Should Algebra Be Required At Community Colleges?

[bhobba]

Then the power to fail students needs to be given back to the teachers, so that specific individuals can be held accountable if students are passed who are not proficient in the material.

Without doubt - it should never reach the stage where you have to do algebra at CC - that should have been done at a much lower grade.

The school I mentioned I like the approach of has its foundation year. You MUST pass it even if it takes 3 or more goes before you progress to what they call their flexible learning environment and you can study whatever you like. They have the equivalent of CC (here in Aus called TAFE) at or close to the school and you can do that strand if you like or prepare yourself for university entrance - which as I pointed out is different - you go when your HS teachers think you are ready not based on what you call SAT etc or what we call ATAR. Universities are waking up that its a crock - success depends on factors like good study habits, ability to to individual research and self motivation rather than test scores - your HS teachers are the best judge of that and completing a year long research assignment in your chosen university field by yourself then being graded on it.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

but if something like holding individual teachers accountable were to be proposed you can be sure they'd find a way to crush it.

I have mentioned it in similar threads before but Professor Hattie of the University Of Melbourne has researched exhaustively what works in education:
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/programs/revolution-school/#/divca4470761

He turned a school around from the bottom 10% to the top 25% as detailed in the documentary associated with the link above.

Its so simple - all he did was sit in on teachers lessons without warning and give them feedback. That's all that's needed. But of course teachers will have to change their ways. They deserve a big pay-rise for it - anyone would hate being under constant scrutiny like that so deserve to be compensated for it,

But the chances of teachers unions allowing it is zero. They would love, and in fact deserve, the big pay rise, but not what they would have to do to get it. Teachers unions in Australia have refused to pilot test the model further - instead they want what's called Gonsky over here to reduce class sizes etc - the usual stuff that Professor Hattie has shown has zero efffect on outcomes. How do they get away with it - the public is totally ignorant of the facts about education and simply say - spend more money:
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/programs/revolution-school/Summary_Survey_And_Research.pdf

Politicians are only too happy to cater to it to get reelected, so we end up with really bad waste in education spending - after all they want to get elected - not tell the electorate the truth.

We have met the enemy and he is us - Pogo.

Thanks
Bill

 

[thejosh]

The truth is we live in a world that is extremely competitive and quite frankly the reason math is such a requirement is often that the challenge that maths provides sifts out the best people for the job, ask yourself these questions:
1.If everyone could get a degree, would anyone value it?
2.Why do academic requirements keep steadily rising?
3.Why is it that universities accept a handful of the TOP scholars?
Once you answer some of these questions you'll begin to realize that the reason some of these carrier barriers are there is for the very purpose of insuring the best of the best are the ones that make it through.
Not a very nice thought is it?
I know it isn't but the truth is the truth.

 

[olivermsun]

The truth is we live in a world that is extremely competitive and quite frankly the reason math is such a requirement is often that the challenge that maths provides sifts out the best people for the job, ask yourself these questions:

How do maths sift out the "best" people for the job? By grades? Testing? There's a lot more to being good at a job (or in life) than grades or test scores in math.

1.If everyone could get a degree, would anyone value it?

That's like asking why individuals have value even though everyone is an individual. Or arguing that food would no longer be valued if everyone had enough to eat.

 

[symbolipoint]

The truth is we live in a world that is extremely competitive and quite frankly the reason math is such a requirement is often that the challenge that maths provides sifts out the best people for the job, ask yourself these questions:
1.If everyone could get a degree, would anyone value it?
2.Why do academic requirements keep steadily rising?
3.Why is it that universities accept a handful of the TOP scholars?
Once you answer some of these questions you'll begin to realize that the reason some of these carrier barriers are there is for the very purpose of insuring the best of the best are the ones that make it through.
Not a very nice thought is it?
I know it isn't but the truth is the truth.

Point #1: Good implication.

Point #2: Maybe some standards are rising. Are they really all rising? Or just some of them?

Point #3: Wrong assumption or presumption. Anyone who is qualified and has secured the funding can be accepted to a university; maybe not all possible universities, but somewhere, at least some state or local one. One way to ensure qualification is to start in low-gear at a community college, rev-up a bit, and transfer to chosen university.

