Who Says Math Has to Be Boring?(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Who Says Math Has to Be Boring?
http://nytimes.com/2013/12/08/opinion/sunday/who-says-math-has-to-be-boring.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0
27 comments
>watching someone poke at a calculator isn't as exciting as watching slam dunks
Well, that's true. I get really excited by both math/science and basketball so I feel I'm coming from an unbiased position here: Unless you have a spectacular color man commentating on the guy using his calculator, displays of physical prowess are going to win every time in terms of 'fun to watch'. The difference is the deep sense of satisfaction that comes from learning something. This sort of positive result from an insight can continue for a lifetime, whereas, for me at least, 'my' team winning a sporting contest makes me feel good for a few fleeting moments.
edit: missing words.
Well, that's true. I get really excited by both math/science and basketball so I feel I'm coming from an unbiased position here: Unless you have a spectacular color man commentating on the guy using his calculator, displays of physical prowess are going to win every time in terms of 'fun to watch'. The difference is the deep sense of satisfaction that comes from learning something. This sort of positive result from an insight can continue for a lifetime, whereas, for me at least, 'my' team winning a sporting contest makes me feel good for a few fleeting moments.
edit: missing words.
It is not Math, Science that is Boring that is the problem. It's the level of effort required to be good and to become better. More than almost any other industry or skill, if you get easily frustrated or you can't focus (well) - you won't get enough experience (read: doing stuff the wrong way or failing) to get better.
It is the frustration and ambiguity that one has to deal with when solving technical problems. Remember, most technical problems aren't cut and dried - sometimes the problem is correctly finding what the problem is.
To be good in this industry - you have to want to go down the rabbit hole and spelunk. To get your hands and mind dirty.
It is the frustration and ambiguity that one has to deal with when solving technical problems. Remember, most technical problems aren't cut and dried - sometimes the problem is correctly finding what the problem is.
To be good in this industry - you have to want to go down the rabbit hole and spelunk. To get your hands and mind dirty.
Maybe tangential to the point of the article, but I find that one of the most frustrating things about working with recent college grads is that they don't understand the ambiguity. It's not thier fault - they have spent the last 16+ years being told[1] there is a right answer. It is ingrained in them, and a lot of effort must be put forth to teach them that most of the work worth doing in our field is by definition not "solved". If there was a right answer or known best solution, we'd just be using that library and focusing on the ambiguous bits instead.
Yes there is a lot of boilerplate and plugging existing components together, but that stuff isn't the work that really brings in the bucks - it's the part where you are solving something previously unsolved, and making headway against ambiguous problem spaces that really differentiates companies/products/teams etc.
[1] It's more than being taught, it is being rewarded and punished on the notion of "one right answer" that happens in huge amounts of education. It gets mixed up with the limbic system and becomes a default assumption for everything. It has to be un-taught in a lot of contexts. Sure, there is a best or right answer for many things, and we need to show that too, but more education on how to deal with the ambiguous stuff is much needed.
Yes there is a lot of boilerplate and plugging existing components together, but that stuff isn't the work that really brings in the bucks - it's the part where you are solving something previously unsolved, and making headway against ambiguous problem spaces that really differentiates companies/products/teams etc.
[1] It's more than being taught, it is being rewarded and punished on the notion of "one right answer" that happens in huge amounts of education. It gets mixed up with the limbic system and becomes a default assumption for everything. It has to be un-taught in a lot of contexts. Sure, there is a best or right answer for many things, and we need to show that too, but more education on how to deal with the ambiguous stuff is much needed.
> It is the frustration and ambiguity that one has to deal with when solving technical problems.
Basically, you're saying people today can't handle frustration. I have a hunch that this is true, and someone should research into this.
Basically, you're saying people today can't handle frustration. I have a hunch that this is true, and someone should research into this.
It's really because teachers and parents failed to teach kids how to perform deliberate practice, which requires handling a certain level of difficulties.
This is sad. Very sad. The only explanation is that so many Americans are so spoiled by the nation's past success that they became so vain. I mean, kids are naturally inquisitive. Given the right nurturing, kids should love STEM. Heck, they should be obsessed with STEM because STEM subjects are full of wonders. Yet, what do kids nowadays think cool? Having access to alcohol and drugs is cool. Bullying people who take studying seriously is cool. Sports jockeys who think nothing is important other than their games with another high school are cool. When hearing people enthusiastically talk about technology, making a face as if he just ate s*&^t is cool (just like the stupid and weak Jesse did in the finale of Breaking Bad when Walt explained what "exothermal" meant). Whining about STEM are being too "hard", too "boring", too "irrelevant", too "nerdy" is cool... And tell me the parents didn't have very bad influence to the kids.
