October 18, 2007, 12:55 am

Increasing math, science is counterproductive








Article Comments

  • davis X. Machina

    I am pleased to see this letter in that it reflects my long-time contention that one of the major deficiencies of our educational system is that we, as a country and society, have never truly defined what constitutes a “well-educated” person nor a “good education”.In the absence of those definitions it’s difficult to create either goals or a means to achieve any goals of educating succeeding generations for effective functioning in our society or the world.

  • Nathan Kunz

    Huh? I couldn’t more whole-heartedly disagree with Rep. Merrifield’s perspective. The educational challenges of our time lie not in less math but in those who have the power to better education failing to understand the essential, irreplaceable importance of mathematics.

    First, science and art cannot, and must not, be divorced. From great architecture, to music, to art, and even to writing, science is ever-present. It is not a coincidence that the Renaissance produced both great art and great scientific achievement. I’d like to watch Michelangelo paint the Sistine without a scaffold. Or even have the Sistine built without intense mathematical training.

    Second, math teaches so much more than how to add and subtract. Math and science provide ways of thinking. For example, mathematicians will often make great lawyers: both focused on logical baby-steps to go from point A to point B. Teaching the “colder” arts of math and science will help raise generations of analytical citizens. The type that are not swayed by obnoxious political commercials.

    I will agree, however, that math and science must be taught differently. We must forsake the hard chairs and disciplining rulers and strive, instead, for application of scientific knowledge. I am baffled that high schools still teach binomial long division. I cannot think of a more useless activity. But failed attempts at teaching do not override the fundamental need for the most important building blocks of logical thought.

    Will Rep. Merrifield next claim that the only important Nobel Prize is for literature?

  • pauly

    I hear ya. It’s been the systematic degeneration of the school funds that have put us into this position. The position of “well, if we only have so much money to afford # amounts of curriculums, than we need to at least maintain the basics…math, science, and grammar. It’s sad but that is what the republicans have left us with. Their “no more taxes” and their “Feed every dollar into the war that Bush built” have left us with a generation of kids growing up with little to no other skills than the mere basics.

    When I was younger I had shop classes, driver’s education, literature, debating classes and yes even sex education class.

    Look at the younger generation around you. We have kids having kids because the religious right has taken away the funding to the Sex education. As if not teaching it would prevent it! We have laws no that will put kids in jail for poor driving habits. That’s right, take away their education and offer them time behind bars. Most kids haven’t even herd of a shot class so most people I know have to pay illegal immigrants to do tasks that they should be doing themselves. Grammar is one thing and phonics is another, but if you are not versed in the world of fine literature than what the heck are you going to be talking about when you finish your other classes? Computer games? The next big movie?

    It’s funny. Most republicans actually see the problem and acknowledge it as a product of poor learning…and the best thing they can come up with it the failed No Child Left behind scam!


  • Rob

    Computers cannot substitute for any part of the brain (left or right.) Computers do what humans tell them to do, no more & no less. They simply process information very quickly, very accurately and in very high volume. But it requires human creativity, along with math and science skills to make that happen. A human had to write the code for the computer that “beat the greatest chess master in the world.”

    Creative and independent thinking needs to be emphasized, so do math and science skills. But to put arts ahead of math and science is just plain wrong.

    On the flip side of Mr. Merrifield’s argument: Consider that there are “artificial intelligence” systems in existance that can paint and synthesize music. With CGI a computer can simulate actors on the screen. So under Mr. Merrifield’s logic we should deemphasize the arts too, because obviously a computer can do that as well.

    But the truth is that none of this replaces the human brain. If we leave any pursuit to computers we will not advance society. So Mr. Merrifield’s logic is flawed. (And a computer would not be able to tell him so.)

  • Robert I. Laitres

    The writer is quite correct in his assessment and conclusions. Before proceeding any further what we need to do is first define what constitues an “educated” person. So many define “education” as nothing more than “teaching of skills”, in order that the individual can go out and “make a buck”. Fundamentally, that reduces the individual to nothing more than and “economic unit” and totally dehumanizes him/her. That is the ultimate form of a materialism and a mentality already portrayed in such works as 1984 and the movie “Soylent Green” where, when the individual has no further economic value, he/she is to be recycled. As far our so-called “education” system goes, it has become nothing more than another industry to serve other industries. Too many in that field are their for their own purposes, not that of the students. That includes many administrators, many teachers, book publishers, etc. They are their to “make a buck”, and the heck with educating their charges. Far too many of them are nothing more than leeches on the system.

Most Popular