 

[thejosh]

@olivermsun I'm sorry if that's what you think but I strongly beg to differ, we may say things like this but I would like you to list Universities that accept students without any mathematical qualification, there is little or no colleges and Universities that would do that, with this in mind @symbolipoint I am sorry I was not as clear as I should have been. What I was trying to put out is that Universities are inclined to accept the best students/scholars they can get their hands on, that is if the level of education they provide is high quality, and one of the main ways they can do this is by requiring a high achievment in one or more difficult subjects such as -yes you guessed it- maths.
As for standards rising a good and solid example is this- we know more than we did 10 years ago-right?
Therefore we cannot limit our requirements to what they knew 10 years ago-right?
Consider a doctor, even though he is a doctor already he should continually learn new things concerning the medical world in case let's say a new strain of pathogens breaks through, new diseases emerge with new cures and implications, disease epidemics such as, of late, ebola.
Now imagine our doctors refused to learn saying they already know enough or they do not need to learn more,
what would happen if multiple pathogens developed resistance to "old" cures?
MANY people would die.
We are forever becoming more knowledgeable therefore we cannot afford to leave old standards untouched.
​

 

[olivermsun]

@olivermsun I'm sorry if that's what you think but I strongly beg to differ, we may say things like this but I would like you to list Universities that accept students without any mathematical qualification, there is little or no colleges and Universities that would do that, with this in mind

What parts of my reply, specifically, do you differ on? I don't recall saying anything about Universities accepting students without any mathematical qualification.

As for standards rising a good and solid example is this- we know more than we did 10 years ago-right?
Therefore we cannot limit our requirements to what they knew 10 years ago-right?
...
We are forever becoming more knowledgeable therefore we cannot afford to leave old standards untouched.

It's true that we are accumulating ever more knowledge, it's doubtful that much of the undergraduate or even early graduate curriculum, especially in maths, has much to do with new stuff that has been discovered in the last 10 years.

Furthermore, testing for area-specific knowledge of stuff that has been discovered in the last 10 years isn't probably not the best way to identify the "top" candidates for, e.g., a given job. Even at a research level it's most often about the ability to learn new stuff or apply very basic stuff in novel ways.

 

[thejosh]

There's a lot more to being good at a job (or in life) than grades or test scores in math.

Wrong, maths replicates life itself by incorporating problems that need solutions, diverse and absolete numbers of solutions to the same question, perseverence in answering difficult tasks discoveries and let downs, for a person to do maths requires discipline and focus, no oliversun why do you think maths is so hard?A person who is capable of conquering maths is equipped with many of the traits required to do other difficult tasks and is able to execute job tasks with high standards.Why do you think having mathematical genius on your cv immediately sets you aside from the rest?Why do you think maths' students are in such high demand?

Even at a research level it's most often about the ability to learn new stuff or apply very basic stuff in novel ways.

And what better way than to see if a student is capable of learning one of the hardest subjects on Earth and who is able to apply simple maths rules to solve complex questions?
And if what you say about the last 10 years not being important even in undergraduate than you are implying that the exams are-by your implications- the same level of difficulty.I would like you to please verify this and I am pretty sure this cannot be true.
You being a scientist knows that without maths much of what we learn would've simply been impossible to have discovered in the first place.
NOTE I am not trying to tear anyone down but we must realize the importance of maths before we opt to eradicate it which, I might add is highly unlikely due to the high esteem maths has acquired.
Yes, maths is difficult, yes many people struggle with it, yes it may not seem important to some students but the reason it is there is because of this:
Nothing worth doing is ever easy and maths is not an exception.
Consider this; maths is one of the only subjects required globally at o level and for most Universities even A level, so if you want an established education insure maths is your friend and do not fight it back.

 

[symbolipoint]

thejosh,
The importance of "intermediate algebra" requirement is not just for its difficulty to ensure smart people get their associates degree from a c.c. Students should be informed and well-studied enough to be aware how and where algebra has an impact. I gave my points on this and then suggested that other members on this board & topic could add to this.

 

[Joseph M. Zias]

Consider too an alternative. How about a course in problem solving. At one community college I worked at they adopted a course "Problem Solving" using the text
"Crossing the River With Dogs". It was actually fun to teach and did indeed teach logical thinking. I think math has been used as a vehicle in teaching logical (analytical) thinking to those who really won't actually use math in their day-to-day work. One problem that creeps up all too often is that some students have a very difficult time with the symbology. Some people who have math type problems to solve can do so with calculators designed for those problems. For example, private pilots can buy an E-6B calculator that is programed to solve almost all of the problems needed for flight planning.
By-the-way, anyone remember the old text "It's a Man Made World" - talk about logical thinking.

