Math Matters
If one manages to graduate from high school without the rudiments of algebra, geometry and trigonometry, there are certain relatively high-paying careers probably off-limits for life — such as careers in architecture, chemistry, computer programming, engineering, medicine and certain technical fields. For example, one might meet all of the physical requirements to be a fighter pilot, but he's grounded if he doesn't have enough math to understand physics, aerodynamics and navigation. Mathematical ability helps provide the disciplined structure that helps people to think, speak and write more clearly. In general, mathematics is an excellent foundation and prerequisite for study in all areas of science and engineering. So where do U.S. youngsters stand in math?
Drs. Eric Hanushek and Paul Peterson, senior fellows at the Hoover Institution, looked at the performance of our youngsters compared with their counterparts in other nations, in their Newsweek article, "Why Can't American Students Compete?" (Aug. 28, 2011), reprinted under the title "Math Matters" in the Hoover Digest (2012). In the latest international tests administered by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, only 32 percent of U.S. students ranked proficient in math — coming in between Portugal and Italy but far behind South Korea, Finland, Canada and the Netherlands. U.S. students couldn't hold a finger to the 75 percent of Shanghai students who tested proficient.
What about our brightest? It turns out that only 7 percent of U.S. students perform at the advanced level in math. Forty-five percent of the students in Shanghai are advanced in math, compared with 20 percent in South Korea and Switzerland and 15 percent of students in Japan, Belgium, Finland, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Canada.
Hanushek and Peterson find one bright spot among our young people. That's Asian-American students, 52 percent of whom perform at the proficient level or higher. Among white students, only 42 percent perform math at a proficient level. The math performance of black and Hispanic students is a disaster, with only 11 and 15 percent, respectively, performing math at the proficient level or higher.
The National Center for Education Statistics revealed some of the results of American innumeracy. Among advanced degrees in engineering awarded at U.S. universities during the 2007-08 academic year, 28 percent went to whites; 2 percent went to blacks; 2 percent went to Hispanics; and 61 percent went to foreigners. Of the advanced degrees in mathematics, 40 percent went to whites; 2 percent went to blacks; 5 percent went to Hispanics; and 50 percent went to foreigners. For advanced degrees in education, 65 percent went to whites; 17 percent went to blacks; 5 percent went to Hispanics; and 8 percent went to foreigners. The pattern is apparent. The more rigorous a subject area the higher the percentage of foreigners — and the lower the percentage of Americans — earning advanced degrees. In subject areas such as education, which have little or no rigor, Americans are likelier — and foreigners are less likely — to earn advanced degrees.
In a New York Times article — "Do We Need Foreign Technology Workers?" (April 8, 2009) — Dr. Vivek Wadhwa of the Pratt School of Engineering at Duke University said "that 47 percent of all U.S. science and engineering workers with doctorates are immigrants as were 67 percent of the additions to the U.S. science and engineering work force between 1995 to 2006. And roughly 60 percent of engineering Ph.D. students and 40 percent of master's students are foreign nationals."
American mathematic proficiency levels leave a lot to be desired if we're to maintain competitiveness. For blacks and Hispanics, it's a tragedy with little prospect for change, but the solution is not rocket science. During my tenure as a member of Temple University's faculty in the 1970s, I tutored black students in math. When they complained that math was too difficult, I told them that if they spent as much time practicing math as they did practicing jump shots, they'd be just as good at math as they were at basketball. The same message of hard work and discipline applies to all students, but someone must demand it.
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
- Walter E. Williams's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Ah, Mr. Williams
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 02/22/2012 - 6:52pm.
you're missing the real issue behind the problem; those in charge of educating our youth do not want a significant number of "thinkers". Thinkers are often too difficult to control. What our educators want is pliant, semi-conscious workers. I believe the correct term is "proletariat". And those who do show promise, well, they're identified early and shepherded into the "right" schools and under the "right" tutelage so their considerable brainpower can be used in the "right" manner. That's partially evident in the considerable number of absolutely useless degrees being offered; make them think they're expanding their horizons and obtaining a higher level of learning, when in fact they're being force fed the "right" politics and a bunch of filler.
