What is /sci/'s opinion on common core?
>>7696477
>People still post that fake image
It's a good idea, only retards don't like it.
>>7696481
It's a good idea in principle, very poorly executed.
>>7696477
It's got the potential to make a nicely educated generation capable of free thinking beyond calculating things "the normal way".
But it's taught like shit.
>>7696486
I can agree with that.
Its teaching children how to do math in their head... on paper.
I think the way its been taught in US schools before common core was just fine.
>>7696477
I like the idea of common core as a principle. If every school in America had the same exact teaching objectives, it could make it less likely that you can just be completely fucked because your school district was shit like mine. I have a problem with some of the standards though.
>bill gates supports it
>pushed by jewish pseudointellectuals
>schools now need to spend billions on computers, software and internet
hmm
>>7696477
it's a good way to fight white privilege
Bill Gates was so enthusiastic about it that he funded it in America. But his kids go to a private school that doesn't use it in the curriculum. Common Core is the biggest scam in American history and its all a plot to dumb down our generatioin so that they wont be any serious competition to the chinese and europeans that take over this country in the coming years.
>>7696531
>jewish pseudointellectuals
oy vey ami right guise xDDDD
>>7696531
>schools now need to spend billions on computers, software and internet
Because Texas really needs another 50,000 seat high school football stadium, right?
>>7696546
>>7696536
I know this is a joke, but minorities are going to have worse problems with this than whites in general. This stuff requires a lot of time to learn more deeply than just the simple calculations of standard mathematics.
It's probably better for long term learning, but that's only if you have the time, and that's something poor minority families don't have much of.
Order of operations is just a convention. If the convention did change, that side would be very important information. So both answers could be correct. Although not at the same time.
Also, my first time on /sci/. I hope you guys are normally more smart and less /b/.
It's Fuckin retarded/r3tardING
>>7697318
Wait, I'm ^, I thought common core was University general education. Idk.
>>7697006
this
i like how you put this
Kids who are educated with these may have problems understanding non-commuting operators in quantum mechanics
>"I thought the order which we apply the operators didn't matter!"
Elementary school teachers when they are in uni are among the dumbest in the student population, this is part of the problem, but then again what genius is going to want to teach kids?
The scraps of common core maths work I've seen on /sci/, basically show america not giving kids any room to exercise their own intelligence at all
Instead of letting dumber kids be distinguished at an early age, they kill normal kids inside
This is not actually common core. It's a frequent conflict in order of operations. That being said, I think answer two is objectively correct. Answer one considers multiplication higher priority than division, but answer two considers them equal priority and evaluates them from left to right. Division is just a friendly introduction to fraction multiplication, so I believe that the second option is better.
>>7696477
Just another iteration of people trying to retard math education:
http://www.csun.edu/~vcmth00m/AHistory.html
>With roots going back to Jean Jacques Rousseau and with the guidance of John Dewey, progressive education has dominated American schools since the early years of the 20th century. That is not to say that progressive education has gone unchallenged. Challenges increased in intensity starting in the 1950s (New Math), waxed and waned, and in the 1990s gained unprecedented strength. A consequence of the domination of progressivism during the first half of the 20th century was a predictable and remarkably steady decrease of academic content in public schools.
>The prescriptions for the future of mathematics education were articulated early in the 20th century by one of the nation's most influential education leaders, William Heard Kilpatrick. According to E. D. Hirsch, Kilpatrick was "the most influential introducer of progressive ideas into American schools of education." Kilpatrick was an education professor at Teachers College at Columbia University, and a protege of John Dewey. According to Dewey, "In the best sense of the words, progressive education and the work of Dr. Kilpatrick are virtually synonymous."
>Reflecting mainstream views of progressive education, Kilpatrick rejected the notion that the study of mathematics contributed to mental discipline. His view was that subjects should be taught to students based on their direct practical value, or if students independently wanted to learn those subjects. This point of view toward education comported well with the pedagogical methods endorsed by progressive education. Limiting education primarily to utilitarian skills sharply limited academic content, and this helped to justify the slow pace of student centered, discovery learning, the centerpiece of progressivism. Kilpatrick proposed that the study of algebra and geometry in high school be discontinued "except as an intellectual luxury."
>>7697691
>According to Kilpatrick, mathematics is "harmful rather than helpful to the kind of thinking necessary for ordinary living." In an address before the student body at the University of Florida, Kilpatrick lectured, "We have in the past taught algebra and geometry to too many, not too few."