 

[Apple_Mango]

How does memorizing the quadratic equation improve critically thinking skills and problem solving? A lot of people say learning Algebra 1 helps with critically thinking skills and problem solving so I'm curious to know their reasoning how does memorizing the quadratic equation does this? How does learning the quadratic equation help an English teacher?

 

[symbolipoint]

How does memorizing the quadratic equation improve critically thinking skills and problem solving? A lot of people say learning Algebra 1 helps with critically thinking skills and problem solving so I'm curious to know their reasoning how does memorizing the quadratic equation does this? How does learning the quadratic equation help an English teacher?

MOST of this is already explained; but unsure how to say as "help an English teacher".

The "English Teacher" is either (two simplest possibilities) English teacher NOW, or an unestablished maybe-future English teacher. Another possibility is the English teacher in transition from having a S.T.E.M. degree and some years of career experience in either science or engineering work, who will have had AT LEAST College Algebra & Trigonometry plus some Calculus and associated course credit. The unestablished maybe-future English teacher will at least need to earn acceptable credit in Intermediate Algebra. As said, already been discussed, and more examples have been requested.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

How does memorizing the quadratic equation improve critically thinking skills and problem solving? A lot of people say learning Algebra 1 helps with critically thinking skills and problem solving so I'm curious to know their reasoning how does memorizing the quadratic equation does this? How does learning the quadratic equation help an English teacher?

The quadratic equation is only one of several methods commonly taught to solve quadratics. (Others are factoring, completing the square, and graphing.) Better algebra 1 courses don't stop at questions like: Use the quadratic formula to solve 5x^2 - 3x +2 = 0. They include a variety of word problems where the student needs to solve a variety of problems that require choosing variables to represent physical quantities, setting up equations correctly, then choosing an appropriate method to solve them. Real problem solving always includes learning to make the right choices about which tools to use.

One could also ask, "What possible use does an engineer or Physicist have for reading Romeo and Juliet?" The truth is, "None." Physicists and engineers can have fine careers without ever reading that specific play. But reading and literature are build very important skills for every profession, and English teachers need to choose specific works of literature to build those skills.

Just as a Physicist or engineer could function fine had other literature been chosen (and Romeo and Juliet been excluded), English teachers could function fine had the quadratic formula been left out of the math class. Just as other works of literature could build the needed reading skills, other math techniques and exercises can build the needed problem solving skills.

But the biggest reason the English teacher needs to pass Algebra is because they need to know and internalize that educational standards matter. Even if no one upheld the math standards in their high school, they need to develop an internal commitment that ALL the educational standards should be upheld (in all courses) in the schools they teach in. Giving students a pass on a topic, because one does not see how that specific student will use it later is the heart of grade inflation and educational decline. Since I don't want Physicists and engineers given a pass on Romeo and Juliet (if reading it is assigned by an English teacher), I also don't want English teachers given a pass on the quadratic equation (if that is a part of their math curriculum).

 

[bhobba]

How does memorizing the quadratic equation improve critically thinking skills and problem solving?

Mathematics is about concepts - not memorization. Sure its advantageous remembering the result, but of vastly greater importance is understanding how it was arrived at. Completing the square is a general method of problem solving in math. Exposure to seeing how simple observations and concepts leads to powerful results is something every educated person should understand. That's the key - not the actual result - even though it by itself has numerous applications. For example its used to find eigenvalues which which has some important applications to, for example, populations:
http://math.harvard.edu/archive/21b_summer_05/supplements/popgrowth.pdf

Learning how to think is always valuable and why here in Australia quadratic equations was done when I was 13 - ie in your middle school. We then knew in trying to solve some problem or understand something seemingly innocuous observations are a powerful weapon.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

Just as a Physicist or engineer could function fine had other literature been chosen (and Romeo and Juliet been excluded), English teachers could function fine had the quadratic formula been left out of the math class. Just as other works of literature could build the needed reading skills, other math techniques and exercises can build the needed problem solving skills.

Well let's not get too pedantic about this. I failed senior English, detested Shakespeare, in fact its a pet hate of mine people are forced to endure it after grade 10. I had long discussions with people that thought it was important as an example of good English - my opinion is bollocks. We need to be able to understand what we read and write clearly, critically and intelligently, which is NOT literary deconstruction - that's something else again. A valid area of study - sure - but not necessary.

