Where is balance? -- Re: Academic priorities
|
From: Morten Reistad on 30 Apr 2005 19:01 In article <3dhnr3F6ufpn6U1(a)individual.net>, Steve Richfie1d <Steve(a)NOSPAM.smart-life.net> wrote: >Barb, > >>>... If only I could have found more math-intensive >>>real-world problems for them to work on. > >> You have got to be kidding. You can't help but trip over >> tons of real-world problems. It sounds like you have >> done your children a great disservice. > >Suggestions? > >Remember, while I had plenty of influence, the kids made up their own >minds what to work on. What in YOUR neighborhood has people's lives >depending on the analytical solution to a calculus problem that can't >simply be solved with sufficient accuracy with a trivial numerical >approximation? > >I was at one time the top freshman calculus student at the University of >Washington after getting a perfect 800 on the College Entrance >Examination Board's Advanced Math test. In the following ~40 years, the >*ONLY* practical use I have made for non-numerical calculus methods is a >couple of times for computing optimal methods, e.g. how to divide up the >bins in a complex sort to make it run as fast as possible by >differentiating an equation for the total effort, setting the first >derivative to zero, and solving for the minimum/maximum conditions. I >have not recovered nor will I EVER expect to recover the time I put in >learning all that stuff, as I could have even done these couple of tasks >numerically at the cost of another couple of hours of work. > >The only "disservice" here is in not subjecting my kids to the same >useless education as I received. Of course, if they find themselves >needing this, they will either pick it up for themselves, or find >someone to solve the equations for them. I have an experiece quite contrary to this. I do not have such a strong theoretical background in formal math, and have had to read up on subjects in around 20 situations. Examples like making stock exchange indices manipulation-proof when issuing derivatives, analyzing scaling properties in networks, optimizing a satellite broadcast system's power/bandwidth footprint. Even interpreting sail polars vs wind patterns in a sailing regatta is a problem you need a mathematical understanding of; not just to trust the computer. Many of these are problems that are completely intractable if faced head-on computationally, either because they truly are computationally unbounded, or because you aren't even close to having all the data. It is said about economists that when they cannot handle the formula they derivate it and try again. Repeat until success. This has more than a sliver of truth in it; you often need to reformulate the problem in other numerical spaces. >However, this has not been "lost" as the kids have learned other things >that you are doubtless clueless about, when they could have been >learning calculus, e.g. they have completely cured some "incurable" >medical conditions in people they know after major medical institutions >have given up on them. > >Once we were living in an area with a large homeless population, so >their "lab" became finding ways to get some of these people jobs and >homes, not through broad social change, but one-on-one by understanding >them and their situations. Eventually a "$200 plan" emerged, where for >~$200 in direct expenses a typical homeless family would wind up in a >home they owned and working at a job they could stand. We did this for >several families having kids who were friends with my kids. Certainly >this skill is worth more than calculus?! Handling "skill management" is valuable indeed. >It really sounds (to me) like you *COMPLETELY* missed the central point >here. A motivated top-down education produces POWERFUL people with >unique skills, in trade for a variety of essentially useless knowledge >that is routinely used to put kids to sleep in school, which can be >picked up as (if ever) needed. Top-down methods don't teach them any >MORE, but it does teach them more USEFUL skills, the very existence of >which befuddles may who learned calculus instead. No wonder so many kids >are now on Ritalin given the boring and useless education our schools >now dispense. I get that. I just say that you shouldn't dismiss overdoing basic skills in languages and math at early stages; some of these are best studied at a young age due to the way the human brain functions. But the motivation has to be there. I am doing some show-and-tell stories, and present some of the problems above as challenges. Exchange history has literally thousands of such math challenges that directly affect a large number of people's lives immediatly. I took a lot of school children on Stock Exchange tours, and always gave them a lot of challenges in the figures that are everywhere in that location. You wouldn't stand a chance in the derivatives market without a very clear knowledge of some basic statistics. Kids need that kind of views into the adult business world to get an understanding of why they are doing the math and languages. -- mrr
From: jmfbahciv on 1 May 2005 06:36 In article <OpWdndY2Se6aOe7fRVn-rA(a)giganews.com>, "Bill Leary" <Bill_Leary(a)msn.com> wrote: ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:e6mdnTdKkqujGu7fRVn-1Q(a)rcn.net... >> In article <3dhej6F6tatsaU1(a)individual.net>, >> Steve Richfie1d <Steve(a)NOSPAM.smart-life.net> wrote: >> <snip> >> >> > ... If only I could have found more math-intensive >> >real-world problems for them to work on. >> >> You have got to be kidding. You can't help but trip over >> tons of real-world problems. > >I don't know about that. How many real-world problems >will a teenager encounter >that require anything beyond basic math skills? <snip> Reread what he said. Steve said that _he_ couldn't find real world problems for his kids. I don't expect the kids to find them, but he sure could have, especially if he was so hot at math. <sheesh> To have somebody learn something without examples is useless, and this includes pure theory. /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