Okay, that was a bit extreme, but you can bet that somewhere, in certain circles, this exact scenario is not only discussed, but planned. They haven't reached it yet, but you can bet they're trying.
bkeyser
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Thu, 02/23/2012 - 1:35pm.
I'm curious - who are the "they" in this scenario?
I ask because you seem to be suggesting that there are groups of individuals at colleges and universities who think that not only can they dictate what programs students enter but can somehow do this without totally pissing off the faculty of departments they would be diverting those students from.
Most departments try to come up with ways of attracting students to their major - but that's a far cry from the somewhat conspiratorial scenario you seem to be suggesting.
hydro
Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 02/23/2012 - 4:02pm.
"They" are progressives.
bkeyser
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Thu, 02/23/2012 - 5:25pm.
Well, I'll keep an eye out for them.
If students start suddenly disappearing from my classes and ending up in Underwater Basket Weaving 101, I'll know who to blame.
Underwater Basket Weaving
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 02/23/2012 - 5:34pm.
That's sponsored through an Obama Administration Grant, funded by BP.
Cool, I think that's ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 02/24/2012 - 12:44am.
a major known as "Advanced" Basket Weaving; with a minor in Underwater Yodeling.
MD
"they" might be teaching these courses ---
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 02/24/2012 - 12:57am.
1.Why Occupy Wall Street? The History and Politics of Debt and Finance - New York University [19]
2.Occupy the Field: Global Finance, Inequality, Social Movement - Columbia University [20]
3.Football Culture
4.Queer Musicology – UCLA
5.The Science of Harry Potter – Frostburg University [21]
6.Native American Feminism - University of Michigan
7.Cyber Feminism - Cornell University
8.Feminist New Black Man - Occidental College [22]
9.Philosophy and Star Trek – Georgetown University in Washington [23]
10.The Sociology of Hip-Hop: The Odyssey of Jay-Z – Georgetown University [24]
11.Emotional Literacy[25]
12.Media Genres, the study of zombies - University of Baltimore [26]
13.The Science of Superheroes - UC Irvine [27]
14.Field Equipment Operation (tractor driving) - UC Davis
15.Hip Hop: The Politics of Culture - UC San Diego
16.History of Surfing - UC Santa Barbara
17.Labor Studies - UM Saint Louis & UM Kansas City [28]
18.Arguing with Judge Judy - UC Berkeley
19.Self-Esteem - Cal State Fresno
20.Gaga for Lady Gaga: Sex, Gender, and Identity- University of Virginia-Charlottesville[29]
21.Pilot Brewery (brewmaster) - UC Davis
22.Search for Extraterrestial Intelligence - UC Berkeley
23.Ecology of Renewable Natural Resources - Texas Tech University [30]
24.Introduction to social networking.
25. Underwater Basket Weaving.
You might think I made those up so I better supply the link --- http://conservapedia.com/Worst_College_Majors
Actually, #19, 'Self-Esteam', would come in handy for ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 02/24/2012 - 3:22am.
learning to control your anger when you get boiling mad.
What?
Oh.
Well then, how about # 24, Introduction to Social Nutworking, in preparation for life as a liberal?
I wonder if there is any truth to the rumor that #'s 4 & 8 will be conjoined, and taught by a triumvirate made up of J. Capeheart, D. Lemon, and B. Obama?
MD
The Vet
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Fri, 02/24/2012 - 3:37pm.
A few comments:
1) A few of those classes (which I looked up) aren't as ridiculous as they might seem (and some weren't actual classes but part of a seminar series). The Science of Harry Potter, Science of Superheroes and the Philosophy of Star Trek do actually cover real topics in science and philosophy - they just do it within a hypothetical context. Some of the others look like they are part of some "studies" program (like women's studies or African studies) which are useless majors anyway so it isn't surprising that most of the classes in those programs are equally useless.
