Over at The Atlantic, Jordan Weissmann summarizes a study done by Northeastern University sociologist, Michael Handel, in an article titled Here's How Little Math Americans Actually Use at Work. I'm sure you can guess how Weissmann interprets the results of the study just by reading the title. If not, the first paragraph should spell it out:
Remember sitting through high school math class while the teacher droned on about polynomial equations and thinking there wasn't a chance you'd ever use any of it in life? Well, if you're like most Americans, chances are your 17-year-old self was absolutely correct.
I never would've guessed that my 17-year-old self was right about anything. Perhaps the Wu-Tang Clan is the greatest musical group ever, maybe puffy, down vests never did go out of style, and maybe Heather from math class really is the hottest girl I'll ever see. Or, maybe, just maybe, Weissmann has the causality completely backwards.
What I'm sure will catch your eye first and foremost is the proclamation that American workers apparently don't use much math at work:
As it turns out, less than a quarter of U.S. workers report using math any more complicated than basic fractions and percentages during the course of their jobs. The graphs below are based on survey data compiled by Northeastern University sociologist Michael Handel. Handel surveyed about 2,300 workers first from 2004 through 2006, then again between 2007 and 2009. The catchall category of "any more advanced" math includes algebra through calculus.
The study also included a breakdown of how a given job type utilizes mathematics on a daily basis:
- Upper level white collar, e.g. management, technical, and professional occupations
- Low level white collar, e.g. clerical and sales workers
- Upper level blue collar, e.g. craft and repair workers like skilled construction trades and mechanics
- Lower level blue collar, e.g. factory workers and truck drivers
I find it fascinating that nearly 5% of "Lower level blue collar" workers utilize calculus, but that's another matter for another time. It's at this point that the author and I diverge in how we view the results of the study, with the author noting:
These numbers alone aren't an open and shut case against teaching complex math to most high school students. But they do suggest that what we teach today has little relationship to the broad demands of the job market, and that we should at least be conscious of the possibility that we're putting educational road blocks in front of students without a practical application for them.
This assumes that the mathematics we're teaching students is, in fact, what's being learned. What seems to be a much more plausible situation, to me at least, is that since students know very little mathematics upon entering the workforce, nobody has required it. Instead, workarounds in the form of software and consultants, among others, have been instituted to deal with a problem that's been around for several decades.
From where I'm sitting, mathematics, like many subjects, has something like a hazing period. For the same reason you no longer "sound out the word" while reading, you're not going to use the lessons on "polynomial equations" from high school level Algebra to any real degree. It's too simple. Now, you'll probably use lessons that came later (perhaps, even lessons based on polynomials from high school), but just as you read "Cat in the Hat" before "The Old Man and the Sea", you have to master the easy material before you get to the heavy stuff.
The author closes on an interesting note, one of more robust vocational studies in American classrooms:
At the same time, it's clear that some of the best blue-collar jobs do in fact require a level of mathematical literacy on par with what you'd expect a student to know if they were college bound. To me, that hints at an argument for more high level vocational programs: It might help if students actually knew that those boring equations really one day would earn them a paycheck.
It's tough to disagree with that last sentence. So, wouldn't the best way to help students know which "equations" would earn them a paycheck be to have them start learning mathematics earlier, spend more time leaning the subject, so that they can walk out of high school with a stronger background? When I look at the results, the problem isn't that we're teaching too much, but that we're teaching far too little. Granted, this rests on the notion that generally, as you move up the ladder, you are expected to know more then those on lower rungs. It should be a red flag to see our blue collar workers using more math almost across the board (with Statistics being the lone exception) than our white collar workers.
But hey, just think, if we start teaching math earlier, perhaps we can get that nearly 5% strong contingent of "Low level blue collar" workers who use calculus some extra company.
Wouldn't this Upper Blue Collar cohort include all the engineers in operational roles (at plants, fields, mines and so on)? I would not be surprised they use more complex math than most corporate white collar accountants, lawyers and PR people.