Like algebra we need exposure to it - I am all for that - but it - well actually made me mad that you pretty well have to study Shakespeare in grade 12 and not calculus to go to university. Years ago most did calculus in grade 11 and 12 and were prepared for a much deeper understanding of concepts in subjects like economics pretty much everyone did (IMHO correctly) - but that has gone by the wayside. Yet in our day to day life its much more important than literary works. And no I don't think you should be forced to study calculus - but there is a double standard going on here that rarely gets talked about.

Thanks
Bill

 

[vela]

There is a double standard going on here that rarely gets talked about.

One of my former colleagues would always bring this point up in discussions about STEM education. She would note how people are considered educated if they know about literature, history, art, and so on even if they are woefully ignorant of science and math. But if you turn that around, a scientist or mathematician who's not well versed in the humanities isn't considered educated so much; rather, he or she is just a nerd. Given this common attitude, it's not surprising that math gets the short end of the stick in K-12 education in the US.

I think this double standard is recognized and gets talked about a lot by STEM faculty, but it's hard and nearly impossible to overcome the biases held by the general public.

 

[Apple_Mango]

The two points that are brought up in favor of keeping math as a requirement is that math teaches problem solving skills. The second point is that math must be required so that people may be well versed in education. However, why should one learn Algebra 1 for problem solving skills? If one wanted to learn problem solving skills, one would take philosophy or English classes that teaches problem solving skills. People don't have to learn maths to learn problem solving skills. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

Also, I fail to see how people should learn maths just to be well versed in education. Nobody would agree that English teachers must learn Chinese to be well versed in education. What's the point for English teachers in learning Chinese to become well versed in education? I mean, who really cares?

 

[Dr. Courtney]

The two points that are brought up in favor of keeping math as a requirement is that math teaches problem solving skills. The second point is that math must be required so that people may be well versed in education. However, why should one learn Algebra 1 for problem solving skills? If one wanted to learn problem solving skills, one would take philosophy or English classes that teaches problem solving skills. People don't have to learn maths to learn problem solving skills. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

Also, I fail to see how people should learn maths just to be well versed in education. Nobody would agree that English teachers must learn Chinese to be well versed in education. What's the point for English teachers in learning Chinese to become well versed in education? I mean, who really cares?

Quantitative problem skills are the issue. Qualitative problem solving skills are not the same.

 

[bhobba]

I think this double standard is recognized and gets talked about a lot by STEM faculty, but it's hard and nearly impossible to overcome the biases held by the general public.

Its one of the education myths I have alluded to - that somehow English relates to literature. It doesn't. Actually the US system is better than the Australian system regarding that - they have AP English and Composition which IMHO teaches the communication skills people should know in their daily lives, both at work and being a citizen. We do not have an equivalent here. We have English for work or something like that but its not enough to get you into university. Note - I am not saying you are not exposed to literature etc in lower grades, but just like we do not expose people always to advanced mathematical concepts in 11 and 12 there is no need after grade 10 IMHO. Communicating is vital - in fact one of the most important subjects I did in my math/computing degree was professional communication A and B. They have now removed it. which I personally am against despite my weak English ability - again it was because people disliked it. IMHO It shouldn't be done at university though - but in grade 11 and 12.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

Quantitative problem skills are the issue. Qualitative problem solving skills are not the same.

Exactly. In day to day living certain quantitative problem solving skills are very important. Let's not take quadratic equations, but rather the sum of progressions. Form that you understand why taking a mortgage out over a long term leads to paying vastly more than paying it out early. But from speaking to people their knowledge of even basic concepts of financial math is woeful. They don't understand even simple passive investing eg put say just $100.00 a month in a simple index fund for 40 years and you will be a multi-millionaire. I have explained that to people who spend that sort of money at poker machines, Lotto etc and they just don't believe me until I show them the math. That simply should not happen. And don't start me on understanding economic concepts that's even worse because they haven't done calculus eg you cant'y talk about the theory of the firm etc let alone game theory.

Thanks
Bill

 

[symbolipoint]

Its one of the education myths I have alluded to - that somehow English relates to literature. It doesn't. Actually the US system is better than the Australian system regarding that - they have AP English and Composition which IMHO teaches the communication skills people should know in their daily lives, both at work and being a citizen. We do not have an equivalent here. We have English for work or something like that but its not enough to get you into university. Note - I am not saying you are not exposed to literature etc in lower grades, but just like we do not expose people always to advanced mathematical concepts in 11 and 12 there is no need after grade 10 IMHO. Communicating is vital - in fact one of the most important subjects I did in my math/computing degree was professional communication A and B. They have now removed it. which I personally am against despite my weak English ability - again it was because people disliked it. IMHO It shouldn't be done at university though - but in grade 11 and 12.

