with derision because it’s so “easy”. Surprisingly, I did well in geometry because I had actual teachers who weren’t too busy coaching sports and who took the time to make it fun and show us how it worked.

I am so utterly incompetent at math that I am useless without a calculator. I understand now that, while I have a solid foundation in arithmetic, I can’t do algebra to save my life because I wasn’t taught properly at the outset. I can solve a geometric problem well, but I am lost when it comes to algebra. I blame my teachers because that’s where the blame belongs. Not all of them are competent in their assigned subjects.

Robin

37

At my university, there has been a new method developed for teaching math in secondary schools. All I know is, it’s called CORE-Plus, and most of my collegues over in the math department like it. Being an English major, I haven’t the slightest idea what it’s all about.

Here’s the link

38

I’ve probably used this example here before, but I was a part of the generation that first had to contend with what was called “The New Math.” We suddenly went from a conventional arithmetic-based program to getting a haphazard pile of mathematics thrown at us. As a result I was studying set theory in the fourth grade. I finally got to use it when I took a class in database theory THIRTY YEARS LATER! Prior to that it had been a sidetrack that went nowhere.

Don’t discount the value of that lesson! :wink:

" 3. Earth is composed of land, air, and water." And what, I ask you, about fire? How the hell are you supposed to develop an understanding of physical sciences unless you include ALL of the elements?

I told you I went through school a long time ago.

39

The only value in the lesson that labwork is drudgery is that the drudgery has the potential to lead to surprising and interesting results, and is therefore worth enduring. When you’ve spent four class periods hearing how Galileo showed that falling objects attain the same speed regardless of size, move on from there in lecture, then, a week and a half later, you go into a lab with some balls and inclined planes, there is no surprise waiting for you, only the busywork.

40

I understand it’s important.

Are there a lot of people who can’t do basic math? The idea of someone I know personally not being able to calculate interest of a mortgage is as foreign to me as knowing someone who can’t read. I mean you don’t need to be able to solve differential equations but you should be able to figure out the change due you at the grocery store.