On the issue of kids not pursuing engineering/science/math these days

[irises28]

Nah man, Calculus is mainly just new forms of computation. That's hardly math. If your textbook doesn't have more than a total of 10 proofs, its certainly not mathematics (and calculus books mainly have definitions that you merely execute).

Don't get me wrong, computation courses can be hard. But I think one major reason why so many people shy away from "math" is because they've been taught computation their whole lives, so they don't know how interesting mathematics can actually be.

And a smart kid once told me that people usually throw around the term "genius" so they don't have to admit the other person is just normal- that the other person is actually in our league, and they had to work for their knowledge. We say they are a "genius" so we never have to compete with them, so we can acknowledge and dismiss their success without engaging our sense of competition, so we can avoid having to compare to them. But its not because they are actually geniuses. I am a physics math double major at a pretty rigorous school, and I am not sure if I know a single genius.

Sorry this is so late, I was just reading this thread now, but I agree completely with everything said here.

 

[Sankaku]

...people usually throw around the term "genius" so they don't have to admit the other person is just normal- that the other person is actually in our league, and they had to work for their knowledge. We say they are a "genius" so we never have to compete with them, so we can acknowledge and dismiss their success without engaging our sense of competition, so we can avoid having to compare to them. But its not because they are actually geniuses.

I want to quote this too. Really well said.

 

[MissSilvy]

I agree but what people also don't realize is that the reason people dismiss someone as a 'genius' is the same as the reason people explain their lack of mathematical talent is due to not taking calculus in elementary school, or not having a 'biological advantage' for math or any other number of excuses that shifts the blame for their lack of understanding or progress off of them and onto someone or something else beyond their control. After all, which sounds better; 'I'm not excelling at math because I'm not putting the time, effort, and desire into understanding it,' or 'I'm not excelling at math because I started learning math too late and that makes me 'not a math person'.

Some may disagree, but I don't believe in 'math/physics/whatever person' arguments that usually say that if you don't do math or science when you're really young or your parents weren't very good at math, then you'll be doomed to have a difficult and uphill battle with it for the rest of your life. There are plenty of examples of people who were not math people or physics people before they knuckled down and decided they would be good at it. The problem is that once/if these types of people succeed, people dismiss it as 'ah, surely he was a math person this entire time!' as has just happened earlier in this thread. It's harmful and defeatist thinking based on scarce and conflicting psychological 'studies'.

 

[Tiger99]

I agree but what people also don't realize is that the reason people dismiss someone as a 'genius' is the same as the reason people explain their lack of mathematical talent is due to not taking calculus in elementary school, or not having a 'biological advantage' for math or any other number of excuses that shifts the blame for their lack of understanding or progress off of them and onto someone or something else beyond their control. After all, which sounds better; 'I'm not excelling at math because I'm not putting the time, effort, and desire into understanding it,' or 'I'm not excelling at math because I started learning math too late and that makes me 'not a math person'.

Some may disagree, but I don't believe in 'math/physics/whatever person' arguments that usually say that if you don't do math or science when you're really young or your parents weren't very good at math, then you'll be doomed to have a difficult and uphill battle with it for the rest of your life. There are plenty of examples of people who were not math people or physics people before they knuckled down and decided they would be good at it. The problem is that once/if these types of people succeed, people dismiss it as 'ah, surely he was a math person this entire time!' as has just happened earlier in this thread. It's harmful and defeatist thinking based on scarce and conflicting psychological 'studies'.

This strikes a chord for me in a way. But the funny thing is I still have trouble convincing me of its truth (is it true?). Even though I have a PhD in math I still worry that I can't actually be any good at it and I'll never be good at it because I didn't do those math competitions and stuff in high school and didn't advance through high school at a faster pace like most people in my university classes.

It's really hard to overcome my self-doubt and I find it quite distracting. At the very least it means I have to think about things for three months before I'm willing to ask questions because I figure about three months of my time is worth ten minutes of someone who's actually good at math. (To this day I've only asked two questions in a math lecture and both times I felt like my heart was going to fall out of my chest I got so nervous.)

But maybe I am just not very good at it. I wish I could be good at it with effort and desire for understanding and so forth. I guess my problem might not be a lack of mathematical ability specifically but just a lack of general intelligence.

 

[symbolipoint]

Tiger99, what you say is strange, or maybe you just exaggerated what you meant. How likely can a student repeat different courses (more than one course, each taken twice) before the school expells him? Yes, some people really need to repeat more than one course of Mathematics in college just to receive a successful letter grade. This would indicate the need to change major field. What happened with you on your way through college through entrance to your PhD program, and finally earning your PhD?

