Back in February, WaPo’s Travis Meier thinks his distaste for math qualifies him to judge the needs of society:
For most of us, the [quadratic] formula was one of many alphabet soup combinations crammed into our heads in high school long enough to pass a math test, then promptly forgotten. I’m queasy all over again just thinking about it. As a functioning adult in society, I have no use for imaginary numbers or the Pythagorean theorem. I’ve never needed to determine the height of a flagpole by measuring its shadow and the angle of the sun.
Only 22 percent of the nation’s workers use any math more advanced than fractions, and they typically occupy technical or skilled positions. That means more than three-fourths of the population spends painful years in school futzing with numbers when they could be learning something more useful.
Here’s the problem: maths is the heart of today’s society. We need adults who can solve complex math questions in just about all STEM (Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) subjects. No doubt, critics of the teaching of maths to young students will respond that those choosing a STEM education should then be taught the hard stuff, sparing everyone else.
But he holds variables constant, if I may be so bold: If the teaching of maths beyond 1+1 is withdrawn, is there not an increasing likelihood that interest in those subjects will fall? And, far more importantly, how do we know who is capable, and who is not?
Education has many goals, but one that is primary, yet unsung, is simply exposure. Algebra is a very early step down the path for STEM disciplines, and by exposing students to it, both we and they can learn whose mind is suited to further education, as well as that vital juice called interest, and who is not.
And so I cannot agree with Meier. To him, math is confusing; for others, it’s clarifying; for society, it is essential; and for the adult who remembers it, there’s a potential advantage. Why disadvantage students by not even exposing them to the dreaded maths?
