I'd do this survey but the 'level of math' thing doesn't apply to the educational system I had.

So Britain doesn't do Algebra? Explain.

I'm mostly asking about the highest math class you had to take (if you're done with school) or will have to take (if you're not).

Edited at 2009-07-02 09:03 pm (UTC)

We don't have that concept of 'highest', because we don't take different subjects separately. Looking at the list, I've done a good handful of everything on it (although not to a very high level), except for differential equations, which I've touched upon in Physics but was never really taught.

Also, most places aren't fussy about what exams you pass at the level I did maths at, just that you've passed them. Maths GCSE is one of the few ones people will actually ask about before they employ you, but for going to the next educational level (A levels, which I've just done), schools don't really care what you got your GCSEs in, so long as you got some of them.

A titbit, though - the reason I was unable to study Physics in university was because I hadn't taken A level maths.

Well, interesting.

You could just put down the most difficult of the maths you had to take in order to pass your A-levels, I suppose? Or you can skip that question, I want a wide variety, American and not. It just helped me with background, is all.

I'm going to skip the question because 'hardest' is insanely relative and, like I said, none of the subjects were touched upon in any real depth.

This was the paper I had to do to pass my maths GCSE. The exact one, if I recall correctly. I finished it with half an hour to spare and wrote a letter to the examiner on some of the blank space. Got an A. SO THAT SHOULD GIVE YOU THE LEVEL.

Basically, it'd be Basic Maths. I think.

Actually, that's about Pre-Algebra. And that's all I had to pass for standardized tests--but my degree requires me to take a shit ton of math classes.

I think if you went to University for Physics, you'd get exposed to a lot more crazy math in depth. They're prolly mix it up a bit more, but yeah.

However, it's not that simple, because I took A Level Physics which was heavily Maths based. Since I'm now (hoping to be) studying Music Technology, it's surprising how much the work on Hz, harmonics, amplitude, sine maths, etc. has been useful.

See, I'm glad for everything I know from Calculus down, but Linear Algebra only helps me with schoolwork, which isn't necesarily based on any job stuff I'll do (which I never know, at this point I could end up working for any number of things).

I think it was "basic math." I took a grade twelve math I didn't have to. It had a little algebra, calculus, geometry, etc. They didn't specialize in specific subjects until grade thirteen at the time and I skipped those, because the learning curve got a lot steeper then.

I also got away with taking only arts credits in University. That's a long story.

You probably took something similar to Pre-Algebra, then. I forget that different country's education systems don't necessarily break them up.

Actually I'm an English major who's rather fond of math for its general orderliness, even if I didn't do anything with it and I overreact when my math-major girlfriend starts getting technical.

For question 3: Wasn't required for anything, but I took up to AP Calc in high school.

And for question number 4: Other. The course that filled my basic math requirement -- the requirement for liberal arts majors -- was game theory, which I never use.

Game theory is some strange stuff. XD

And most of the time with math and science I notice that it's the vocabulary that gets people. It's the same the other way around, why some of the technically minded have problems with literature is the language involved.

It's one of the blockages. XD Obviously just by my sampling here there's a number of factors.

Once upon a time a girl wished to be a chemist so she took a bunch of math in high school and college all the way up to calculus and statistics. She then discovered one day that she couldn't track the movement of electrons in chemical equations to save her life. Now she reads dusty records on men that have been dead for hundreds of years and uses statistics to make her knowledge look good.

true story that. ... though knowing algebra and pre-calc is helping with my brother's home schooling... pray to gods he never asks me a trig question though.. XD

I hated chem too, thank god I only had to take two semesters of it.

I took calculus twice because even though I took AP calc in high school, I never took the AP test. So I had to take basic calculus in college. It was so much easier the second time around, though. I like never went to class XD

Then I changed my major from computer science to English and never had to take another math class again.

I did the same thing. And then had to repeat math on other classes. Let's see the count here:

Calculus: Took the first semester fine, since it was a repeat of HS, and then failed the second semester because I got cocky. Decided not to be cocky again with math.

Multivariate Calculus (which I didn't put on the list, ha ha whoops): Took twice because I suck.

Linear Algebra: Took once! GOT IT. Made me feel smart.

Diff Eq I: Took three times.

Diff Eq II: Going to be taking it the second time this fall, and it had better be the last.

If I had gone through Catholic confirmation I would have picked TENACITY as my confirmation name, I think. XD

I mean, I didn't *have* to take maths for my degree; my high school required 3 years of maths and I took four because my mother is a pain sometimes (although I adore her) and got up to pre-calc.

In an intellectual sense I understand that math in the form of physics applies to my everyday life. As to what *I* use in my everyday life, basic maths and a bit of algebra and geometry. I've forgotten everything I ever knew about trig and pre-calc. (Except that one time that a girl in my class graphed sine/cosine and instead of having it be the regular serpentine it, uh, kind of looked like tits. In a hilarious way. Oh yeah.)

