<p>hmmm, not sure what that means, exactlly....in reference to my posts</p>
<p>I am not saying be ignorant when it comes to math, but the opposite</p>
<p>But teach math to those that aren't math whizzes, that is real life math, tough math, tough thinking, but real</p>
<p>CGM- you totally miss the point, probably because you don't know what you don't know. You keep bashing math without knowing what you are missing. No one is advocating years of calculus, it is pointed out that a knowledge of the basics leads to understanding how things work, relate to each other, etc., at a higher level of understanding than HS math skills can provide. Reading many pieces of good literature under the tutelage of a college professor can also lead to insights otherwise missed on one's own.</p>
<p>With so many experts in history populating politics and government (all social sciences, BTW) we still go to war...</p>
<p>Smart people do not need to prove they are smart, they just are. The smartest (most gifted) are smart in many different areas of intelligence- it is better to be more rather than less able. But that discussion is totally irrelevant here. Being well educated has been mentioned, a totally different area. Being aware of an area of math does not lessen a person's level of education. I think taking one college level math course plus one literature course would make a person better educated than two courses in literature alone would. The key is being more well rounded. </p>
<p>Human interactions do not need literature- talk to an older blue collar worker who has never read the great authors and you may find the same insights. BTW- there are people out there using principals learned in calculus applied to fields used to manipulate the population's behavior. Businesses don't use trial and error when they can use sophisticated tools to market their goods and services.</p>
<p>My post just crossed with some others. About time I get on with my life outside this post...</p>
<p>CGM, if it's calculus you are against, I can see where you're coming from. If it's math you're against, I think you should consider your position more carefully.</p>
<p>I think it might be interesting to teach something like a "history of mathematics with applications" sequence to non-science/math/engineering majors to fulfill the requirement. It would include the major historical developments of the field, discoveries and emergence of new fields... framing mathematics from the origins to the present day. It would also give examples of applications to science and engineering. The text could also include some famous proofs, as well as a carefully selected assortment of problems which can be solved using a bare minimum of theory from the text.</p>
<p>This format would also lend itself to essays, papers, and projects, rather than the simple problem-solving normally seen in introductory math courses. Such a course could be graded according to something like:</p>
<p>Homework: 25% ... simple exercises & short answer questions
Paper 1: 10% ... a paper on the history of mathematics.
Paper 2: 10% ... a paper on the history of mathematics.
Project 1: 10% ... a project concerning an application of mathematics
Test 1: 10% ... short answer, multiple choice, maybe a few simple problems
Test 2: 10% ... short answer, multiple choice, maybe a few simple problems
Final: 25% ... short answer, multiple choice, maybe a few simple problems</p>
<p>This could also help students think about the meaning of the math rather than just the numbers. CGM, what do you think?</p>
<p>A few years ago, I read a book called La theoreme du parroquet<a href="%22The%20Parrot's%20Theorem%22%20in%20English,%20I%20think">/i</a>, by someone named Denis Guedj. It was an attempt to do something like *Sophie's World for math: a novel about a group of teenagers trying to solve a mystery, and essentially having to learn the history and practice of mathmatics in order to do it. It's popular, and reductive, and not entirely successful (it gets more and more forced as it goes on), but it's a pretty enjoyable and easy-to-digest trip through the history of math, at least into the early 20th century. Some people here may like it. It's great on stuff like the discovery of zero, the development of geometry and algebra, and imaginary numbers.</p>
<p>My social-science-y daughter was right on the borderline for Calc X and AP Calc, but her teacher put her in the class for AP Calc because he said she has a very good work ethic.</p>
<p>It was a good choice; her friends were in the class and they (with teacher sanction) did all the problem sets together. She found that there were some things she was best at and the group always turned to her in those areas. </p>
<p>She found that it was her most fun class in her entire high school career. She had fun being the expert at her women's college, and enjoys knowing how more advanced math-science-engineering projects work.</p>
<p>Passing the AP calc test was the high point of her high school career.</p>
<p>She took Logic in college to satsify her math requirement (though repeating calc would probably have been easier) and I doubt she will ever take another math class.</p>
<p>But she treasures calc. She really does.</p>
<p>
[quote]
sure one year of calc is great, but if you think 2 or 3 years is necessary for the majority of students to study to understand the world, you are mistaken.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Who has said this? Most people in this thread seem to advocate single-variable calculus. Even high schools seem to be able to complete such material in a year, with AP Calc BC.</p>
<p>
[quote]
How about some economics, some stats, some banking, some talks about budgets-national, state, city
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Who has spoken against this? I wish my high school had offered a decent econ class.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I would rather a population that has some experience with all of those topics then a population that can do a bunch of proofs
[/quote]
</p>
