Originally Posted by comet555

Why get rid of it altogether? It is necessary for those who are going onto engineering, mathematics, physics, etc. Advanced math should be available for those that actually need it. They really do need need advanced math for engineering believe it or not. I don't want an engineer building bridges or large structures without an understanding of the mathematics and why it all works. I don't want them to just punch in information into a computer without being able to do the calculations by hand if they have to. Computer programs are not perfect (and neither are we), so computers should be more of a tool used in helping along and checking things rather than the sole method of doing things.

For students who don't need advanced math then there should be another alternative with less emphasis on pure mathematics and more on real world applications. For many an intermediate math course would probalby be quite suitable. I think it's more the stigma attached to the whole thing, parents and students think all the smart kids take advanced math so they should be taking it even if they don't need it.

I had a friend in school that was pretty smart but not the greatest at math. She did all the math classes along with the rest of us and did manage to pass calculus after a lot of struggle. Not much point in it though because she wanted to go into early childhood, so really a bit silly. But she was basically pushed into doing all those advanced math course because she didn't want to be in the classed with the "stupid" kids (her words not mine).

This to some extent does exist in certain places, so things are starting to change. It just takes time for the general public to notice what's happening. Let's face it the curriculum most of us think of is what we took in high school. Well for me high school was only 10 years ago and the math curriculum has changed quite dramatically in some parts of Canada. If I was not a teacher I wouldn't have noticed the changes for another 10-15 years until my daughter was in school.

Originally Posted by heg3

Another argument for maths is that it's a part of our culture along with music, art language... even if you're going to become an infant school teacher you'll take a broader outlook through life. Let's say you knew you wanted to be a carpenter; you may think it's a waste of time studying history but you'll have better conversations at smoko because of it!

In QLD they have maths A - a kind of 'real world' maths for people who aren't going to study it at uni. It deals with maps, finance and other day to day tasks but also has some very stimulating topics such as queuing theory, networking and project management.

I agree about fractions. Don't know why after six years they are doing calculus but struggling with fractions.

Maths is useful. An engineer may be able to plug in numbers to a formula but who derives the formulae? How do they know it's applicable? How many cars can use the bridge before it breaks? If it supports 100 cars is it dead certain to break at 101? If you know about basic probability and statistics you can check for yourself rather than gullibly believe the news when facts are 'backed up' by figures. Most news articles about statistical studies are are really shabby with glaring errors.

If you have a good understanding of school maths you can go through life better informed, more empowered and more cultured.

Originally Posted by MartinLuther

I think history is important so I have no question mark over that. I would change the what and how it's taught though.

Playing devil's advocate on bridges, there are old bridges built with less maths than modern bridges that have survived a lot better. You can arrive at an understanding of load capacity through testing and experiment without the use of maths and this is often how it was done in the old days. Also even if you did the fine calculation that told you this bridge can support you would still put in a margin for error (which could be as much as 2 or 3 times the calculated value).

Originally Posted by MartinLuther

I would say the maths required for building bridges should be taught on tertiary courses for this type of engineering.

For the electronic engineering part of my degree we had to do Fourier analysis and Laplace transformations as these are necessary for designing certain electronic circuits (apparently). I wouldn't include either of those subjects in a school maths curriculum as they are too specialised. And the upshot was that we didn't use this maths to design any real circuits because there are easier ways to design a circuit (using cheats) and real world tolerances mean that the real world components don't behave the same as mathematical models.

Originally Posted by heg3

Using 'cheats' is great but can only get you so far. Say you want to design a website but don't know anything about html or advanced editors, you are happy to use a wizard 'website in tree clicks' from you webhost to get it up and running. However, if you want to do something innovative and original you will have to learn the skills properly.

It's the same with applied maths for engineering, finance and science. It's not too hard to plug in numbers to a formula but you need real understanding if you're doing something which pushes the boundaries or are trying to squeeze out more performance.

Originally Posted by heg3

Yes that's true but in these more complicated times funding needs to be justified. It's not always possible to build it three times stronger than you think is needed. Also a wider variety of materials and techniques are used. YOu can't test every one of them building bridges by trial and experiment but insteaad use a mathematical knowledge of general properties and propagation of errors.

I wouldn't want to be using one of the 'trial and experiment' bridges!

I'm not denying the joys of Fourier analysis and Laplace transforms but just trying to emphasise that you can do an awful lot with school level maths. Maybe if the curriculum got schools and teachers to teach using topical examples instead of the text book students would remember the concepts and methods better.

Originally Posted by MartinLuther

I like the learning to learn idea but that raises another question. Is school the right environment to learn to learn?

<snip> In fact, I found classroom courses to be a slow, boring and unproductive way of learning.

.

Originally Posted by bourbon-biscuit

Ah, the difference between education and schooling! To my mind school will always be a second rate place to learn, which is why, as I'm passionate about children and education (but deeply suspicious of 'schooling') I'm off to train to become a teacher.

As for the thread subject- am I only the only one who objects on principle to business and branding having any part in education? There's no way I'd have my kids use that site, never. In the same way I hated the McDonalds school crossings in NZ or the 'McDonalds sponsor local sport' ads on TV here or the absolutely outrageous 'McDonalds have been keeping Australia clean' ads on over clean up Australia day period. I don't want corporate sponsorship or branding in schools or education- Australia is wealthy enough without us accepting this sort of underhand advertising to help educate our kids.

Originally Posted by bourbon-biscuit

Naturally everyone is aware of McDonalds, I'm not suggesting a ban on advertising or shutting kids away or anything like that. I don't even think it's relevant whether you like or don't McDonald's food- you might eat from there often and yet still want you r childrens' education to be free from advertising. Because that's what this is. Wiley advertising.

Originally Posted by hoveactually

In a more generous light it could also be seen as McDonalds making a useful (tax deductable) contribution to the community from its profits. I have never heard anyone objecting to them providing the Ronald McDonald House scheme and that isn't done devoid of advertiising either.

Originally Posted by bourbon-biscuit

In a more relaistic light it becomes apparent that McDonalds wouldn't fund the Ronald McDonald houses, the school crossing patrols, the McMaths etc if they weren't allowed to include advertising within those projects. McDonalds' advertising is ruthless amnd very effective. Not so many years ago the brand image was under threat from negative publicity (the McLibel case, the critisism of 'McJobs' etc among many others) and McDonalds have done some very clever, very effective, yet ruthless advertising to re-brand themselves as 'local' and community based and most people have swallowed it.

The questions I'd want to ask McDonalds about these schemes are what % of their profit do they put into these schemes and what revenue do these schemes raise. These schemes will have been devised with a marketing agenda and I don't want marketing and branding to play a part in my children's education and I don't think I'm alone in that wish.