|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: Herman RubinHerman Rubin
Date: May 14, 2008 15:03
In article gaines.biz>, Penny Gaines gaines.biz> wrote:>Beliavsky wrote:
>[snip]
>> Most people are not smart enough to go to college, but they can be
>> productive members of society. People who have not mastered algebra
>> should not be in college in the first place.
>Why not?
>Probably one factor in your view is your opinion of what college is for.
> I don't want to speak for individuals, but it seems that Americans
>tend to think of college as being a place to provide a broad knowledge
>in several subject areas, whereas in the UK the aim of tertiary
>education is to continue the specialisation that students started when
>they were 14yo.
>If you are going to study history, or languages, why do you need
>mathematics? You can get into Oxford or Cambridge Universities (in the
>UK) with no formal mathematics qualification, which if you are British,
>means you may be unable to master algebra.
Historians and linguists nowadays are using mathematics
more than one thinks.
|
| Show full article (2.34Kb) |
|
| |
2 Comments |
|
|
Author: Herman RubinHerman Rubin
Date: May 14, 2008 14:54
>On May 13, 3:28=A0pm, Bob LeChevalier lojban.org> wrote:>> Beliavsky aol.com> wrote:>
>>>According to the article, entering college students are having trouble
>>>with questions such as these:
>>>6/7 * 42 =3D?
>>>-5 * ((-2)*(-3) + 9) =3D?
>>>(2*x^2*y) * (-x^3) * (y^2) =3D?
>>>Students who cannot handle the first two questions are unqualified to
>>>enter an academic junior high school (grades 7-9), and those who
>>>cannot handle the last should not be entering an academic high school
>>>(grades 10-12). Otherwise their time and the taxpayer's money is being
>>>wasted.
>> If they are a literature or art or psychology major, I doubt it. =A0
>Since psychology is a social science, a psychology major should be
>able to pass a college-level course in statistics, which requires some
>skill in algebra.
|
| Show full article (2.74Kb) |
|
| |
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Herman RubinHerman Rubin
Date: May 14, 2008 14:45
In article j33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
Beliavsky aol.com> wrote:>On May 13, 11:48=A0am, kev...@ mit.edu (Beth Kevles) wrote: >> Citing "The Bell Curve" makes me suspect everything else in those
>> posts... "The Bell Curve" is really NOT good science. =A0It's based on
>> ideas that lost respect after World War II (and for good reason)!
>You do not want to base opposition to genocide or racial oppression on
>the idea that all groups have equal capabilities on average. What if
>they turn out not to?
>> My guess would be that, with the advent of the algebra requirement,
>> schools are pushing kids faster than they can learn. =A0Kids who don't
>> develop a deep sense of numeracy, who move from math unit to math unit
>> at too quick a pace, never develop the basic mathematical foundations
>> upon which algebra is built. =A0And honestly, there are a lot of excellent=
>> teachers out there who have the same problem, and so don't teach math
>> verhy well at the elementary level (where teachers are expected to teach
>> ALL subjects, not just the ones they understand well).
>> I see no evidence that kids are innately too dumb or unmotivated to
>> learn algebra. =A0
|
| Show full article (2.50Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Herman RubinHerman Rubin
Date: May 14, 2008 14:36
>On May 13, 11:48=A0am, kev...@ mit.edu (Beth Kevles) wrote: >> Citing "The Bell Curve" makes me suspect everything else in those
>> posts... "The Bell Curve" is really NOT good science. =A0It's based on
>> ideas that lost respect after World War II (and for good reason)!
>Might this "good reason" be that it is not politically correct???
>Please substantiate your claim that it is not good science.
This is very definitely the case.
>The Bell curve *is* good science. I base my claim on the Central
>Limit Theorem. The sum of any set of iid random variables MUST
>be approximated by the bell curve.
This is not as good as it seems. The Central Limit Theorem
holds for independent, but not identically, distributed
random variables, but the approximation is nowhere near as
good as you seem to think it is. Even worse, the educationists
transform their data so that what they get is normal.
Also, a mixture of two different normal populations is
never normal. But one can still get a bell curve.
|
| Show full article (2.38Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Herman RubinHerman Rubin
Date: May 14, 2008 14:27
>Citing "The Bell Curve" makes me suspect everything else in those
>posts... "The Bell Curve" is really NOT good science. It's based on
>ideas that lost respect after World War II (and for good reason)!
Whether or not you accept any racial conclusions from
that book, which IS better science than that of its
detractors who keep making unwarranted assumptions,
the distribution of ability is such that the upper
5%% outclass the average, and the average outclasses
the lower 5%%. Our miseducational system tries to
teach all the same.
>My guess would be that, with the advent of the algebra requirement,
>schools are pushing kids faster than they can learn. Kids who don't
>develop a deep sense of numeracy, who move from math unit to math unit
>at too quick a pace, never develop the basic mathematical foundations
>upon which algebra is built.
|
| Show full article (4.95Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author: otziivotziiv
Date: Oct 19, 2007 16:34
xcmmtfkzmkvpyefrnofrwmskfkhvqcmwvqrzvybbhfzptqljltrxbponvhkpfwuvcmjgcootjketgeqivtzz
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