Thanks
Bill

The point for Communication is good. Both Mathematics (including Algebra 1 & 2) and English (some courses) do teach the organizing of information; both which are important to people within and outside of science and engineering fields.

 

[olivermsun]

Well let's not get too pedantic about this. I failed senior English, detested Shakespeare, in fact its a pet hate of mine people are forced to endure it after grade 10. I had long discussions with people that thought it was important as an example of good English - my opinion is bollocks. We need to be able to understand what we read and write clearly, critically and intelligently, which is NOT literary deconstruction - that's something else again. A valid area of study - sure - but not necessary.

I guess I don't understand why you see such a hard distinction between understanding what we read and writing clearly (about it), and literary criticism (not necessarily "deconstruction"). "Critical thinking" in math pretty universally depends on familiarity with previous concepts, or at least the ability to get familiar with those concepts through some kind of research. Recognizing parallels with other, similar problems, is also typically a key aspect of mathematical problem solving. Wouldn't understanding of something one is reading necessarily hinge upon knowing something about the ideas that the text depends upon (even if is not explicitly stated within the text)?

Like algebra we need exposure to it - I am all for that - but it - well actually made me mad that you pretty well have to study Shakespeare in grade 12 and not calculus to go to university.

Usually, one only has to spend a few weeks reading Shakespeare among other topics. "Calculus" is a whole-year commitment at the very least. Hard to say in either case whether the topic is completely understand by that point, but likely not.

 

[olivermsun]

Quantitative problem skills are the issue. Qualitative problem solving skills are not the same.

Could you expound a bit more on what you mean? Are you saying that quantitative skills need Algebra, while qualitative is the part that is covered by other topics?

 

[symbolipoint]

Quantitative problem skills are the issue. Qualitative problem solving skills are not the same.

Very good. Clear. Applicable.QUANTitative --- how much, counting, the way quantities work, the way numbers work

QUALItative --- what is one thing and what is another thing, share any properties, related or are they not related

 

[bhobba]

I guess I don't understand why you see such a hard distinction between understanding what we read and writing clearly (about it),

Professional communication was nothing like English in grade 11 and 12. You actually did useful things like writing a research paper, reading sources such as the Wall St Journal and discussing it, giving presentations - things you do in day to day professional life and as a citizen. You did not read Shakespeare, poetry and many other things high school English here in Australia did. I am biased because I never to any degree got Shakespeare, understood poetry and that other stuff. Its left brain/right brain stuff. I am very left brained and English, especially the literary side is very right brained. For me it was HARD - I just didn't get it. Yet you are FORCED to do it here in Australia. If it had practical value like at least some of math OK - but it didn't.

This is the crux of the whole thing - some people find left brain stuff hard and forcing them to do a highly left brain oriented thing like algebra seems - well - cruel - and it to a certain extent is. But the rub is this - here in Aus you are exposed to all areas during your early schooling which is fine. But at some point you have to say that phase is over. I think its grade 8 - but will accept grade 10. Certainly by 11 and 12 its past that stage IMHO. And by 11 and 12 you should have done algebra - there is something very wrong with a system where people still have to do it at college.

I must point out at university away from this forcing you to do stuff you don't like and are not even good at I blossomed. I went from a very mediocre student to straight honors. Its not a 'trivial' thing - at least for me it wasn't.

Thanks
Bill

 

[madison wolf]

http://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.3.20170728a/full/

The chancellor of the California Community Colleges system believes that students who are not majoring in math or science should not have to take intermediate algebra to earn an associate degree. California has the largest community college system in the US, and what goes in California sometimes spreads across the country. What do you think? Is algebra necessary for students who don't plan to pursue a career in the sciences? -Physics Today

As someone who tutors community college students frequently, this is something I don't really have a solid answer for. Most of the students who fail out of the school in my county is due to the math requirements, and severe lack of any foundation they received while they were in grade school. So from a pragmatic perspective, if you're not looking to major in fields related to science, I don't see much of a reason to force people down this tunnel of failure that weeds out more people from associates degree programs than introductory calculus does from engineering programs.

I propose this, condensing the requirements down for general degrees to one general education style class that covers arithmetic for basic accounting, reading and following plots (not creating them), how those plots can be abused to manipulate statistics, and incorporate how to use all of this in a spreadsheet to manage finances. I honestly believe these are the core things we should be teaching everyone in math, and going beyond this should be an option, not a mandate.