 

[sportsstar469]

I agree but what people also don't realize is that the reason people dismiss someone as a 'genius' is the same as the reason people explain their lack of mathematical talent is due to not taking calculus in elementary school, or not having a 'biological advantage' for math or any other number of excuses that shifts the blame for their lack of understanding or progress off of them and onto someone or something else beyond their control. After all, which sounds better; 'I'm not excelling at math because I'm not putting the time, effort, and desire into understanding it,' or 'I'm not excelling at math because I started learning math too late and that makes me 'not a math person'.

Some may disagree, but I don't believe in 'math/physics/whatever person' arguments that usually say that if you don't do math or science when you're really young or your parents weren't very good at math, then you'll be doomed to have a difficult and uphill battle with it for the rest of your life. There are plenty of examples of people who were not math people or physics people before they knuckled down and decided they would be good at it. The problem is that once/if these types of people succeed, people dismiss it as 'ah, surely he was a math person this entire time!' as has just happened earlier in this thread. It's harmful and defeatist thinking based on scarce and conflicting psychological 'studies'.

i agree that it doesn't matter whether a person has done math early or late. but that's where my agreement with your post comes to an end. if someone does poorly in math all of their life because of laziness ,or just not being exposed to it, but then later goes on to ace a class such as calc3 -abstract algebra. i WOULD consider them to ''have it'' all their life. they obviously had the aptitude once they at least stopped being lazy, or they were exposed to the material.
now ill admit I am probably slightly better at math than I am making myself out to be. i mean i literally do not care at all this semester, and don't study or do the homework for math,or chem. bio i study though cause its easy(messed up thinking it should be the opposite). but i still have around a b plus in math, a low a in chem, and maybe a b plus or a in bio.

now i would not classify myself as an intelligent person, because i know I am only in college algebra/trigonometry, and a general chem lab course, and a second semester gen bio course. however it would be unfair to compare the kids who study way more than i do, and still only barely scrape by with a c to myself.

in the same way it would be unfair to compare someone like me who has no chance of ever getting higher than a C in calculus 1, when my time comes to take it, to GENIUSES like yourselves here, who can do abstract algebra to b level or maybe even a levels. (i understand not everyone ehre could do that but i mjust saying) there might be people here who view abstract algebra as kindergardens. but yeah its not fair to compare you guys who have not struggled with math at a high school level and who excel in PURE maths and PURE sciences and PURE LOGICS to me.

i do agree that math is hard for everyone though. i told my math teacher i have great respect for her, to be as good in math as she is. isaid what is the hardest math class. she said there is none. you can get as deep into math as youd like. even one of my math tutors said he was struggling in his abstract algebra masters elvel corse.( i thought abstract algebra was bachelors?) anyways my point is, sure they have some math level where they STARTED to struggle but things like algebra, trrig, pre calc, calc 1, calc 2 were not part of what they were struggling with. they did struggle yes, but they struggled when they got up to the higher maths.

 

[Tiger99]

Tiger99, what you say is strange, or maybe you just exaggerated what you meant. How likely can a student repeat different courses (more than one course, each taken twice) before the school expells him? Yes, some people really need to repeat more than one course of Mathematics in college just to receive a successful letter grade. This would indicate the need to change major field. What happened with you on your way through college through entrance to your PhD program, and finally earning your PhD?

I don't really understand, so perhaps I commented out of context. I never repeated any courses. I always did okay, but there were always people doing better so I never overcame my sense of inferiority.

 

[clope023]

Tiger99, what you say is strange, or maybe you just exaggerated what you meant. How likely can a student repeat different courses (more than one course, each taken twice) before the school expells him? Yes, some people really need to repeat more than one course of Mathematics in college just to receive a successful letter grade. This would indicate the need to change major field. What happened with you on your way through college through entrance to your PhD program, and finally earning your PhD?

I had to repeat calc 1 and 2 more than once, again laziness (not realizing how much studying was needed to do well) I've only changed to a different field within engineering/sci/math (in my case electrical engineering)

tiger99 - though I'm just an undergrad I can definately relate, I have a somewhat competitive mindset and when I just can't compete I tend to get depresses about things like that, I would be standing tall and proud with a PhD in math though!

misssilvy - time of the month ended eh? I tend to agree basing everything soley on the genetic factor is defeatist and should be not be the be all end all of your career making decisions; there are different types of talent out there however and things will come easier to people with those talents, I don't have any studies I just speak of it from personal experience (in my case it was with athletics but I believe the trend can still apply to academics)

 

[Klockan3]

I agree but what people also don't realize is that the reason people dismiss someone as a 'genius' is the same as the reason people explain their lack of mathematical talent is due to not taking calculus in elementary school, or not having a 'biological advantage' for math or any other number of excuses that shifts the blame for their lack of understanding or progress off of them and onto someone or something else beyond their control. After all, which sounds better; 'I'm not excelling at math because I'm not putting the time, effort, and desire into understanding it,' or 'I'm not excelling at math because I started learning math too late and that makes me 'not a math person'.