2) Some of the courses listed actually back up what I mentioned about departments trying to think of ways of attracting students. The Science of Harry Potter class, for example, is obviously playing on the popularity of those books/movies as a way of drawing students into a physics class room. Based on the website of the university, it is/was actually an honors seminar which suggests that real physics was discussed within a hypothetical setting (which isn't actually that uncommon a way of teaching physics when you consider the extensive use of "thought experiments" throughout the history of physics). And that brings me to my last point...
3)... and one of the main points I was trying to make to bkeyser which is that I'd be willing to bet those most of the classes in that list are optional classes in the sense that they aren't required for a given major. The Philosophy of Star Trek class, for example, is a 100 level philosophy class. Although I didn't look into any further, I'd be willing to bet that it's basically a class for non-philosophy majors who can take it to meet a graduation requirement.
Look - it's a fact that many (most?) colleges and universities offer useless majors and dopy classes. But students are still free to choose what majors they want and typically (particularly for classes outside their major), they are free to choose what classes they want. I remember, as a student, that most of the people I hung out with in college considered majors like African studies and Women studies (and even sociology) to be complete jokes which only existed so affirmative action students (who should be there in the first place) could take a major that they could actually graduate with (and yes, that was at one of those evil liberal Ivy League schools).
And even thought that was some years back, I still hear the same thing from students in my classes today. So I'm inclined to give students some credit (for the most part).
bkeyser's suggestion that there are evil liberal cabals located within colleges and universities scheming to trick students into taking useless classes and adopting useless majors is, I think, unrealistic.
Awww man.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 02/24/2012 - 10:50pm.
It was a jokey post. I was just riffin' on a theme.
Sincerely,
The Vet
BA, Internet Search Algorithms, UCD
The Vet
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Sat, 02/25/2012 - 4:20am.
That's cool.
The vet of a hundred hobbit holes.
Fishpot
Submitted by BuffNBone on Wed, 02/22/2012 - 6:52pm.
Regarding Dr. Williams' first paragraph comment about someone lacking sufficient math aptitude being grounded, I suspect said individual wouldn't even get past fishpot. Flight screening program (Fishpot) is the battery of qualifying assessments that must be successfully completed to get to flight school. To become grounded you normally had to have to been airborne first.
And for the record the math challenged don't make decent bomber pilots either.
They do, however, make excellent economists that both ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 02/22/2012 - 8:15pm.
work for and speak for the Democrats in D.C.
MD
This is the result of decades of planning
Submitted by c5then on Thu, 02/23/2012 - 9:07am.
The emphasis is on Social studies and cultural propaganda. In order to fit that in at the elementary level, the basics of math and reading and especially writting have had to be vastly curtailed.
Instead of entering middle school with a firm grasp of basic math and grammar, most American students enter with a mediocre grap of basic concepts but a quizical understanding that Sally can have two mothers.
Look at the curriculum of the Shanghai elementary schools and compare it with the curriculum of any of the elementary schools in our major cities. You will instantly see the difference.
Interestingly, social norms and concepts can be easily picked up by children with no formal teaching of them, while math and grammar require specific instruction to properly understand and master. Therefore I can only conclude that the de-emphasis on math and writting/reading and the emphasis on social instruction is a concious and concerted effort on the part of our "education leaders" to create the society that we find ourselves in today. Whether they realized that it would necessarily cause the United States to fall precipitously from it's leadership in science and technology, thus causing economic problems and a loss of manufacturing and production facilities, or if that result was yet another uninteded consequence of their implementing educational programs based on their political ideology is difficult to say. But what is clear is that as long as the liberal ideology is allowed to completely and utterly control the education of America's youth, this trend will not reverse and we will be doomed to see ourselves become less and less competitive in the world and thus less and less relevant.
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
Math and College
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Thu, 02/23/2012 - 2:04pm.
The problem Mr. Williams points out is, unfortunately, a well known one for faculty in technical fields.