Most community college students I tutor are there because they had a pretty garbage life, and more often than not had a pretty garbage school district. Expecting a grown up to learn the math of grades 1-10 in a year and a half is something I have always believed to be ridiculous. It can be done, but more often than not it just doesn't happen. I believe for the community college program in this country to succeed in helping more students get out of poverty we at the very least need to rethink how we teach math. What I've outlined above is just an idea, I'd love to hear what you guys think, especially those of you who are involved with community colleges yourselves. I think even if you disagree with what I've written, most of you should at least agree that there's a problem.

I dunno, personally I think that it is important to understand basic maths, as it is fulfilling in your everyday life as well as other outlets. I am also a firm believer in exposure to as many forms of knowledge as possible. Education is lacking, especially in communities like mine, so every little bit helps. Whether they want to pursue a Ph.D in astrophysics, or if they're going for an associate in art, it's still important to grasp every source of expertise. If that makes sense.

 

[Joseph M. Zias]

I posted earlier that courses in logical thinking are available that may be substituted for a course in algebra. But let's take the argument of what should be included in a well rounded education. How about requiring a foreign language? How can you fully appreciate another culture without knowing the intricacies of their language? Fortunately for me the requirement to take a foreign language was dropped my freshman year - we could substitute 3 humanities electives. In high school I dated a girl hat helped me get through Spanish - I did the right thing however, I married her (LOL). (yes, we are still married).

Activities such as Model UN, Mock Trials, and Debate can be vehicles to practice logical thought without the use of logic learned in the manipulation of math symbols.

 

[symbolipoint]

I posted earlier that courses in logical thinking are available that may be substituted for a course in algebra. But let's take the argument of what should be included in a well rounded education. How about requiring a foreign language? How can you fully appreciate another culture without knowing the intricacies of their language? Fortunately for me the requirement to take a foreign language was dropped my freshman year - we could substitute 3 humanities electives. In high school I dated a girl hat helped me get through Spanish - I did the right thing however, I married her (LOL). (yes, we are still married).

Activities such as Model UN, Mock Trials, and Debate can be vehicles to practice logical thought without the use of logic learned in the manipulation of math symbols.

Nice try, but Algebra is still significantly different from a foreign language or from humanities that the best way to understand and benefit from Algebra is through some course work on Algebra. The most general idea is to learn properties of numbers, and ways to relate shapes and numbers.

Foreign Languages are valuable as a possible college degree requirement and deserves its own topic. At least there IS some overlap for communication; specifically interpretation and translation. (Note, too, foreign languages often incorporates some of humanities.)

 

[bhobba]

I am still scratching my head about this one.

In the early years of your education, say up to grade 8, but I will accept grade 10, you are exposed to all areas - math (including algebra), Foreign Language, Literature including Shakespeare, history etc etc. But surely this general education has to stop sometime - you must begin specialization at some point. That happens well after you have studied algebra. Because of that why have it in a tertiary stetting - beats me. Have some remedial education if they haven't reached the required standard - but part of your degree - I simply don't get it.

I gave a link to Templestowe College that IMHO does it correctly. You enter HS in grade 7 in Australia. They accelerate you to grade 8 standard at the end of your first year. Most are able to do it in a year, but regardless you must pass it, including algebra, foreign language etc etc before proceeding. It can take two or even three years in some cases. But once its done you enter what they call their flexible leaning environment - you can study anything you like - even English isn't necessary but they encourage the taking of subjects to improve your communication skills - philosophy is popular for that, but you can take other communication subjects like tertiary subjects from the University of Open Learning such as Academic and Professional Communication and Developing Research and Analytical Skills.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Dr. Courtney]

In the early years of your education, say up to grade 8, but I will accept grade 10, you are exposed to all areas - math (including algebra), Foreign Language, Literature including Shakespeare, history etc etc. But surely this general education has to stop sometime - you must begin specialization at some point. That happens well after you have studied algebra. Because of that why have it in a tertiary stetting - beats me. Have some remedial education if they haven't reached the required standard - but part of your degree - I simply don't get it.

My undergrad degree in physics required 131 credit hours. Looking on my transcript shows I have 100 credit hours in STEM disciplines (science, math, and computer science in my case). So my BS degree had a whole lot more specialization (76%) than I had in high school (33% science and math).