From: Bill Leary on 1 May 2005 09:10 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:pcydnR8gjrM7UOnfRVn-gg(a)rcn.net... > In article <OpWdndY2Se6aOe7fRVn-rA(a)giganews.com>, > "Bill Leary" <Bill_Leary(a)msn.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > news:e6mdnTdKkqujGu7fRVn-1Q(a)rcn.net... > >> In article <3dhej6F6tatsaU1(a)individual.net>, > >> Steve Richfie1d <Steve(a)NOSPAM.smart-life.net> wrote: > >> <snip> > >> > >> > ... If only I could have found more math-intensive > >> >real-world problems for them to work on. > >> > >> You have got to be kidding. You can't help but trip over > >> tons of real-world problems. > > > >I don't know about that. How many real-world problems > >will a teenager encounter > >that require anything beyond basic math skills? > <snip> > > Reread what he said. Steve said that _he_ couldn't find > real world problems for his kids. I saw that. The context was learning by things they encountered. Using that method, he'd have to find examples that THE KIDS would encounter as they went along. That is, see them encounter some issue, then help them learn from it. In that context there aren't many situations a kid will run across in their normal lives which will require anything but rather basic math skills. > I don't expect the kids > to find them, but he sure could have, especially if he > was so hot at math. I don't think so. I've raised three now, and the number of cases where they had to do anything beyond very basic math (usually money related) before they got into their twenties approaches zero. The few cases where they did were school assignment related. > <sheesh> To have somebody learn something without examples > is useless, and this includes pure theory. He was using examples. The ones they encountered day-to-day. - Bill
From: jmfbahciv on 1 May 2005 07:49 In article <7cqdnYVvCdkOTunfRVn-jA(a)giganews.com>, "Bill Leary" <Bill_Leary(a)msn.com> wrote: ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:pcydnR8gjrM7UOnfRVn-gg(a)rcn.net... >> In article <OpWdndY2Se6aOe7fRVn-rA(a)giganews.com>, >> "Bill Leary" <Bill_Leary(a)msn.com> wrote: >> ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> news:e6mdnTdKkqujGu7fRVn-1Q(a)rcn.net... >> >> In article <3dhej6F6tatsaU1(a)individual.net>, >> >> Steve Richfie1d <Steve(a)NOSPAM.smart-life.net> wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >> >> >> > ... If only I could have found more math-intensive >> >> >real-world problems for them to work on. >> >> >> >> You have got to be kidding. You can't help but trip over >> >> tons of real-world problems. >> > >> >I don't know about that. How many real-world problems >> >will a teenager encounter >> >that require anything beyond basic math skills? >> <snip> >> >> Reread what he said. Steve said that _he_ couldn't find >> real world problems for his kids. > >I saw that. The context was learning by things they encountered. Exactly. The range of knowledge they're going to be exposed to is a minimum. My whole point is that it should be a maximum so they have a list of things they do not know. The knowledge that gets lost is all the knowledge that people don't know about. The knowledge has no caretakes and nobody to hand it down from. GAG! That's an awful sentence. >.... Using that >method, he'd have to find examples that THE KIDS would encounter as they went >along. NO. At grade school level, sure. But not as pre-college training. > .. That is, see them encounter some issue, then help them learn from it. >In that context there aren't many situations a kid will run across in their >normal lives which will require anything but rather basic math skills. EXACTLY!!! That is my point. Go reread that 3000-post long thread we just finished. > >> I don't expect the kids >> to find them, but he sure could have, especially if he >> was so hot at math. > >I don't think so. I've raised three now, and the number of cases where they had >to do anything beyond very basic math (usually money related) before they got >into their twenties approaches zero. The few cases where they did were school >assignment related. EXACTLY. His kids are home-schooled so they didn't get the sniffs that your kids got through school assignments. > >> <sheesh> To have somebody learn something without examples >> is useless, and this includes pure theory. > >He was using examples. The ones they encountered day-to-day. And he limited their education severely. One of the problems with home-schooling is that these kids are limited to the biases, beliefs, and knowledge of parents and are never exposed to other kinds of thinking, experience and knowhow. /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
From: Roland Hutchinson on 1 May 2005 10:17
Bill Leary wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > news:pcydnR8gjrM7UOnfRVn-gg(a)rcn.net... >> In article <OpWdndY2Se6aOe7fRVn-rA(a)giganews.com>, > I don't think so. I've raised three now, and the number of cases where > they had to do anything beyond very basic math (usually money related) > before they got > into their twenties approaches zero. The few cases where they did were > school assignment related. > >> <sheesh> To have somebody learn something without examples >> is useless, and this includes pure theory. > > He was using examples. The ones they encountered day-to-day Obviously if you want your kids to lean calculus and physics, you should move to a farm or someplace, where the environment is rich in leaking conical storage tanks, falling anvils, populations of hawks and rabbits in dynamic equilibrium, tractors vainly but heroically struggling against the coriolis force to plow true north-south running furrows, etc. -- Roland HutchinsonýýýýýýýýýýýýýýWillýplayýviolaýdaýgambaýforýfood. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam.ýýIfýyourýmessageýlooksýlikeýspamýIýmayýnotýseeýit. |