# My Calculus Rant **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 12, 2019, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-calculus-rant/831020 "2019-03-12T19:34:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Wrenching\_Spanners](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ecb155/32.png) [@Wrenching\_Spanners](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wrenching_Spanners)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2019, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-calculus-rant/831020/21 "2019-03-12T23:32:21Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > The set of “everyone” and the set of “every real account” may overlap, but not as much as you think. > > The vast majority of people are NOT accountants, not even fake ones. They have no need to understand the theory and inner workings of double-entry bookkeeping. > [@](#): > > **Broomstick** Double-entry bookkeeping? Seriously? Are you going to require competence in using an abacus and a slide-rule, too? Who the hell does double-entry bookkeeping anymore? An understanding of double-entry accounting is more-or-less equivalent to an understanding of trigonometry. It’s not necessary for a basic real-world view on how things work. It’s absolutely essential if you’re involved in a field that uses the concepts of that discipline. I know basically nothing about bridge building. I remember a few things from high school about levers. In trigonometry class, I remember a few applied math problems about suspension bridges. I’m sure that civil engineers have a greater understanding of applied trigonometry than I do. I know a bit more about corporate financial reporting than bridge building. It’s a fundamental concept that your credits and debits will net to zero. Indeed, there’s usually a check line on trial balance reports that ensures all account balances have been categorised. Furthermore, at the end of the year, revenues minus expenses equals profits. That profit (or loss) is moved onto the balance sheet as retained earnings, which is categorised as equity. Corporate reporting of a company’s balance sheet is a basic, required component of annual reporting. God help a company that submits a end-of-year financial report where assets minus liabilities \<\> equity. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2019, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-calculus-rant/831020/22 "2019-03-12T23:44:51Z")
Yes, but the vast majority of people are NOT the folks making sure the books balance. That’s my point. Would it _hurt_ people to learn a bit about double-entry bookkeeping? No, but frankly, I’d rather the time be spent on, say, learning a second language (such as Spanish in the US) which is arguably far more useful on a practical level for most people. There are only so many hours in the school day and we can’t teach everything to people before they’re 18. If you’ve mastered basic arithmetic and entry-level algebra then if you need double-entry bookkeeping down the line it won’t be hard to pick up the basics and go from there - meanwhile, kids need to be able to write coherent sentence, cook a meal, think logically, know some history, and a bunch of other stuff before they get to college. ---
**Author:** ![MollyCatherine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/bc79bd/32.png) [@MollyCatherine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MollyCatherine)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2019, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-calculus-rant/831020/23 "2019-03-12T23:51:55Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > Personally, I think grade school math should build towards a good understanding of statistics, simply because statistics is useful for everyone and morally necessary to prevent people from being mislead… Aren’t they doing this now? Content I learned in AP Stats is now being taught as part of the standard middle school curriculum in the same district. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2019, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-calculus-rant/831020/24 "2019-03-13T00:22:41Z")
Hey, how about we don’t make bold sweeping claims about how 300million people should be forcibly educated. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2019, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-calculus-rant/831020/25 "2019-03-13T00:30:51Z")
If you don’t know calculus you cannot fully understand physics and engineering. I don’t think we need a world where physicists and engineers don’t understand what they are studying. Don’t like calculus? Don’t go into those fields. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_fun_ball/32/17664_2.png) [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2019, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-calculus-rant/831020/26 "2019-03-13T03:17:49Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > If you don’t know calculus you cannot fully understand physics and engineering. I don’t think we need a world where physicists and engineers don’t understand what they are studying. Don’t like calculus? Don’t go into those fields. This is the answer. