Re: Public School was a waste of my time (Re: When even a Republican can see it....)

"dwight.thieme@xxxxxxxxx" (dwight.thieme@xxxxxxxxx) writes:
On Jun 25, 3:12 pm, "David Dyer-Bennet" <d...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
"dwight.thi...@xxxxxxxxx" <dwight.thi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote innews:1182798799.331149.114260@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

I also used the theorem that the ring of integers modulo a prime
is a field in designing a caching algorithm for a BASIC
pre-processor, and of course I learned that as part of my math
major.

Where did you learn this last one, if I may ask? Was it on the
applied side or the algebra side?

Abstract Algebra (Math 53, Carleton College, Prof. David Appleyard).
Hmm; I may actually have encountered it earlier, maybe.

I took one "applied" course; applied linear algebra, which was
actually the theoretical basis of some applications in linear algebra.
Total waste of time. (The two-term mathematical statistics sequence
was *not* an applications course.)

Ah. Thanks for segueing into my point. There was an objection
leveled earlier that kids are taught all kinds of stuff that they
don't need, that 'pointless drill' puts them off, etc. Now, this
seems like an absurd objection on the face of it (after all, aren't we
constantly being harangued by educators, politicians, economists and
the like that 'education is the key to a better life'?)

But then it occurs to me that there is a more fundamental objection -
just what percentage of our educations do any of us use? I'm a
mathematician; no, I'm an algebraist; no I'm an algrebraist whose
field of study is commutative rings; no, I'm an algebraist whose field
of study is commutative rings as it relates to geometric properties.

Iow, even my in my supposed field, my chosen specialty, I have learned
much more than I'll ever practicably use. Calculus, analysis,
differential equations, probability? I've spent literally hundreds -
thousands - of hours studying these. And yet, when all is said and
done, all that studying turned out to be just so much wasted time. I
could have stuck with a math ed degree for all the utility those
subjects have for me. Number theory? There are a few specialized
results, like Fermats little theorem (that's what prompted my original
question), but a good 90% of what I learned in those other areas I'll
never use.

The same of course applies to other fields of study - physicists who
will never, ever use a speck of quantum theory or relativity,
engineers who endured countless hours of agony over statics, 'computer
scientists' who never use recursion or algorithmic complexity theory
or java or Perl . . . I would guess that for most people, most of the
stuff they learn they will never use, no matter what field they are
in.

So according to the logic of 'pointless learning' I guess we could
whittle down the required knowledge and hours of study for law,
medicine, engineering, etc by a factor of at least three or more.
Right?

Is it just me, or does this line of reasoning seem faintly ridiculous?

Well, if your point is that, over the last 60 years, too many areas of
employment have become over credentialed, then I would agree with that.

One must consider that, especially in the US, but even so where universities
recieve most of their $$$ from the public purse, at the end of the day,
they wish, as with any business, to expand their ability to take in $$$.

If that means pushing the over credentialling of many jobs, then that is
what they do, because that means, more paying clients for *them*.

The idea of a " good education " is not limited to schools. Sure, if one
is to practise in a profession that specificlaly involves specific kinds
of knowledge ( Doctoring, etc. ), then that is surely necessary. But, is
there a *real need* for teachers, say, of 6 year olds to have university
degrees ? What possible university level training could 6 year olds *use* ?

Andre



.

Relevant Pages