Iam not too good at math do you think its going to be hard for me to persue a bachelor’s degree in computer science or computer engineering
Iam not too good at math do you think its going to be hard for me persue a degree in computer scienc
What do you call “not good at math”? Please list highest math class taken and grade, sat score, sat math 2 subject score if taken, any AP score, as well as physics class/es taken and grades received, scores if relevant.
It depends on what you mean by not good in math, but you shouldn’t have a problem if your perseverance and will to learn are strong.
It also depends what type of school you go to. Out local state university that has an average ACT of 22 has a computer science major. I’m sure most of the kids doing computer science there entered only with precalc behind them and no math APs.
Fun fact: A person who is “not too good at math” is not doomed to remain that way.
The thing is, math is fairly cumulative. If you can identify the weaknesses in your foundation and fill in the gaps, say on Kahn Academy, over the summer. There’s no reason you can’t be a math superstar.
As for the state school with an average ACT of 22…typically the engineering and CS students have higher numbers. If they don’t they could struggle. There’s a minimum level for competency, outlined by ABET at most schools. There’s only so soft that it can be made no matter how pedestrian the program.
After you complete your computer science/engineering degree and work for a couple years in the field, you will be a lot better at math regardless of how good you were when you started
Well that really depends. If you have difficulty learning most new math concepts then another field might be a better choice. I am not of the mind that applying yourself will make you good enough to compete with people who have a natural ability in some area. That being said, if you are good enough to do hold your own in higher level math classes then it’s probably fine. You don’t have to be the best you just have to be good enough that you can learn material and build on your foundation. Have you considered other related fields that are not so math intensive? Can you program? If programming comes easily and math is more difficult then you might also be fine. If both are VERY challenging then I’d consider other related fields. Also, some of the best engineers aren’t the best mathematicians but they are conceptual thinkers. So there are lots of avenues.
This concept has been fairly well debunked. No one really has “natural ability,” even people like Mozart and Bobby Fisher, who were felt to be “naturals.” It turns out that they just had great support structures that lead to massive, guided experience at an early age.
There are a few who do not possess math skill, or who have severely compromised math skills. It’s called dyscalculia. It’s very rare. Other than those afflicted, we all probably have the same math potential.
@eyemgh Actually one single book does not create an entire category of thought for the human race. It is well known that Leonardo, Mozart and many many others were true geniuses and had natural skills in these ( and other areas). IQ measures intelligence and includes a component for the age of the person. As anyone can attest if they are honest with themselves, there are things they just cannot do. For me, it’s programming. For others learning languages and so on. And there are things which we pick up quite naturally. The folks who believe that anyone can be a master if they do it for 10,000 hours should try doing something they do poorly for 10,000 hours then comparing themselves with someone who had native ability and did it for far less time and far better.
Many try to sell the idea of the learned mindset. But it is not borne out by fact. Yes, we need to work hard at things but we cannot all be Mozart, or engineers even. Just as others cannot be artists or writers. We are each unique and that has nothing at all with learning and everything to do with interest and capacity and ability.
My observation in IT has been that people with less natural (programming) talent are more likely to be promoted into management. I wouldn’t advise anyone to disqualify themselves from a perfectly good way of making a living because they are not Mozart. It could take some hard work though.You’ll still have to pass the tests in school.
The fields of educational and cognitive psychology disagree with your assessment. Human beings don’t have a great deal of variation in terms of their innate abilities in a given subject, and their eventual aptitudes are determined much more strongly by the cumulative life experiences up until whatever point those aptitudes are measured. Whatever innate ability a child possesses in a subject is rapidly outweighed by their experience. This is pretty well established by scientific evidence. I have no idea why the concept is still controversial to some.
Of course, there’s a lot more to I than just hard work. You have to work hard at the right kinds of tasks to learn most effectively, not just for some special amount of time with some special level of focus. Additionally, by the time a kid reaches adolescence and has been convinced thay he or she is “bad at math”, there’s also a motivation factor where they are so convinced they are innately bad at it that they are no longer motivated to improve.
If that is the case, then why do we have people who have IQ’s of 60 and some with IQs of 160. While I would agree that most are near the 100 mark, there are many who are many sigmas away from that mean. It’s not just IQ measurements which bear this out. Let’s use a professional athlete as an example. No matter what I do, I will NEVER be a professional football player. Nor will I be an opera singer. Or many other things. Even if I practiced since birth. There are human differences and that is good. Not all of those differences are societal. Not all differences can be overcome by working hard at it.
Math is something that can be learned and everyone can learn math up to a point ( and should). That doesn’t mean that everyone will understand fractals or be able to solve differential calculus.
You cannot groom children to reach a particular level in anything( though many try). As a parent you can see differences even at two years old. Do you remember the kid who jumped higher, read more books, etc etc. What happened? Chances are they went into a field they were good at.