<p>For some reason you think calculus is a bunch of proofs. It's not, particularly if you're not taking some math majors' theoretical version of it. And I haven't seen anyone on this thread advocating universal teaching of mathematical analysis yet.</p>
<p>
[quote]
learning REAL WORLD subjects is more useful than some proofs that actually don't mean didlly to most of us
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why you think calc is not part of, or applicable to, the real word, is a mystery to me.</p>
<p>Nobody's saying that the subjects you advocate aren't important or shouldn't be taught. Nobody's saying (here) that being good at math == greater overall intelligence. Stop with the straw men.</p>
<p>of course its not math I am against, its this idea that two or more years of calc are necessary for the "average" person in life</p>
<p>I am not for using calc as some way of seperating the shaft from the wheat</p>
<p>Btw, got a 750 on math SAT when I was in HS, and took Calc and did well in college, so I DO know of what I speak</p>
<p>Math is wonderful, it absolutely is, but this constant forced idea that CALC is somehow so important as a tool to somehow show you are smart</p>
<p>My point is and always has been there are lots of ways to teach what calc is supposed to teach- thinking- and there are other kinds of "math" that are much more beneficial to learn about in college and as seniors in HS, then one more year of CALC- for many many students</p>
<p>As I said, my D did a year of calc and a year of AP Stats, what she learned in stats is MUCH MORE USEFUL in the real world than what she would have gotten from a second year of Calc</p>
<p>I am good at math, find it interesting, love watching #s, love watching shows on fractiles, etc.</p>
<p>However, I am much more seeing the Big Picture of society, and think that if we had more kids who understood economics, statistics, banking, budgeting, etc., we would be much better off</p>
<p>And if a kid could take a real life math course- with tough math= to be sure, then why not?</p>
<p>What do you all have against studying economics? Statistics? Budgets?
for a senior year in HS....</p>
<p>Colleges want the highests math possible....why...they are the advocates and pushers of a second year of calc</p>
<p>people hear put down economics and stats</p>
<p>so its not "pretty" math....it is real math for the majority of americans</p>
<p>what I say about Calc, is because I have DONE IT, so have my Ds, and for my Ds, nothing really is tangible to real life </p>
<p>My younger D will take two years of Calc most likely, she finds it easy...but she is taking econ online</p>
<p>All over this sight are people saying, oh colleges need two years of cacl, stats and econ stink and won't get you in, blah blah blah</p>
<p>it is that MINDSET of Calc (for 2 years) being necessary, when I say it should not be to get into an amazing college</p>
<p>it is that MINDESET that Calc (for 2 years) teaches thinking and analysis, and that nothing else can teach thinking, well I disagree wholeheartedly with that</p>
<p>it is this mindset of colleges that if you take two years of calc you are some sort of amazing applicant above others who didn't do two years of calc</p>
<p>my Ds GC pushed and pushed her to take that second year of calculus, she refused...why did he push? this mindset that is is necessary</p>
<p>I have seen many miserable kids, and I mean really disgusted, taking that second year of calc, when they were pushed into for some antiquated reasons of necessity, when they would have much rather taken Econ or Stats</p>
<p>that is what I am angry about</p>
<p>quicksilver,
DS1 is actually taking a class like that next term. It's the closest thing he'll get to proofs in HS (though he has a gotten a lot of experience outside of school). He would also agree with you on discrete math...no question (and he's a guy who also loves pure math).</p>
<p>cgm: I think I see your point, but I don't think colleges are asking for two years of calc. The kids I know who were accepted at HYPS all had only one year of calc.</p>
<p>Calc is a gatekeeper course. I think for some who are not as good in math as you are it is comforting to start in HS and not be automatically closed out of certain paths because of calc fear.</p>
<p>I am sure the stats course is very, very useful.</p>
<p>cgm: It is a little confusing that your daughter's school offered two years of calculus. That seems unusual. A few schools apparently offer a progression of AB and then BC Calculus, but that isn't the norm at all as far as I know. My kids' school didn't even offer AB Calculus as a separate option. Their friends who completed BC Calculus before their senior years tended to take non-calculus math courses at local universities next.</p>
<p>cgm:</p>
<p>why do you persist with your straw man saying colleges require two years of calc? They just don't and no one on cc has ever said that they do. Where does that "mindset" originate? Is that your GC's advice?</p>
<p>However, if by two years do you mean Calc AB in year 1 and Calc BC in Year 2? If so, then, yes, "two" years would make sense since Calc AB is really just a half-year course at competitive high schools, and it considered a so-called AP Lite.</p>
<p>
[quote]
All over this sight are people saying, oh colleges need two years of cacl, stats and econ stink and won't get you in, blah blah blah
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This might be people being misinformed. I took a year of calc (BC) and a year of stats and got into MIT. And a lot of other top schools. I had friends had MIT who had NO calculus in high school. If people are telling you that a high school student must have two years of calc to get into good schools, I would take their advice with about a tablespoon of salt. That said, I've taken both non-calc-based stats (in high school) and calc-based prob/stats (in college), and you can learn prob/stats with much more thoroughness once you have BASIC calc. Nothing fancy, nothing that takes two years to learn, just the ability to differentiate and integrate.</p>
