<p>This thread has segued into a who’s better/smarter/nana nana boo boo mentality; to go back to some of the OP’s points (#1), which I think were worthy of discussion…
Should we as a nation try to emphasize math and science more in grade school/college prep?<br>
Are we losing ground to other countries WRT productivity; are we are not producing enough math/science/engineers?
Do we risk, in the future, losing our American-bred innovators/designers/inventors because we are not encouraging math/science?
These were valid and interesting points to discuss.</p>
<p>As far as I am concerned we are already over-emphasizing math and science at the risk of creating an electorate incapable of making knowledgeable political decisions. History of science for everyone–absolutely. Calculus for all, that’s absurd. I don’t need to know how to design a computer chip for G–'s sake, but I need to understand the importance of computer chips and what they mean to society.</p>
<p>Frankly we need more history, art, economics, sociology and psychology in the high schools, not less.</p>
<p>^You don’t even need Calculus for that. All Boolean, one and zero.</p>
<p>doubleplay, I don’t think that anyone strongly disagrees with any of those points. That wasn’t what the OP was talking about. He was talking about his idea that there was an increasing emphasis on “liberal arts” (meaning, apparently, humanities) in higher education, leading to the Decline of the West.</p>
<p>Interestingly, one of the consequences of NCLB, with its near-complete emphasis on math and English, is a de-emphasis on everything else in primary and middle school, including science. That can’t be great for the future.</p>
<p>Along with others, I think there has been an increase in math and science focus over the past 30 years, not a decrease, at both the high school and college levels. Whether it has been enough, or the right kind of increase, is another question.</p>
<p>I also think it’s pretty clear that a huge part of the problem lies in the way math and science are taught in primary and secondary schools. Somehow, kids don’t learn as much as their counterparts elsewhere, and don’t seem to feel the need to learn more. Math, especially, needs to hire a better PR firm.</p>
<p>“Do we risk, in the future, losing our American-bred innovators/designers/inventors because we are not encouraging math/science?”</p>
<p>Considering that much of our technology/science advances were made by scientists that emigrated here, I would think that it is more important to continue to build on a socioeconomic structure that will attract top notch scientists to our soil.</p>
<p>Increasing math/science teaching is unlikely to increase “American-bred” inventors/innovators etc in meaningful numbers just as teaching more art and music will not breed more top notch people in those fields.</p>
<p>JHS: Sorry, it is kind of hard to communicate exactly what that experience is like without going into detail (technical detail!). But one thing that strikes me every single day is just how far mankind has gotten in terms of science and technology. When you study these subjects, it both gives you a deep appreciation and understanding of what has been done before, and also teaches you how to add more to it. (And that post was written after 13 straight hrs of engineering PSET’s, so there had better be some justification to this stuff right? :p)</p>
<p>Also your argument for art historian’s is flawed. The number of people who can survive in a field is related both to the amount of intelligence required AND the amount of funding available. For example, I can counter you with theoretical physics. There are very few theoretical physicists out there who are actually successful (most people try, and are either not smart enough or can’t get funding). So Art Historians may be very intelligent, but their funding may also suck, which means you haven’t zeroed in on the purely IQ part.</p>
<p>I think one reason many students may not see a point to the math taught after 8th grade is because they don’t get enough exposure to science. And the tough part is that you need some non-mathy sciency just to get in the groove before you can load up on heavy mathematically oriented science courses. </p>
<p>But when you see how calculus puts people on the moon, you can only say “damn that was awesome.”</p>
<p>Columbia_Student: Incorrect, you do need calculus for the electrical engineering required to design and build the various parts of the computer. </p>
<p>padad: We probably do live on different planets. Perhaps one day I will be able to develop the technology to come visit you. </p>
<p>tsdad: If you look through many of your posts, they make you seem extremely ignorant. This may just be a communication misunderstanding, or perhaps you are just having fun posting on an internet forum (which is fine).</p>
<p>I think JFK put it best: </p>
<p>“We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.”</p>
<p>If we were to get into another space race to go to Mars, would we be able to do it? The moon was yesterday, and the way science and mathematics and engineering is taught in this country is not necessarily the same. Of course we don’t need to go to Mars right away, but I thought American’s enjoyed the idea that at a moments notice we can organize together and achieve incredible things that people could only dream of. I’m not so sure we can do that right now.</p>
<p>Ignorant, but unbowed, tsdad (who actually did his graduate work in African-American and Southern history, whose wife, a social worker by training, managed a $400,000,000 mental health budget for the Federal Government, and whose son is a film school graduate, [oy vey! the DECLINE OF THE WEST in one family]) retires from this discussion still not knowing why he needs calculus and how after 65 years of living either he or society have suffered because he doesn’t know it.</p>
<p>Differential:</p>
<p>No one would ever suggest that it wasn’t awesome to put people on the moon, or that calculus wasn’t necessary to that. Calculus was a substantial intellectual and practical achievement. And I’m happy lots of people know how to do it. (I also have the impression that, in the age of massive computing power, some of its value is historical, and that large-scale discrete math is the current tool of choice.)</p>