>Progressivists drew support from the findings of psychologist Edward L. Thorndike. Thorndike conducted a series of ""experiments"" beginning in 1901 that cast doubt on the value of mental discipline and the possibility of transfer of training from one activity to another. These findings were used to challenge the justification for teaching mathematics as a form of mental discipline and contributed to the view that any mathematics education should be for purely utilitarian purposes. Thorndike stressed the importance of creating many "bonds" through repeated practice and championed a stimulus-response method of learning. This led to the fragmentation of arithmetic and the avoidance of teaching closely related ideas too close in time, for fear of establishing incorrect bonds. According to one writer, "For good or for ill, it was Thorndike who dealt the final blow to the 'science of arithmetic.'"
>Kilpatrick's opinion that the teaching of algebra should be highly restricted was supported by other so called "experts". According to David Snedden, the founder of educational sociology, and a prominent professor at Teachers College at the time, "Algebra...is a nonfunctional and nearly valueless subject for 90 percent of all boys and 99 percent of all girls--and no changes in method or content will change that."
>In 1915 Kilpatrick was asked by the National Education Association's Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education to chair a committee to study the problem of teaching mathematics in the high schools. The committee included no mathematicians and was composed entirely of educators.
>>7697696
>Kilpatrick directly challenged the use of mathematics to promote mental discipline. He wrote, "No longer should the force of tradition shield any subject from scrutiny...In probably no study did this older doctrine of mental discipline find larger scope than in mathematics, in arithmetic to an appreciable extent, more in algebra, and most of all in geometry." Kilpatrick maintained in his report, The Problem of Mathematics in Secondary Education, that nothing in mathematics should be taught unless its probable value could be shown, and recommended the traditional high school mathematics curriculum for only a select few.
>It was not surprising that mathematicians would object to Kilpatrick's report as an attack against the field of mathematics itself. David Eugene Smith, a mathematics professor at Teachers College and renowned historian of mathematics, tried to stop the publication of Kilpatrick's report as a part of the Cardinal Principles of Secondary Education, the full report of the Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education, and one of the most influential documents for education in the 20th century. Smith charged that there had been no meeting of the math committee and that Kilpatrick was the sole author of the report. Moreover, Kilpatrick's committee was not representative of teachers of mathematics or of mathematicians. Nevertheless, Kilpatrick's report was eventually published in 1920 by the U.S. Commissioner of Education, Claxton, a friend of Kilpatrick.
>In the 1940s it became something of a public scandal that army recruits knew so little math that the army itself had to provide training in the arithmetic needed for basic bookkeeping and gunnery. Admiral Nimitz complained of mathematical deficiencies of would-be officer candidates and navy volunteers. The basic skills of these military personnel should have been learned in the public schools but were not. As always, education doctrines did not sit well with much of the public.
>>7697698
>Nevertheless, by the mid-1940s, a new educational program called the Life Adjustment Movement emerged from the education community. The basic premise was that secondary schools were "too devoted to an academic curriculum." Education leaders presumed that 60% or more of all public school students lacked the intellectual capability for college work or even for skilled occupations, and those students would need a school program to prepare them for every day living. They would need appropriate high school courses, including math programs, that focused purely on practical problems such as consumer buying, insurance, taxation, and home budgeting, but not on algebra, geometry, or trigonometry. The students in these courses would become unskilled or semiskilled laborers, or their wives, and they would not need an academic education. Instead they would be instructed in "home, shop, store, citizenship, and health."
>By 1949 the Life Adjustment Movement had substantial support among educators, and was touted by numerous federal and state education agencies. Some educators even suggested that in order to avoid stigmatizing the students in these programs, non-academic studies should be available to all students. Life Adjustment could meet the needs of all American students.
>However, many schools stubbornly clung to the teaching of academic subjects even when they offered life adjustment curricula as well. Moreover, parents of school children resisted these changes; they wanted their own children educated and not merely adjusted. They were sometimes joined by university professors and journalists who criticized the lack of academic content of the progressivist life adjustment programs.
>>7697701
>Changes in society at large also worked against the life adjustment agenda. Through the 1940s, the nation had witnessed tremendous scientific and engineering advances. By the end of the decade, the appearance of radar, cryptography, navigation, atomic energy, and other technological wonderments changed the economy and underscored the importance of mathematics in the modern world. This in turn caused a recognition of the importance of mathematics education in the schools. By the end of the 1940s, the public school system was the subject of a blizzard of criticisms, and the life adjustment movement fizzled out.