Some may disagree, but I don't believe in 'math/physics/whatever person' arguments that usually say that if you don't do math or science when you're really young or your parents weren't very good at math, then you'll be doomed to have a difficult and uphill battle with it for the rest of your life. There are plenty of examples of people who were not math people or physics people before they knuckled down and decided they would be good at it. The problem is that once/if these types of people succeed, people dismiss it as 'ah, surely he was a math person this entire time!' as has just happened earlier in this thread. It's harmful and defeatist thinking based on scarce and conflicting psychological 'studies'.

This is the important part of your post. For the individual it doesn't matter if there exist talent or not. What matters is you. Then if you believe that you can through hard work get to the top of anything it will allow you to dedicate yourself better towards your goals than if you believe that there exist a possibility that what you want to do is doomed from the start.

 

[sportsstar469]

i agree that it doesn't matter whether a person has done math early or late. but that's where my agreement with your post comes to an end. if someone does poorly in math all of their life because of laziness ,or just not being exposed to it, but then later goes on to ace a class such as calc3 -abstract algebra. i WOULD consider them to ''have it'' all their life. they obviously had the aptitude once they at least stopped being lazy, or they were exposed to the material.
now ill admit I am probably slightly better at math than I am making myself out to be. i mean i literally do not care at all this semester, and don't study or do the homework for math,or chem. bio i study though cause its easy(messed up thinking it should be the opposite). but i still have around a b plus in math, a low a in chem, and maybe a b plus or a in bio.

now i would not classify myself as an intelligent person, because i know I am only in college algebra/trigonometry, and a general chem lab course, and a second semester gen bio course. however it would be unfair to compare the kids who study way more than i do, and still only barely scrape by with a c to myself.

in the same way it would be unfair to compare someone like me who has no chance of ever getting higher than a C in calculus 1, when my time comes to take it, to GENIUSES like yourselves here, who can do abstract algebra to b level or maybe even a levels. (i understand not everyone ehre could do that but i mjust saying) there might be people here who view abstract algebra as kindergardens. but yeah its not fair to compare you guys who have not struggled with math at a high school level and who excel in PURE maths and PURE sciences and PURE LOGICS to me.

i do agree that math is hard for everyone though. i told my math teacher i have great respect for her, to be as good in math as she is. isaid what is the hardest math class. she said there is none. you can get as deep into math as youd like. even one of my math tutors said he was struggling in his abstract algebra masters elvel corse.( i thought abstract algebra was bachelors?) anyways my point is, sure they have some math level where they STARTED to struggle but things like algebra, trrig, pre calc, calc 1, calc 2 were not part of what they were struggling with. they did struggle yes, but they struggled when they got up to the higher maths.

bumped to page 8./

 

[Moonbear]

I think biology is one of those "standard" majors you pick if you don't know what to do. And then there are the premeds too. Also, a lot of people around where I live go into biotech jobs, synthesizing biochemicals and such. Its actually a pretty big job presence around here (I live in the Research Triangle Park, the Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill area that has the most PhD's per unit area in the world).

I have to wonder where people keep getting these weird ideas about biology from? "Standard major" when you "don't know what to do?" And too easy? Really? If that's someone's attitude going into a bio major, they are NOT going to survive their freshman classes, let alone any advanced classes. And for those who think you don't need to know physics or chemistry to study biology, try taking an advanced physiology course.

This thread is seriously lacking in evidence that there are less students going into the sciences, or that those with an interest are being deterred to go elsewhere. It's interesting that people keep bringing up the point of low salaries being a deterrent from going into the sciences. When were salaries higher in the sciences? When there wasn't a glut of too many applicants to drive down base salaries. There's always someone more desperate for a job and willing to take the lower salary. If there weren't enough people to fill the jobs, salaries would be going up to entice people into those positions.

