I don't think it's necessarily an emotional position (although it does make me happy to see others succeed), but rather a reasonable one based on the severely flawed nature of STEM education. I have written at length about this problem elsewhere on the forum, but I cannot seem to find the post at this time. So, I will attempt to answer it with a new post:
You seem to be under the impression that mathematics is inherently impenetrable to the vast majority of people. I would argue that this is not true; on the contrary, the way mathematics is typically taught in US schools creates that impression. For every math whiz, there are at least three or four people who find the subject utterly terrifying - problem after problem on the homework that seems impossible, classes governed by strict memorization of formulas and procedures and quiet, independent study/"learning," and often, a distant teacher who does not engage the students after the lesson is over except to answer homework questions. Such scenarios are common in math classes today. This tends to lead to excessive binary thinking - either you have a math brain, or you don't; that's the folk wisdom. There are books devoted to helping kids overcome their fear of math. Thinking that math is an inborn activity leads to students shutting down when they arbitrarily decide that they just can't "do math." The pattern continues in universities, where due to budgetary constraints, math classes are often taught in lecture format and foreign TAs help out (there is nothing inherently wrong with that, but there are some questions as to whether quality education has been sacrificed in favor of cost-cutting. College finances, however, are a whole other can of worms that is frankly tangential to the original topic.)
Mathematics classes have a long history of being revised (usually the clamor starts every decade) - Common Core is probably the latest development in this tradition, scarcely an unprecedented encroachment into education. But the common thread in all these revisions is that not enough people were acquiring advanced math skills, even when the students tended to be predominantly male. My position is that this lack of performance has to do with the highly algorithmic nature of math education today, despite several reform attempts aimed at "humanizing" math - and if you think this humanization is a vulgarization of what math is supposed to be about, consider that Gauss himself said math is "
non notationes, sed notiones" (not notation, but notions). There is practically nothing alluring about math as it is taught in school - no discussions of how proofs, definitions, and examples are arrived at (the beautiful stuff), but rather rules, rules, rules. School treats kids as though they are incapable of handling complex thought, instead preferring to stick to basics.
Mathematical maturity must be nurtured and encouraged to grow at an early age - it cannot be grafted on later, after one has learned the basics.
So why am I going through all of this seemingly unrelated content? I am trying to challenge the assumption that math is inherently something for the top 1% of learners (or a similarly small percentage). I would rather address the serious structural flaws in the math educational system before deciding that "Everyone can be an engineer, a CEO, a mathematician..." is a foolish thing to say. Anecdotally, I have watched myself blossom as a student under certain professors whose teaching style meshed extremely well with my learning style. I have found that certain areas of mathematics appeal to me more than others (I am better at pure math - the proofs, the abstract thinking, yes, even the
beauty, rather than applied math). So yes, I do stick by my statement that you felt the need to quote in this thread, one hundred percent. If serious reforms are enacted and there are still issues with finding enough talented math students, then maybe we can talk. But until that happens, I don't think you can summarily dismiss my position so easily.
Connect With Us