Opinion End useless math requirements - Smartest journalist

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
1707497755304.png

I know only two people who can readily recite the quadratic formula. My wife is one. She’s always been a whiz at school, but, as a choir teacher, she has absolutely no use for the equation (other than as an occasional party trick). The other person is my brother, who works with electron-beam technology as a mechanical engineer. He’s in the minority of people who actually use advanced math daily.

For most of us, the formula was one of many alphabet soup combinations crammed into our heads in high school long enough to pass a math test, then promptly forgotten. I’m queasy all over again just thinking about it. As a functioning adult in society, I have no use for imaginary numbers or the Pythagorean theorem. I’ve never needed to determine the height of a flagpole by measuring its shadow and the angle of the sun.

Only 22 percent of the nation’s workers use any math more advanced than fractions, and they typically occupy technical or skilled positions. That means more than three-fourths of the population spends painful years in school futzing with numbers when they could be learning something more useful.

I’m talking about applied logic. This branch of philosophy grows from the same mental tree as algebra and geometry but lacks the distracting foliage of numbers and formulas. Call it the art of thinking clearly. We need this urgently in this era of disinformation, in which politicians and media personalities play on our emotions and fears.

Logic teaches us how to trace a claim back to its underlying premises and to test each link in a chain of thought for unsupported assumptions or fallacies. People trained in logic are better able to spot the deceptions and misdirection that politicians so often employ. They also have a better appreciation for different points of view because they understand the thought processes that produce multiple legitimate conclusions concerning the same set of facts. They are comfortable with spirited dialogue about what’s best for our society.

I once asked my pre-calculus teacher whether I would ever use the information she taught in real life. Her answer was surprisingly frank: I probably wouldn’t. The reason to take the class was to score well on the advanced placement test, which would give me a leg up on the math requirements in college. In other words, numbers for the sake of numbers.

Math advocates claim to be teaching complex problem solving, mental discipline and a better understanding of our world. Logic teaches the same things more directly. Geometry can’t teach me when an argument is manipulating my emotions, but logic can. Calculus doesn’t help me solve moral dilemmas, but philosophy does.

Admittedly, all students need to master the basic math of everyday life so they can manage money, compare prices, find the center of a wall to hang a picture and so on. And some students, like my brother, will fall in love with math. That’s a good thing, because they will use it to make bridges safe, to predict the weather, to land spacecraft on the moon and Mars — you get the idea.

It’s reasonable to suggest that public schools all provide a standardized core curriculum. But what makes up a fundamental education? America has not thought through this question in a national conversation since the 1983 release of “A Nation At Risk.” The product of a presidential commission on education, this report warned of declining achievement in the country’s schools and diagnosed “the urgent need for improvement.” Among its recommendations were a minimum of three years of math for all high school graduates.

Since that time, the digital revolution has placed massive computational power in the palm of every student’s hand. Should the need for a cube root arise in someone’ life, Siri is available 24/7 to provide the answer. That same revolution has given us a crisis of conspiracy theories and a polluted public discourse. What’s at risk now is our ability to reason together as citizens. Skills such as these might not be able to solve for X, but they could go a long way in the pursuit of happiness and the health of America. You can’t punch those things into a calculator.

The need to solve problems is eternal, but many of life’s weightiest problems don’t boil down to numbers. Prioritizing higher-level numeracy over other forms of logical reasoning is not turning us into a nation of engineers and physicists. It’s letting us become a nation that can’t think straight.

America’s Founders knew it would take educated citizens for this democratic republic to succeed. But nowhere did they mention the quadratic formula.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/02/06/end-useless-math-requirements/ (Archive)
 
You should not be allowed to have a bachelor's degree without passing calculus, a couple semesters of philosophy, at least 2 semesters of a real science and, of course, basic markmanship training.
 
Math advocates claim to be teaching complex problem solving, mental discipline and a better understanding of our world. Logic teaches the same things more directly. Geometry can’t teach me when an argument is manipulating my emotions, but logic can. Calculus doesn’t help me solve moral dilemmas, but philosophy does.
Philosophy is an interesting subject, but no, it's not remotely a replacement for math.

The problem with philosophy is that you can't be fact checked. It's all opinions and word bending. Only the most dedicated philosophy students (at least on the high school level) actually become more thoughtful and objective after a philosophy class. The rest just learn fancier words to insult their rhetorical enemies.

Math teaches humility; it teaches you that sometimes in life there are genuine right or wrong answers and sometimes you might be in the wrong. Someone who can't admit when they're wrong won't be successful in math or business or engineering or anything important in the world that matters.

I'd maybe consider classes in logic to be an acceptable replacement for math if they required all their essays to be accompanied by an implementation of their argument in Prolog.
 
