Re: Alice's exams


"Kim Andrews" <somerat@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:e2lf631e6nmjkapur2379ba6rpnlmr93g9@xxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 10:38:16 +0100, "Marjorie Clarke"
<dontusethisaddess@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[mucho snippage to save space]

"Kim Andrews" <somerat@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:0nif6398ulmvr7tj6pco6cb67e21gn3o44@xxxxxxxxxx

If learning an obscure and practically useless element of the arts,
taught you all that useful stuff about how to use words...

Why shouldn't it?

I don't say it doesn't. There's nothing in my sentence that even
vaguely implies you're wrong. The elipsis at the end clearly connects
this *accepted* concept, with the proposed concept with which I follow
it. Which let you down there, your English or your logic? ;o))

Maybe it was my sarcasm/irony detector, possibly tuned up too sensitively.
;-)


... why didn't learning an obscure and practically useless element of
science, teach you lots of useful stuff about how to use numbers?


I already had a good basic numeracy (I was well schooled for the 11-plus).
Trigonometry and logarithms didn't add to that in any way.

You didn't have good basic English until later? Or somehow you
continued to learn about language (and would probably admit you are
still are learning) but maths stopped dead at 11. I don't think the
syllabus can be entirely to blame for such an extraordinary
difference. An enquiring mind will *always* learn something from
studying a new area or subject, surely? You don't accept any bias on
your own part here?

I was exactly the same person in English lessons as I was in Maths lessons -
the difference was indeed in the curricula and the teaching. English
continued to offer me more stimulation to learn and develop, and presented
it in a (moderately) interesting way. Maths failed to do this for me and for
most of my school cohort - only a small proportion had any abiding interest
in maths or wished to continue it once offered the chance to stop. Most
enjoyed English, albeit with some reservations about certain set texts or
grammar exercises.

Not only did I drop maths like a hot brick at 16, I didn't actually take
English beyond O-level either, which I now very much regret. I was advised
that Latin would be a better preparation for modern languages at uni, and I
did it despite finding it boring. Big mistake.



Well, that's why I mentioned statistics, which I could have done with a
bit
more of. That's the only aspect of maths I come across in everyday life
and
work. Logic and deduction etc in a wider sense could just as well be
gained
from a science, or Latin, or history - they're not exclusive to maths.

No. But that doesn't mean the maths element is meaningless or
valueless. You could probably have learned about language in a dozen
different ways, but you still value all that literature study and
dismiss those elements of maths for which you can't immediately see
the application.

I've had a varied working life with a range of jobs and interests, but not
one in which I thought, "Oh, I'm so glad I did all that trig and algebra at
school", whereas almost all the other school subjects have contributed
something in later life. I often wish I'd done more history (which I
disliked at school), more music, more English, more art, even more science
.... but less of the sort of maths that we had to do.

I loathed English Lit at school but I don't for a
second claim it didn't teach me anything. And it's certainly not a
dislike of books that made me loathe it -- don't make the mistake of
thinking that just because I dislike poetry, I think literature has no
value! I don't sell books because I hate language. ;o)


Teaching was indeed part of the problem. In my (girls' grammar) school,
the
teaching of maths and science was very poor, and the A-level results
disgraceful. The boys' school had better teachers - indeed, the only
reason
I got through O-level was because a teacher from the boys' school was
hired
to give me private coaching. He explained calculus in a way that kind of
made sense to me, at last.


I think that's the most significant factor mentioned so far.

And evidently for you, too, since you hated Lit at school, despite finding
interest in it later.
I blame the teachers.



I think a more parallel comparison would be the defence of Latin as a
language that teaches you about language and how it works. It's not a
defence I'd readily use, because I'd prefer to see people learn about
language via a living and useful modern language - and I'd prefer, myself,
to have learnt maths via a useful and applied branch like statistics.


I don't accept that your example is better or more relevant than mine,
sorry. I stick by what I said and think it works better than the
above. But I would say that, wouldn't I? :o)


I'm not anti-science, either - the proofreading work I do now is largely
scientific/medical stuff, with some statistical content. But my school
maths
is no help at all to me here - what does help is that when I went to uni,
I
chose Keele where (at that time) all arts students had to do a science
course and vice versa. The science I did there has been far more use to me
than all my grammar school maths.

How well would you have done at the Uni' maths, if you'd done none of
the school maths? It's all building blocks, innit?

The uni course didn't require much in the way of maths (it was Subsidiary
Biology, a two-year course), except things like percentages and fractions
and basic calculations. We didn't need slide rules or logarithms or anything
like that. I can tell you lots about the reproductive habits of the fruit
fly, though :-)

OK, I'll make one concession - I'm glad I know how to understand a basic
line graph with an x-axis and y-axis. I need to check these for work
sometimes, and I concede that primary school maths wouldn't have covered
this. But we'd done that by about 13 at grammar school: carrying it on to
the calculus level was what was so hard and so pointless. In my work now I
also have to understand and check block graphs, pie charts and tables full
of figures, but school maths did little to prepare me for this, I've just
worked it out for myself. I'd have found it quite interesting at school if
we'd explored the different ways you can present findings and statistics,
and how well the different types of graph do their various jobs, but this
wasn't on the syllabus either.

Happily, I think maths courses are now not only easier but more relevant to
the non-specialist student, so future generations won't be having this
discussion.


--
Best wishes,

Marjorie
Reply email: mc at springequinox dot co dot uk


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Alices exams
    ... If learning an obscure and practically useless element of the arts, ... still are learning) but maths stopped dead at 11. ... You could probably have learned about language in a dozen ... In my school, ...
    (uk.media.radio.archers)
  • Re: Alices exams
    ... As language is something you use and encounter every day, ... I'm not rubbishing maths in general, ... doesn't calculus get the same escape clause? ... In my school, ...
    (uk.media.radio.archers)
  • Re: Apple and EMI
    ... and then allow the kids to use their curiosity at school. ... maths, English, and science than many modern high school leavers. ... and get a GCSE in the subject... ... O Level maths was, when I took the exam, a pale shadow of what it had ...
    (uk.comp.sys.mac)
  • Re: OT - Computer Stuff
    ... that I frequently do ROUTINE maths calculations in the evenings to ... secondary school students who would be likely candidates for expulsion ... The teaching was brilliant, way beyond what I'd be capable of in the ... The outstanding teacher was an English teacher ...
    (alt.support.diabetes)
  • Re: I spent a lot of time doing logarihtms at school
    ... I had a slide rule at school. ... maths, my mental arithmetic was fast and sure, still is. ... and 5 shillings was 5 shillings) Now why did they waste ... my time and their time teaching me carpentry? ...
    (uk.people.support.depression)
Loading