Yes Professor, Math Is Necessary
I have to admit I am not sure where to begin. Like most math teachers, I have spent a good deal of my adult life defending the relevance of my subject to students, parents and other educators. I have observed the popular culture ridicule math in advertising; television shows and political speeches. How many times have you heard someone say, “Well of course I can’t do that, I was never very good at math.” But I never fathomed that I would have to defend the study of the subject to a college math professor.
It actually took me three readings of a recent Washington Post op-ed to get a handle on what the author was trying to say. The first reading left me confused—is this perhaps a “Modest Proposal” for math? After the second reading, I became slack-jawed in stunned disbelief. On the third run through I reached critical mass—these were clearly the most amazing assortment of negative statements ever attributed to a mathematician The object of this extended reading session was the op-ed in the Washington Post by University of Illinois at Chicago Math Professor G.V. Ramanathan. His primary position was to question whether there was any value for studying mathematics. The argument begins by comparing the process of learning math to superficial improvements to one’s appearance.
“…the marketing of math has become similar to the marketing of creams to whiten teeth, gels to grow hair and regimens to build a beautiful body.”
Professor Ramanathan adds:
“A lot of effort and money has been spent to make mathematics seem essential to everybody's daily life. There are even calculus textbooks showing how to calculate -- I am not making this up and in fact I taught from such a book -- the rate at which the fluid level in a martini glass will go down, assuming, of course, that one sips differentiably (sic). Elementary math books have to be stuffed with such contrived applications; otherwise they won't be published.”
Technically, I do agree with this particular point. The use of fluid level in a martini glass does seem a bit contrived. But what is the harm in trying to make an abstract discipline like mathematics more relevant to students using at least a million other, more appropriate, examples to illustrate the importance of the subject. Professor Ramanathan continues his questionable argument with the following:
“Unlike literature, history, politics and music, math has little relevance to everyday life. ...Most adults have no contact with math at work, nor do they curl up with an algebra book for relaxation.”
These statements cry out for a response.
Ignorance is not really bliss
I have not read anything by Shakespeare in decades. I did, however, learn much about human nature through the study of his work. These are lessons I still use in my life. I cannot recite the Constitution, The Bill of Rights, or the Declaration of Independence. Would I be a better citizen if I had never studied them? I cannot recall ever using the principles of photosynthesis in my daily conversations. But I do believe I am enhanced by possessing an understanding of the interrelationship between myself and the plant world. Is math so much different than these subjects?
What is the value of a well-informed decision?
Professor Ramanathan’s primary contention is that there is little use for math for most people.
“How much math do you really need in everyday life? Ask yourself that -- and also the next 10 people you meet, say, your plumber, your lawyer, your grocer, your mechanic, your physician or even a math teacher.”
I beg to differ. First of all, every one of those occupations mentioned are constantly using math whether it is to correlate measurements, determine the proper equipment, adjust dosage, or establish prices. More importantly mathematics is one of the most powerful tools anyone can wield when attempting to understand and interpret information. I could go on for fifteen or more pages condemning all of the professor’s contentions. I could bludgeon his arguments using numerous illustrations of his folly. But in lieu of all that verbiage, I will summarize my arguments using one example of the power of mathematics as a tool for understanding the world.
A few weeks ago Brian Williams on the NBC Nightly News reported on a recent study of breast cancer and the use of hormone replacement in women. The numbers were ominous. After extensive research it was determined that a woman’s chances of having breast cancer would increase by 25% if she was on hormone therapy. A 25% increase in just about anything is huge. If your mortgage goes up by that much, foreclosure will soon follow. Similar growth in dropout rates, unemployment, violent crime, tuition, or auto accidents would be an automatic cause for alarm. But is an increase of 25% in the potential for a woman contracting breast cancer cause for the same degree of apprehension? Let’s do the math.
With a little research it was determined that the number of women in the general population who develop breast cancer is 0.4%. That number increases to 0.5% for those who use hormone replacement which is an increase of 25%. (Divide the increase of 0.1 by 0.4.) Four-tenths of a percent translates into four women out of every 1000. Five-tenths of a percent means that the number stricken with the disease will grow to five. Consequently, as the direct result of hormone replacement, the increased chance of having breast cancer is one in a thousand. Does this interpretation of the information make the correct decision obvious or easier? Absolutely not, but it does give an enhanced perspective to the reality of the situation.
This analysis did not take an understanding of calculus, differential equations or advanced statistics. It simply took a solid grounding in basic mathematics. The same process could be used to evaluate airline tickets (free baggage vs. fees), home loans, or a thousand other life decisions.
So please, Professor Ramanathan explain to me one more time why math literacy should not be a major goal of education.
Learn more about this blog and "head blogger" Mel Riddile...
Comments
I think that there is some room for middle ground. Here are my premises on which I think we agree.
1. Mathematics is useful in every day life.
2. Some mathematics is more useful than other mathematics in the day to day life of our citizens.
3. Let's teach that mathematics, and emphasize it much more rather than teaching a very wide scope of mathematics to everyone, most of which is useless.
The examples you've cited are from simple percentages and a bit of statistics. I think that probability, statistics, some numerical reasoning, and cost-benefit analysis would be very useful for everyone. In fact, I think that the terminal course for most high school students should be a statistics course.