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2019, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-calculus-rant/831020/27 "2019-03-13T03:46:13Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > 99% of the population don’t need to know a lot of the stuff taught in high school, if by “need” you mean “can’t function well in modern society”. > > But the point of college prep curriculum has always been loftier than that. High school students learn how to write a basic five paragraph essay even though most adults don’t have to write five paragraph essays to make a living. But it’s kind of hard to make it through college if you don’t know how to write an essay. > > At any rate, college prep curriculum doesn’t require calculus. At my HS, you were only required to take trigonometry to be considered sufficiently “college prep”. > > I do think that calculus, physics, chemistry, etc. are useful courses that are also used to gatekeep STEM fields. But even though I’m generally against “gate-keeping”, I guess I don’t have a major problem with it in this context since I kind of think problem-solving is a basic requirement of STEM. You know you can’t hack engineering calculus? OK, maybe you need to take the calc at the community college and transfer the credits. If that’s not an option, maybe you work with a tutor. Maybe you study a STEM-adjacent major (environmental studies instead of environmental science). Maybe you prepare yourself for a “D” in calc, but you compensate by acing statistics. There are ways to do STEM without studying calculus. > > Humanities majors are generally required to take “seemingly useless” courses, so why shouldn’t STEM majors be subjected to the same thing? STEM curricula shouldn’t necessarilly be more “vocational” than other kinds of university/college curricula. > > Instead of freeing students from the burden of calc, I think we should be focused on making calc instruction more engaging and accessible. I think half of the struggle I had with calculus was staying awake during the part when the instructor would prove whatever formula we were learning that day. I don’t know what would make it better, but I suspect current technology offers some alternatives to the old-school approach of “Let’s scrawl a bunch of stuff on the chalkboard with our backs to the class for thirty minutes and then feign surprise when students say they hate calculus.” When you are designing planes and bridges shortcuts in education or in understanding the fundamentals shouldn’t be encouraged. ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2019, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-calculus-rant/831020/28 "2019-03-13T03:47:45Z")
I have no idea what the topic is. Calculus is the study of change. If you never need to understand the calculation for the rate of change then calculus is a waste of your time. That said. Education opens windows of opportunity, perhaps the American educational system is over educating future muffler repair technicians. I would actually rather have that than the very organized German system that determines based on tests early who will be muffler repair technicians and won’t bother teaching a possible late bloomer the skills needed to excel later in life. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2019, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-calculus-rant/831020/29 "2019-03-13T03:58:05Z")
Is it correct that education deliberately goes beyond what is necessary, in order to leave a stronger impression? For example, is something like the Magna Carta or English Civil War taught even knowing that the student will forget the details, in the hopes of giving the student a better grasp of contemporary political affairs? Working with calculus will reinforce simple familiarity with and understanding of functions — understanding which will be useful even when no calculus is needed. Many careers require _no_ real math at all, and many “hard science” careers _will_ require some math, but let’s look at careers that are in between. I suggest that the conversation focus on computer programming specifically. Simple discrete math comes up often when designing software, but most programming work uses zero trig, calculus or even algebra. When trig is needed, there will often be a textbook recipe that can be plugged in. I can think of many examples where familiarity with or intuition about math is useful in software, but detailed application is unnecessary. I wonder how often most of the engineers and programmers here have needed to solve a quadratic equation, let alone do any non-trivial calculus. ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2019, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-calculus-rant/831020/30 "2019-03-13T05:07:35Z")
Why do you suggest that the conversation focus on computer programming specifically? ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Strangelove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.strangelove/32/6613_2.png) [@Dr.Strangelove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Strangelove)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2019, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-calculus-rant/831020/31 "2019-03-13T05:15:13Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Simple discrete math comes up often when designing software, but most programming work uses zero trig, calculus or even algebra. When trig is needed, there will often be a textbook recipe that can be plugged in. I can think of many examples where familiarity with or intuition about math is useful in software, but detailed application is unnecessary. I wonder how often most of the engineers and programmers here have needed to solve a quadratic equation, let alone do any non-trivial calculus. I use trig, calculus, algebra, linear algebra, and other math all the damn time. Could I look up textbook recipes most of the time? Sure, but that would make me completely useless in the case where something goes