![\"from](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/533\/2016\/09\/15344079560_938eb8aca5_c.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
The Math Myth<\/em>, in italics, that is: the title of a new book by Andrew Hacker, whose last name is not eponymous as he\u2019s a professor (emeritus) in political science. \u00a0This is that sort of book that has one solid point and then pushes that point too far: \u00a0we have elevated the place of mathematics too far, with the consequence that good kids, deserving kids, can\u2019t get college degrees because they can\u2019t meet the math requirements that exist even for non-technical degrees, and the reason for this is that it\u2019s mathematics professors at universities who set these standards, for no good reason, but are indifferent to helping students achieve them.<\/p>\n Now, he has a point that not every student can reasonably be expected to do well in an Algebra II-level math class, and to the extent that this is a roadblock in some cases, to getting degrees, well, by all means, let\u2019s discuss this \u2014 though he doesn\u2019t provide concrete details on what, exactly, is required for, say, humanities majors, at typical universities. \u00a0And he suggests that a solid knowledge of arithmetic \u2014 the four basic operations, fractions, percents, etc. \u2014 is really quite enough for just about everyone, by coming up with nonsensical straw men examples of rather more complex material. \u00a0In fact, the basic concept of algebra \u2014 manipulatng an equation to solve for a variable \u2014 is\u00a0important, as is a general notion of trig and geometry. \u00a0And, beyond this, all students, even those who are convinced they\u2019ll never use it, should learn math to the greatest degree their innate capabilities enable them to, rather than, as Hacker suggests, discarding math as useless unless there\u2019s a specific need.<\/p>\n Hacker also raises the issue of whether there\u2019s a shortage of tech-trained graduates; it\u2019s the same stories we\u2019ve read before, that tech companies whine about the lack of US graduates, then run off to hire Indians, while firing their US staff, and, lo and behold, paying those Indians wages that are far below what an American could expect. \u00a0He also notes that large numbers of STEM-trained graduates are not doing STEM work because they\u2019ve discovered that other jobs are more profitable, and pulls out the list of projected-to-grow occupations, which are low in math needs.<\/p>\n And, yes, Hacker has a good point that universities who create math requirements have an ethical obligation to create the right set of conditions so that students can meet those requirements, rather than leaving the teaching of those courses to graduate students who may or may not be able to even communicate in English effectively. \u00a0And the very notion, which still, he says, exists, of first-level math courses as \u201cweeder\u201d courses, is highly unethical, to create a class (and ask students to pay for it) with the very intention that a large number of students will fail.<\/p>\n What does Hacker want? \u00a0Classes which\u00a0emphasize \u201chands on\u201d math and, it turns out, story problems which call on students to think politically about math-related issues. \u00a0One bizarre example is a standard early-grades question: \u00a0\u201cI have X students, and cans of pop come in cases of Y each. \u00a0How many cases do I need?\u201d \u00a0He envisions students coming up with answers like: \u00a0\u201cnot everyone will drink a whole can of pop, so let\u2019s pour the pop into paper cups instead, so it stretches farther.\u201d \u00a0He then describes an idealized college math-for-nonmajors class in which they learn about gerrymandering or looking at the CPI, the \u201cbasket of goods,\u201d and spending in income tiers to think about income inequality.<\/p>\n He also questions the very idea that learning math creates\u00a0\u201cthinking skills\u201d which transfer to other fields of study, but he\u2019s really determined enough to prove this notion wrong that he doesn\u2019t really give the thesis a fair shake, but rather creates a straw man that studying math will make you better at everything, then demolishes this.<\/p>\n But here\u2019s the most interesting claim in the book: \u00a0he rejects the idea that boys\u2019 consistently higher test score in math sections of tests such as the SAT demonstrate that boys are in some way better at math than girls. \u00a0(Here\u2019s an article that just popped up in my twitter feed yesterday, \u201c2016 SAT test results confirm pattern that\u2019s persisted for 45 years \u2014 high school boys are better at math than girls.<\/a>\u201c) \u00a0After all, he notes, as does the linked article, that in classroom performance, girls do better, and what others attribute to girls\u2019 better ability to stay on task and \u201cbehave\u201d that gets them better grades and more academic success than boys, in general, and increasingly so lately, he attributes to girls\u2019 inherent ability. \u00a0Why, then, do boys do better on the SAT? \u00a0He attributes this to the fact that the SAT is a timed test, and that boys\u2019 propensity to rush through and be aggressive rewards them in the case of a timed test.<\/p>\n Here\u2019s a full paragraph:<\/p>\n Given their affinity for speed, boys start by sizing up multiple-choice questions with a quick glance. \u00a0The Educational Testing Service, which runs the SAT, found that boys save time by mental strategies \u201cthat enable them to see the solution without actually working out the problem.\u201d \u00a0As a result, they show less hesitation about racing ahead. \u00a0And this usually pays off, since the SAT format doesn\u2019t ask or care how you got to your answer. \u00a0Another tactic that comes more readily to boys is to eliminate, say, three of the options as plainly wrong, and then guess between the remaining two. \u00a0This willingness to gamble shaves the odds in their favor. \u00a0Another ETS study was even more revealing. \u00a0It found that because girls spend much more time pondering, they are measurably more likely than boys to leave some questions blank, and hence fail to reach the end. \u00a0In all instances, girls\u2019 greater penchant for reflection undercuts their scores. \u00a0(p. 67)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Which is all very interesting, and deserve more attention than one paragraph \u2014 though in a different book than this one, because it\u2019s a whole \u2018nother topic. \u00a0And, after all, these same test-taking strategies ought to work just as well for the verbal section of the SAT, but there\u00a0the boys do not perform as well.<\/p>\n (Full disclosure: \u00a0I do really well on exams. \u00a0In fact, my life might have turned out quite differently if I hadn\u2019t had the opportunities exam success brought me.)<\/p>\n At any rate, this is mostly a tangent in his book, and the ultimate aim of this section of his material is to say that it\u2019s unfair that the most highly-selective schools demand high SAT scores in both the verbal and math areas, because this penalizes plenty of otherwise smart people. \u00a0But if this is the new direction that schools are scholars are taking \u2014 that girls are better than boys at everything that counts, and pfffbth to those dumb boys! \u2014 then that\u2019ll make the already serious problem of young male drop-outs (e.g., playing video games instead<\/a>\u00a0and especially high numbers among young black men<\/a>) even worse.<\/p>\n And, by the way, we were at the National Honor Society induction at my son\u2019s high school Monday night (ended just before the debate!). \u00a0I didn\u2019t tally the ratios, but there were a lot, lot more girls than boys, and all of the officers on stage were girls.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Image\u00a0from flickr: https:\/\/www.flickr.com\/photos\/wwworks\/15344079560; by woodleywonderworks<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The Math Myth, in italics, that is: the title of a new book by Andrew Hacker, whose last name is not eponymous as he\u2019s a professor (emeritus) in political science. \u00a0This is that sort of book that has one solid point and then pushes that point too far: \u00a0we have elevated the place of mathematics […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2209,"featured_media":5387,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[440,94,471],"class_list":["post-5386","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-boys","tag-education","tag-math"],"yoast_head":"\n