There are some exceptions, but those have nothing to do with lack of interest, but instead lack of programs to train people. For example, there is a nationwide shortage of anatomists right now as all the old-timers are retiring, and very few young faculty are available to take over their teaching positions. Why? Because research funding has driven universities to shut down graduate programs in pure anatomy (there really isn't much research left to be done in the field), and very few people other than those going into health professions take human anatomy courses to be able to teach them later. What's the up-side? Med schools are scrambling to entice the young anatomy faculty to teach at their institutions, so salaries for positions teaching anatomy are climbing rapidly, and somewhat out of proportion from other departments in med schools.

 

[Klockan3]

I think that one reason is that you have more options nowadays. 50 years ago if you were a nerd you would study maths or physics or something like that, today most gets trapped in a lot of IT stuff long before that.

 

[PhantomOort]

I only recently found this thread (and this site) and a few questions pop into my mind as I read. Well, actually just one. If we replaced the word "math" in the last eight pages with words or phrases like "singing", "foreign language acquisition", "painting", "(good) creative writing", or "shooting hoops", how many posters would maintain the same position they've been holding until now?

My own conclusion is that people have some level of innate capacity to learn in different fields of knowledge, but that these vary with fields and with people. I do believe anyone can make themselves better at any skill than they currently are, but at some point we have to acknowledge diminishing marginal returns on the effort. You can make your legs muscles strong running in molasses, but you're still going to go nowhere fast.

 

[sportsstar469]

I only recently found this thread (and this site) and a few questions pop into my mind as I read. Well, actually just one. If we replaced the word "math" in the last eight pages with words or phrases like "singing", "foreign language acquisition", "painting", "(good) creative writing", or "shooting hoops", how many posters would maintain the same position they've been holding until now?

My own conclusion is that people have some level of innate capacity to learn in different fields of knowledge, but that these vary with fields and with people. I do believe anyone can make themselves better at any skill than they currently are, but at some point we have to acknowledge diminishing marginal returns on the effort. You can make your legs muscles strong running in molasses, but you're still going to go nowhere fast.

if you substituted the word math with words such as those aformentioned by yourself, i am positive the attitude would be of a much more positive connotation. HOWEVER, even with singing, shooting hoops etc, it is still the same principle. EVERYONE can play basketball, but not everyone can play it well. i can't even dribble a ball to save my life. I am 6'2 and can't dunk, or palm a basketball.i can get my wrist above the rim though but that's all I've got going for me as far as basketball skills. i can most likely be instructed on how to perform these skills, and with practice may become a great dribbler, and dunker! i will probably not be great at basketball as a whole however.

i am a great singer though. nbut i don't take music classes, or take coaching for singing. i have good genetics for singing but don't tap into that. so i am wasting it.



long story short. have a math test that's worth 25 percent of my grade tomorrow at 12 am. it's 10 pm now. i haven't even opened the book to look over the material LMFAO. actually i haven't opened the book at all this semester, however i have a b or so i think, maybe a b plus.

but yeah I am planning on playing some games and watching fringe online and not studying. i care about my grades a lot, and every semester up until now, i was the grade freak with a 4.0 gpa. i think all that caring got me to a melting point, in which i still care but all that studying i did caused me to now be a dead animal that does nothing to ensure he gets good grades and does not fail for the class i am screwed.

 

[DukeofDuke]

I have to wonder where people keep getting these weird ideas about biology from? "Standard major" when you "don't know what to do?" And too easy? Really? If that's someone's attitude going into a bio major, they are NOT going to survive their freshman classes, let alone any advanced classes. And for those who think you don't need to know physics or chemistry to study biology, try taking an advanced physiology course.

Er...I'm in university right now, so I can definitely tell you that people who don't really know what they want to do pick a couple of default majors such as bio, psych, or econ/business. And yeah, they definitely survive beyond freshmen classes. I know this because I have many friends that take these paths, and biology is one of the largest/most popular majors out there.

I'm on the ground here, so I know what I'm talking about in this case.
And yes, biology majors have it significantly easier than physics/chem majors. Take a look at their mean gpa's if you don't believe me. Physics, maths, and chem round out the lowest gpa averages, and are generally acknowledged on campus as the hardest majors by far.

 

[symbolipoint]

Er...I'm in university right now, so I can definitely tell you that people who don't really know what they want to do pick a couple of default majors such as bio, psych, or econ/business. And yeah, they definitely survive beyond freshmen classes. I know this because I have many friends that take these paths, and biology is one of the largest/most popular majors out there.

That trend about Biology exists; but how much is this trend we do not know without a thorough survey. Some people KNOW what they want and it is Biology, or a few of the other majors you mention; and other people pick Biology or such while they learn about what they want.

