6 ms·

This reminds me of Lockhart's Lament, which I highly recommend reading http://www.maa.org/sites/default/files/pdf/devlin/LockhartsLament.pdf http://www.maa.org/

This reminds me of Lockhart's Lament, which I highly recommend reading http://www.maa.org/sites/default/files/pdf/devlin/LockhartsLament.pdf http://www.maa.org/sites/default/files/pdf/devlin/LockhartsL...

chrisBob 13y ago
That was a fun read, but no one can teach that way. You can't become a teacher by studying math, physics, chemistry, biology, literature, french, programming, history, geography or english. You become a teacher in the US by getting a teaching degree. I believe that is the biggest problem we have in the US education system. Teachers only need minimal knowledge of their subject, and if someone discovers that they don't actually like teaching then they just keep doing it anyway because they got a teaching degree, and can't do much else with it.
- j2kun 13y ago
  Low standards for math teachers is a huge concern, and Lockhart addresses it too, I believe. Some possible ways to help: give teachers less class time and more time to prepare interesting lessons, pay teachers more, raise the standards of training and hiring.
  - teach 13y ago
    And that's the real problem: those things all cost money. Quite a bit, actually.
    - j2kun 13y ago
      I can't think of a more worthy cause, and it would be chump change compared to what we spend on bailouts/wars/petty politics.
- btilly 13y ago
  Not only do you have to get a teaching degree, but smart people don't want to do that. See http://www.statisticbrain.com/iq-estimates-by-intended-college-major/ http://www.statisticbrain.com/iq-estimates-by-intended-colle... and note that, relative to other college majors, education majors tend to be dumb.
- DerpDerpDerp 13y ago
  I know a number of math teachers who have undergraduate degrees in math, and then attended a 2 year masters program to get their degree in teaching. I also know a number who came from a humanities background, and "learned enough math" in the single, poorly taught math-for-teaching class they had in getting a masters. One of these groups makes better teachers (and likely has a wider career path, because of the undergraduate degree).
  - chrisBob 13y ago
    I also know some smart teachers that started with something else and ended up teaching high school. I have more examples of people who got a degree in something else and wanted to teach, but then found out how hard and expensive that transition is.
Double_Cast 13y ago
I really enjoyed your link too. So thanks for posting. But I do have some qualms about the article's position. > Two weeks of content are stretched to semester length by masturbatory definitional runarounds. That Lockhart describes trigonometry as "masturbatory" I find ironic. Lockhart argues that math is fun for its own sake. Personally, I think that math is fun per se. I.e. patterns and ideas and puzzles are fun. But historically, much of math was invented as engineering-shortcuts. E.g. trig identities for navigation, newton's calculus for friction, etc. The philosophical Greeks and their geometry I think are the exception. So I think most people would rebut that math's actual raison d'etre lies in it's tangible application. The manner in which Lockhart describes math is why physicists joke that theoretical math is nothing more than masturbation. > In certain of the arts and crafts, we sometimes do precisely this--requiring a child to "express himself" in paint before we teach him how to handle the colors and the brush. There is a school of thought which believes this to be the right way to set about the job. But observe: it is not the way in which a trained craftsman will go about to teach himself a new medium. He, having learned by experience the best way to economize labor and take the thing by the right end, will start off by doodling about on an odd piece of material, in order to "give himself the feel of the tool." [1] I do agree that math curriculums are excruciatingly insipid. And Lockhart makes some good points. But I think this other link makes a strong argument too, which is contradictory to what Lockhart argues. So I was thinking: for each unit, maybe teachers could explain what problems the unit was actually solved historically. This differs from the article, because 6th graders don't really need to know about Riemann Surfaces if that's not what the unit covers. This differs from your Lockhart, because I don't think it's as "masturbatory". But it still affords students a glimpse of where all this pedagogical grinding is headed, allows students to reify to something relevant, and retains that "puzzle" feeling. Again, I like puzzles. But teachers have a responsibility to teach everyone, not just the select few who solve rubiks cubes in their spare time. How much of that would be solved by removing the educational mandate on math, I don't know. [1] http://www.scribd.com/doc/36325362/The-Lost-Tools-of-Learning http://www.scribd.com/doc/36325362/The-Lost-Tools-of-Learnin...