wrong, which is always. Computer graphics in particular is impossible to develop without a solid math background. That doesn’t mean you can’t make a pretty game, but you’ll be very limited in what new things you can do. Some examples: - Surfaces in graphics are often defined as polynomials, and rendering requires intersecting a ray with them. Need to find the roots of a quadratic, cubic, quartic, or worse. - How do you generate those polynomial surfaces in the first place? Most likely, you’ve specified a few points that they need to pass through, and maybe some tangents as constraints as well. You need linear algebra to turn that back into a polynomial. - Need a fast approximation of a function? You can sometimes use Newton’s Method to refine a crude approximation into a better one. But you need to find the derivative of that function to make it work. - All transforms in graphics are done with 4x4 matrices. You need a little trig and a little linear algebra. Not a lot, but the more you have the better you’ll grok it. - If you’re doing any kind of frequency analysis, you need to understand Fourier transforms. And complex numbers, of course. I had a friend ask me why he was losing half the energy in his transform. I had to explain negative frequencies… - The I and D in “PID controller” stand for integral and derivative. These are discrete, so only a very little bit of calculus is needed, but if all you’ve got is Algebra II you probably aren’t going to understand things. - Any database work (and a lot of other things) need at least some degree of set theory. “Gimme all the things that meet this criteria or this other criteria, but not this third criteria”. - Any case where samples need both amplitude and phase information (like Software Defined Radio) needs to be understood as complex numbers. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2019, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-calculus-rant/831020/32 "2019-03-13T05:23:22Z")
> [@Hellestal](#): > > I’d be interested in the OP’s perspective of statistics without continuous probability distributions. > > I mean, sure, probability starts out discrete with most real-world applications. But the whole point of stats is that a discrete distribution can and will converge to a continuous distribution given the right conditions. Stats without convergence to a normal (“central”) distribution in the limit doesn’t seem much like stats to me. > > Everyone. > > Every real accountant, everywhere in the world, uses double-entry bookkeeping. > > The ledgers are electronic today, not fine paper bound in leather and scribbled into with a copperplate hand, but even in our digital age, bookkeeping remains firmly double-entry. The fundamental principle has not changed at all. I’m somewhat surprised that anyone would think it archaic. It hasn’t been discarded. \*\*Double-entry remains the absolute backbone of accounting. \*\*It’s hard to imagine that ever changing. 😕 I thought double entry is when the accountant keeps two sets of books, so he can skim off most of your profits. ---
**Author:** ![guizot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guizot/32/3636_2.png) [@guizot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guizot)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2019, 7:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-calculus-rant/831020/33 "2019-03-13T07:24:02Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > If every high school student studied nothing but basic algebra and math that is related to personal finance, I think that would really suffice for 99% of the population. There is little point in studying something in high school that you won’t need; . . . This is true for a society which is content to remain forever mediocre, and stagnate. You cannot possibly know what a person will “need” for the remainder of their life when they are still in high school–aptitude is developed in the process of learning itself. To presume that you know what a person in high school will need to know for the remainder of their life is effectively to limit that person arbitrarily. The thought processes and cognitive development that are required to engage in calculus by nature make a person that much more capable of the kind of creative thought which drives not only obvious things such as innovation in entrepreneurship, but arguably innovation in any field, including the arts. Compared to many countries, U.S. high schoolers are not especially taxed, and if they have the time–as they normally do–there’s every reason to study calculus. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2019, 7:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-calculus-rant/831020/34 "2019-03-13T07:30:55Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > Why do you suggest that the conversation focus on computer programming specifically? Because it’s something I’m familiar with. 