>Progressive education was forced into retreat in the 1950s, and even became the butt of jokes and vitriol. During the previous half century, enrollment in advanced high school mathematics courses, and other academic subjects, had steadily decreased, thanks at least in part to progressive education. From 1933 to 1954 not only did the percentage of students taking high school geometry decrease, even the actual numbers of students decreased in spite of soaring enrollments. The following table gives percentages of high school students enrolled in high school math courses.
>The "New Math" period came into being in the early 1950s and lasted through the decade of the 1960s. New Math was not a monolithic movement. According to a director of one of the first New Math conferences, "The inception of the New Math was the collision between skills instruction and understanding ...The disagreements between different entities of the New Math Movement were profound. Meetings between mathematicians and psychologists resulted only in determining that the two had nothing to say to each other."
>>7697705
>In spite of disagreements, most projects of that period shared some general features. The New Math groups introduced curricula that emphasized coherent logical explanations for the mathematical procedures taught in the schools. New Math was clearly a move away from the anti-intellectualism of the previous half-century of progressivist doctrine. For the first time, mathematicians were actively involved in contributing to K-12 school mathematics curricula.
>The University of Illinois Committee on School Mathematics headed by Max Beberman began in 1951 and was the first major project associated with the New Math era. Beberman's group published a series of high school math textbooks, and drew financial support from the Carnegie Corporation and the U.S. Office of Education. In 1955, the College Entrance Examination Board established a Commission on Mathematics to investigate the "mathematics needs of today's American youth." The Commission, consisting of high school teachers, math educators, and mathematicians, issued a report with recommendations for a curriculum to better prepare students for college, and produced a sample textbook for twelfth grade on probability and statistics. The efforts of these and other early groups received little attention until the U.S.S.R launched Sputnik, the first space satellite, in the fall of 1957. The American press treated Sputnik as a major humiliation, and called attention to the low quality of math and science instruction in the public schools. Congress responded by passing the 1958 National Defense Education Act to increase the number of science, math, and foreign language majors, and to contribute to school construction.
>>7696518
>I think the way its been taught in US schools before common core was just fine.
Then why was America so far behind in international standards?
>>7697006
>It's probably better for long term learning, but that's only if you have the time, and that's something poor minority families don't have much of.
I think the bigger problem you're going to encounter is the quality of teacher that elementary schools (especially ones in poor neighborhoods, but also in general) have.
They aren't going to treat the "new methods" of common core as an abstract way to get you to look at problems in many different ways to reinforce the fundamental idea, they're going to plug and chug that into the brains of the one or two students who are actually paying attention and then mark everything off that their formulaic interpretation of the guidelines says is incorrect.
>>7697711
>That same year, the American Mathematical Society set up the School Mathematics Study Group (SMSG) to develop a new curriculum for high schools. Among the many curriculum groups of the New Math period, SMSG was the most influential. It created junior and senior high school math programs and eventually elementary school curricula as well. SMSG subsequently appointed a 26 member advisory committee and a 45 member writing group which included 21 college and university mathematicians as well as 21 high school math teachers and supervisors.
>The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics set up its own curriculum committee, the Secondary School Curriculum Committee, which came out with its recommendations in 1959. Many other groups emerged during this period including, the Ball State Project, the University of Maryland Mathematics Project, the Minnesota School Science and Mathematics Center, and the Greater Cleveland Mathematics Program. In the late 1950s, individual high school and college teachers started to write their own texts along the lines suggested by the major curriculum groups
>One of the contributions of the New Math movement was the introduction of calculus courses at the high school level. Although, there were important successes in the New Math period, some of the New Math curricula were excessively formal, with little attention to basic skills or to applications of mathematics. Programs that included treatments of number bases other than base ten, as well as relatively heavy emphases on set theory, or more exotic topics, tended to confuse and alienate even the most sympathetic parents of school children. There were instances in which abstractness for its own sake was overemphasized to the point of absurdity. Many teachers were not well equipped to deal with the demanding content of the New Math curricula. As a result public criticisms increased.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIKGV2cTgqA
"New math"- Good idea, catastrophically implemented
>>7696477
It's 1.
You all agree right?
I was taught the Denominator in this scenario is its own subset.
>>7697720
And math education has been going back down hill ever since...