<p>
[quote]
my Ds GC pushed and pushed her to take that second year of calculus, she refused...why did he push? this mindset that is is necessary
[/quote]
</p>
<p>See, this is a problem with your GC. I could have started on multi-variable in high school, but I felt that I had done a poor job of learning the later parts of single-variable (as indicated by my AP test scores) and wanted to master it before I moved on. My GC didn't hassle me about this.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Math is wonderful, it absolutely is, but this constant forced idea that CALC is somehow so important as a tool to somehow show you are smart
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This may surprise you, but I agree that calc is overrated in the math curriculum. I found linear algebra to be at least as useful. That said, this doesn't mean that calc is unimportant. Something can be overrated but still important.</p>
<p>I agree that it should not be used as an intelligence-proving tool.</p>
<p>
[quote]
My point is and always has been there are lots of ways to teach what calc is supposed to teach- thinking-
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The point of calc is not just to teach thinking. It is a directly applicable branch of math. It is useful in some of these subjects that you (rightly) laud, such as econ and stats.</p>
<p>I think one reason that people put down econ and stats classes here is that most high school econ and stats classes are pretty awful, not rigorous treatment of the subject at all. This is unfortunate, and not the fault of these worthy subjects.</p>
<p>I'm hopeless when it comes to math- so I'm going on what I've learned from my kids. Don't flame me for ignorance, please. S tells me that you have to understand calc to understand physics, and physics is the underpinning for chemistry, which is the underpinning for biology, and so on. Therefore, wouldn't one have to understand some calculus in order to truly do justice to the study of science?</p>
<p>This is a little off topic but very interesting. An old prayer book was found to also contain the work of Archimedes as he discovered the principles of calculus. I can't say that I remember enough calculus to appreciate all of the mathematical details discussed here, but it is a fascinating story!</p>
<p>
[quote]
However, if by two years do you mean Calc AB in year 1 and Calc BC in Year 2? If so, then, yes, "two" years would make sense since Calc AB is really just a half-year course at competitive high schools, and it considered a so-called AP Lite.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Now, though i have stayed out of this discussion up to this point--that makes me nuts. Out in regular-people land, Calc AB is what's offered, and only AB; it's a one year course, and it's kind of denigrating to announce that's it's "AP lite." Loads of kids, including mine, get into some pretty dang good schools with socalled Calc Lite, not because they're slacking, but because that's what their HS offers.</p>
<p>Garland-- while you're true that in fact many places offer AB as a one year option (my school only offers AB and not BC at all), it is AP Lite. I say that because it's truly not even close to one years worth of material, and those who do poorly taking AB across a year likely shouldn't be taking calc or are just lazy because they're seniors. I say this having taken AB over the course of a year as senior.</p>
<p>That being said, CGM is still throwing up the strawman, and not just with her insistence on going back to this "two years" of calc requirement where the only people in this thread defending the calc requirement/usefulness of calc are simply saying the concepts of calc are worth learning and understanding, which clearly does not require two years.</p>
<p>And doubleplay, you're generally correct.</p>
<p>sorry, garland, no intent to denigrate what your school (and others) offer -- the curriculum is what it is. But, calc AB is typically a half-year course at many high schools around the country. That doesn't mean that AB isn't a rigorous course at your HS, it just means it is less rigorous than AB/BC taken in the same year elsewhere. A 5 on the AB test receives less college credit than a 5 on the BC test. </p>
<p>btw: I never used the word slacking, nor did I suggest that kids who take AB do not get into some "good schools". Heck, one possible advantage of AB is to allow a student more time for additional academic classes, or ECs or research, or whatever, to strengthen their app.</p>
<p>Please don't take out of context, which was only trying to clarify cgm's point. If cgm's HS offers both AB & BC, then the AB math curriculum is gonna be, by definition, less rigorous than the BC math curriculum. Of course, "rigor" is in the eye of the application reader, and is balanced by the other academic classes on the transcript.</p>
<p>Actually, that characterization of AB vs. BC does not tell the entire story. While AB may only be half the course material for a full year course and in that way "lite" many students fare better on the second portion of the BC course and actually do better on BC AP exam than AB.</p>
<p>A student who is not stellar in AB may have a poor teacher, may not be receptive to the ideas introduced, might actually fare better in BC. I have actually seen this happen.</p>
<p>I don't think it's necessary to paint with such a broad brush.</p>
<p>Actually, AB is not and should not be a half course. It is more like 2/3 of BC. Which is why I think that BC should not be a full year course on top of a full year AB course. </p>
<p>
[quote]
many students fare better on the second portion of the BC course and actually do better on BC AP exam than AB.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That is true; and it is also true that BC students are self-selecting. I remember reading about a powerhouse school in CA holding a bootcamp for students in AP-Calc AB (but not in AP-Calc BC). It was precisely because the AB students tend to be more of a mixed bag.</p>