Andrew Hacker thinks that it is not (nytimes). We’ve had this conversation before, but I don’t recall any cogent external links, so why not have it again? In essence, “Making mathematics mandatory prevents us from discovering and developing young talent. In the interest of maintaining rigor, we’re actually depleting our pool of brainpower.” Youth are excluded from further education (they can’t get into a good college, or perhaps can’t graduate) due to their poor performance in a topic that has little relevance to their talents that, if developed, could better society. Quantitative reasoning is certainly important, but polynomials? Less so.
Or at least I think that’s what he’s getting at.
I have knee-jerk discomfort with this argument. I’ve always viewed algebra as a rather elementary topic that really ought to be learned before high school, and that it is not learned due to poor math instruction, imploding home life, etc. This opinion is colored by being at a school where even the lackluster students had a year of algebra by the time they finished 8th grade, and from playing catch-up with many a struggling student whose problem was not algebra, but the basic math functions leading up to it. While it’s satisfying to have a student that the public school says is just shy of retarded, and take him up to and past grade level (he’s in college now and doing just fine), it’s frustrating to think of how many students like that couldn’t get the extra help.
That said, how much math do we really need? My scoffing at what I see as math for 13-year-olds doesn’t mean that spending time on it is worthwhile. But if it is, why not set the cutoff higher? Why not expect linear algebra, calculus (single and several variable), and differential equation for all? I didn’t take some of those, and I’m not hurting for it (how do I really know that though?), but are they any less valuable than the two years of algebra we ask for from children? Why not set the cutoff lower? The author writes, “Of course, people should learn basic numerical skills: decimals, ratios and estimating, sharpened by a good grounding in arithmetic.” But how much of that is enough? I really don’t know. Should we set the cutoff for what is useful to the typical adult? That would be low, I think. Or should we set it higher so students (who most likely have no clue what they’ll do when they grow up) have more options later in life? If we just want to teach analytical skills, does it have to be in a math class, or could it be through another method?
I’ll leave things at that, as my head is sufficiently tangled by this point. I must apologize in advance; I’m leaving for a work trip this afternoon and will only be checking in here once a day at most.
It’s too much for this thread, but we could certainly have interesting spin-off conversations for any topic that is or could be taught. Science, history, linguistics, languages, etc.