>By the early 1970s New Math was dead. The National Science Foundation discontinued funding programs of this type, and there was a call to go "back to the basics" in mathematics as well as in other subjects. However, this direction for education did not go unchallenged. Progressive education had recovered from its doldrums of the 1950s, and by the late 1960s and early 1970s, it had regained its momentum. A. S. Niell's book Summerhill, published in 1960, is an account of an ultra progressive school in England. It was one of the most influential books on education of that decade. Founded in 1921 in Suffolk, England as a boarding school for relatively affluent children, Summerhill students determined completely what they would learn, and when. Niell wrote, "Whether a school has or has not a special method for teaching long division is of no significance, for long division is of no importance except to those who want to learn it. And the child who wants to learn long division will learn it no matter how it is taught." By 1970, some 200,000 copies of Summerhill were being sold per year, and it was required reading in 600 university courses.
>Modeled on Summerhill, and supported by the challenges at that time of structures of authority, both within education and the larger society, "free schools" proliferated, and eventually helped give rise to the Open Education Movement. The Open Education Movement was nothing new; it was just a repetition of progressivist programs promoted in the 1920s, but the idea of letting children decide each day what they should learn at activity tables, play corners, or reading centers, was once again promoted as profound and revolutionary.
>The effects of the Open Education Movement were particularly devastating to children with limited resources, due to their lack of access to supplemental education from the home, or tutoring in basic skills outside of school.
>>7697729
>Lisa Delpit, an African American educator who taught in an inner city school in Philadelphia in the early 1970s wrote about the negative effects of this type of education on African American children. Relating a conversation with another African American teacher, she explained, "White kids learn how to write a decent sentence. Even if they don't teach them in school, their parents make sure they get what they need. But what about our kids? They don't get it at home..." Summarizing the effects of the open classroom movement from her perspective in 1986, Professor Delpit wrote:
>>I have come to believe that the "open classroom movement," despite its progressive intentions, faded in large part because it was not able to come to terms with the concerns of poor and minority communities.
>Another prominent educator, Nancy Ichinaga, came to similar conclusions about the effects of the Open Education Movement on low income students, based on her experience as principal of Bennett-Kew Elementary school, in Inglewood, California. Ichinaga began a 24 year career as principal of Bennett-Kew in the Fall of 1974, one month before scores from the California's standardized test were released. At that time the school included only grades K-3 and it was called Bennett Elementary school. Bennett's 1974 third grade students ranked at the third percentile in the state, almost the absolute bottom. The school was then in its fourth year of the "Open Structure Program" and the student body throughout her tenure as principal was nearly 100 percent minority and low income. Reacting with shock and dismay at the test scores, Ichinaga confronted the teachers who admitted that their program was not working. The entire student body was illiterate and the student centered mathematics program was in shambles.
>>7697721
I was taught (before common core) that when you have a problem in which everything is on the same level of priority (PEMDAS) you evaluate it left to right. However ever since 2nd grade when we learned this I don't think I've ever had a math instructor ever give a us a math problem in which the order that you evaluated it mattered because they use parentheses or didn't have dumb questions like the one OP posted. In my opinion it's 16, but who cares? The problem was poorly written.
>>7697721
I don't agree.
Firstly, the picture is bait. Someone altered the original photograph.
But, disregarding that, writing 20 / 5 (2 * 2) is, in my opinion, poor form.
I could write 20 / 5 * 2 * 2, which is obscure,
I could write 20 / 5 (2 * 2), which is less obscure, but has two unique answers. Or I could be very precise.
20/ (5 (2 * 2)) = 1
and
(20 / 5) (2 * 2) = 16
Only plebs would leave it ambiguous.
You're not a pleb are you anon?
>>7697721
If I saw something written like this in a vacuum I would calculate it using C order of operations, leading to 16.
If I encountered something like this in a mathematical setting, I would find the author and slap them in the face. If you're too much of a shitbag to use the two-line division syntax, then at least put all the dividends on the left and use appropriate parenthesis for the divisors.
Kids should be taught that ambiguity is bad, not "the best way" to interpret ambiguity.
>>7697742
>Kids should be taught that ambiguity is bad, not "the best way" to interpret ambiguity.
well said m8
>>7697735
>With the collaboration of her teachers, Nancy Ichinaga introduced clearly defined and well structured reading and math programs which included practice in basic skills. After a few years, test scores increased to well beyond the 50th percentile, and by the end of the 20th century, her school had earned national acclaim and became a model for others to emulate. At an education conference held in May 1999, Principal Ichinaga described the situation in her school in 1974:
>>My school had been patterned after Summerhill. And that's how bad it was! The kids used to make jello and bake cookies, and I used to tell the teachers, "Do you know what you've accomplished? You just gave them rotten teeth!"