I'm on the ground here, so I know what I'm talking about in this case.
And yes, biology majors have it significantly easier than physics/chem majors. Take a look at their mean gpa's if you don't believe me. Physics, maths, and chem round out the lowest gpa averages, and are generally acknowledged on campus as the hardest majors by far.

Not so. The physical sciences let you use Mathematics to support a theory of a mechanism (I wish I knew how to say this more the way I intend). Biology is messy conceptually, and has some messy techniques which in some cases must be applied in a non-messy way. Some scientific-interested people find this messiness about Biology intolerable and switch major fields to the nice, neat, mathematical physical sciences or Engineering.

 

[DukeofDuke]

Not so. The physical sciences let you use Mathematics to support a theory of a mechanism (I wish I knew how to say this more the way I intend). Biology is messy conceptually, and has some messy techniques which in some cases must be applied in a non-messy way. Some scientific-interested people find this messiness about Biology intolerable and switch major fields to the nice, neat, mathematical physical sciences or Engineering.

I don't mean that the SUBJECT itself is inherently easier. I mean that the level at which it is taught within a university yields higher grades for less effort than physics, chemistry, and mathematics.

I doubt anybody really understands much of human psychology- its a very hard task, to discover the workings of the mind. But the major is ridiculously easy...

In the same way, the bio major is definitely more mainstream and less difficult than say physics or chem. Now, within the set of all bio majors, there are bunch of premeds and a few serious future biologists who probably toughen up their schedules considerably, but the mean biology gpa is significantly lower than the mean gpa for physics or math kids, and grade inflation is significantly higher.

 

[sportsstar469]

i see the terms pure math and pure science thrown around here a lot. i asked one of the tutors in the math lab if he's familiar with thee terms, and he had no idea what i was talking about. he has a masters in business and engineering, and just finished an abstract algebra class, and is taking a prob and statistics class now, so id assume hed know this term. just thought that was interestng./ lols.

 

[Klockan3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_mathematics

 

[sportsstar469]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_mathematics

THANKS KLOCKAN! but going back to why people don't pursue math, and that anybody can do math. we just started trigonometry lat week. and i am struggling graphing simple radians like 7pie over 5 or -pie/4. i have gone to my teacher 4 different days and asked her the same questions, and still don't understand it that well. i have even tried asking several other professors for help to vary the approach taken to learn it, and i still can't do it./

i know for a lot of you guys graphing radians is a piece of cake, and that's my point. i mstruggling with beginning tri./

 

[arildno]

THANKS KLOCKAN! but going back to why people don't pursue math, and that anybody can do math. we just started trigonometry lat week. and i am struggling graphing simple radians like 7pie over 5 or -pie/4. i have gone to my teacher 4 different days and asked her the same questions, and still don't understand it that well. i have even tried asking several other professors for help to vary the approach taken to learn it, and i still can't do it./

i know for a lot of you guys graphing radians is a piece of cake, and that's my point. i mstruggling with beginning tri./

Why don't you make a thread in the maths forums on this?

Anyways, a few points:

1. Draw a circle.
2. Remember that counter-clockwise angular measurement (beginning at the positive x-axis) is positive, clockwise measurement negative.
3. The full circle represents an angle of 2pi, as measured counterclockwise (agreed?)
4. So, given a particular angle, how big part of the full circle does it represent?

i) 7pi/5:
Of the full circle, this represent a part: (7pi/5)/(2pi)=7/10.
Can you find the angle so that 7/10th of the full circle is represented by it? There you have it!

ii) -pi/4:
Here, again, we get the part of the full circle:
(-pi/4)/(2pi)=-1/8 of the full circle.

Clearly, you are to trace out 1/8 of the full circle, in the CLOCKWISE direction (that's what the minus sign means)

Did this help?

 

[sportsstar469]

Why don't you make a thread in the maths forums on this?

Anyways, a few points:

1. Draw a circle.
2. Remember that counter-clockwise angular measurement (beginning at the positive x-axis) is positive, clockwise measurement negative.
3. The full circle represents an angle of 2pi, as measured counterclockwise (agreed?)
4. So, given a particular angle, how big part of the full circle does it represent?

i) 7pi/5:
Of the full circle, this represent a part: (7pi/5)/(2pi)=7/10.
Can you find the angle so that 7/10th of the full circle is represented by it? There you have it!

ii) -pi/4:
Here, again, we get the part of the full circle:
(-pi/4)/(2pi)=-1/8 of the full circle.