🙂 I’d be interested in any “in-between” career, perhaps “technician” but not “scientist.” Setting aside math-intensive careers like computer graphics or mechanical design, how many people ever solve a quadratic equation or use calculus? I should have noted exceptions like rendering, robotics, statistics as programming areas where math _is_ required, but I stand by my claim that “most programming work uses zero trig or calculus.” Even for something as technical as optimizing discrete wavelets for signal compression, Fourier transforms and regularity measures are something of a detour! Intuition, experimentation, and a little algebra are enough. It’s fun to follow the proof that DCT is the asymptotically optimal block compaction transform for Markov-1 signals, but for most implementers the theoretic properties are irrelevant. This is not to say that _mathematical intuition_ is useless. Consider the common test _**if (Dist(x1,y1, x2,y2) \< Dist(x3,y3, x4,y4))**_. Most programmers will end up taking a **sqrt** inside each **Dist** , and this might dominate execution speed in some applications. With even a little intuition one notes that **sqrt** is monotonic and eliminates the **sqrt** ’s! ---
**Author:** ![Doctor\_Jackson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doctor_jackson/32/32_2.png) [@Doctor\_Jackson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doctor_Jackson)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2019, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-calculus-rant/831020/35 "2019-03-13T13:04:33Z")
I shoulda figured my first pitting would come as a result of a math thread… > [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > “Why should this be taught at all?” implies that maybe it shouldn’t be taught at all—that no one, anywhere, should learn Calculus. This position is silly and indefensible. Yep, you’re right, I mis-phrased the response. Of course it should be taught, but to everyone? That’s where I don’t necessarily agree. > [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > Are some people being required to study Calculus that shouldn’t be? Yeah, I guess, but I’d like to see some specifics. It would make for a more fruitful debate if we could specify _of whom_ or _for what_ Calculus shouldn’t be required. > > I think there’s a growing consensus nowadays that _too many_ kids are taking Calculus in high school. See, for example, [here](https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2018/05/23/calculus-is-the-peak-of-high-school.html) or [here](https://www.maa.org/the-changing-face-of-calculus-first-semester-calculus-as-a-high-school-course). That is more my point. I know of very few people in my career paths (business management) who **need** to know implicit differentiation using infinitesimals. Hell, I had never heard that phrase until today. Any time in my career where I have needed advanced math I have either found what I needed on the internet or asked someone to help me. My poorly expressed point was that I did not need to spend pre-secondary school time learning implicit differentiation using infinitesimals, I needed to spend that time learning how to learn. That more than any other is the skill that really enables one to thrive. > [@Andy\_L](#): > > High schoolers don’t necessarily know what they won’t need, so a certain amount of exposure to a variety of subjects is good, to give them the chance to learn enough so that they can make an informed decision about whether to go further. Agreed. Only debating what constitutes “a certain amount of exposure”. > [@Broomstick](#): > > Yes, but the vast majority of people are NOT the folks making sure the books balance. That’s my point. Would it _hurt_ people to learn a bit about double-entry bookkeeping? No, but frankly, I’d rather the time be spent on, say, learning a second language (such as Spanish in the US) which is arguably far more useful on a practical level for most people. > > There are only so many hours in the school day and we can’t teach everything to people before they’re 18. If you’ve mastered basic arithmetic and entry-level algebra then if you need double-entry bookkeeping down the line it won’t be hard to pick up the basics and go from there - meanwhile, kids need to be able to write coherent sentence, cook a meal, think logically, know some history, and a bunch of other stuff before they get to college. Thanks, had I said it that well initially we probably wouldn’t be here. > [@BobLibDem](#): > > If you don’t know calculus you cannot fully understand physics and engineering. I don’t think we need a world where physicists and engineers don’t understand what they are studying. Don’t like calculus? Don’t go into those fields. Thanks for agreeing with me! I knew as a freshman in HS that I would not be an engineer or physicist. I had less than no interest in those fields. Rhetorically, why did I have to take those classes when I (and many others) would have been better served taking more logic classes so we could better understand how to learn? ---
**Author:** ![Doctor\_Jackson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doctor_jackson/32/32_2.png) [@Doctor\_Jackson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doctor_Jackson)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2019, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-calculus-rant/831020/36 "2019-03-13T13:12:39Z")
Missed edit window - saw the term “rant” in the title and thought I had been pitted! I’ve been debated instead… ---