>As in earlier periods of the 20th century, the agenda of progressivist educators was resisted by broad sectors of the public. The majority of states created minimum competency tests in basic skills starting in the mid-1970s, and almost half of them required students to pass these tests as a condition for graduation from high school. Due to public demand, some school districts created "fundamental schools" that emphasized traditional academics and promoted student discipline. While basic skills tests held the Open Education Movement in check, by their nature they could not be used to hold students to very high standards, or to raise existing standards. During the 1970s, standardized test scores steadily decreased and bottomed out in the early 1980s.
This is why standardize testing is important. If you don't do it, THESE "TEACHERS" WILL NOT TEACH! As that's the very last thing they want to do.
>>7697745
I'm not trying to be a dick
You really think anyone is going to read all that?
>>7697737
PEDMAS isn't actually the explicit order. Under PEDMAS certain values are the same and are solved according to how they're grouped, not by any absolute method.
P-E-DM-AS is how its grouped according to values.
Division and Multiplication are the same value, and in what order you then do them is depend on how the terms in the equation/expression are grouped.
You can actually solve it correctly by just solving within the brackets in the correct order under the first rule of PEDMAS (P) and ignore the other orders of operation, assuming you understand how brackets work. How the question actually looks with all brackets is this
{[20]/[5(2*2)]}
The reason they don't show these brackets most of the time is because they simplified it by giving you all PEDMAS so it would look cleaner, assuming no one would fuck it up. Seems they were wrong.
Workings time;
Take 20/5(2*20 and solve.
20/5(2*2) is {[20]/[5(2*2)]}
You start with the first set of brackets ()
It becomes {[20]/[5*(4)]}
so {[20]/[5*4]}
Then you solve within second set []
It becomes {[20]/[5*4]
therefor {[20]/[20]}
so {20/20}
Solve within the final set for your simplified answer {}
{20/20} = 1.
That's how it works.
You can not get 16 as an answer if you follow correct mathematical processes here.
>>7697758
Bruh.
I've never heard PEDMAS
I've heard BIDMAS and PEMDAS
>>7697758
FYI I dropped a bracket on one term -->>{[20]/[5*4]<<-- and used "0" instead of ")" here -->>Take 20/5(2*20 and solve<<--, but you should be able to see how it works because the other ones look properly formated.
You now see why they use simplified brackets and PEDMAS, otherwise you'd have so many problems from people dropping brackets.
I couldn't even write that simple one out without dropping a couple D:
>>7697766
See what I mean? PEDMAS or whatever isn't the actual order of operations, it's a system that helps people use the correct order accordingly with varying success.
I was taught PEDMAS
Parenthesis-Exponents-Division-Multiplication-Addition-Subtraction.
>>7697758
Jesus, that's a shitload of effort to put into responding to a stale copypasta troll OP.
...and you're wrong besides.
20 / 5 (2*2) is ambiguous, and thus not a legit expression.
>>7697775
>20 / 5 (2*2) is ambiguous
kek. You're not seeing the big picture anon. Like the people in the cave you see only the shadow, not the whole.
If you're capable of understanding both what I said and how brackets work you'd understand. Evidently you understand neither and you should STFU and go learn more about this subject before you dare and try telling me how it works.
Yes, you can argue that 20/5(2*2) is ambiguous, but what you fail to realize is that's not the actual way expressions are grouped.
It isn't 20/5(2*2), that's the SIMPLIFIED version.
The FULL version of this term is actually {[20]/[5(2*2)]}
>>7697737
PEMDAS isn't actually the explicit order. Under PEMDAS certain values are the same and are solved according to how they're grouped, not by any absolute method.
P-E-MD-AS is how its grouped according to values.
Multiplication and Division are the same value, and in what order you then do them is depend on how the terms in the equation/expression are grouped.
You can actually solve it correctly by just solving within the brackets in the correct order under the first rule of PEMDAS (P) and ignore the other orders of operation, assuming you understand how brackets work. How the question actually looks with all brackets is this
{[20]/[5(2*2)]}
The reason they don't show these brackets most of the time is because they simplified it by giving you all PEMDAS so it would look cleaner, assuming no one would fuck it up. Seems they were wrong.
Workings time;
Take 20/5(2*2) and solve.
20/5(2*2) is {[20/5](2*2)}
You start with the first set of brackets ()
It becomes {[20/5]*(4)}
so {[20/5]4]}
Then you solve within second set []
It becomes {[20/5]*4}
therefor {[4]*[4]}
so {4*4}
Solve within the final set for your simplified answer {}
{4*4} = 16.