Clearly, you are to trace out 1/8 of the full circle, in the CLOCKWISE direction (that's what the minus sign means)

Did this help?

thanks for the pointers. its weird though, i ddint look at this until now, but in my math class this morning, i had no problem graphing most of the problems (we moved one step forward. we had to find the sin, cosine, etc of say 230 degrees or so or 5 pie/6 or so) but i didnt study at home so idk./

 

[Tiger99]

THANKS KLOCKAN! but going back to why people don't pursue math, and that anybody can do math. we just started trigonometry lat week. and i am struggling graphing simple radians like 7pie over 5 or -pie/4. i have gone to my teacher 4 different days and asked her the same questions, and still don't understand it that well. i have even tried asking several other professors for help to vary the approach taken to learn it, and i still can't do it./

i know for a lot of you guys graphing radians is a piece of cake, and that's my point. i mstruggling with beginning tri./

To be honest, this doesn't really sound like what I think of as math anyway. You're learning how to describe the size of angles. It's part of the language people use to communicate mathematics. It's a barrier that you get through before you can start learning about connections between different mathematical entities and prove things using deductive reasoning - and that's the bit that's mathematics.

Of course, I think a person will find it easier to understand mathematics if they have a facility for picking up different notations, and understanding what people are saying when the message isn't communicated very clearly, but I don't think that's the same as math.
It's interesting that you found it easier once you started making genuine statements - i.e., calculating sine and cosine.

 

[sportsstar469]

To be honest, this doesn't really sound like what I think of as math anyway. You're learning how to describe the size of angles. It's part of the language people use to communicate mathematics. It's a barrier that you get through before you can start learning about connections between different mathematical entities and prove things using deductive reasoning - and that's the bit that's mathematics.

Of course, I think a person will find it easier to understand mathematics if they have a facility for picking up different notations, and understanding what people are saying when the message isn't communicated very clearly, but I don't think that's the same as math.
It's interesting that you found it easier once you started making genuine statements - i.e., calculating sine and cosine.

yeah its strange. i mean a few days ago, i was struggling to graph pie over 3. but then again today i was bored in chemistry class, so i tried finding the sin of 210 degrees, and i blasted through it in ten seconds, then the tan of pie over 4 still did it in ten seconds. graphed it no problem, then found the reference angles no problem, then looked in the quadrant to determine whether sign and tangent were positive in those quadrants. then found the sin/tan of the given ref angle using my triangles and made it either positive or negative upon completing this problem.

its weird, but for some reason, i just grasped onto that lesson. if youre wondering why i typed out all of the steps since I am sure you all know this easily, i just wanted to see if i could explain the steps. i heard that if you explain how to do something to someone, it shows youve mastered the material, and also as youre explaining the material you also retain 90 percent of what you said.

ill go back and actually do the homework, and evaluate whether or not i am truly a bad math student, or just a wimp loser ;).

but either way, trig is considered math even if as a person who's done pure maths you feel its not. when most people say i struggle in math, they are talking about alg-calc.

 

[DrClapeyron]

I think the issue is made up in order to allow foreign scientist and engineers to come to the US, work for low salaries and lower the salaries of US born workers. Cost effeciency.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Agreed, outside of the physics building people are shocked at my schedule, and it commands respect even within. But that's a property of intelligence and hard work, not of genius. While you can't put a sociology major next to me and expect him to compete, its also not fair to call me a genius because of my higher ability relative to the other guy. A genius would break the scale. You can't really even compare, because genius thinks differently (as opposed to being relatively good at thinking normally like I am).

Some people think out of the box, sometimes way out of the box. If they're right, they're geniuses. If they're wrong, they're idiots.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I think the issue is made up in order to allow foreign scientist and engineers to come to the US, work for low salaries and lower the salaries of US born workers. Cost effeciency.

If non-US workers are willing to do the same job at P% of the US pay, then the choice of US companies is to increase efficiency by (100/P - 1)%, decrease wages by (100 - P)%, or shut down. Bringing in foreign workers is a way of avoiding #3 and easing into #2.

 

[sportsstar469]

i think i may have been a little harsh in my reasons why students may not choose math, but i stil stand by the issue, that a lot of people here don't realize the struggles that the average population deals with with math. from my posts on here, you have all figured out i am not very good at math, and i am convinced i won't succeed in it. when i go for extra help the teacher needs to explain it around 6 times for me to get it. its weird though, that i have a b plus or A, in my trig class, and i haven't done the homework, or really opened the book at all. i don't really study for the quizzes or tests either. only thing i do, is make sure to go for extra help after the lectures (because i get overwhelmed in lectures at how everyone else in the room seems to grasp every step she's doing, and although she's not going to fast she actually goes slow..shes going to fast for me) and even though that's all i do i am still doing well in this course.
it is for this reason, i think my comments were a tad ti harsh, although i still do think some people are not capable of even algebra.