Every year, we get a group of freshman who want to be physics majors and every year we have to deal with the fact that about a third of them will drop out by the end of the first semester because they don't have the necessary math background. And I'm not even talking calculus - I mean basic algebra and trig.
In an attempt to curb this, we've implemented a semester long pre-calculus review class specifically for our majors. It has, I think, helped some of our students to some degree. But the sad fact is that by the time a student gets to college, if that math background isn't there, they are damaged goods. You can't teach six years of junior/high school math in a single semester.
I'm curious
Submitted by mandrake on Thu, 02/23/2012 - 2:20pm.
How does someone without at least an 85% average (or high grade point average..something american I don't understand) get admitted as a physics major? Aren't their high school records reviewed?
mandrake
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Thu, 02/23/2012 - 3:07pm.
I've never heard of a college or university program requiring a certain minimum GPA (or whatever) to be accepted into their program.
But then, I only have direct experience with a handful of schools. Maybe there are some which require such things and/or maybe that's more common outside the US.
From my experience, once you are admitted into a college you can choose whatever major you want.
Things must be different there
Submitted by mandrake on Thu, 02/23/2012 - 4:32pm.
Seriously, here the competition was so intense that if you didn't have a 85% average (minimum) coming out of high school..then don't even bother to apply to one of the technical professions at U of T.
Seems the progressives have messed up education more than I thought.
mandrake
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Thu, 02/23/2012 - 5:18pm.
OK - maybe I misunderstood your initial question.
The wording in you last post suggests that you weren't asking about actual minimal requirements for being allowed to enter certain majors but instead were asking about the likelihood of successfully completing a major given your high school GPA.
I don't know - it depends on the student. There are students with good high school GPA's who fail classes like physics and ones with lower GPA's which choose physics as their major and do well.
But generally speaking - and to get back to the point of this post - if you have a weak mathematical background then physics probably isn't for you. It's unfortunate since a lot of our freshman are interested in the field but are forced to face the reality that they simply aren't prepared for it. And once you're in college, if you've basically learned no math up to that point, it's probably too late to do anything about it.
However, if U of T (University of Toronto?) does actually have minimal GPA requirements for enrollment in their more technical programs, maybe you could provide a link to the school's website where they explain those requirements. I'd be interested in having a look.
Sorry, no can do.
Submitted by mandrake on Thu, 02/23/2012 - 5:31pm.
I can't provide a link to a U of T website where they specfically cite a requirement to get into engineering school. But I doubt that MIT has either..but you better have math skills off the charts to even think of applying.
mandrake
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Thu, 02/23/2012 - 5:41pm.
OK.
But for the sake of incoming students, I would think that if a department at a university or college required certain minimal requirement to enroll in their program, that they would make that clear to perspective students - like on their website.
Otherwise you'd have to deal with bunch off pissed of students and parents each fall semester.
From the University of
Submitted by Par for the Course on Thu, 02/23/2012 - 6:34pm.
From the University of Toronto, Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering
Admission FAQ
What is the cut-off mark for Engineering?
The minimum required average varies from year to year based upon the number of applicants and the caliber of grades presented. Typically successful candidates to the Faculty have grades ranging (all ranges stated to a maximum of 100%):
High 80’s to Low 90’s Engineering Science
Mid 80’s to High 80’s Track One and Mechanical Engineering
Low to Mid 80’s Chemical, Industrial, Civil, Computer, Electrical, Materials and Mineral
Please note that these are the recommended averages and do not guarantee admissions into the program. The Admissions Committee takes a look at the overall academic history and Student Profile Form of each candidate before making an admissions decision.
Par for the Course
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Thu, 02/23/2012 - 7:09pm.
OK - I get it now.
Yea, some universities have a separate engineering school which you have to apply to.
However (going back to mandrake's original question), from what I've seen, physics programs are typically a part of a school of "arts and sciences" (or something similarly named) which is typically the largest school within any given university. As a result, you normally don't see separate requirements or a separate application process for physics (at the undergraduate level).
But then, there are so many different colleges and universities, I'm sure there are exceptions to this.