That's how it works.
You can not get 1 as an answer if you follow correct mathematical processes here.
>>7697775
>20 / 5 (2*2) is ambiguous
kek. You're not seeing the big picture anon. Like the people in the cave you see only the shadow, not the whole.
If you're capable of understanding both what I said and how brackets work you'd understand. Evidently you understand neither and you should STFU and go learn more about this subject before you dare and try telling me how it works.
Yes, you can argue that 20/5(2*2) is ambiguous, but what you fail to realize is that's not the actual way expressions are grouped.
It isn't 20/5(2*2), that's the SIMPLIFIED version.
The FULL version of this term is actually {[20/5](2*2)}
>>7697792
FYI I dropped a bracket on one term -->>{[20]/[5(2*2)]}<<-- and used "[5" instead of "5]" here -->>Take {[20]/[5(2*2)]} and solve<<--, but you should be able to see how it works because the other ones look properly formated.
You now see why they use simplified brackets and PEDMAS, otherwise you'd have so many problems from people dropping brackets.
I couldn't even write that simple one out without dropping a couple D:
>>7697758
>{[20]/[5(2*2)]}
How can you automatically assume from the beginning that the 5(2*2) is grouped together in brackets and not the 20/5? I don't follow your logic and it seems like you intentionally placed that set of brackets which of course would give you an answer of 1. I am quite aware that PEMDAS isn't the actual order and that multiplication/division and addition/subtraction are on the same level. I think you just bracketed it in a biased way to prove your answer. I will now counter your example with my own.
{[20/5][(2*2)]}
{[4][4]}
16
You cannot get 1 as an answer if you follow correct mathematical processes here. :^)
The question is ambiguous. I was simply stating my mathematics teachers taught me to evaluate left to right, but there is no right answer here.
>>7697747
It's because people don't remember what happened in the 20th century that these fuckers are succeeding in doing it all over again in the 21st century. It's the explanation for all of this shit currently seen in the news today:
>http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/01/nyregion/algebra-scores-prompt-second-look-at-revamped-regents-exams.html
>an emeritus professor of political science at Queens College, argues that it is wrongheaded to force all students to study algebra.
>http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/03/opinion/a-math-teachers-critique-of-new-yorks-algebra-exam.html
>Having students forgo art, music and other electives in order to double up on math does not make students like math. We should focus on kids’ strengths rather than their weaknesses while they are in high school, and stop forcing higher level mathematics on every child.
>http://www.abc15.com/news/state/azmerit-test-results-released-most-students-not-proficient-in-math-or-language-arts-english
>According to the data, 34 percent of students demonstrated proficiency in English Language Arts (ELA) and 35 percent were proficient in math. Of that, only 7 percent of student demonstrated “highly proficient” in ELA compared to 11 percent in math, records show. That means more than half the students tested demonstrated “minimal” to “partial proficiency,” in either subject.
>http://newsok.com/article/5464296
>The long-standing assumption that college algebra is the gateway college math course all students must take no longer makes sense, Debra Stuart said Wednesday in a report to the Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education.
>"Research shows us that the kind of math that's needed out there in the real world and to be successful in most degree programs is not college algebra. Statistics is even used more than algebra right now out in the real world," said Stuart, vice chancellor for educational partnerships.
It's literally the same exact sophistry from 1901/1920/1940/1970s being reused all over again.
>>7697811
Bruh. I have better things to do than read all that shit.
I'm not in the US, and I'm in university, so I literally don't give a fuck.
If I have children then I'll worry about their mathematics education, but I don't care whether the guy who works at McDonalds in Michigan knows how to triple integrate.
ITT:
>five or so reasonable answers b4
>OMG THE JEWS
This whole board is cancer. Kill yourselves.
>>7697821
Why are you even posting in a common core math education thread?
The most important idea behind education is segragating the skills from early. If you read twilight, Harry potter 1984 and death of a salesman you aren't fit for an English degree, if you are not fitted for an academic environment then go for a technical job.
>>7696493
You can't teach "free thinking", its all genetic.
>>7697805
Because when you go to divide this expression the denominator and numerator are their own sets.
>>7697885
What proof do you have that (2*2) is a part of the denominator and not part of the numerator? Are you assuming that just because they come after 20/5 they are part of the denominator? I'm telling you, the question cannot be solved because of ambiguity.