You don’t have to be Mozart to do well. But you do need to have some talent in an area to be able to be seen as competent.
Think of a random person. Ok, think of something they do which you cannot. Can you learn that skill? Could you ever do it as well as they do? Given every advantage in learning that skill would you be able to do it?
Even if IQ was an actual objective measure of intelligence (it isn’t), your point here also assumes that one’s I is determined solely by innate ability and not at all by life experiences. That is also not the case.
First, you are now assuming that athletic and vocal performance obey the same governing rules as cognition and learning. While they are likely similar, they’re unlikely to be identical.
Second, I challenge the assertion that, barring some medical condition, you couldn’t train yourself to be an opera singer given enough time and motivation. Your only evidence that this is not possible seems to be that you are not currently able to sing opera.
Yes, barring a legitimate medical condition, anyone can learn these things. True issue is that by the time a person is old enough to take these subjects in school (i.e. college), most of them have already decided or been told that they don’t like or aren’t good at math.
I never claimed there weren’t differences between people. I’ve only claimed that, with learning, the scientific evidence shows that the actual innate ability factor is very small. The standard deviation in innate ability is quite small, while the standard deviation in life experiences of and opportunities for children (and the adults they become) is much larger and has a much larger cumulative effect on their final level of intelligence or ability.
For a detailed dive into this topic (if you’re curious), check out the book [Make it Stick by Brown, Roediger III, and McDaniel.](https://www.amazon.com/dp/0674729013) It isn’t the most thrilling read in the world, but it is an interesting dive into the cognitive science behind how people learn and how that can be incorporated into teaching or studying.
I think there is a difference between wondering if it is possible (answer: yes you can study cs or engineering and be successful) versus if it is realistically likely, which I think is no.
@Nipnnbharad - Honestly, I work in computer science and everyone I know in the field is good at math. It’s not numbers per se it’s logic. You have to love logic and be willing to immerse yourself in it. I disagree with the idea that just because you want to go into a particular field you can and you’ll be fine in any major with enough effort; the competition for jobs is too rough and other people who are “good at math” will eat your lunch unless you have something else to bring to the table. If you want to go into programming because you love coding and or software design and you’re passionate about learning new ways of doing that - well then, welcome to the club - go for it, but don’t try engineering (there’s a lot of math), go for straight CS and learn every language you can. If you want to become a software engineer because people tell you its a good career or you hear they make good money but you don’t have any real passion for it - I would encourage you to look for a major that utilizes your strengths instead.
@Happytimes2001, I think @boneh3ad has summed my position up well. The only things I’ll add are these. My opinion is not from “one book.” It’s the currently held position in the cognitive science literature.
As for Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, his father was the original helidad. He was a well known composer of his era and had his son taking long hours of professional instruction from the time he was 3 years old. Certainly there are some horsepower differences at the margins, but his story is often told as innate talent when it was actually opportunity.
Lastly, the 10,000 hours deal has been routinely misquoted and misinterpreted. The number of hours it takes vary widely depending on what the particular skill is. Additionally, it’s not just the time, but the purposefulness of the practice, spending the majority of the time, unlike most of us, on the things that haven’t been mastered.
For the OP, you’ll get the best advice if you are active in your own thread. You made a nebulous statement and have been asked to clarify. If you do, the replies will be more useful to you.
I find this very interesting. My daughter has dyscalcula and good thing for calculators…
As anyone can learn math as both arguments have been presented. I think it’s how you process that information and how you conceptually use it. Some people can just innately “see” and understand the concepts better then others. Some people just have better analytical skills then others.
Also there has to be a true desire to learn the subject.
My son was a tournament chess player in middle and high school . I played chess in high school for fun. I could beat him when he was like in 4th grade…
I guess I could play daily online, take lessons, play people at the park to become better but It would personally take to much for me to ever beat him… Ha…
Detouring a bit from the debate about being good at math… I think it is important that you LIKE math and problem solving.
In high school, I loved math (my high school “sport” was math team). In college I was not as naturally talented at calculus it many of my engineering classmates. But I plugged away at it and graduated with honors. (Grad school would have been a challenge since in retrospect I didn’t work hard enough the understand the math theory.) I liked problem solving, and there is A LOT of problem solving in engineering assignments.
This is not the same as “nobody has innate ability”. Mozart is many standard deviations away from the average on the curve. It’s fairly obvious to me that all people without learning disabilities can be taught to some degree of competency in any area. However, for some people this will take much longer that for others even with exactly the same starting conditions. Also, in math “some degree of competency” means understanding high school algebra, maybe calculus, maybe discrete math. It assuredly doesn’t mean making them a good professional mathematician. I have a PhD in math and and while I can try to blame the upbringing for the difference between me and people who couldn’t understand fractions, I am very aware of a difference in natural abilities between me and Terence Tao, and no book will convince me otherwise.