Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1) Math really isn't a homogeneous pool of knowledge, but a set of discrete skills. Someone can be great at calculus, but lousy at matrices, or vice versa.
Math is a language, more or less, so it's not that different from the possibility someone could be great at vocab (or creative writing) but lousy at grammar.
So I think some of why people struggle with math is that we take a very linear approach to instruction, some of which builds upon skills learned prior, but not entirely. They might be fantastic at a particular area in math, but they're unlikely to get there if they struggle with topics earlier in the curricular order.
2) In many cases I think people struggle significantly with "how" we teach. Math is often taught purely as rote memorization in the U.S. - that approach will work for some and not for others. Historically the small percent of the population that learned math did it in the context of solving problems, not the abstract labor of learning for the sake of unclear future application.
Thanks for the insightful post! I agree. I think the education system in this country (primarily for k-12) is horrid in comparison to other countries. I have friends from east and south asia, middle east, africa, and central and south america and they all did well in their math courses. Most already took calc 1, chemistry, physics, and higher sciences and math courses while in secondary school before coming to my university.
While they do offer AP classes to hs students here, most students hs age don't take these classes and they are not mandatory for all hs students to take in order to graduate. It shocked me when one of my friends would say how easy all of the classes were here and were surprised the american students would complain or struggle with the material.
Of course, and even at the same level of intellect/IQ, people's areas of ability may be entirely different. Some ARE 'wired' more towards the 'left-brained' math and techy fields, while others are better at languages or creative fields or have some artistic or athletic talent. My husband is super 'techy' - he's a computer genius, but can't write an essay to save his life; english and lit classes in school were torture for him. I'm the complete opposite - can't stand math and am terrible at it, because my brain just doesn't quite work that way; it's that whole 'thinking out of the box' approach to finding solutions. I have great memory and I would try to get through math by memorizing rules but found that as soon as I'd get a problem that required a bit of different thinking from other angles, I'd just get stuck and couldn't get past it. On the other hand I'm an excellent writer, I learn languages easily, I can write up papers on any subject with no trouble, and since grade school I have had an intuitive feel for spelling and grammar; my teachers were shocked because I never misspelled a word. I can see the same right now with my son, he's a super early reader, has photographic memory, and is several years ahead of his age in spelling, writing, and grammar.
For some reason there's a double standard in this. No one would tell a person good at math but bad at writing that they could be a fantastic writer if only they weren't too lazy; nor would you say that anyone could become a talented artist, musician, or athlete if only they put their mind to it. But for some reason anyone admitting to not being good in STEM fields is labelled lazy and making excuses. I don't get it.
I don't get it either. There most certainly is a double standard. Well said.
I think, more than anything, there are certain people who don't think they should have to do what everyone else is told to do. We are "programmed" to follow certain formulas at a very young age. As a 35 year old man who has done pretty much what I've been told to do (get a degree, get a good job, get some money) I look back on it now and say "what was it all for, what the hell is the meaning of all this?". Pretty soon (40-60 years from now) I'll be dead and barely be a sad passing fact in the annals of history. Perhaps it's the nihilism in me, but I have tried to tell the young people I know to live your own life and that none of this means anything. So I would hope some people don't follow or are unable to follow the STEM advice...it's stupid to have a one-size solution for everybody in the first place.
I have a friend who was a STEM major...then he just said "f-it" and walked out of college one day. He makes his money as a fisherman in Montana now. Loves his life...probably much more than a STEM major.
Many people claim that they are not capable of getting through an engineering program because their "brains aren't wired that way" or they "can't do math" or something like that. I personally think that these people simply aren't willing to put in the extra effort it takes to get through a rigorous program like engineering. What do you think?
And just to be clear, this thread is not here to debate the employment prospects of engineers or what peoples' "passions" are. It is a discussion regarding "intellectual capability" vs laziness and excuse making.
I think it doesn't matter. If a student thinks, believes, or knows they are not capable of completing an engineering degree-for what ever reason-in my opinion has demonstrated thorough reasoning that they made a sensible decision to not pursue such a degree. It has nothing to do with laziness. The flip side, as a STEM major, is that I was witness to many STEM majors who really could not hack an English or History degree. Sure, they could comprehend complex systems, but trying to get these students, in particular Science, to articulately express such a system through oral or written communications is an exercise in futility. Science majors are more-often-than-not evaluated through simple rote memorization of known facts, at least at the undergraduate level. In my opinion most STEM students would utterly fail in the Humanities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Three Wolves In Snow
I think you are wrong. Some of us just do not comprehend more complicated math no matter how many hours, tutors, or attempts we have made.
While this is true I believe that everyone has the ability to learn complex math. The problem is with how math is taught. We learn that 1+1=2 but we are not really told why, or how, that is true. It really helps if you can see the bigger picture, understand what is going on behind the scenes, and in general to really understand what the question is asking.
In college it is assumed you fully understand what is going on. And I mean fully, period. Math professors tend to treat their students as if they know as much as they do. And math textbooks? Well, they make the same assumptions. To add, the end-of-chapter questions are often times written by Ph.D. students who are in the "I'm clever" stage of their careers (have you ever wondered why these questions seem to come out of left field? Well, this is why).
There is also supporting evidence that suggests if one simply believes they are bad at math, then, well, they are bad at math.
Math is a language, more or less, so it's not that different from the possibility someone could be great at vocab (or creative writing) but lousy at grammar.
Agreed.
Was a humanities major, but had to take chemistry to get into one of the health care fields, I did what most (I believe) college students would never do: read the author's intro.