>>7696477
>not giving the question using \frac
>>7697844
I care enough about the mathematics, but not enough to read all the text that was posted
>>7698504
You don't find
>mathematics is "harmful rather than helpful to the kind of thinking necessary for ordinary living."
>"We have in the past taught algebra and geometry to too many, not too few."
>"Algebra...is a nonfunctional and nearly valueless subject for 90 percent of all boys and 99 percent of all girls--and no changes in method or content will change that."
>Nothing in mathematics should be taught unless its probable value could be shown, and recommended the traditional high school mathematics curriculum for only a select few.
>Summerhill students determined completely what they would learn, and when. [...] long division is of no importance except to those who want to learn it.
>their program was not working. The entire student body was illiterate and the student centered mathematics program was in shambles.
alarming? It's still people like that that are deciding math curricula for schools today using these same old arguments.
>>7697968
Children, stop fighting, we've had this thread *literally* a thousand times. You're not going to solve the debate here.
I consider myself above squabbling over semantics when the language is not inherently unambiguous :^)
>>7697783
>It isn't 20/5(2*2), that's the SIMPLIFIED version.
>The FULL version of this term is actually {[20]/[5(2*2)]}
You're just making up those extra brackets.
There aren't any standards in math to imply them.
>>7697739
This.
Only fucking kids do it otherwise.
>>7698527
>The cancer killing humanity
>>7697714
common core isn't in international standards though so you can rephrase your question
Common cores when using variables, the old way without.
>>7697330
Most people aren't going to learn this though. If they get to that point I'm sure they would be intelligent enough to unlearn a few things.
>>7696477
Why don't they just teach set/number/group theory instead of this retarded shit?
imho this is easily understandable if the teacher would stress that the "(" and ")" are tools for humans to prioritize parts of an equation.
so the picture and the chart itself is troll, but with time considered as a factor this could be explained.
this is however not something i'd show in the kindergarden...
>>7696546
>dumb down
schools are already so dumbed down all the smart kids have to learn on their own
>>7697714
White Americans are among the best in the world
2+2=5
Do it to Julia
>>7698512
I find it alarming, sure.
But when people actual care about the education of children, then the profession of being an educator will have higher requirements, better social standing, and higher pay.
Substituting one curriculum for another, whilst keeping the same retard-tier educators, won't accomplish much.
Just look at Finland, their education system, and their education statistics.
If the US, or any country cared enough, they would be doing that.
Besides, if I had children, I'd rather send them to private school, have them home schooled, or some other education system; whilst making sure they have time to spend with, and access to, people their age
>>7698816
They tried in the 1950-60s (see >>7697711 >>7697720 ) but teachers didn't understand it since Abstract Algebra only started appearing at undergraduate level in universities at around the same time in the 60s so only a very tiny minority of teaching would have been familiar with it.
We're now repeating the "math is useless" phase (>>7697811) and having it removed from the curriculum once again.
>>7697721
The answer depends on your stance on implicit multiplication
Physicists: 1/2x = 1/(2x)
Mathematicians: 1/2x = ½x = x/2 = [math] \frac { 1 } { 2 } x [/math]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations#Exceptions
>>7700540
Honestly, this is why I like using parenthesis very liberally. Some of that comes from my programmer habits, but fundamentally I do it to avoid any sort of ambiguity, Common Core or not.
Of course, the public doesn't generally realize the "implicit multiplication" issue, and so sees this image and thinks, "wut?"
>>7700540
This is wrong but whatever.
>>7696536
False flag to distract /pol/tards from what's really going on
>>7697006
>This stuff requires a lot of time to learn more deeply than just the simple calculations of standard mathematics.
No, we barely teach anything as is. CC is a just way to drag our feet even more while obfuscating the curriculum so no one realizes at a glance that children are learning less than the previous generation did. These visualizations are NOT anything new and were being taught in the 1st grade back 20 years ago.
>>7696477
>>7696477
mathematics for autistic people
>>7703373
I never learned the "Old way" of factoring that expression, and I wasn't on Common Core
I don't understand why the point behind showing "intuitive" reasoning behind basic arithmetic. My opinion is that the curriculum must severely change.
>>7703378
Because it's fundamentally wrong: √xy is not a integer power of x and y so it wasn't a factorization at all
The correct answer is obviously (2x+(1+i√3)y)(2x+(1-i√3)y)/4
>>7697721
But that distinction is being hyphenated without the sharing of the fundamental principle that the division sign with the dots and the bar for division are different kinds of division.
Its just white women following black women in the way they keep other people out of their business. Just take care of your kids and stop worrying about where the country is going. Do your job well enough and come time for it you'll be able to just move your family out of the problem areas.