Calculus and algebra, while extremely useful for a small percentage of our society, should not be taught to everyone. These should be on an opt-in approach for students who choose the extra challenge for whatever reason.
Posted by: David Wees | October 26, 2010 03:39 PM
Amen, I was similarly outraged by his statements. Well written and well supported reply. thank you
Posted by: Thomas | October 26, 2010 05:06 PM
Stuart,
I don't disagree with your sentiments here regarding the development of young minds by experiencing these different subjects. I also don't disagree with Professor Ramanathan's thoughts on the lack of necessity for higher-level math. I simply believe you are both talking about different needs.
Ramanathan is talking about practicality of use. You are speaking of experience and development.
My problem with many of these "higher-level" content areas is that they aren't used to provide students with the experiences you speak of. They are used as a way to prevent kids from having experiences. At an early age, students are stratified into different groups so that some students are given the opportunities to take these classes and others are not. The students who are not provided the opportunity to take the classes are thereby held out of certain institutions of higher learning simply because they aren't allowed to take classes that will have no bearing in life on their future success.
Why should two students be given different amounts of opportunities in the future simply because one couldn't master pre-Algebra faster than the other? All the while, nothing beyond pre-Algebra will ever relate to their particular fields of interest.
If every student was given the same chance to learn the connections that you did then I would have no problem with the way we keep shoving advanced maths and sciences into the middle grades.
The problem is that we aren't doing it to improve the quality of connections kids make and experiences of the world around them. It's being done to maintain (and further increase) the distance between the "haves" and the "have nots".
Thanks for the thought-provoking post.
AE
Posted by: Aaron Eyler | October 26, 2010 05:44 PM
While the sentiments of the Washington Post article are unfortunately shared by many, I'm shocked that a math professor could take such a position. His martini glass problem example speaks volumes. I am in total agreement with him that textbooks that publish this sort of problem are detrimental to our students' development. While the textbook is clearly trying to give a "real world" example, all that has been reinforced is the idea that math can be used to find answers to problems that we would never care about in "real life." Seriously, who is ever going to care about the given senario?
What Professor Ramanathan seems to miss is that the lack of creative teaching in math classrooms, the lack of good textbooks, the lack of progress in pedagogy is not a reason to provide less math to our students, but rather a reason to demand more from our math teachers, curriculum directors, and college professors who train pre-service math teachers. The biggest complaint that I hear from teachers I work with is that students fail to be able to problem solve effectively. That skill must be addressed in math classes.
Ramanathan may be able to argue (although I would disagree) that a person without a solid math background can get by in today's world, but anyone with a bit of logic can see that a society without a solid math background is doomed to collapse.
Posted by: Mike Soskil | October 27, 2010 08:30 AM
A)I agree with all these responses to why we do need math education.
B) I would go a step further than most of these authors in pointing out that we live in a complex society within the United States where we assume more responsibility for self sufficiency.
C) Within our responsibility is the ability to be able to make simple living decisions. These decision include more than basic math skills- such as can we afford a mortgage ? Can we afford to buy a car or should we lease one ? These are mathamatical comparisons that millions do every year. How much math education do you need to answer this question - How can you determine if paying 1/2 your mortgage every two weeks is better than making one extra payment at the beginning or end of the year ? How about math applicability to politics and economics - Should we vote for people who support VAT taxes? What is a regressive tax vs a progressive tax system? Without more math abilities we become dependent upon someone else's 'sound' bites to make important decisions. If you lose your job and decide to start your own business, do you know what breakeven volumes are? Can you even calculate the minimum hourly rate needed to eat, rent and pay for your plumbing truck? Do you know what your pension is worth? Does the average person understand that Social Security is NOT an actuarially sound financing system but a welfare system? Does the average citizen understand that the soc sec lockbox is invested in gov't debt and is thus phantom math, ie the gov't has invested in an IOU from itself. On perhaps a simpler level, does the average head banger realze that sound is measured in decibels and is geometric in its decrease as you get farther away? Should we know what a geometric change means? Once we are deaf, do we care - perhaps too late. Anyway, I could go on forever with examples that demonstrate the need for the average person to know some level of basic algebra. Do we know how much a car crash can impact us as the speed increases? How fast do we fall in a bungee jump? When do we reach terminal velocity and what does that mean? Granted we don't need to be able to do this level of math on an everyday basis, but we should have at least been exposed to the math and understand how such events impact our lives. I know of a neighbor who falsified his income on a 'no doc' loan becuse that's what it took to buy the house he wanted. To this day he blames the bank for his subsequent foreclosure when he could not make the payments. I guess there is no excuse for stupidity but hopefully this individual could have had a flashback to some earlier math course that would have helped him understand the relationship and that falsifying the base point of an extrapolation often causes the extrapolation to become unsustainable. So even if we forget the mechanics of algebra at least the exposure will help us remember the parameters of mathmatics and that we should not over accelerate in a car, make our bungee cord too long, stand in front of a 120 db speaker, borrow our way to collapse, or vote for people who promise that 'the government' or 'someone else' will pay for it for you.....
It's all math, baby,...
..and we should understand the implications of the math before we make a lot of daily life decisions.
Posted by: bob | October 30, 2010 01:09 PM