<p>and if x has no relationship to skills needed on the job, then it is not necessary to teach x in schools.</p>
<p>(Or, only teach x in a way that make people interested in >>>my<<< domain of expertise.)</p>
<p>--- From Andrew Hacker, prof. emeritus of Political Science at CUNY.</p>
<p>Y’know, if we’re looking at subjects taught in high school that have no relation whatsoever to any skill needed on the job, I nominate reading and analyzing fiction, poetry and plays. Some people do actually need algebra in their jobs: engineers, scientists, programmers. </p>
<p>But how many jobs require someone to analyze a novel? Why on earth are we not having students read, analyze and write nonfiction instead? A huge amount of high school time is spent on English literature: why?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I disagree even though I wouldn’t consider myself a big fan of poetry classes. </p>
<p>Learning how to read and analyze fiction is an excellent way to learn critical reading and analysis skills critical to reading and understanding what we read in every aspect of our daily lives in and our of the workplace. It also greatly helps with the analysis and understanding of abstract concepts. </p>
<p>Being mandated to take 4 years worth of humanities classes…including literature with respectable reading/writing loads in high school including a mandated 20 page senior English thesis was a key reason how I was able to cope and do well in college with reading loads approaching 1000 pages of non-fiction reading per week per class and writing approaching 35-60 pages per class per semester. </p>
<p>Also, I personally find that if one learns how to critically read and analyze fictional prose…doing the same for non-fiction is a snap whether it’s in the context of reading speed or comprehension.</p>
<p>The original article confuses “math”, “higher math” and “algebra” as though they are one. Basic alegbra is barely math. Without that, we have essentially what’s called “arithmetic”. It’s silly to conflate higher math with solving for x, which is done at all levels of elementary school. </p>
<p>Most people lack basic arithmetic skills and that is based in confusion over the measurement and understanding of quantity. Most of schooling is spent trying to teach these fundamentals. When kids reach basic algebra, their actual lack of understanding comes out.</p>
<p>Putting aside algebra, geometry is a huge subject first begun before you start pre-school. We can’t drop that. I can see making trigonometry optional; it is in many schools and is the first subject which is relatively easily disconnected from the rest. Yes, it’s based on triangles and the like and is taught very badly but it is at least more separable.</p>
<p>I doubt many kids understand logarithms much at all. But you need them to do nearly anything that requires analysis.</p>
<p>If I were the Queen of High School Curriculum, I’d require fractions, decimals and working with linear equations in two variables. I’d also require basic probability and statistics. Logarithms and trigonometry I would not require for graduation. But of course anyone who wanted to study math or science in college would need to learn basic mathematics, including algebra and trig.</p>
<p>And I would revamp the English curriculum to emphasize reading and analyzing nonfiction. High school graduates on average (not the high school graduates whose parents are here, but on average) are so bad at reading and writing; they should spend less time on poetry and more time on how to read sources, analyze what they are saying, and then synthesize and write a logical, persuasive argument in standard written English.</p>
<p>Cardinal Fang: That’s what history classes are supposed to teach. Unfortunately, they don’t. My D had one or two take-home essay assignments in 3 years of high school history. And why is that? Because all the emphasis is on learning how to write in-class essays to pass standardized tests, including AP tests.</p>
<p>Which high schools have history classes that emphasize reading and writing? Virtually none.</p>
<p>Let me rephrase the author’s words in brackets:</p>
<p>It’s clear that requiring [history] for everyone has not increased our appreciation of a calling someone once called “the [mathematics] of the universe.” </p>
<p>The same case could be made for every discipline, whether that be poetry, art, poli sci, etc.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>California’s two university systems also require one year of Art (VAPA), “and in that way exclude many applicants who might excel in fields like…” (This requirement trips up many OOS’ers btw.)</p>
<p>California’s two university systems also require two years of history/social studies, “and in that way exclude many applicants who might excel in fields like…”</p>
<p>California’s two university systems also require four years of English, “and in that way exclude many applicants who might excel in fields like…”</p>
<p>The question that the good professor should be asking is, ‘what constitutes a proper high school education?’ (however defined)</p>
<p>All subjects in high school theoretically require students to read the books.</p>
<p>But most do not require much writing, so English writing instruction ends up being mainly focused on English literature. This is not necessarily an ideal state of affairs, since practice in writing about various subjects is useful.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Now that is some serious reading load.</p>
<p>Of all the subject to say aren’t useful, Algebra? How about Chemistry, Physics, Biology, Earth Science/Geology, World History, Foreign Language, Trigonometry, or Literature?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>At least one. My daughter’s high school history curriculum emphasized reading original sources and writing papers based on those sources. So history can be taught well at the high school level.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Or art or music or philosophy or psychology or sociology… </p>
<p>Which pretty much leaves shop and home ec.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I disagree. Analyzing fiction requires many skills that have nothing to do with critical reading of non-fiction. Metaphor, plot, characters, figurative language, allegory, rhythm: what have these to do with reading and understanding a list of job requirements, an insurance form, a memo from your boss, a letter from the IRS, an editorial in the New York Times? What have they to do with reading and understanding a history text, a science book, or any other academic piece of writing not involved with literary analysis? Nothing.</p>
<p>Literary analysis may be interesting, and skill in literary analysis may make someone a better, more cultured person. But teaching writing skills solely or mainly by literary analysis, as is done in American high schools, is an inefficient way to teach writing skills. Employers are not lining up to hire people who can analyze poems-- but employers do want employees who can read and understand the normal written material that comes across the desk or table of their employees, and employers do want employees who can write coherently.</p>
<p>Mathematics is already taught in way that tries to make it useful. Branches of math that are more “discrete” in nature, things like combinatorics, discrete math, linear algebra, abstract algebra, are barely covered at all, even though they don’t require that much in prerequisites. There is a lot of emphasis on calculus, on the other hand, which has obvious applications in econ, and engineering.</p>
<p>I wish English classes covered more non-fiction. Ours did from time to time - some famous speeches, Emerson’s essays, Walden…</p>
<p>My kids had at least one long history research paper a semester and read lots of primary sources.</p>
<p>As to the OP - think students should know enough algebra to know if the storage facility that charges a one time fee but $10 less a month than the other is worth it or not, that’s a pretty simple real life algebra problem.</p>
<p>I don’t feel sorry for kids tripped up by California’s art requirement - it should be a requirement for high school graduation, it’s required by NYS.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Gee, my history classes taught history. Novel concept, eh?</p>
<p>^History can be taught in many ways. Part of learning history, as opposed to memorizing historical facts, is learning to think like a historian. That requires reading source documents and analyzing them. So yes, that means a lot of reading and a lot of writing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Bingo. And which is exactly why someone who lacks that skill cannot be considered educated. Prepared for a trade, perhaps, but educated? No way.</p>
<p>^^And I would argue that skills in algebra are also a requirement for someone ‘considered educated’.</p>
<p>Obviously, the History Prof does not concur.</p>