When I read the description: "Upper level white collar, e.g. management, technical, and professional occupations," I simply assumed that they were referring to all engineers, but I could see the plant floor industrial engineers (for example) being categorized as "Upper Blue Collar" incorrectly by researchers. Interesting point.
I can explain the 5% of low blue collar workers using Calculus; they read Calculus as Calculator
Well, Excel uses a lot of mathematics for me.
I think people misunderstand the point of math. Even my friends who are engineers do not use even close to 80% of the math they have learned. The point of learning math is to broaden your ability to think critically and logically.
Dis. It's a mental workout
I remember my dad (a physician) telling me when I was younger that despite the fact that he never used calculus in his profession day to day, taking all levels of calc helped him. He said that it helped him to think logically and have patience with difficult problems, not necessarily math ones. When it takes you a half an hour or more to finish a calc problem, it conditions you to focus, stick it out, and be meticulous. This is one of the main reasons why there's calc on the MCAT, although you don't really use it in medical school.
Also, it's one of the reasons why I've decided to take an extra level of calc senior year.
There's no calc on the MCAT, I took it when I was an undergrad. Even in the physics section you don't need it.
I don't differentiate equations often, but I often think of rates of change.
The concepts behind math are pretty useful.
My cousin has been an electrical engineer for about 6 years now and he told me he uses some basic calculus, 90% of what he learned studying engineering in college he does not use.
How do they differentiate basic algebra from complex algebra? Complex as in linear algebra? abstract algebra? groups, rings and fields? Looking at the graph it seems that by "complex" they meant high school algebra, as in logarithm, trigonometry etc.
This points to a greater problem with self-reporting surveys like this. Case in point, both a lawyer and an actuary would qualify as higher level white collar, but what the former considers to be advanced mathematics can be very different than the latter.
They were probably referring to algebraic geometry.
From what I could tell from the article, the difference between "basic" algebra and "complex" algebra is the difference between "algebra 1" and "algebra 2" in high school. So, yes, your first instinct is correct. Also, interesting point about self-reporting within different professional groups.
The process of learning advanced mathematics makes you a better critical thinker/problem solver regardless whether you ever use it again. Also even if you have a model that does all the calculations for you and spits out a result it's still valuable to understand what's going on and why certain inputs cause certain outputs. And everyone should understand statistics to avoid going through life thinking that things like "oh man this coin just landed heads 5 times in a row its definitely gonna be tails next!"
In finance, we pretty much use addition/subtraction, multiplication/division, fractions, basic statistics and basic algebra, often in conjunction with one another. I was rusty as hell coming out of college on these things (I knew them well, but was slow at producing answers). Now 6 years in the business and the math is so fluent that I don't even recognize I'm using math at work even though about 50% of my job is pure math.
Just so people know, I go to Emory. That picture is a different base for math. It's not incorrect, but maybe that just makes the whole point of this post.
Anyone seen the movie Idiocracy??? That seems more of a reality every time I hear someone say "I am never going to use it, so why are they teaching this to me?".
My 2 cents: It's not a schools responsibility to prepare you for the job or life, but your own. A school is just a medium to prepare you for life.
Both your argument and the author's can be valid. That's the pity of social sciences, doesn't matter how much stats or maths you use, you will never get to validate any theory and define causality.
Thet being said, in my country this happens too, we are taught few maths, and in a poor manner. In any case, it doesn't matter if a sociology professor says that they're useless, can he perform a counter factual analysis? can he predict the future and say they won't be useful in 10 years? I don't think so. So, don't use arguments based on utility if you can't actually know how useful maths could be in a future or could have been in the past had we been taught more and better of them.
Funny people these sociologists, they think that running regressions on biased data using variables that are nothing more than poor proxies of what they wanna measure is science. Very funny when they talk about positivism and the natural sciences methods applied to social sciences... Maybe not maths, but this professor and most economists, pol sci, sociology professors should have taken a course on epistemology.