But when I look back at my undergraduate coursework, the non-STEM coursework was very important and has often contributed to my career in unexpected ways. No, I've never used that 10 hours of french in speaking, reading, or translating french. But 30 years later, it remains an essential part of my thinking and mental framework: ideas and solutions to problems often come to me in french, because they are easier to express in french than in english. And the same is true of computer programming. Even if I don't write a program to solve a problem, the solution is formulated in my mind as a computed program. So computer languages and foreign languages are valuable for me even outside of their expected uses, because they trained my mind to think and solve problems in ways I might not otherwise.

At the time I didn't like my required english courses beyond college composition. But since I didn't read most of what I was supposed to in high school, they did provide an important breadth of experience through life. Of course, the college composition courses are also very important for STEM majors. The 12 hours of philosphy were also very important to my development as a scientist and an educator - to see how science fits into other areas of knowledge and human endeavor and to know how to easily explain the common and different features of the scientific method from other epistemologies.

In the same way I appreciate the wisdom of my STEM degree requiring 30 or so hours in non-STEM courses, I also see the wisdom of most BS degrees in non-STEM disciplines requiring 1-2 semester long math courses (usually College Algebra and/or Stats) and 1-2 year long science sequences. A certain amount of science and math (< 15% of the total required credits) both allows for plenty of specialization AND also strengthens the thinking and problem solving of graduates in non-STEM disciplines. Yes, one can always get up on the high horse and say, "They should have completed real mastery of that in high school." But the fact is many do not. My exposure to literature, foreign language, philosophy, was inadequate in high school. Likewise for many in math and science. Circling back around gives another opportunity to strengthen the mind in weak areas.

 

[bhobba]

But when I look back at my undergraduate coursework, the non-STEM coursework was very important and has often contributed to my career in unexpected ways.

But exactly who decides those extra subjects?

Seriously - we have people pushing math, others pushing a foreign language (hell one guy here on TV said you must do a foreign language at uni - its essential - I would have failed yet I was otherwise a straight honor student - is that fair?). With all these competing views and requirements exactly how do you choose? Me I did 100% math and computer science with a couple of exceptions - professional communication A and B plus some humanities subjects were recommended but not compulsory. For the humanities I did mathematical economics - you were supposed to have done macro and micro economics but my lecturer excused me providing I did some reading over the break which I did. But people hated it - even the professional communication - so they got rid of even that. Now IMHO getting rid of communication is woeful and they should not have succumbed to student pressure - it was not the only pressure they succumbed to - that got rid of analysis (ie your epsilonics) for a math degree which IMHO was hopeless. But only nut cases like me liked it - so out it went.

There is no easy choices here - and really while I am unhappy about the compulsory subjects they got rid of is it my place to make such decisions? Whose place is it? Leaving it up to students seems quite reasonable to me.

I think Brown over there in the US is similar - they let you take anything - they call it putting the liberal in liberal arts - but you, correctly IMHO, must take some subjects to develop your communication ability - but that's it.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Dr. Courtney]

But exactly who decides those extra subjects?

Seriously - we have people pushing math, others pushing a foreign language (hell one guy here on TV said you must do a foreign language at uni - its essential - I would have failed yet I was otherwise a straight honor student - is that fair?).

With all these competing views and requirements exactly how do you choose? Me I did 100% math and computer science with a couple of exceptions - professional communication A and B plus some humanities subjects were recommended but not compulsory.

I tend to trust the free market - each institution can choose through their normal decision making process where various stakeholders have a voice. For public schools where the state legislature is the main source of funding, the legislature is definitely going to have a say. Accreditation and certification agencies will also have a say. But there is no need for one centralized authority to dictate all the details.

I bet most STEM majors who have a problem with foreign languages can find some choices that don't require foreign languages.

There is no easy choices here - and really while I am unhappy about the compulsory subjects they got rid of is it my place to make such decisions? Whose place is it? Leaving it up to students seems quite reasonable to me.

I think Brown over there in the US is similar - they let you take anything - they call it putting the liberal in liberal arts - but you, correctly IMHO, must take some subjects to develop your communication ability - but that's it.

Thanks
Bill

So students who want the level of freedom allowed to Brown students are welcome to go to Brown. But not every institution can offer that much freedom and manage an Ivy-league reputation. In the long run, a school's reputation depends on the actual quality of their graduates when they enter the workforce or go on to the next school. (On Physics Forums, we often picture that as graduate school, but in the case of community colleges, it is often transferring to another CC or a 4 year school for a BS degree.)