I find this phenomenon puzzling. STEM is foundation of the modern civilization. And it is Europeans and Americans, after all, who have largely advanced modern science, technology, engineering, and math in the past hundreds of years. I can tell fascinating stories about the great minds and great achievements for weeks. Yet, the great history, the great subjects, and the people who love STEM are being looked down upon by American kids? What.The.Fuck.
It was not like this in the country where I grew up, though. In our country, STEM are cool in school. Seriously cool. Teachers, kids, and especially parents take studying of STEM seriously (though to be fair, the parents took every subject seriously as they cared about grades too). Biographies of famous scientists are popular readings. Names like Archimedes, Newton, Curie, Paulin, Ernest Lawrence, and so on are household names. No one in my school got despised because he or she studied hard. That would be absurd to even think about. That's why I was initially bewildered by Paul Graham's Why Nerds Are Unpopular.
And what's the result of all these? Straight-A students couldn't pass a community college's placement math test, as reported by NYT a couple of years ago. I don't what could be worse than such drama.
I find this phenomenon puzzling. STEM is foundation of the modern civilization. And it is Europeans and Americans, after all, who have largely advanced modern science, technology, engineering, and math in the past hundreds of years. I can tell fascinating stories about the great minds and great achievements for weeks. Yet, the great history, the great subjects, and the people who love STEM are being looked down upon by American kids? What.The.Fuck.
It was not like this in the country where I grew up, though. In our country, STEM are cool in school. Seriously cool. Teachers, kids, and especially parents take studying of STEM seriously (though to be fair, the parents took every subject seriously as they cared about grades too). Biographies of famous scientists are popular readings. Names like Archimedes, Newton, Curie, Paulin, Ernest Lawrence, and so on are household names. No one in my school got despised because he or she studied hard. That would be absurd to even think about. That's why I was initially bewildered by Paul Graham's Why Nerds Are Unpopular.
And what's the result of all these? Straight-A students couldn't pass a community college's placement math test, as reported by NYT a couple of years ago. I don't what could be worse than such drama.
Yet, what do kids nowadays think cool? Having access to alcohol and drugs is cool. Bullying people who take studying seriously is cool. Sports jockeys who think nothing is important other than their games with another high school are cool. When hearing people enthusiastically talk about technology, making a face as if he just ate s&^t is cool (just like the stupid and weak Jesse did in the finale of Breaking Bad when Walt explained what "exothermal" meant). Whining about STEM are being too "hard", too "boring", too "irrelevant", too "nerdy" is cool... And tell me the parents didn't have very bad influence to the kids.*
Please don't act like this is some isolated problem with today's generation. Drugs, vices, jocks and willful ignorance have always been the rage. You're having delusions of grandeur that your generation was somehow one of superior calibre, and you're regressing into idealized memories of the past as part of a reactionary mental process to the perceived decadence of today.
But it has always been decadent. In fact, if the Flynn effect and other factors are anything to show, you were probably worse.
I see you don't live in the USA, though. I come from a European country myself, and I have no idea what school you went to, but the way you describe it is rather... unrealistic? Names of famous scientists are household names? In a school environment? They always have been, honestly. Biographies of famous scientists as popular reading? They're part of the curriculum.
The way you treat your school as some sort of a society in its own right leads me to believe you went to a boarding school or something similar. Perhaps just a higher class private school, because really, yours isn't the norm.
Please don't act like this is some isolated problem with today's generation. Drugs, vices, jocks and willful ignorance have always been the rage. You're having delusions of grandeur that your generation was somehow one of superior calibre, and you're regressing into idealized memories of the past as part of a reactionary mental process to the perceived decadence of today.
But it has always been decadent. In fact, if the Flynn effect and other factors are anything to show, you were probably worse.
I see you don't live in the USA, though. I come from a European country myself, and I have no idea what school you went to, but the way you describe it is rather... unrealistic? Names of famous scientists are household names? In a school environment? They always have been, honestly. Biographies of famous scientists as popular reading? They're part of the curriculum.