My degree itself required no maths; I had to take "formal studies" which could be music theory, certain linguistics disciplines, programming, or maths proper and I stuck to linguistics. I'm really good at math, I just blithely ignore it whenever possible because words interest me far more. (To my engineer boyfriend's infinite dismay.)

Well, I count the high school requirements. You had to graduate high school to go to college, ergo, that's your level. But the pre-Calc was the optional part.

I was a math major/comp sci minor, I just got one too many Ds (fuck you, big o) and lost my full scholarship (baww 3.4 gpa not being good enough :/)

so uh. IDK? I LIKE TAKING/LEARNING/DOING MATH? but I never did anything with it, even if I would LIKE to work in a math-related area. lmao no fucking degree, or the time and money to get one.

waiting tables and now retail banking (kissing ass and explaining stuff to people who cant math) really only... deals with math via cash handling. but it pays the bills and is easy to get into.

ps I fucking adore algebra, that's the shizbomb. calculus is fine until you have to actually open a book to understand what's going on. stupid cal 3. I think I got a b in that class. :|

--Oh, if you're trying to figure out how much math people need to graduate high school, I think *here* the math requirements are everything but pre-cal. so, pre-algebra (which is offered in 8th grade also), then algebra (9th or 10th grade, depending on if you took pre-algebra in 8th), geometry... actually, I dont remember if my school offered trig. I want to say pre-algebra 8th grade, algebra 9th, geometry 10th, pre-cal 11th, and calculus in 12th (I was so fucking pissed off that our calculus class didnt prep us for the BC test, only the AB test, for AP). so the first three would be what most kids take in high school to get their diploma, though that may have been on the honors program, idek. pre-cal and cal was optional.

Edited at 2009-07-03 12:29 am (UTC)

Hey, I've got a 2.3 gpa, trust me, I get the whole "too many Ds" thing.

So, what did you want to do with your comp sci degree?

I did take baby trigonometry or so it was called in high school in prep for college where my degree only required algebra which I totally and utter aced to my greatest delight as I had been getting by most of my math classes by the skin of my teeth even though I did well in chemistry which I suppose is weird.

It's not weird. I'm all over physics and science and win like that, but an actual math class and me? Eh... barely.

It's actually quite common, people being able to handle science and chem and physics and all that fun stuff but just skimming by on the actual math.

Oh lordy, I FAIL miserably at Math.

No really. I got a benevolent "C" on my Principles of Mathematics class that I HAD to take in college.

My biggest problem is I was never grounded well in the basics; that and my brain is full of DO NOT WANT when it comes to calculations. Oddly enough I can remember dates and points in history reasonably well, but I cannot add two and two without the aid of fingers/pencil and paper/calculator to save my life. I understood- mostly- what the teacher was trying to drive home, but I would always screw up the calculation.

Mom and I TRIED to do Geometry, but Logic deifies me (or rather, I defy it), and I COULD NOT understand proofs and theorems (probably because to me, they were not true AT ALL, I could never those damn numbers to line up). Mathematics was never the 'concrete' concept to me that it is to some people. I have better luck with grammar. x_x

I get what you mean--slightly--on your comment about how some people have strengths and weaknesses. Though I don't think it's just "some people are bad at math, period". I think some people have more difficulty with abstract thought, particularly at the degree the common use of mathematics requires.

You are obviously a more symbolic-dependent learner; the reason you can probably remember dates and history is that you have a visual cue stored up in your mind for them. My mom is like that, she can remember how to drive anywhere after driving there once because she can visualize it.

The only way that I got multiplication is I had a wonderful 2nd grade teacher who gave us dried beans to use as aids in understanding multiplication.

I was the definition of a failure at math (example: I failed my placement test, but they didn't tell me, so I showed up to class to have the teacher tell me I was too stupid to be there). As luck would have it, my second school also required 6 credits, but they put me into a "math class for people who don't like math," with one of the most understanding and happening teachers I have ever had.

Too often math teachers are math majors that couldn't find anything better to do with their degree, and they lack people skills. I have one friend who was studying to be a math teacher (last I checked XD) but she actually has good people skills. We met because she was going into engineering originally, but her heart just wasn't in it.

I think too often they rely on boring methods simply because they can't think of anything else. When that's silly, a visual aid can be as simple as using dried beans to explain and practice multiplication (which is what my teacher in 2nd grade did, so I wasn't entirely fail at it).

My problem has been mostly in college, as the classes for math tend to be over-crowded, competitive, and taught by graduate students that barely speak English. THEY get what's going on with the math, so they expect a couple simple examples and then homework that's an extrapolation of said examples will make sense. Drives me batty.