 

[Nev3rDie]

In this world it's all about the drive to learn. Few are conditioned from an early age to have the desire to learn and read. It's just that simple. Those that weren't conditioned at an early age to crave learning, will almost never have that desire. Hence why we have a big gap in intelligence. Most don't have a real burning desire to learn more and more just for the sake of learning. Most people learn what they have to in order to get what they want, and not just for the pleasure of learning itself.

 

[quarkonium]

I wonder if I'm bumping a dying thread but what I think is that,

The social sciences and humanities as a whole are relatively underdeveloped fields. There are few, if any, theories in there that can explain human phenomena with the same explanatory power the natural sciences have.

What this means for students is that they get involved and can get involved in the cutting edge of social scientific debate relatively early. Unlike the natural sciences where to get involved in the cutting edge involves a degree of intimacy with pretty sophisticated math and other more-than-elementary principles in that particular science.

Moreover, students of the social sciences get to (and are expected to) come up with original ideas and analyses. And these various ideas probe the limits of social scientific knowledge/research at a very early stage in their education. Conversely, chances for a student of the natural sciences to "invent" are relatively few.

 

[Ulagatin]

I know this is old, so apologies for bumping this thread, but I'd like to give some advice to Sportsstar (which could by extension be applicable for others in a similar position).

I'm an Australian Year 12 student currently studying the highest level of mathematics I can possibly take (formally) prior to university. It involves such material as sequences and series, complex numbers, advanced differential and integral calculus and matrices/linear transformations. I have thus far completed the sequences and series unit with nice rounded A's (forgive me for saying so, in a lack of modesty). Before you (possibly) regard this with some contempt or cynicism at how I could help, I'd like to explain my own mathematical background.

When I was going through year 7 - 10 I was not particularly motivated by mathematics - I was not the best student either, far from it. When I started grade 9 I had my first algebra test which was on simple factorisation, such things as expanding binomials. Guess what!? I failed it with a dismal 32%. As I had an interest in pursuing physics, I knew I had to drastically improve my motivation and ability in mathematics. I was able to get some help at that stage and so I came through that year with not too much difficulty, because I found a motivating factor to do so. I was able to put in some effort and while I did not achieve as highly as I would have liked to, reflecting back, mathematics is very much a subject for many people where the conceptual understanding falls together later in the year rather than in the time learning that particular topic. This is because of a different approach to thinking, or a deeper understanding of various other topics which may make an earlier topic more intuitive or have a firmer logical/rational footing in your mind.

So while I definitely agree that mathematics can be very challenging to many people (and it certainly is), there will always be high and low points as with any other subject you encounter. I have demonstrated that I have found it very challenging at one point, but continued determination allowed me to push forwards. The crucial element is that you are awakened to realisations at those low points, and that you then find motivation if you wish to continue. Consider the subject from a more objective point of view, to understand how the improved effort and dedication will benefit you, and then let the feel of the subject wash over you. It is much easier then to gain motivation for a subject if you have particular goals you wish to achieve with it and you then let it flow in its own way. I'm sorry if that's a little too abstract or arcane.

I have a friend who did the same level of mathematics as I did last year but he dropped out because of a lack of understanding (which was related to a degree of laziness and not a particularly high motivation for the subject). He had certain gaps in his algebraic understanding which compounded problems dramatically. At one point, he enjoyed mathematics, so it was sad to see that happen. So, don't be caught in the trap of laziness, of taking the easy route, if you have particular motivation for achieving a goal.

It's very admirable that you are understanding the trigonometry, although, as this was an old post, I am not sure what stage you are at currently. I found I started to enjoy maths once I started to do calculus (at the very end of grade 10 and onwards), and I have enjoyed it immensely this year, with sequences and series so far. Such elegance in my opinion. And I love proofs by mathematical induction - they are fun! Complex numbers I would guess will make my appreciation for mathematics be improved even further.

I have started to enjoy maths so much it now rivals my interest in physics, if not beats it outright, but then who am I to judge this early on in the journey? Yet I once had a weak mathematical background, thought I'd never cut it, but came through and have found great rewards for doing so.

All the best with your endeavours - I hope this has been somewhat illuminating/motivating.