The way you treat your school as some sort of a society in its own right leads me to believe you went to a boarding school or something similar. Perhaps just a higher class private school, because really, yours isn't the norm.
Not really. I grew up in a developing country, where there were only public schools. And my school was by no means elite. Biographies of scientists were not part of curriculum either. It's really the culture. Parents did care about kids' academic performance, a lot. The whole society advocated studying hard with the right approach (whether it's really right is debatable). Even state media devote significant time to STEM related news and documentaries. Drug was never the problem because even carrying drug is capital crime. I'm not saying every every in every city was like that as our country had tons of social and economical problems. However, kids' education especially STEM education is THE focus of parenting.
Well, I think you're into another extreme. Developing, yes. Poor? Maybe. Desperate? I'm not sure. At least our school days are full of fond memories. And my classmates seemed happy, and I was definitely happy. More importantly, we did enjoy learning.
Sounds like the typical case of a poor nation.
There is no incentive to stay, the country is in a dreadful economic state, a large socio-political diaspora is present and so forth.
In times of desperation like this, it's usually the same everywhere: parents strongly guide their children into entering fields that are profitable and flourishing in academia. Their intentions are benevolent, but the way they accomplish this is often forceful, egocentric and driven not by the virtue of knowledge and intellect, but rather the expectations of prosperity.
Very often, although there is a superficial appearance of high intellectual culture, the reality is that many of these people are doing it to appease their parents and are actually mediocre in their fields. Also societies which insist on formal education this much tend to teach in a very flawed manner: mere rote memorization with no immersion.
In the end, you breed soulless parrots who can recite lectures and academic papers, but show no passion or intimate understanding and desire to refine their skills. This is how you get dull, 9-to-5 code monkeys who can write instructions in PHP and Java in a sort of cargo cult way with no sophistication.
Drug was never the problem because even carrying drug is capital crime.
Aye, when will people learn prohibition never works?
There is no incentive to stay, the country is in a dreadful economic state, a large socio-political diaspora is present and so forth.
In times of desperation like this, it's usually the same everywhere: parents strongly guide their children into entering fields that are profitable and flourishing in academia. Their intentions are benevolent, but the way they accomplish this is often forceful, egocentric and driven not by the virtue of knowledge and intellect, but rather the expectations of prosperity.
Very often, although there is a superficial appearance of high intellectual culture, the reality is that many of these people are doing it to appease their parents and are actually mediocre in their fields. Also societies which insist on formal education this much tend to teach in a very flawed manner: mere rote memorization with no immersion.
In the end, you breed soulless parrots who can recite lectures and academic papers, but show no passion or intimate understanding and desire to refine their skills. This is how you get dull, 9-to-5 code monkeys who can write instructions in PHP and Java in a sort of cargo cult way with no sophistication.
Drug was never the problem because even carrying drug is capital crime.
Aye, when will people learn prohibition never works?
I love math and science.
Nature is the most beautiful thing around and they help me appreciate that beauty more deeply.
Nature is the most beautiful thing around and they help me appreciate that beauty more deeply.
I think there are some easy gains to be made by removing most Euclidean geometry (including trigonometry) and adding probability and statistics.
While historically there is a close connection between Euclidean geometry and calculus, I think people can grok ideas like a tangent line without having done any Euclidean geometry before.
And probability and statistics are essential so people can properly participate the civic process. E.g. I used to see the following statistic a lot: "Women who are murdered are ~100 times as likely to have been murdered by their spouse, as Men who are murdered". I think a rudimentary knowledge of probability would allow people to realize this is a meaningless statistic (the meaningful version is "Women are 1.5 times as likely to be murdered by their spouse as Men".
While historically there is a close connection between Euclidean geometry and calculus, I think people can grok ideas like a tangent line without having done any Euclidean geometry before.
And probability and statistics are essential so people can properly participate the civic process. E.g. I used to see the following statistic a lot: "Women who are murdered are ~100 times as likely to have been murdered by their spouse, as Men who are murdered". I think a rudimentary knowledge of probability would allow people to realize this is a meaningless statistic (the meaningful version is "Women are 1.5 times as likely to be murdered by their spouse as Men".
> Nearly 90 percent of high school graduates say they’re not interested in a career or a college major involving science, technology, engineering or math
I see a great problem in a society that shifts its focus from value-adding activities like research and development towards zero-sum activities like law and management. We clearly need both, but in the long run, innovation is what ensures future.
