From: drector@math.uci.edu (David Rector)
Subject: Re: Minimum standards for math "competency"
Newsgroups: sci.math,comp.edu
Keywords: math competency education university college standards
Date: 23 Nov 92 19:40:33 GMT

jmount+@CS.CMU.EDU (John Mount) writes:

>In article <1992Nov23.140653.13522@scott.skidmore.edu>, pvonk@scott.skidmore.edu (Pierre VonKaenel) writes:
>|> Perhaps you haven't visited a technical university lately.  I recall
>|> professors complaining that most of their students are oriental, and
>|> where are the American kids?  I'm not sure about the statement above,

>I trying to imply you said the above (I even left a bit of your "I'm not
>sure about that").  But I think this kind of racist crud is intolerable- 
>a good number of the Asian students ARE American kids.

>-- 
>--- It is kind of strange being in CS theory, given computers really do exist.
>John Mount: jmount+@cs.cmu.edu               (412)268-6247
>School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University, 
>5000 Forbes Ave., Pittsburgh PA 15213-3891

Your somewhat incoherent statement above makes even a staunch liberal
bemoan political correctness.  Mr. VonKaenel's remarks imply no racist
views; they may simply reflect a current defect in American English
terminology: how to refer to the once dominant Euro-American cultural
group.  You might try sticking to the subject.

Here in California the problem of poor math education is particularly
acute since California schools are a year or two behind the more
competent school systems in the nation.  One characteristic of
California's much esteemed Asian American subculture is high respect
for education.  Many parents, therefore, devote great personal effort
to overcoming the appalling defects in the educational system.  In my
experience they succeed no better than the rest of the population in
overcoming the deficiencies in content, and may even exacerbate the
tendency of our schools to teach for the short answer test.

Incoming students to the University of California--all cultural groups--
share several characteristics:

    1.  They are bone ignorant.

    2.  They perform very well on short answer tests where they are
	asked to regurgitate facts.

    3.  They will not reason.

    4.  They are willing to work very hard, but they are not willing
        to be diverted by "theory" or the enjoyment of anything beyond
        the required course syllabus.

    5.  They are totally at sea when asked to work independently.

    6.  They are very bright and can perform well if (big if) you
	can dynamite them out of their careerist fortress.

    7.  They have no sense of humor--or wander--or beauty--or life.

We used to be able to beat some of the deficiencies out of the
students by the junior year (or at least get rid of some of the
students), but that is no longer possible.  Since students come to us
without the prerequisite information or attitudes, we have inevitably
lowered our own standards so that much of the junior year is spent
(re)teaching freshman mathematics.

"Reforms" in education seem to have made things worse.  California's
minimum standards tests seem to have become maximum standards.  The
demise of the New Math, for all its faults, has meant that we can no
longer count on students having the basic vocabulary of mathematics.
Students have had no experience in numerical calculation, geometry, or
applying mathematics to a practical problem.  Many have had calculus
in highschool and not understood it--hardly surprising since they have
had none of the experiences, mathematical or practical, that motivate
it.  Most important, students are convinced that the point of
education is to collect isolated facts to parrot on a short answer
test so that they can get certification to apply for a high paying
job.  Many--perhaps most--do not even like the course they study.

Some needed changes:

    1.  Competent teaching is an exhausting enterprise--about like
acting--requiring enormous emotional energy and extensive
preparation.  No school teacher can perform well teaching more than
three hours per day--about half what is required in California
schools. University teaching is even harder.  Teachers must be
professionals and paid--more important, respected--accordingly.

    2.  Education is not the same as job training and is much more
important.  The great expansion of American industry in the nineteenth
century was based on well a educated (comparitively), flexible work
force.  Business (and the Republican party) supported--AND PAID FOR--
education then--why not now?

    3.  Knowledge is not devided up into neat little packages that
can conveniently be translated into departments, bureaucracies,
and grant programs.

    4.  The most important requirement for good education is having
fun--both students and teachers.  (One reason: a human brain does not
remember events unless signaled to do so by a certain control center.
Fun and fear are the most powerful ways to turn on that control center.
Fun motivates a person to repeat the experience, fear to avoid it.
The choice of motivation, therefore, ought to be obvious.)

    5.  Education is a social enterprise.  Teachers need to talk to their
colleagues and students; teachers need to talk to each other.  Class
discussion is very important to education.  It has almost completely
disappeared from the California schools I am familiar with.  Most of
my students would rather die than talk in class.


--
David L. Rector				drector@math.uci.edu
Dept. of Math.				U. C. Irvine, Irvine CA 92717