When I was 17-21, I lacked the wisdom and foresight to see the benefits of the english, philosophy, foreign language, and other humanities courses outside of my STEM major. My observation of most undergraduates is similar. Left to their own devices, they will see out and take the path of least resistance, because they wrongly see the value in the diploma rather than in the real knowledge, skills, abilities, and stronger mind gained in the process.

Over the past 5 years, I've worked with my own teenage children and other students we mentor on the college selection process. Usually there are three broad classes of schools to choose from

1) The top tech schools in the SE US (think GA Tech and VA Tech)

2) Second tier state schools that are strong in STEM but stronger in humanities and that require all the usual humanities breadth (2-3 Foreign language courses, lots of other humanities credits, etc.) - they also make their humanities majors take math and science (think UT-Austin, UVA, and UGA

3) The most conservative private religious schools - some even have fairly good STEM majors (think Liberty U, Hillsdale, Grove City, Bob Jones). We're a conservative faith-based family and a lot of the science projects I mentor are with students from similar families.

For most students, my strongest recommendation is for the state schools that are strong in STEM but stronger in humanities. Here's why: by the time they graduate from high school, most of these students have already gotten enough exposure and training relating to their parents' faith and will likely continue to gain exposure and knowledge through weekly attendance to their church, synagogue, etc. They need broader perspectives more than 15-20 hours a week of uniform viewpoints at the most conservative religious schools. But the (nearly) all STEM all the time from the tech schools also produces a uniformity of viewpoint that is counterproductive to real leadership and vision in their adult careers. In my view, grad school is the place for that level of focus. The 17-21 year old mind is still growing and needs a lot of room to think and explore in a broad array of areas that are not obviously applicable. We want strong, well-informed thinkers who have a broad knowledge in a wide array of academic disciplines - not robotic automatons who grind the desired inputs into the desired outputs.

 

[bhobba]

I tend to trust the free market - each institution can choose through their normal decision making process where various stakeholders have a voice. For public schools where the state legislature is the main source of funding, the legislature is definitely going to have a say.

That I think is the real answer. Most schools here are public with a few private ones here and there. Even public ones have different policies - choose the one that suits you. For example the University of Queensland basically demands English to grade 12 for entry (or equivalent eg some communication subjects at uni), but the Australian National University couldn't care less. My alma mater, they have this idea of presumed knowledge. Providing you can get in what you studied previously is irrelevant. If you pick say a math degree and you didn't do advanced math they have some remedial classes - more work for you - but you are supposed to be an adult by that stage. Strange isn't it. My old alma mater also touts if you are math oriented you can do an entire math degree if you like - other public schools did not follow suit. There is tons of choice out there - you can make up your own mind. And as was the case with mathematical economics for me if you are a good student they clear the way for you - I did some masters level subjects undergrad - the lecturer said fine. BTW those subjects had the prize sum of 3 students - mathematical economics - I was the only student. He would not have let it go ahead with just one student, but being a good student all we did was once a week I went to his room and discussed the reading he gave me - I also worked on an economic simulation program which was interesting. I wrote it in Pascal - but my CS professors said I was crazy - do it in Simula - but my lecturer didn't know Simula, but knew Pascal.

Thanks
Bill

 

[russ_watters]

Professional communication was nothing like English in grade 11 and 12. You actually did useful things like writing a research paper, reading sources such as the Wall St Journal and discussing it, giving presentations - things you do in day to day professional life and as a citizen.

Next to typing, my most valuable communication class was titled "Wind Tunnel". Yeah, you read that right: it was a 2 credit sophomore lab class where we did a basic wind tunnel experiment and then wrote a professional report about it. The professor didn't so much teach the writing part as he did just rip all our lab reports to shreds until we learned from all the red what they really should look like. Regardless of the subject behind it though, professional writing is definitely a critical skill for professional people. And included as part of virtually any professional writing are algebra (at least Algebra 1) and Excel.

 

[russ_watters]

One of my former colleagues would always bring this point up in discussions about STEM education. She would note how people are considered educated if they know about literature, history, art, and so on even if they are woefully ignorant of science and math. But if you turn that around, a scientist or mathematician who's not well versed in the humanities isn't considered educated so much; rather, he or she is just a nerd. Given this common attitude, it's not surprising that math gets the short end of the stick in K-12 education in the US.

I think this double standard is recognized and gets talked about a lot by STEM faculty, but it's hard and nearly impossible to overcome the biases held by the general public.

I'm trying to decide if this should bother me or please me.