chrisBob 13y ago

That was a fun read, but no one can teach that way. You can't become a teacher by studying math, physics, chemistry, biology, literature, french, programming, history, geography or english. You become a teacher in the US by getting a teaching degree. I believe that is the biggest problem we have in the US education system. Teachers only need minimal knowledge of their subject, and if someone discovers that they don't actually like teaching then they just keep doing it anyway because they got a teaching degree, and can't do much else with it.

j2kun 13y ago
Low standards for math teachers is a huge concern, and Lockhart addresses it too, I believe. Some possible ways to help: give teachers less class time and more time to prepare interesting lessons, pay teachers more, raise the standards of training and hiring.
- teach 13y ago
  And that's the real problem: those things all cost money. Quite a bit, actually.
  - j2kun 13y ago
    I can't think of a more worthy cause, and it would be chump change compared to what we spend on bailouts/wars/petty politics.
btilly 13y ago
Not only do you have to get a teaching degree, but smart people don't want to do that. See http://www.statisticbrain.com/iq-estimates-by-intended-college-major/ http://www.statisticbrain.com/iq-estimates-by-intended-colle... and note that, relative to other college majors, education majors tend to be dumb.
DerpDerpDerp 13y ago
I know a number of math teachers who have undergraduate degrees in math, and then attended a 2 year masters program to get their degree in teaching. I also know a number who came from a humanities background, and "learned enough math" in the single, poorly taught math-for-teaching class they had in getting a masters. One of these groups makes better teachers (and likely has a wider career path, because of the undergraduate degree).
- chrisBob 13y ago
  I also know some smart teachers that started with something else and ended up teaching high school. I have more examples of people who got a degree in something else and wanted to teach, but then found out how hard and expensive that transition is.

Double_Cast 13y ago

I really enjoyed your link too. So thanks for posting. But I do have some qualms about the article's position. > Two weeks of content are stretched to semester length by masturbatory definitional runarounds. That Lockhart describes trigonometry as "masturbatory" I find ironic. Lockhart argues that math is fun for its own sake. Personally, I think that math is fun per se. I.e. patterns and ideas and puzzles are fun. But historically, much of math was invented as engineering-shortcuts. E.g. trig identities for navigation, newton's calculus for friction, etc. The philosophical Greeks and their geometry I think are the exception. So I think most people would rebut that math's actual raison d'etre lies in it's tangible application. The manner in which Lockhart describes math is why physicists joke that theoretical math is nothing more than masturbation. > In certain of the arts and crafts, we sometimes do precisely this--requiring a child to "express himself" in paint before we teach him how to handle the colors and the brush. There is a school of thought which believes this to be the right way to set about the job. But observe: it is not the way in which a trained craftsman will go about to teach himself a new medium. He, having learned by experience the best way to economize labor and take the thing by the right end, will start off by doodling about on an odd piece of material, in order to "give himself the feel of the tool." [1] I do agree that math curriculums are excruciatingly insipid. And Lockhart makes some good points. But I think this other link makes a strong argument too, which is contradictory to what Lockhart argues. So I was thinking: for each unit, maybe teachers could explain what problems the unit was actually solved historically. This differs from the article, because 6th graders don't really need to know about Riemann Surfaces if that's not what the unit covers. This differs from your Lockhart, because I don't think it's as "masturbatory". But it still affords students a glimpse of where all this pedagogical grinding is headed, allows students to reify to something relevant, and retains that "puzzle" feeling. Again, I like puzzles. But teachers have a responsibility to teach everyone, not just the select few who solve rubiks cubes in their spare time. How much of that would be solved by removing the educational mandate on math, I don't know. [1] http://www.scribd.com/doc/36325362/The-Lost-Tools-of-Learning http://www.scribd.com/doc/36325362/The-Lost-Tools-of-Learnin...