Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion Is Algebra Necessary?

Just something to consider though, with so many of the jobs in the highest demand these days being STEM related careers, even if it's difficult for your child, I'd encourage parents to help to find ways to help their child through any math classes. One of the most important things for GT kids to learn is how to work through highly challenging material. They're often used to things being "easy" and it isn't unusual for GT kids to not hit strong challenges until they get to college at which point it's like an axe between the eyes having never had to really WORK at a class before. Consider the high level challenge a blessing for the long haul.

One of my son's cousins recently graduated with an engineering degree and immediately got a high paying job plus a very nice sign on bonus when so many other college graduates can't even find jobs. After hearing this, my son said he is not interested in engineering and would not be motivated by the nice salary. He would rather live on less than have a career that he isn't interested in.

My son is convinced that he will need algebra for just about any degree he would be interested in. Because he was convinced that it was necessary, he was willing to work on algebra during the summer while everyone else was having fun. He knew he needed to make up the time he missed. He had to take a couple of months off from doing any math while getting used to the painful brace he wears from the time he gets up in the morning until the time he goes to bed, even when he has a migraine. His biggest challenges now are working around the pain and getting enough sleep so that he can think. Pain, lack of good quality sleep, inability to get enough exercise while getting required brace time, anxiety, isolation, and different learning style are our challenges and we haven't found anyone that really understands how difficult these challenges are. We will probably have another year of this and I don't know how we made it through last year. It is a challenge for me to fight off the anxiety and depression that sap my energy. It is really hard to see our "high challenge level" as a blessing.

Ah yes, one of the reasons I still suffer from college PTSD. I think I made it about three semesters before I started getting destroyed and ultimately collapsed into a puddle of C's, D's, and F's. I had about two college nightmares last week related to same.

I majored in chemical engineering without having any interest in engineering. I don't recommend that since you have no actual motivation to work on somewhat difficult material. No intrinsic motivation coupled with no study skills is a bad combination.

I also don't recommend law school. I got lucky in graduating into the dot com boom. It's just going to lard you up with debt unless you have significant pre-existing contacts with

So, in other words, don't be me.

Unless it's 1999. Then you can go to law school and be fine.

I rather doubt that I could pass it. I attended a very selective liberal arts college and graduated with an A- average, FWIW, and I tested as gifted. I have never taken calculus, though, and had to work pretty hard to complete trig (I did get a B+, I think?) in high school.

I do use basic algebra--as in, solve for x...but my math is rusty. It's never been a strength, though it's...fine. High average. I'm not terribly quantitative. I have very little recollection of much of what is being discussed in this thread, when it comes to nuts and bolts. (Why would I? I'm a writer and editor. I really don't use math at work, though these days a passing familiarity with statistics is helpful to me. When I do use it, it's generally in a homeowner/consumer context.)

I think high school students should pass algebra, but that there should be a vo-tech algebra track, as discussed upthread. I think financial and consumer literacy is FAR more important. I do not think you should have to pass Algebra 2 to graduate from HS.

I think there should be a quantitative requirement at colleges, but that math should not required in and of itself.

Let standardized test scores be your guide .

Students who scored between 61 and 65 on the PSAT math (multiply by 10 to get equivalent SAT math scores) had a 77% chance of scoring a 3 or higher (a passing score) on the AP Calculus AB exam, according to AP Potential http://www.collegeboard.com/counselors/app/expectancy.html?calcab . As a graduate of a "selective liberal arts college" you likely had a math SAT of 610 or higher.

Yes, I did, but not a lot higher. That's still only a 77% chance!

A new study finds that "Knowledge of Fractions and Long Division Predicts Long-Term Math Success" http://www.psychologicalscience.org...ion-predicts-long-term-math-success.html .

“We suspected that early knowledge in these areas was absolutely crucial to later learning of more advanced mathematics, but did not have any evidence until now,” said Siegler, the Teresa Heinz Professor of Cognitive Psychology at Carnegie Mellon. “The clear message is that we need to improve instruction in long division and fractions, which will require helping teachers to gain a deeper understanding of the concepts that underlie these mathematical operations. At present, many teachers lack this understanding. Because mastery of fractions, ratios and proportions is necessary in a high percentage of contemporary occupations, we need to start making these improvements now.”

The paper by Siegler et al. is

http://pss.sagepub.com/content/23/7/691
Early Predictors of High School Mathematics Achievement

Abstract

Identifying the types of mathematics content knowledge that are most predictive of students’ long-term learning is essential for improving both theories of mathematical development and mathematics education. To identify these types of knowledge, we examined long-term predictors of high school students’ knowledge of algebra and overall mathematics achievement. Analyses of large, nationally representative, longitudinal data sets from the United States and the United Kingdom revealed that elementary school students’ knowledge of fractions and of division uniquely predicts those students’ knowledge of algebra and overall mathematics achievement in high school, 5 or 6 years later, even after statistically controlling for other types of mathematical knowledge, general intellectual ability, working memory, and family income and education. Implications of these findings for understanding and improving mathematics learning are discussed.

And our school has just signed up for Everyday Math, whose curriculum is markedly deficient in . . . arrgh, fractions and long division. I keep telling myself that I can use a tutor and keep my kids up in math, but the elementary school math really does matter. This is just depressing. Good to know though. Thanks Bostonian.

I have a copy of the paper Bostonian mentioned today. If anyone wants it, PM me with your email address and I'll send it to you. It was a decent-sized study with ~4,300 kids from two countries (US and UK). The two cohorts were born in different decades (1970 in the UK and the mid-1980s in the US). Each group was tested twice (around ages 10-12 and as high school students).

From the Discussion:



Refs:

• Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics....
• Moseley, B. J., Okamoto, Y., & Ishida, J. (2007). Comparing U.S. and Japanese elementary school teachers’ facility for linking rational number representations. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5:165–185.

Oh, I'll be the first to say that we need better math instruction in schools, from people who understand it themselves. I just find that these studies that start with "there's a correlation between not understanding fractions and not being able to learn algebra" and go directly to "we need to teach fractions better" may be skipping an important logical step. (I haven't read the paper, so I don't know if it's guilty, but the major typo in the abstract you just posted doesn't make me hopeful.) Just because one thing is correlated with another does not mean that there is a causal chain where we can fix the other by fixing the first. It doesn't mean we independently shouldn't fix the first, because it is valuable in its own right. But the problem is that when you start fixing the antecedent, and then you don't get the results you wanted because they weren't actually causally linked in the first place, then the natural response is to stop bothering to fix the antecedent, even though it may have been good and worthwhile for other reasons that you're not paying attention to.