**Author:** ![l0k1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/bb73d2/32.png) [@l0k1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/l0k1)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2019, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-calculus-rant/831020/37 "2019-03-13T13:23:59Z")
I’m an accountant, so a math oriented field. As far as I am concerned, Algebra is just arithmetic. There is no difference between 2+2=? and 2+2=X. Geometry has it’s real world applications. When I was in high school my father used geometry to figure out which pizza place had the best price for pizza, Little Caesar’s (before it was garbage) had square pizzas, and the local chain had round pizzas, so what is the total surface area of each pizza order, and then what is the price per square inch of pizza. I have used calculus, though rarely, professionally. I think that Trig is specialized garbage math, but we might as well learn it. We could fix the educational curriculum to cut down on some of the repetitive subject matter, maybe once less unit about the Underground Railroad, one less rich white teenage boy coming of age novel, one less unit about the Renaissance. I used to code scripts in a language that was product specific (DocuDraft). It was clearly a stolen and slightly modified version of SQL. It had all the trig functions available sine, cosine, tangent, secant, cosecant, and cotangent. Yet the only thing you could do with these scripts is create invoices for an accounting package directed at medical and legal practices. For the life of me I can’t think of a reason why I would need to know the cosine of an hourly rate, or the secant of a due date. ---
**Author:** ![Hellestal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3ab097/32.png) [@Hellestal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hellestal)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2019, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-calculus-rant/831020/38 "2019-03-13T13:29:14Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > 😕 > > I thought double entry is when the accountant keeps two sets of books, so he can skim off most of your profits. Double-entry is standard accounting. It means that accountants always enter a transaction twice: they debit one place, and then credit another place in an equivalent amount. “Debit” and “credit” are the two entries. When a bank informs you that you have a credit balance, they’re informing you from the perspective of their account. Their liability to you represents a credit entry in their ledgers. When that credit entry was entered, an equivalent debit entry was also entered somewhere else: double-entry. This system is used by accountants all over the world. It’s been used continuously for over 500 years. The system was originally described by Luca Pacioli, a friend of Leonardo da Vinci, based on his observations of the Venetian businesses that developed it. It’s quite a simple innovation at its core, really, but it can really help organize ledger entries in a way that avoids mistakes and increases comprehensibility. I don’t personally see why any regular folks need to know how double-entry bookkeeping works. Including high school students. I would absolutely not make it part of any required curriculum. But it’s probably worthwhile to know that It Is A Thing. It’s not archaic. It’s not criminal. (At least, not always…) It’s standard accounting. Every debit is balanced by a credit. Two entries. That’s how accounting has worked for centuries. It’s probably worth knowing that much about it. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2019, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-calculus-rant/831020/39 "2019-03-13T14:05:21Z")
I don’t think calculus is fundamentally more difficult than algebra or geometry. If students are introduced to the concepts in simpler and easier ways at earlier levels, it wouldn’t be the giant leap when the formalism is taught at the high school or higher level. While students don’t need to know all the finicky details of accounting, understanding the basics of double-entry bookkeeping would help them improve their financial skills. Besides the basics of budgeting, credit and debit cards, using banks for savings and loans, it gives them something more to defend themselves against predatory lending and investing. ---
**Author:** ![Translucent\_Daydream](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/translucent_daydream/32/16170_2.png) [@Translucent\_Daydream](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Translucent_Daydream)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2019, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-calculus-rant/831020/40 "2019-03-13T14:18:24Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > I don’t think calculus is fundamentally more difficult than algebra or geometry. If students are introduced to the concepts in simpler and easier ways at earlier levels, it wouldn’t be the giant leap when the formalism is taught at the high school or higher level. This was probably my problem with Calculus. It was introduced to me when I as already 21. All my public education gave me was Algebra for two years and then Algebra 2, which at my school was exactly the same class as year 2 Algebra 1, but with the “harder problems at the end of each lesson.” College is hard when you aren’t prepared for it. I survived it but it took me an extra year to get caught up. That cost a lot of money. It would have been better if Algebra was maybe in middle school or something, and if we had Geometry at all at some point. By some grace of god I was able to test into the college level classes right off the bat, but I had no idea what was going on. My good guesses were a curse. My professors were patient with me though, they knew where I grew up and went to school. I was smart enough, just uneducated. I edited to add that I don’t buy the idea that only people that “need to know” should “know.” With things changing in the world so fast, I have no idea what I am going to need three years from now. At least if I was exposed to everything, it wouldn’t be such a hard haul to learn new things. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-calculus-rant/831020.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-calculus-rant/831020.md?page=3)