I read somewhere that this is accompanied by a demographics shift, where middle class, white Americans are shifting even more strongly away from science, technology and math and towards business and law. As a culture, this is troubling.
I see a great problem in a society that shifts its focus from value-adding activities like research and development towards zero-sum activities like law and management. We clearly need both, but in the long run, innovation is what ensures future.
I read somewhere that this is accompanied by a demographics shift, where middle class, white Americans are shifting even more strongly away from science, technology and math and towards business and law. As a culture, this is troubling.
I can see a fairly intuitive argument for calling the practice of law zero-sum ("gain for one side is nothing but an equal loss to the other"). It isn't right, but I can see how people would come up with it. You might have something else in mind; do you think that the lawyers working for the ACLU are engaged in a zero-sum activity?
I don't understand applying the term "zero-sum" to management at all.
I don't understand applying the term "zero-sum" to management at all.
A craftsman takes wood and creates a bench. The bench is worth more than the wood. Thus, he created value.
A manager does not do anything like that. He does indeed do valuable work, by enabling others to create value, but he does not create value himself.
But you are correct, zero-sum is a bad name for this. Do you know a better name? I was thinking about stock trading, where the money one wins, another loses, thus zero-sum.
A manager does not do anything like that. He does indeed do valuable work, by enabling others to create value, but he does not create value himself.
But you are correct, zero-sum is a bad name for this. Do you know a better name? I was thinking about stock trading, where the money one wins, another loses, thus zero-sum.
[deleted]
I was lucky enough to be taught mathematics by teachers who were actually mathematicians. There ought to be incentives for qualified professionals to go teach for a semester, perhaps a student debt forgiveness program.
For those who aren't aware of it, I think Lockhart's Lament [1] is definitely worth a read. Here's an excerpt:
"How many people actually use any of this “practical math” they supposedly learn in school? Do you think carpenters are out there using trigonometry? How many adults remember how to divide fractions, or solve a quadratic equation? Obviously the current practical training program isn’t working, and for good reason: it is excruciatingly boring, and nobody ever uses it anyway. So why do people think it’s so important? I don’t see how it’s doing society any good to have its members walking around with vague memories of algebraic formulas and geometric diagrams, and clear memories of hating them. It might do some good, though, to show them something beautiful and give them an opportunity to enjoy being creative, flexible, open-minded thinkers— the kind of thing a real mathematical education might provide."
For some reason, the math curriculum is completely about learning techniques, which roughly correspond to formulaic manipulation of symbols. We basically learn to apply algorithms for manipulating symbols, and we do it over and over again. And of course, this is easy to test.
But it's also the absolute least important aspect we need to know! It's the part that doesn't involve thinking. And so we end up with some farce of an education where we learn the procedures without the context why people created them in the first place!
Take the quadratic formula: something wholly useless in real life, but taught to every middle-schooler in the US. Somehow, even though the name has "quad" in it, we learn it without learning the context of the ancient Greek concept of quadrature, and problems relating to whether it is possible to find a rectangle with a certain area and perimeter. In the derivation, we "complete the square", but nobody draws the said square!
And then we do a hundred problems involving applying the quadratic formula, which is neither enlightening nor useful.
[1] http://www.maa.org/sites/default/files/pdf/devlin/LockhartsL...
"How many people actually use any of this “practical math” they supposedly learn in school? Do you think carpenters are out there using trigonometry? How many adults remember how to divide fractions, or solve a quadratic equation? Obviously the current practical training program isn’t working, and for good reason: it is excruciatingly boring, and nobody ever uses it anyway. So why do people think it’s so important? I don’t see how it’s doing society any good to have its members walking around with vague memories of algebraic formulas and geometric diagrams, and clear memories of hating them. It might do some good, though, to show them something beautiful and give them an opportunity to enjoy being creative, flexible, open-minded thinkers— the kind of thing a real mathematical education might provide."
For some reason, the math curriculum is completely about learning techniques, which roughly correspond to formulaic manipulation of symbols. We basically learn to apply algorithms for manipulating symbols, and we do it over and over again. And of course, this is easy to test.
But it's also the absolute least important aspect we need to know! It's the part that doesn't involve thinking. And so we end up with some farce of an education where we learn the procedures without the context why people created them in the first place!
