Articles such as

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/19/business/new-wave-of-adept-robots-is-changing-global-industry.html
Skilled Work, Without the Worker
By JOHN MARKOFF
New York Times
August 18, 2012

suggest that the future belongs to people who have the ability to do things such as program a robot, but I am not optimistic that a much larger fraction of people in the U.S. can be educated to this level than are currently.

I'm beginning to think there is too much push for academics and not enough opportunity to explore the trades. We have no "shop" classes in our high schools anymore unless you go to a special center where the academics are minimal and you are trained for a job.

I'm afraid that people aren't learning to repair their own cars or homes, plumbing, etc, and since kids aren't exposed to these careers or skills, I worry we will have a significant shortage of trades while everyone is rushing toward STEM

But, I still think the algebra as I knew it as a kid should still be doable. We had an option to take two years for algebra 1. That's no longer an option here.

That's because we're trying to create Robot Utopia where everything is completely automated and we no longer have to work with yucky things like dirt, dust, and automotive grease.

See the self-driving car for details.

I agree completely with everything you wrote here.

Old Glory Insurance.

For when the metal ones come for you.

Because they will.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/2340

>>SNORK<<

In all seriousness, I'm a professional physical scientist, and I'm deeply confused by the 'multiple emphasis paths' thingy in that article.

Frankly, I can't imagine being a scientist-- or really, even being scientifically literate-- without a rudimentary understanding of both statistics and of calculus. By rudimentary, I mean enough to recognize methodological flaws in sampling and analysis, and to know that 'integration' involves area under a curve, and that 'differentiation' is the other side of that coin.

So I'm very puzzled by the notion that only 'industrially' oriented folks would need to understand QA/QC statistical methods. That's simply not so.

:sigh: Physical science is a series of discussions about the natural world-- in the language of mathematics. Fluency is not just 'desirable' there. It's essential.

Do I get to continue to play the dumb monkey in this thread? Very well; carry on....

I do actually have a rudimentary understanding of stats, but it's really quite rudimentary. I need to have some basic comprehension of it for work. Fortunately, I live with a scientist, so he is called upon from time to time when I need help, although he doesn't always know the social science stats mumbo-jumbo I often encounter.

While I am certainly not a scientist, nor do I play one on TV, I consider myself more scientifically literate than 90% of the American public. That's a rough guess. Okay, maybe not WRT physics. But still.

I think we need to be rather wary of implying that it's necessary to pass calculus to be, what, worthy of basic intellectual respect?

Honestly, even if I had taken it, I doubt I would retain anything of value at this point. I took trig. Can I do trig? No. I haven't used it since I was 16.

I think precisely what HowlerMonkey was doing was avoiding that recall problem - that this is roughly what the words "integration" and "differentiation" mean is about what you would expect someone to retain if they took calculus decades ago and haven't used it since. And that level of knowledge is of value, I would argue; it helps someone to have a very rough idea of what kind of thing scientists might be doing when they make a model of climate change incorporating data and use it to make predictions, for example, which is one example of an idea a scientifically literate person needs to have these days.

On the "respect" question: "having passed calculus" is something with a lot of US-specific cultural baggage because of calculus's status as the peak of school maths education. There's no reason why everyone shouldn't have the basic ideas HK refers to, and in some countries everyone who has completed compulsory education will have - this is not a claim that in some countries the population is better educated, but a comment on sequencing within school syllabuses. I would hope that even people who don't take calculus in the US system come across the basic ideas HK refers to, later, if they are scientifically interested and want to be scientifically literate - don't they? If not, I do think that's a problem.

How is what HM said all that useful, though? I can't say that knowing that "'integration' involves area under a curve, and that 'differentiation' is the other side of that coin" does anything for my scientific literacy. It sounds like a Trivial Pursuit answer. I'd need to know a lot more than that for it to be meaningful to me.



I would certainly classify myself as scientifically interested. I'm married to a scientist and have edited many scientific journal articles. I have taken intro-level college biology and geology, intro- and mid-level ecology, and upper-level psych classes. I also worked as a biological research assistant in the field for many years. Calculus did not come up.

I'm trying not to take too much offense, but you know, I honestly don't think the people I went to HS with who took calculus are retaining some vast store of scientific literacy that I do not possess. I would never claim to have the background of someone *with a science degree*--but that's not what we're talking about here. I actually read scientific studies every day for work.

I'd agree with you that your background (which lacks calculus) is entirely appropriate and adequate to provide you with scientific literacy.

The problem is that the concepts taught in calculus all-too-commonly come as revelations which are presented solely in that venue. Similarly, statistical methods. Possessing a conceptual (as opposed to comprehensive or working) understanding of the concepts underlying calculus is exactly what I meant by "knowing the terms" at issue. I didn't mean verbal definitions, but conceptual ones. Honestly, that is a simple enough thing that I've taught middle schoolers what "integration" is in about twenty minutes; I find it horrifying that people can graduate from high school, much less college, without understanding that.

That would be akin to not understanding what a "subject" is in a sentence, or how a Democracy differs from a Republic. Is that merely a parlor trick or trivial pursuit answer? Well, maybe-- at least in isolation it is-- but it's still part of being literate in the relevent area.

Truly, statistics are probably more critical than calculus to the average person, and nothing more than algebra is actually required to understand the methodology of at least 80% of that. Oh, sure, you may not be able to follow the derivations completely, but that's fine if you know how to use the results and what they mean (or don't).

The fact that most people have no idea what a 95% confidence interval actually means is deeply distressing to me, because that means that while they may have access to peer-reviewed studies in journals, they lack the competence to actually understand them.

Even an auto mechanic ought to be capable of understanding the difference between quality assurance statements from two parts companies when they are made in statistically correct verbiage.

Does one have to acquire this understanding via formal instruction? Certainly not. I acquired my own linear algebra skill set via self-study in college. Colinsmum is absolutely correct about how oddly insular the view on this is in north America. Those who have taken calculus in the US tend to have a propensity to lord it over those who have not for some bizarre reason. I find that rather incomprehensible, too. Differential equations was ultimately far more interesting and useful. More to the point-- none of it is alchemy any more than German or Cantonese is. LOL.