For me, the problem always comes down to WHAT math is being taught. My high school had no personal finance courses, no investing, and there were only two statistics classes and you really only took one of those (AP or normal). Meanwhile, there were 5 calc options.
Calculus is very close to being useless to me. I certainly didn't take or need any more than one level of it. Statistics, however, is something I use daily.
There most certainly is a disconnect between what we learn in college and what we need to succeed in the real world.
I agree but the problem is also HOW math is being taught. There is no point in learning how to use formulas and plug numbers into them if you don't know how/why the formula works. There needs to be less plug and chug and more in depth analysis of what's going on. But then that wouldn't show up on a achievement test so no one will ever care.
Amen to that
As soon as I saw "The Atlantic", I knew to expect condescension and thinly veiled contempt. Glad I wasn't disappointed!
"But they do suggest that what we teach today has little relationship to the broad demands of the job market"
Which is fine because the primary goal of school is not and should not be "getting a job", regardless of what Middle Class Mom has to say on the issue.
"educational road blocks"
I can already tell the author was one of those "when am I ever going to use this?" kids. You lose as soon as you start deciding hard stuff is insurmountable (or not worth surmounting). That's not a sign we're teaching kids too much math, it's a sign we're not teaching them enough of it. "When am I ever going to use this?" is not a valid question, it's an excuse to yourself for turning your brain off so that you can start texting your friends during class without feeling bad. It reminds me of when someone makes a valid point in a debate and the other guy goes "yeah but you misused a comma" - it's an excuse not to think.
The whole point of learning advanced topics "you won't need" is to teach you to solve difficult problems, and that you are capable of solving them. It is not to teach you how to make excuses for ignoring them so that you can watch American Idol without a hint of guilt or irony.
Funny story: there were finance majors in some of my finance classes asking when they are going to use X in the real world under their breath during lectures. They got mediocre grades and no job offers at graduation. They will probably end up in retail or Apple or Starbucks, not using their finance educations. "When am I going to need this?" is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
As someone who majored in math, here's my two cents: Obviously most people will never need any more math than calculus. Math is very helpful in helping you to think logically, but only up to the level of an intro to proofs or discrete math class. After that, any additional benefits are very marginal.
If I could go back in time, I would've stopped at discrete math or real analysis and majored in something more interesting and useful (eg. chemical engineering). In the end, I think modern education is outdated in an era where everything can be learned online with a Google search. The opportunity cost of time is too high to waste away doing problem sets and learning material that you will forget 95% of after the exam. We need to be teaching people how to think and learn on their own rather than training them to regurgitate material. I'm getting off topic so I'll stop here.
Nothing wrong with that rant. I agree completely
Iste veniam repellat perferendis. Unde natus qui in itaque blanditiis magnam. Voluptate est ab aut modi.
Blanditiis quas dolore sit. Voluptatibus nihil facere quo assumenda atque. Dignissimos quia non et rerum in reiciendis mollitia pariatur.
Fugit esse est mollitia aut est. Architecto modi aut ipsam atque consectetur quas fugiat. Recusandae non et qui ipsum.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Possimus qui asperiores delectus dolorum voluptatum et. Accusamus id itaque at perspiciatis et qui at doloremque. A enim voluptatem et et provident animi ducimus dolorum. Quas quidem accusamus accusamus magni impedit.
Aperiam beatae aliquid in deserunt. Ipsam iure harum in impedit quisquam maxime. Dignissimos occaecati itaque facere qui est similique aut. Ratione ut ullam odit sit. Sit eum alias ducimus voluptatem. Fuga delectus incidunt debitis sunt et enim.
Cupiditate saepe qui sit qui dolores eius. Ut et sapiente dignissimos. Corrupti ducimus aut voluptatem reiciendis voluptatem.