This almost reminds of the effective consequence of not abiding the white woman. From a position of power she will alienate the protocol to adhere to a syate of ambiguity that will neither harm nor help her but ultimately bring much ruin to her oppressors. Such is the "Guerra of the guera".
I hope everyone realizes /pol/ is trolling /sci/ today.
It should be obvious to anyone who has ever read a single thread on /pol/.
>>7704808
They've been doing it all week.
I am going to say this as a NON mathematician. I am a person who hated math, I took remedial courses in community college, but I'm learning to enjoy statistics, calculus, and linear programming now that I understand and apply it from a functional business point of view. I don't understand high level math in any way but I can appreciate the pursuit.
I feel like the reason most people hate math is the way we teach it.
Why do we continue to teach math in functional order rather than some sort of conceptual order? I understand why we go arithmetic -> algebra -> geometry -> etc. etc. It's useful when we solve things by hand on a chalkboard. Who solves things by hand (aside from high level people, of course)?
The vast majority of people will deal with mathematics in spreadsheets, in computer code, in models, in specialized software, and so on. Why don't they learn math from a conceptual point of view? Have you ever found it odd that we teach children algebra (incorrectly) and high schoolers about shapes?
I mean, if you think about it, did they ever attempt to communicate to you what = actually is? How the elements of an equation interact with one another? That equations aren't simply read from left to right? That you can interact with both sides and solve things multiple ways? I spent the entirety of second grade memorizing multiplication tables through memorization, songs, and shortcuts. Why? This leads people to assume that all math is rote memorization and that the people who succeed simply memorized the formulas better, when in fact they were simply advanced enough to understand the INTERACTIONS of the elements of a given equation.
We teach language conceptually. Children learn the elements of language and how they interact. You don't memorize specific sentences or words. You learn what adverbs and adjectives are, how to identify them, and how to use them.
Common core is fixing the wrong problem.
>>7697330
>quantum mechanics
Why would you start with something serious like this? Students would meet operators that don't commute much earlier (e.g. linear algebra with matrices or abstract algebra with... everything)
>>7704992
The problem with your method is that a child's brain simply can't understand what you're trying to convey when you explain what = actually is.
This is the same reason why children are taught with shapes and high schoolers dont need that shit -- because high schoolers can understand without fancy shapes. Kids can't, so they need em.
>How the elements of an equation interact with one another?
I thought every child had this when we were given word problems. Like, Jim had 3 apples. Dwight had 3. If Dwight takes two apples from Jim, how many apples does Dwight have? How many apples does Jim have??
> I spent the entirety of second grade memorizing multiplication tables through memorization, songs, and shortcuts. Why?
Because it's relevant to a child. Children have the attention span of nothing. You keep things relevant to keep their attention. Eventually you learn how to calculate without needing to do those rhymes or rhythms. But the fact that you made those connections in your brain on how to get to the answer given the problem is good enough for a child.
>>7705044
>a child's brain simply can't understand what you're trying to convey
[math] \bf { B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T-! } [/math]
Jean Piaget was a fucking quack like Freud and everything he did was refuted. Stop repeating his nonsense.
>>7705031
Or in 3D/2D with rotations and reflections
>>7705044
You don't think that an interactive program or specialized teaching device that allows kids to manipulate fractals or shapes or mirrors might hold their attention better than, "1 times 1 is 1. 1 times 2 is 2. 1 times 3 is 3."?
I can't think of anything kids love less than massive amounts of rote memorization. They like to play with things. They are curious as to the constitution of things and the interactions of things.
>>7705105
>You don't think that an interactive program or specialized teaching device that allows kids to manipulate fractals or shapes or mirrors might hold their attention better
I agree that bringing things to an interactive level is really important to honing in on education.
But do you really think they're actually making the connection that they're doing something much more complex than simply pushing a button? Fractals just look like fancy artwork to a child. You push a button, and it changes the way it looks. Change your input parameters and now you have stars with 6 corners instead of 5. It's a toy.
Maybe I'm looking at things the wrong way, though.
>First generation of kids where literally everyone has minicomputers in their pocket
>Instead of integrating technology and making using technical programs and coding part of the curriculum, we change the curriculum to focus on mental math, which no one needs now
The USA: Teaching the skills useful in 1850, today.
>>7697330
Its a pretty trivial thing to unlearn.
You'll fuck it up a couple times, but by then end of a problem set you'll never make the mistake again