There should be mandatory classes on financial literacy. Just stuff like balancing a checkbook, making a budget, and how to rent an apartment/buy a car/how credit cards work. It would definitely cut down on a lot of early adulthood pain, and lots of people don't learn this stuff at home. Break the cycle of debt slavery!
 
You don't need to memorize the quadratic formula if you learn to derive it. Just take (a+b)^2 = a^2 +2ab + b^2 and do it backwards. It's easier than it seems.
To be fair the type of person that has difficulty remembering the quadratic formula sure as hell isn't interested in deriving it for themselves. Not that there is anything wrong with that, we all have different interests and intellectual capabilities. I might be able to recite the quadratic formula and stats calculations but I'd be fucked having to fix my own tire.

I've always been a bit proud of the fact my tinkering with math back in HS led me to independently discover that the infinite summation of 1+1/N! equals the constant e.
 
Math is great for filtering the unworthy, similar to how O Chem kills the dreams of many an aspiring MD that don't have the brains to succeed, affirmative action aside
 
I hated math, but I can still see why it's important. Still, I doubt Tyrone needs anything more than basic algebra if his career plans are to become a rapper or some such nonsense.

The problem is that math is taught incorrectly. I saw this kid doing math work, basic arithmetic, and wasn’t allowed to use pen and paper.

Mental math is overrated. It’s great if you can do calculations in your head, but in real science and engineering everything has to be documented anyway. Everything you do should be on paper in pen (not pencil, that’s only for drafting), so there’s a clear record. Of course, we don’t bother with arithmetic and basic algebra, but to a seven year-old kid arithmetic is about as challenging as Calculus!

Even in domestic applications, like setting up a home theater, it’s good to have everything written down. Even if you can do the math in your head, you won’t remember what you did when you come back later and want to upgrade to 7.1 or whatever and need to run some new numbers.
Ultimately the problem with math is the problem we have with everything else in school. It's all about memorizing formulas instead of actually understanding what you're doing. It's never about how to actually think through anything.
 
I agree that most math you learn in HS is useless and won't directly affect your life(even taxes and the like is just addition and subtraction really), but critical thinking?

You either need to inculcate genuine "free thought"-that is a refusal to accept authority because it is authority, which extends beyond just politicians or demagogues(it also applies to scientists)-or you just do a rationalwiki "uh I think there's a fallacy in here somewhere".

I agree we need more people who are capable of questioning narratives and refusing to be bullied or swept away by media campaigns, emotional manipulation attempts and shaming.

But most people are in fact, herd animals.

Nor do they need advanced reasoning skills in day to day life either.

Whether or not they believe absurd nonsense on Facebook or they don't-probably won't affect their lives that much.'

So honestly-what is the point of HS? Same applies to history, science, and literature.

Only a small fraction of the population has an inherent interest in the subject material-the rest just get by to get the diploma. Most of the skills the average person needs boil down too

-obey instructions
-be on time
-be honest
-don't say or do anything that could get you imprisoned or fired

So long as you have all of that down-80% of the population minimum is set for life.

TDLR: Most people just need labor training, and don't deserve school.
 
Last edited:
Math is great for filtering the unworthy, similar to how O Chem kills the dreams of many an aspiring MD that don't have the brains to succeed, affirmative action aside
I don't understand the failure rates behind ochem. Shit makes sense. It' s a puzzle. A difficult one, and OC II makes it difficult by throwing too many pieces at you and not enough time to memorize their function, but the pieces all fit together like math.

Biochem though. Fuck biochem. I will never need to know that shit in order to do surgery. Who the fuck needs to know what an oxyanion hole does to cut into someone? Why do I have to memorize all this shit???
1707563497388.png
 
Last edited:
I know only two people who can readily recite the quadratic formula...For most of us, the formula was one of many alphabet soup combinations crammed into our heads in high school long.
This is because you were not taught from first principles, deriving the formula through Completing the Square or such like, so you had to rely on rote. I'm sorry that your Math teachers failed you but it doesn't follow that quadratic formula is a "useless Math requirement'.

...something more useful...I’m talking about applied logic
I agree Aristotelian syllogistic logic is very important, but if you cannot abstract the forms of each argument -- which may call for the use of symbols -- then in the end you'll fall back on case-by-case rote memory, and that'd defeat the point of teaching logic.

Geometry can’t teach me when an argument is manipulating my emotions, but logic can.

If you say so you don't even know what is "logic" (algorithms that derive true statements from other true statements). Emotional effects are the subject of a subfield of Psychology called Heuristics and Bias Studies. HB Studies can be fun to teach (try having the class do an experiment on Anchoring), but it cannot replace Math in the curriculum.