Davin

 

[Wellesley]

I know this is old, so apologies for bumping this thread, but I'd like to give some advice to Sportsstar (which could by extension be applicable for others in a similar position).
...
I found I started to enjoy maths once I started to do calculus (at the very end of grade 10 and onwards), and I have enjoyed it immensely this year, with sequences and series so far. Such elegance in my opinion. And I love proofs by mathematical induction - they are fun! Complex numbers I would guess will make my appreciation for mathematics be improved even further.
...
All the best with your endeavours - I hope this has been somewhat illuminating/motivating.

Davin

I'm glad you wrote this Davin, it reminds me a lot of what I felt. Calculus was amazing for me after struggling through Trig. I'm glad you found a passion that you can pursue.

 

[Ulagatin]

Hi Wellesley,

I feel a little proud that you enjoyed reading my post.

I can completely understand your sentiments, and thank you. I hope I (and you!) continue to enjoy mathematics long into the future.

Cheers

 

[lisab]

I know this is old, so apologies for bumping this thread, but I'd like to give some advice to Sportsstar (which could by extension be applicable for others in a similar position).

I'm an Australian Year 12 student currently studying the highest level of mathematics I can possibly take (formally) prior to university. It involves such material as sequences and series, complex numbers, advanced differential and integral calculus and matrices/linear transformations. I have thus far completed the sequences and series unit with nice rounded A's (forgive me for saying so, in a lack of modesty). Before you (possibly) regard this with some contempt or cynicism at how I could help, I'd like to explain my own mathematical background.

When I was going through year 7 - 10 I was not particularly motivated by mathematics - I was not the best student either, far from it. When I started grade 9 I had my first algebra test which was on simple factorisation, such things as expanding binomials. Guess what!? I failed it with a dismal 32%. As I had an interest in pursuing physics, I knew I had to drastically improve my motivation and ability in mathematics. I was able to get some help at that stage and so I came through that year with not too much difficulty, because I found a motivating factor to do so. I was able to put in some effort and while I did not achieve as highly as I would have liked to, reflecting back, mathematics is very much a subject for many people where the conceptual understanding falls together later in the year rather than in the time learning that particular topic. This is because of a different approach to thinking, or a deeper understanding of various other topics which may make an earlier topic more intuitive or have a firmer logical/rational footing in your mind.

So while I definitely agree that mathematics can be very challenging to many people (and it certainly is), there will always be high and low points as with any other subject you encounter. I have demonstrated that I have found it very challenging at one point, but continued determination allowed me to push forwards. The crucial element is that you are awakened to realisations at those low points, and that you then find motivation if you wish to continue. Consider the subject from a more objective point of view, to understand how the improved effort and dedication will benefit you, and then let the feel of the subject wash over you. It is much easier then to gain motivation for a subject if you have particular goals you wish to achieve with it and you then let it flow in its own way. I'm sorry if that's a little too abstract or arcane.

I have a friend who did the same level of mathematics as I did last year but he dropped out because of a lack of understanding (which was related to a degree of laziness and not a particularly high motivation for the subject). He had certain gaps in his algebraic understanding which compounded problems dramatically. At one point, he enjoyed mathematics, so it was sad to see that happen. So, don't be caught in the trap of laziness, of taking the easy route, if you have particular motivation for achieving a goal.

It's very admirable that you are understanding the trigonometry, although, as this was an old post, I am not sure what stage you are at currently. I found I started to enjoy maths once I started to do calculus (at the very end of grade 10 and onwards), and I have enjoyed it immensely this year, with sequences and series so far. Such elegance in my opinion. And I love proofs by mathematical induction - they are fun! Complex numbers I would guess will make my appreciation for mathematics be improved even further.

I have started to enjoy maths so much it now rivals my interest in physics, if not beats it outright, but then who am I to judge this early on in the journey? Yet I once had a weak mathematical background, thought I'd never cut it, but came through and have found great rewards for doing so.

All the best with your endeavours - I hope this has been somewhat illuminating/motivating.

Davin

I had a similar evolution of attitude and ability in math. I bet many people who find it difficult at age ~13 would be surprised at their abilities four or five years later.

In my case, I always assumed it was simply that I wasn't developmentally ready until my late teens. Sort of like trying to teach a 3-year-old to read.

 

[Count Iblis]

I think that math educatation is fundamentally flawed. In primary school you are bored with stupid Kindergarten level arithmetic exercises. This causes the kids there to be dumbed down and remain at Kindergarten level right until they get into high school.

Then at high school you will see big differences in the speed at which some kids can pick up things. It is a bit like not learning to read and write until the age of 12. Most people attempting to learn to read and write at age 12 would find it very challenging, but a few would do well. The best of the best will typically be those seemingly exceptional talents who mastered reading and writing at the age of six.