Music Theory/Music Skills classes should be mandatory course's for all students to take.

I'd like to first thank you for taking this debate on. May the best man win. Secondly, I'd like to clarify: "'Evidently not according...when analyzing math, english or science.' >>So the study revealed that creators of musical pieces typically use more areas of their respective brains when producing these pieces than previously believed" Its no that their brains are more active when they produce, but when they listen, and are attentive. When students are deducing an interval or piece of music they are having to develop a better short term memory. "Memory is strongly affected by simultaneous activity in other parts of the brain. You remember words you've spoken better than words you've only read or heard... It's also true that rhythm appears to assist remembering otherwise unconnected data; mnemonics to recall lists work better if they have rhythm and/or rhyme (and even better if they are vulgar)... Important rules and folk wisdom are often rhythmic or alliterative.. So it seems likely that music helps memory. For it to work in this way, one piece of music seems to need to be specifically and repeatedly associated with only one piece of data. This rules out listening to the radio while doing your homework, but it would be interesting to set your French vocabulary list to music. "- "Ask A Scientistï¿½" Biology Archive, Music & Memory, (Http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov...) This brings me back to my intial point, "...musicians are able to use more of their brain while deducing and/or playing a piece." "..This looks primarily to be based off an opinion poll rather than performance-based data.. it does nothing to prove that these students perform better at mathematics over time, but rather that students enjoy math and find it to seem less challenging when listing to music in class... were these surveys scientifically conducted? Are these differences statistically significant?" 'Primarily based of an opinion poll...'. I'd like to first, most everything is an opinion poll about the brain. In an article by Radical Doula, (http://www.presstv.ir...) "Hypnosis used as anesthesia for cesarean... On Saturday at noon, 24-year-old Aida Hassanlou gave birth to her 3.950 kilogram baby girl, Saqi, by C-section while she was awake but under the effects of hypnosis." - Hypnosis- "trance like state which a person becomes more aware " I don't necessecarily believe you should go out have a c-section under hypnosis, I am merely using this example to show that scientists have no idea how this worked, how this woman could not go itno shock while she was cut open / giving birth. Scientists only give their opinions, unless they can be certain, and the human brain is something we are very clear on. My opponents next point, "...it does nothing to prove that these students perform better at mathematics over time, but rather that students enjoy math and find it to seem less challenging..." So, you argue that performing better at something like Math is NOT shown by students getting better grades in it and finding it less challenging? That is in fact wrong, Teacher precisly look for students excelling, developing new ideas and question, and in turn recognizing once complex concepts. He goes on to ask, "were these surveys scientifically conducted? Are these differences statistically significant?" Please define your idea os 'scientifically conducted. If you meant did they follow the Scientific Process yes, (identification of problem - low grades and attention.)(hypothesis - Music helps retention with students.)(deductive reasoning- We can observe their attentitivness in class, watch grades either improve, decline or stay the same.)(data collection and analysis - To ensure precise results, it was tested for 3 years.)(derive conclusion - "...music played during mathematics class helped students enjoy class and retain more information. The research builds on studies linking certain music to improvements in learning") So yes it was scientifically done, and it was performed by Professors Maya Ruvinshteyn and Leonard Parrino of Essex County College. "are these differences statistically significant?" - In my, and many scientists and professors I have cited, opinon. It does. In addtion, everyone has had 'bad' professor, someone who is boring or you just don't 'like'. In the same paper is was said that, "[Statisitcally]...Similar changes were noted in both groups regardless of which instructor taught the course." Wouldn't it be BEST for students to have even a 13% better chance at finding a class less challenging, thats potentially more then a letter grade. The next argument of my opponents distorts myy words. I quote my self, "This is an idea of the 'Mozart Effect' in which the theory lies that theory that listening to Mozart's or Baroque music can enhance intellect, or at least some components of intellectual function. The term was first coined by Alfred A. Tomatis who used Mozart's music as the listening stimulus in his work attempting to cure a variety of disorders." I did not in fact say the implication of "'This is an idea of the 'Mozart Effect'...attempting to cure a variety of disorders. '" I am not arguing that music can cure a disease or disorder. I said, "the theory lies that ... listenting to Mozart's or Baroque music can enhance intellect, or at least some components of intellectual function." He later states, "These results have not been consistently replicated." This is also a false assumption. In a Science Daily article,(http://www.sciencedaily.com...), it headlined "New Research Provides The First Solid Evidence That The Study Of Music Promotes Intellectual Development" its dated(Aug. 20, 2004) and further reads " — The idea that studying music improves the intellect is not a new one, but at last there is incontrovertible evidence from a study conducted out of the University of Toronto." In which children where given a series of choices, "four activities: keyboard lessons, voice lessons, drama lessons, or no lessons... The participating children were given IQ tests before and after the lessons.. this study revealed that increases in IQ from pre- to post-test were larger in the music groups than in the two others." This was then again confirmed in the Newswire Article, (http://www.newswiretoday.com...) "Music Education Leads to an Increase in Ones' IQ" dated 02/03/2007. This experiement was led by Dr. E. Glenn Schellenberg,who "examined the effect of extra-curricular activities on the intellectual and social development of six-year-old children." My opponent then attacked the credibility, "Studies similar to the Mozart Effect study were produced almost a decade later. These studies indicated that there was no mathematical performance benefit from listening to Mozart or Bach [Bridget and Cuevas 2000]" "..even listening to enjoyable audiobooks resulted in improved performance vs listening to nothing ". Again I feel misconstrued, the students were not only listening to music but in fact taking lessons in it. His source is four years previous to the (Aug. 20, 2004) Science Daily article, in fact all of his references (1993, 2000, 2001) are now out dated. Unless my opponent can offer any more recent studies disconfirming these arguments, his previous claims fall. I must be quick because I dont have room (look2comments). Mandatory, yes, this does not necessarily mean they are playing an instrument. P.E is a mandatory class, it improves you physically, because scientists say so. Your brain isn't necessarily the same thing as muscle, being composed of gray and white matter, but your can exercise is, and learning music theory/skills have shown significantly high improvements in improving brain function: with analytical skills, seeing patterns, and being able to listening to 2 things at once and comprehand them.