How can the Humanities evolve to remain relevant?

[blossom]

There are plenty of diverse populations in the areas where things like cell phone photography, facial recognition software, etc. were invented.

[fiftyfifty1]

@blossom

Research suggests that competition math, math clubs, etc. are populated by a particular cohort. Which is it’s own form of gatekeeping.

Confused why this is a problem if, as you assert, these activities don’t matter for math outcomes.

[1NJParent]

@ucbalumnus

@beebee3

Take for example the idea of hand faucet sensors. They were created to reduce the amount of contact anyone has to make to wash their hands in public spaces. And objectively good idea. But then, the sensor was programmed to sense a color difference between the hand being washed and the sink. It has been found that many of these faucets don’t work for dark skin - the sensor cannot distinguish between lesser color differential. The science wasn’t objective in this case…though I am sure no one intentionally thought - let’s make it harder for darker skinned people to be able to clean their hands. There was a huge erasure of a large swath of the public, a huge problem that supposedly ‘objective’ science didn’t even catch.

Apparently, some of those sensors are made by Technical Concepts, which appears to be in Layton, UT. Perhaps the relatively limited diversity there resulted in the failure to detect darker skin to be missed during testing.

We still make them in this country?

In any event, I don’t think of this type of issues as failure of “science”. We also make certain things too short for taller people, too high to shorter people, too unstable for heavier people, etc.

[blossom]

It’s a problem if you have a Latina daughter who is interested in competition math.

I didn’t say these activities didn’t matter. I pointed out that there are plenty of talented math students in college who did not participate in these activities…

[1NJParent]

@blossom

competition math

To study math in depth doesn’t necessarily mean participation in competition math.

[Alqbamine32]

deleted.

[Rivet2000]

@Alqbamine32

I don’t think that one needs early acceleration in math to study engineering or most stem fields even at an “elite” university though one might need it for admissions.

I don’t think that any kids “needs” it but some are just ready and it fits into thier natural growth. My S definitely needed accelerated math classes to stave off utter boredom.

[ucbalumnus]

@Rivet2000

I don’t think that any kids “needs” it but some are just ready and it fits into thier natural growth. My S definitely needed accelerated math classes to stave off utter boredom.

Yes, for some students, accelerated math is their optimal progression for their interests and achievements in math.

However, parental flooring the math accelerator on students for whom this is not the case results in the not-too-unusual threads from students in +2 or +3 math tracks who are struggling in math* and are afraid of the next course in the math sequence.

*Typical math courses in the sequence leading up to AP calculus, not top honors or post-AP courses in specialized math/etc. schools.

[roycroftmom]

This relates to humanities relevance?

[Chekov]

@blossom

Research suggests that competition math, math clubs, etc. are populated by a particular cohort. Which is it’s own form of gatekeeping.

Care to elaborate?

[Chekov]

@1NJParent

Stereotyping others with whom one is less familiar with is part of humanity, unfortunately. It’s in every country and every society. It’s bi-directional too, in almost all instances.

Don’t need to venture too far out to encounter it:

“competition math, math clubs, etc. are populated by a particular cohort”

[hebegebe]

@cquin85

A friend here is a GT graduated aero guy married to a UPS graduated English major.

For a second, I was thinking “Does United Parcel Service have the McDonald’s equivalent of Hamburger University?”, and then I realized you were talking about University of Puget Sound.

[neela1]

I thought it was united parcel service until you just pointed it out, and I thought they seem to hire very eclectic people

[1NJParent]

Let me make clear that I’m not for acceleration, in any subject, of the sake of acceleration. However, kids are individuals. Acceleration may be appropriate for some kids, but not for others. There’s a lack of appreciation for individual differences in our society at this point in our history. “No Child Left Behind” doesn’t mean “Every Child Stays Behind”, or our society and country would be in big trouble at some point.

On the subject of math enrichment (which is the term I prefer over acceleration), for those students who are interested and have shown potential, they’re better off studying a subject or two in depth than studying many topics superficially (of course, some exceptional students can study many topics in depth). As an example, if a student who has studied geometry well (not just what’s taught in most US high schools), s/he would have no trouble doing well later in math, whether it’s calculus, linear algebra, or something else.

[neela1]

I don’t like qualifying the term math (or any other subject) with either acceleration or enrichment. Why not teach the kid whatever is appropriate for her and just call it math?

We had a preschool/ kindergarten where every kid got separate homework in every subject :-). This cost at that time only 20% more than pure daycare.

Before that we had a pre-school with an 85year old Hungarian lady who was super strict with the parents when they complained that she was giving too much work. The kids used to love her and call her granny. She did half-day school and charged no more than day care. She gave an hour and a half homework a day – reading (5 pages a day), writing and math (tables). Taught a foreign language, had the kids do two plays a year – at the age of 4. 15 kids in the whole school. Kids are flexible what they are willing to learn if you don’t qualify stuff as advancement / enrichment / too tough or too easy. She sweetened the whole deal with a spoon full of sugar – liberally bribed them with candy.

[1NJParent]

@neela1

I don’t like qualifying the term math (or any other subject) with either acceleration or enrichment. Why not teach the kid whatever is appropriate for her and just call it math?

Right. It doesn’t need to be on any particular topic of math at any particular level. Or limited to only math. There’s an inexhaustible amount of knowledge in so many different subjects that kids can be exposed to, that relate to the how’s and the why’s in our daily lives, our economy, our physical and natural world, and so on. And ideally, they should also learn the connections and interactions between these subjects (which, unfortunately, most of our schools are incapable of providing).

[Chekov]

@beebee3

From my experience, I haven’t found STEM fields to be more ‘objective’. I’m looking at that idea historically, and historically, science has often been used to promote all kinds of subjective ideas and beliefs.

The idea there is ‘objectivity’ in STEM is an erroneous one, imo.

STEM is a very broad umbrella term.

But the M part of it is as objective as it gets. There is no “let’s agree to disagree”. Everything has to be proven to the complete satisfaction of everyone in the field.

[1NJParent]

Some posters apparently have much broader definition of what “science” is. The lack of understanding may be contributing to stereotypes. At MIT or Caltech, students are required to take a minimum of 20-25% of the classes in the humanities and social sciences (not including those that help students learn how to present their ideas orally and in writing). Perhaps top students in the humanities and social sciences in schools like Yale should be required to take 20-25% of their classes in serious math and core sciences for a more well-rounded education.

[cquin85]

How does the fact that tech colleges require a humanities distribution translate to people having a “much broader” (than what?) definition of science?

I won’t profess to know what the landscape looks like today, but when I was in college, distribution requirements included quant and science course requirements.

Ds who attended LACs with open curricula all indicated an “expectation” of coursework that included coverage of math and science.

[1NJParent]

@cquin85

How does the fact that tech colleges require a humanities distribution translate to people having a “much broader” (than what?) definition of science?

That’s not what I was saying. I was suggesting that some students in the humanities and social sciences may have a too broad definition of what science is due to misunderstanding of what sciences really are. The top STEM students benefit from a broader education by requiring them to take lots of classes in the humanities and social sciences so they have a better understanding of the methods and methodologies used in those other disciplines. It should be equally beneficial for the top students in the humanities and social sciences to have a better understanding of math and sciences and their methods and methodologies.