In it the author basically says to approach chemistry as a new language where you need to know and understand the vocabs, then sprinkle a little hard work and you will succeed.
The author was right on point: I came out of Gen Chem 1A with a 96%, the next highest was a 97% from a physics major.
Btw, this professor taught same two classes, the other class's top score was a...guess....88%.
(Must be the sciences, they like to post test scores--usually by the doorway).
However, I must admit. Although on paper I was neck and neck with the physics major, but in terms of real-world knowledge and real-world applicability, he was WAY ahead of me--as in, outside the classroom, I don't see myself ever using 95% of that knowledge.
Last edited by R2max; 01-22-2015 at 10:14 AM..
Reason: Reality comment
I think it doesn't matter. If a student thinks, believes, or knows they are not capable of completing an engineering degree-for what ever reason-in my opinion has demonstrated thorough reasoning that they made a sensible decision to not pursue such a degree. It has nothing to do with laziness. The flip side, as a STEM major, is that I was witness to many STEM majors who really could not hack an English or History degree. Sure, they could comprehend complex systems, but trying to get these students, in particular Science, to articulately express such a system through oral or written communications is an exercise in futility. Science majors are more-often-than-not evaluated through simple rote memorization of known facts, at least at the undergraduate level. In my opinion most STEM students would utterly fail in the Humanities.
Strenuously disagree. Virtually all the engineers I west to school with did fine in classes in other schools and on tests outside of the STEM fields. I am sure there is an exception or two but in general we were taught and practiced that you built GPA by taking course in the Humanities. Guaranteed As with no work.
Quote:
While this is true I believe that everyone has the ability to learn complex math. The problem is with how math is taught. We learn that 1+1=2 but we are not really told why, or how, that is true. It really helps if you can see the bigger picture, understand what is going on behind the scenes, and in general to really understand what the question is asking.
In college it is assumed you fully understand what is going on. And I mean fully, period. Math professors tend to treat their students as if they know as much as they do. And math textbooks? Well, they make the same assumptions. To add, the end-of-chapter questions are often times written by Ph.D. students who are in the "I'm clever" stage of their careers (have you ever wondered why these questions seem to come out of left field? Well, this is why).
There is also supporting evidence that suggests if one simply believes they are bad at math, then, well, they are bad at math.
That anyone can learn a particular concept is simply untrue. Again a number of us shepherded three marginal students through the engineering program. But there were concepts they did not get ever even with personal and pretty high skilled tutoring. Sometimes we had to develop and teach cook book methods to allow these people to deal with certain concepts. They just did not understand. Dynamic systems would be a classical case. The who idea just can't be dealt with by some.
I will agree that defeatism is a self fulfilling prophecy...
Strenuously disagree. Virtually all the engineers I west to school with did fine in classes in other schools and on tests outside of the STEM fields. I am sure there is an exception or two but in general we were taught and practiced that you built GPA by taking course in the Humanities. Guaranteed As with no work.
What courses were they taking? As you should know the more "hard core" Humanities courses are going to be locked to students outside of the particular majors. It's one thing to take Intro to Poetry and another to venture into the mind of Spinoza. Very few STEM majors are deconstructing the writings of Longfellow to keep up their GPAs. How about taking a course in Swedish? Or Mandarin? Or that History course where you read a book a week and your only assessment in the course is based on critiques of all readings?
I am not talking about taking basketweaving courses to maintain your GPA.
I was writing from experience. You will note that I never wrote *all STEM majors*.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvoc
That anyone can learn a particular concept is simply untrue. Again a number of us shepherded three marginal students through the engineering program. But there were concepts they did not get ever even with personal and pretty high skilled tutoring. Sometimes we had to develop and teach cook book methods to allow these people to deal with certain concepts. They just did not understand. Dynamic systems would be a classical case. The who idea just can't be dealt with by some.
I will agree that defeatism is a self fulfilling prophecy...
Some people do find it difficult to grasp certain subjects, sure.
K-Luv: "...many STEM majors who really could not hack an English or History degree."
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvoc
...in general we were taught and practiced that you built GPA by taking course in the Humanities. Guaranteed As with no work.
Humor aside, Ivoc, higher level humanities classes are only open to humanities major.
Thus your two statements above cannot pass the scrutiny of the scientific method, 1) your data will be poor, as mentioned, you have no access to higher level classes, and 2) your "Guaranteed A's" hypothesis can not pass muster.
Ivoc, to enhance your breath of knowledge a bit, here's how most upper level humanities classes are graded:
a Mid-term, a Final, a research project or paper, and about two quizzes (about 4% of total grade). Get a high C or low B on the mid-term and you can kiss your A goodbye.
K-Luv: "...many STEM majors who really could not hack an English or History degree."
Humor aside, Ivoc, higher level humanities classes are only open to humanities major.
Thus your two statements above cannot pass the scrutiny of the scientific method, 1) your data will be poor, as mentioned, you have no access to higher level classes, and 2) your "Guaranteed A's" hypothesis can not pass muster.
Ivoc, to enhance your breath of knowledge a bit, here's how most upper level humanities classes are graded:
a Mid-term, a Final, a research project or paper, and about two quizzes (about 4% of total grade). Get a high C or low B on the mid-term and you can kiss your A goodbye.
Ok, then just compare intro/freshmen courses. To engineers, humanities courses are easy A's. How many humanities majors have you known to take a freshman electrical engineering course for an easy A?
Sorry, but I don't buy the "different, but equally hard" argument.
"A study by the National Survey of Student Engagement found that engineering majors study five hours more, on average, than their counterparts studying social science or business."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