<p>My question (and tsdad’s, I think), is why does that mean it should be the kind of intellectual touchstone that EVERYONE who considers himself educated ought to have learned thoroughly. Given the few times in my adult life that I’ve said to myself, “Damn, I wish I remembered how to integrate!”, it’s just not self-evident that I’m missing anything because I’ve forgotten calculus almost entirely. By the same token, I would not suggest that EVERYONE has to understand Levi-Strauss or Derrida, or Wallace Stevens, or the mysteries of Pullman abstention, even though each of those was central to MY particular education.</p>
<p>It seems to me that if we were going to pick a branch of math that every educated person should understand, it would be statistics, not calculus. I see statistics in the newspaper every day. There has not been one time since I finished taking calculus in college that I have needed calculus for anything, or even thought “Hey, that’s a problem that could be solved with calculus!” My APL programming class has not helped me much, either.</p>
<p>JHS: This is why I said earlier on that you can’t study calculus by itself. You need some probability theory, some physics, etc. Of course you won’t wonder throughout your adult life “damn I wish I remembered how to integrate!” if you can’t even recognize places where you could apply mathematics/science where you may need integration.</p>
<p>And it’s true, rarely do people need to compute crazy integrals. Most of the time just knowing the basics will suffice. But you need more importantly to understand how to see how calculus applies to the world and how it can model the world. Teachers are so frustrated trying to teach kids how to integrate and differentiate that they don’t have time to show kids how calculus can be applied to their daily life. </p>
<p>Also you are right that large-scale discrete mathematics is an important tool these days, because we work with discrete information. But just because a computer can do it doesn’t mean you shouldn’t understand the principles behind it. And more than likely, if you are regularily using a computer to compute complicated integrals, you will already have a solid mathematical background.</p>
<p>Like I said before, it is very hard for people to see how to apply calculus to the world around them when all they learned was how to mechanically integrate and differentiate.</p>
<p>And you are also right that not everyone who is educated needs to know calculus through and through. But this country is lacking math/science kids, and so we need to give a big boost to any and all who have interest in math/science. This is a cultural change that is required, as much as it is a change in government policy, etc.</p>
<p>[CRA</a> Bulletin » NACE Salary Survey](<a href=“http://www.cra.org/wp/index.php?cat=9]CRA”>http://www.cra.org/wp/index.php?cat=9)</p>
<p>take a look at the salary around mid page</p>
<p>There’s a reason why people pay $50-60k for engineers and $30s for english majors</p>
<p>The relevance of majors was in the news just recently in our state- they were considering lowering the amount of scholarship for liberal arts, and increasing the amount for science/engineering/health.</p>
<p>[Students</a> fight for Bright Futures - News](<a href=“http://media.www.fsunews.com/media/storage/paper920/news/2008/02/11/News/Students.Fight.For.Bright.Futures-3199305.shtml]Students”>http://media.www.fsunews.com/media/storage/paper920/news/2008/02/11/News/Students.Fight.For.Bright.Futures-3199305.shtml)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I believe, and don’t quote me on this, that the bill has since been amended such that the incentive portion is retained, but the reduction was eliminated.</p>
<p>I am very surprised to hear that people think science is not philosophy. Nobody heard about empirical philosophy? You know, the idea that we rely on observable and repeatable evidence instead of appealing to a higher authority? This is the belief system that makes the European civilization the dominant force it has been for the last couple of hundred years.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Gee. That’s one smart moose. 
Great post.</p>
<p>I really like how elements is just making blanket claims about Engineers performing “better” in Humanities classes without citing any statistics.</p>
<p>Oh and elements, outsourcing and the gap between imports and exports is a result of a strong dollar (meaning lower salaries to be paid in outsourced countries)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Dood,</p>
<p>The dollar is at a historic low.</p>
<p>
You must be joking. The development of human knowledge has allowed a single person’s output to be greatly increased. Knowledge of farming principles and development of technology have allowed 2% of America farm more than what 90% of America did in the 1700’s. Technology has allowed fewer people to do the same amount of work and has allowed other previously non-existent industries to grow (such as the entertainment industry, which is a huge part of American culture). Technology is <em>why</em> people even have the freedom to buy the latest CD (or 10) and everything else which makes life better than what it was 100 years ago.</p>
<p>When 99% of your economy is farming it’s kind of hard to do anything substantial from the cultural standpoint (this is ultimately why Western civilization has been the dominant civilization for the past 500 years - might soon change though).</p>
<p>I think there is a bit of an either/or falacy here. It is not LA or Sci, an educated person needs good exposure to both (regardless of major).</p>
<p>In terms of economic growth, not really. Science/Engineering wins out virtually every time.</p>
<p>science and engineering does not explain religion. it does not explain art. it does not explain music or sculpture or literature. in terms of cold efficiency, science and engineering are key to humanity. in terms of fleeting inspiration regarding dynamic, human thought, science and engineering are far from so.</p>
<p>is the sistine chapel beautiful for its design or its artwork?</p>
<p>those who don’t like a bunch of murals may prefer the design of the building; those who don’t see the joy in geometrically aligned windows may prefer the art. </p>
<p>the answer is both, really–it is amazing because both the architecture and the art compliment each other and create a combined feel of beauty and purpose.</p>
<p>again, it’s apples and oranges…</p>