Take the quadratic formula: something wholly useless in real life, but taught to every middle-schooler in the US. Somehow, even though the name has "quad" in it, we learn it without learning the context of the ancient Greek concept of quadrature, and problems relating to whether it is possible to find a rectangle with a certain area and perimeter. In the derivation, we "complete the square", but nobody draws the said square!
And then we do a hundred problems involving applying the quadratic formula, which is neither enlightening nor useful.
[1] http://www.maa.org/sites/default/files/pdf/devlin/LockhartsL...
"Engineers and physicists are often portrayed as clueless geeks on television, and despite the high pay and the importance of such jobs to the country’s future"
I must have missed this part when I was a post graduate. The only thing I saw physicists getting paid was peanuts you had to move three states over to get.
In 2006, when I left things looked largely like this[1]:
age 18-22: paying high tuition fees at an undergraduate college
age 22-30: graduate school, possibly with a bit of work, living on a stipend of $1800 per month
age 30-35: working as a post-doc for $30,000 to $35,000 per year
age 36-43: professor at a good, but not great, university for $65,000 per year
age 44: with (if lucky) young children at home, fired by the university ("denied tenure" is the more polite term for the folks that universities discard), begins searching for a job in a market where employers primarily wish to hire folks in their early 30s
Sadly from what I hear of people from my class who stayed on things are worse now. So why doesn't the article talk about the elephant in the room? That when you add student debt to the picture you need to work until you're 40 to beat someone who has worked at McDonald's that whole time. And just at that point you enter the most uncertain part of your career which will make or break the rest of your life.
Students aren't leaving the STEM fields in droves because they are stupid and unmotivated, they are leaving because the prospects for a career are terrible.
[1] http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/women-in-science
I must have missed this part when I was a post graduate. The only thing I saw physicists getting paid was peanuts you had to move three states over to get.
In 2006, when I left things looked largely like this[1]:
age 18-22: paying high tuition fees at an undergraduate college
age 22-30: graduate school, possibly with a bit of work, living on a stipend of $1800 per month
age 30-35: working as a post-doc for $30,000 to $35,000 per year
age 36-43: professor at a good, but not great, university for $65,000 per year
age 44: with (if lucky) young children at home, fired by the university ("denied tenure" is the more polite term for the folks that universities discard), begins searching for a job in a market where employers primarily wish to hire folks in their early 30s
Sadly from what I hear of people from my class who stayed on things are worse now. So why doesn't the article talk about the elephant in the room? That when you add student debt to the picture you need to work until you're 40 to beat someone who has worked at McDonald's that whole time. And just at that point you enter the most uncertain part of your career which will make or break the rest of your life.
Students aren't leaving the STEM fields in droves because they are stupid and unmotivated, they are leaving because the prospects for a career are terrible.
[1] http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/women-in-science
Pokemon and arithmetic - why not?
One of the biggest reasons for that lack of interest is that students have been turned off to the subjects as they move from kindergarten to high school. Many are being taught by teachers who have no particular expertise in the subjects. They are following outdated curriculums and textbooks. They become convinced they’re “no good at math,” that math and science are only for nerds, and fall behind.
That’s because the American system of teaching these subjects is broken. For all the reform campaigns over the years, most schools continue to teach math and science in an off-putting way that appeals only to the most fervent students. The mathematical sequence has changed little since the Sputnik era: arithmetic, pre-algebra, algebra, geometry, trigonometry and, for only 17 percent of students, calculus. Science is generally limited to the familiar trinity of biology, chemistry, physics and, occasionally, earth science.
These two paragraphs capture the essence of the issue.
In fact, forgive me for bringing up the topic of compulsory schooling and deliberately defective education again, but I think I might have an interesting tidbit to share on this, which paints a rather ugly picture of the whole situation.
An excerpt from Charlotte Iserbyt's the deliberate dumbing down of america (Revised and Abridged Edition [2011], Ch 2: The Turning of the Tides, p. 31, c. 1928):
-------------------
"1928: A deliberate math "dumb down" was seriously discussed in 1928. A teacher named O.A. Nelson, John Dewey, Edward Thorndike (who conducted early behavioral psychology experiments on chickens), and other Council on Foreign Relations members attended a Progressive Education Association meeting in 1928 at which O. A. Nelson was informed that the purpose of "new math" was to dumb down students. Nelson revealed in a later interview with Young Parents Alert that the Progressive Education Association was a communist front. According to the National Educator (July 1979):
Mr. O. A. Nelson, retired educator, has supplied the vitally important documentation needed to support the link-up between the textbooks and the Council on Foreign Relations. His letter was first printed in "Young Parents Alert" (Lake Elmo, Minnesota). His story is self-explanatory.