Indeed the author should reflect whether his animosity towards anything but the most basic math is an emotional reaction

Calculus doesn’t help me solve moral dilemmas, but philosophy does.
I'm almost convinced that teaching Ethics will make the moral person more moral, but merely gives excuses to the immoral.
 
Last edited:
You don't need to memorize the quadratic formula if you learn to derive it. Just take (a+b)^2 = a^2 +2ab + b^2 and do it backwards. It's easier than it seems.
Maybe I'm being a dumbass but don't you need an "x" in your equation in order to derive the formula? Isn't the starting point supposed to be ax^2 + bx + c = 0?

Or are you just saying that completing the square is part of the derivation?
 
College math requirements for non math using majors wastes the student's time and money.
No, it filters out retards. If you can't math, you're too retarded for the "non math using major".

"maths is just gatekeeping for college entry!"

Retards of the public, there needs to be a shitload more intellectual gatekeeping for college entry.
Yes.

Also, there should be more gatekeeping for colleges themselves. Philosophy should be destroyed. All of "humanities" as soyences should be destroyed. Philosophy etc teachers should be teaching college students the history of philosophy. Literature teachers and professors should be teaching schoolchildren and college students Shakespeare etc. No one should be writing papers on philosophy or Shakespeare (unless they discover a historical fact of at least a historical hypothesis, like a lost play). This, more than anything, is the origin of wokism. These large adult trust fund retards with higher ed need jobs and jobs are created for them.

Historical simile:
Western pedos like to pin the sins of wokism on us commies, muh faggy theory etc. However, until the hohlocracy, the only ideological discipline taught in Soviet higher ed institutes was History of the Party. Then the cowardly hohol traitor Khruschev betrayed Mao and came up with the soyentific discipline of "soyentific Communism", aka "science says chinks bad", to be taught to guest students from thirdworldistan -- so the newly edumacated elite would align their homeland with Russia against China. But the Soviets weren't making enough wokists, didn't have a wokist tradition, and institutes kept teaching History of the Party, under the new name of "soyentific Communism", well into the mid-70s.
And then, in under 10 years of soyence, Gorby got himself installed and destroyed the USSR.

So when a college has a course on Shakespeare, what should be taught is the plays, the old language, the evolution of words phrases, the history of the setting and historical prototypes of characters, the contemporary political digs Shakespeare might have made, etc. Not "recontextualizing the queer allusions in CoriolANUS in the age of DRUMPH".

---
Math in school does yet another critically important thing, it selects the children who are capable of advanced math and prepares them for it. Like professional athletes and chess players, they need to start young, but unlike professional athletes and chess players, mathematicians are actually useful for national security.
 
I've never heard a jouroroach say that teaching the most fashionable Black authors is "useless" because you never have to make use of the content in real life.

Aside: I've recently encountered a fascinating book called Polynomials, Dynamics, and Choice which is about group theory and symmetry breaking in the mathematical sense. The starting point is the +/- sign in the quadratic formula but carries you to pretty far off places in Math.
 
Maybe I'm being a dumbass but don't you need an "x" in your equation in order to derive the formula? Isn't the starting point supposed to be ax^2 + bx + c = 0?

Or are you just saying that completing the square is part of the derivation?
What letters you use is completely arbitrary, and yes, completing the square is how you derive the formula. By the way, you don't need the a in your equation since you have the 0 on the other side. You get a simpler formula by dividing by a and doing a variable replacement.
ax² + bx + c = 0
=>
x² + bx/a + c/a = 0, b/a = p, c/a = q
=>
x² = px + q = 0

Complete the squares and you get
x² + px + (p/2)² = (p/2)² - q
=>
(x + p/2)² = (p/2)² - q
=>
x + p/2 = √[(p/2)² - q] for positive values of x + p/2
or
-x - p/2 = √[(p/2)² - q] for negative values of x + p/2 (because the result of a square root operation must be a positive number)

Which leads to the simplified quadric equation
x = -p/2 ± √[(p/2)² - q] where you don't have that annoying extra 4a and /2a making everything look ugly as sin.

EDIT: added some skipped steps and tried to make it easier to read.
 
Last edited:
I don't understand the failure rates behind ochem. Shit makes sense. It' s a puzzle. A difficult one, and OC II makes it difficult by throwing too many pieces at you and not enough time to memorize their function, but the pieces all fit together like math.
That’s exactly why it has a high failure rate. Most premed students are midwits who get good grades by spending an enormous amount of time memorizing everything. When faced with a class that can’t be brute forced, they fall apart.
 
Back
Top Bottom