I know from personal experience what I am talking about. In December 1928, I was asked to talk to the American Association for the Advancement of Science. On December 27th, naïve and inexperienced, I agreed. I had done some special work in teaching functional physics in high school. That was to be my topic. The next day, the 28th, a Dr. Ziegler asked me if I would attend a special educational meeting in his room after the AAAS meeting. We met from 10 o'clock [p.m.] until after 2:30 a.m.
We were 13 at the meeting. Two things caused Dr. Ziegler, who was chairman of the Educational Committee of the Council of Foreign Relations, to ask me to attend… my talk on the teaching of functional physics in high school, and the fact that I was a member of a group known as the Progressive Educators of America, which was nothing but a Communist front. I thought the word "progressive" meant progress for better schools.
Eleven of those attending the meeting were leaders in education. Drs. John Dewey and Edward Thorndike, from Columbia University, were there, and the others were of equal rank. I checked later and found that ALL were paid members of the Communist Party of Russia. I was classified as a member of the Party, but I did not know it at the time.
The sole work of the group was to destroy our schools! We spent one hour and forty-five minutes discussing the so-called "Modern Math." At one point I objected because there was too much memory work, and math is reasoning; not memory. Dr. Ziegler turned to me and said,
"Nelson, wake up! That is what we want… a math that the pupils cannot apply to life situations when they get out of school!"
That math was not introduced until much later, as those present thought it was too radical a change. A milder course by Dr. Beckner was substituted but it was also worthless, as far as understanding math was concerned. The radical change was introduced in 1952. It was the one we are using now. So, if pupils come out of high school now, not knowing any math, don't blame them. The results are supposed to be worthless."
------------------
That’s because the American system of teaching these subjects is broken. For all the reform campaigns over the years, most schools continue to teach math and science in an off-putting way that appeals only to the most fervent students. The mathematical sequence has changed little since the Sputnik era: arithmetic, pre-algebra, algebra, geometry, trigonometry and, for only 17 percent of students, calculus. Science is generally limited to the familiar trinity of biology, chemistry, physics and, occasionally, earth science.
These two paragraphs capture the essence of the issue.
In fact, forgive me for bringing up the topic of compulsory schooling and deliberately defective education again, but I think I might have an interesting tidbit to share on this, which paints a rather ugly picture of the whole situation.
An excerpt from Charlotte Iserbyt's the deliberate dumbing down of america (Revised and Abridged Edition [2011], Ch 2: The Turning of the Tides, p. 31, c. 1928):
-------------------
"1928: A deliberate math "dumb down" was seriously discussed in 1928. A teacher named O.A. Nelson, John Dewey, Edward Thorndike (who conducted early behavioral psychology experiments on chickens), and other Council on Foreign Relations members attended a Progressive Education Association meeting in 1928 at which O. A. Nelson was informed that the purpose of "new math" was to dumb down students. Nelson revealed in a later interview with Young Parents Alert that the Progressive Education Association was a communist front. According to the National Educator (July 1979):
Mr. O. A. Nelson, retired educator, has supplied the vitally important documentation needed to support the link-up between the textbooks and the Council on Foreign Relations. His letter was first printed in "Young Parents Alert" (Lake Elmo, Minnesota). His story is self-explanatory.
I know from personal experience what I am talking about. In December 1928, I was asked to talk to the American Association for the Advancement of Science. On December 27th, naïve and inexperienced, I agreed. I had done some special work in teaching functional physics in high school. That was to be my topic. The next day, the 28th, a Dr. Ziegler asked me if I would attend a special educational meeting in his room after the AAAS meeting. We met from 10 o'clock [p.m.] until after 2:30 a.m.
We were 13 at the meeting. Two things caused Dr. Ziegler, who was chairman of the Educational Committee of the Council of Foreign Relations, to ask me to attend… my talk on the teaching of functional physics in high school, and the fact that I was a member of a group known as the Progressive Educators of America, which was nothing but a Communist front. I thought the word "progressive" meant progress for better schools.
Eleven of those attending the meeting were leaders in education. Drs. John Dewey and Edward Thorndike, from Columbia University, were there, and the others were of equal rank. I checked later and found that ALL were paid members of the Communist Party of Russia. I was classified as a member of the Party, but I did not know it at the time.
The sole work of the group was to destroy our schools! We spent one hour and forty-five minutes discussing the so-called "Modern Math." At one point I objected because there was too much memory work, and math is reasoning; not memory. Dr. Ziegler turned to me and said,
"Nelson, wake up! That is what we want… a math that the pupils cannot apply to life situations when they get out of school!"
That math was not introduced until much later, as those present thought it was too radical a change. A milder course by Dr. Beckner was substituted but it was also worthless, as far as understanding math was concerned. The radical change was introduced in 1952. It was the one we are using now. So, if pupils come out of high school now, not knowing any math, don't blame them. The results are supposed to be worthless."
------------------
I think it should be noted that Charlotte Iserbyt's views tend to be towards the Alex Jones/New World Order spectrum, although that obviously doesn't mean she's wrong or that the educational system isn't seriously fucked up. I only point this out because those views can be a bit extreme, and sometimes flat-out wrong.
More info:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Charlotte_Thomson_Iserbyt
http://www.infowars.com/exclusive-charlotte-iserbyt-reveals-...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p94_Cfo7XD0
http://www.prisonplanet.com/america-on-the-road-to-total-des...
http://www.infowars.com/charlotte-iserbyt-the-miseducation-o...
http://www.newswithviews.com/iserbyt/iserbyt114.htm
More info:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Charlotte_Thomson_Iserbyt
http://www.infowars.com/exclusive-charlotte-iserbyt-reveals-...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p94_Cfo7XD0
http://www.prisonplanet.com/america-on-the-road-to-total-des...
http://www.infowars.com/charlotte-iserbyt-the-miseducation-o...
http://www.newswithviews.com/iserbyt/iserbyt114.htm
Oh yes, there is an inherent bias to the conservative spectrum in Iserbyt's writings, but for the most part her compilation of documents is sound. This one, in particular, is fine.
For what it's worth, the Alex Jones media cult, despite its populistic pandering to the conservative Christian demographic, can be quite a breath of fresh air, and they do routinely talk about government, military and intelligence operations no one else will.
For what it's worth, the Alex Jones media cult, despite its populistic pandering to the conservative Christian demographic, can be quite a breath of fresh air, and they do routinely talk about government, military and intelligence operations no one else will.
Many are being taught by teachers who have no particular expertise in the subjects.
So the former is a case of the blind leading the deaf, and the latter is a case of the dumb leading the blind.
What evidence if any is there that Dewey was a member of any Communist Party? (And why that of Russia rather than America?) Dewey and Sidney Hook said very intelligent things about the Moscow show trials of the 1930s, which did not please the fellow travelers.
By 1950, says Wikipedia, Dewey was an honorary chairman of the Congress for Cultural Freedom, which as it happens was funded by the CIA. Why didn't an educational repentance follow the political one?
By 1950, says Wikipedia, Dewey was an honorary chairman of the Congress for Cultural Freedom, which as it happens was funded by the CIA. Why didn't an educational repentance follow the political one?
Let's act as if a solid understanding of math and science is the norm. Let's see more shows where being smart about math and science isn't some Lisa Simpson or Sheldon Cooper-like deviation from the norm, something that only comes along with social ostracism and other anti-normal traits. Let's see more news programs that regularly discuss scientific topics more deeply than "Stars. Sure they're beautiful to see at night, but are they causing your kids to get CANCER?"
Kids need role models. Basketball is no more inherently interesting than math and science. It's just putting an orange ball through a hoop. Over and over. And over. And over. But Lebron James is on my TV every other night, being celebrated on the court, in Samsung ads, on the news, etc. And if you say, well, that's because watching someone poke at a calculator isn't as exciting as watching slam dunks, well, you're buying into that shitty media representation of mathematicians and scientists as being exclusively pocket-protector-wearing geeks who never leave their windowless broom-closet offices...
Anyway. This is one reason I think Neil Degrasse Tyson is so important right now. He's an awesome role model. I'm 36 and I want to be him when I grow up.