Yeah...I only remember the maths I need to play with squishy parts of the human body and dole out drugs. ^_^

I took Calc in high school, which ya know, and the only other math classes I will need for grad school are statistics and possibly finite math. Possibly.

Just decided to also take physics in case I start to get a research bent as I go and, pfft, no I have not told ANYONE about this yet, it's our secret, thanks.

Chemistry. Yes. Looking forward to it, but with trepidation. 0.o

Addendum #1: For "maximum level of math", I entered Diff Eq II, because that's the "highest level" required by the degree. I have also taken Discrete Math and an entire semester on Statistics and Probability; and Vector Calc and Complex Analysis are pretty obvious parts of engineering you can't go too far without, but as they were part of another class or another math course, I did not select those. If you mean those math classes to be "ranked", as in the latter ones are "higher", I'll change my vote to reflect this. I see Drak selected the last one and I highly doubt she's taken more math (yet) than I have! (though she'll get there) ;)

Addendum #2: I'm a terrible person for this quiz because I love math. I love math, I always have, and it makes sense to me; I loved Diff-EQ in school, and I always wished there’d be more math in things. The worst problems I’ve had with math have been personal (a semester’s fight with depression led me to a B and my roommate to a C in a class we should have aced) or professor-based (there are shit professors everywhere!) so again I’m not entirely sure I am not a pro-math biased judge.

Then again, I work on the research/theory side of things here, and there isn’t a ton of use for math-by-hand. You do need to understand the underlying differential equations to run a reactor, honestly!, but it’s not like I’m applying Diff-EQ every day. I’m entering numbers into a spreadsheet. Frankly, most of the times I’ve used hard-core math since graduation have been… well, grad school.

More once I read all these fascinating comments!

The thing with math is, it’s one of those subjects that’s around us all the time but isn’t entirely emphasized. I mean, courses tell engineers and scientists over and over again, “You have to take English 101, and you have to take technical writing! You must take some lib arts too! It’s important for you to know how to read and write!”, but I am unsure the same emphasis is made on our artists and writers understanding basic maths (although by many of the comments, maybe it is). It’s like everything; chemists hate wasting their time on Shakespeare when they could be in the lab, and music majors hate wasting their time on algebra when they could be practicing. Everyone has their own area of interest, and things outside that interest get the stick.

But how many people do I see nowadays who can’t balance their own damn budget? That’s not magic math – it’s basic math. Or calculating a car payment. Or working with interest rates. These are the things that should be approached in “general math” – math for non-science and non-technical degrees. It’s more Accounting than anything (oh yeah, I took Accounting and Business Finance, too, which are brand new kinds of maths if you want to add those to your list of Math Courses), but it’s definitely more applicable and more relevant to daily life than, say, calculus.

The math I took in high school was taught by great teachers (seriously, some of the most AMAZING teachers I’ve had were at my high school). The math I had in college was hit-and-miss, like all courses. Saying “math sucks because the profs are bad” – does it really attract profs that are any worse than any other discipline?? I have had shit teachers everywhere, from my very technical chem lab riiiiiiiiight on down to my photography minor.

A lot of people fear math because they don’t understand it to a deep or technical point, and thus they focus on how “useless” it is or how much they “don’t need it in my life” or whatever it ends up being. I think what I’d like to see more often is the general message: that’s okay. I mean, there are many things I can’t wrap my own head around (think philosophy, sociology issues, political issues, for example – I’m naming things you can get a degree in, and referring to them in the sense of understanding a study of them like you would for a degree, not an understanding of simple basic concepts) and I don’t necessarily feel the need to constantly hate on or insult or demean the usefulness of any one of those just because a debate of ancient philosophical differences isn’t my intellectual forte. (We can, of course, debate the need for math and science vs the need for philosophy, sociology, politics as a society, as long and as fervently as we’d like, but that isn’t the issue I mean to discuss at all.)

YEAH COMMENT LIMIT

In the end… I guess I do agree that math could take a turn for the “more applicable”. But! It’s sort of difficult to teach math with applications sometimes, because math JUST IS. It’s just equations and laws and a set of rules that work: there is no “why” they work, they work because math is the kind of tool that works. It’s like saying “Why does my wrench work on this bolt?” The answer is, unfortunately, because it’s a wrench and that’s what it does. You can go on about how the wrench is the right size for the bolt and how applying the force in this way creates torque by the laws of physics, but in the end, the wrench works because it is a tool designed to “wrench”. Laws of math are like that; they’re tools, to be applied as such.

One thing I do think would help people would be to integrate math with other subjects; this would almost instantly create “applications” that people could see and understand. The difficulty is, of course, separating the math from the applications to have a broader curriculum; arts majors aren’t going to want to see math in physics any more than they’re going to want to see plain old math. However, why not focus on finances? Basic accounting – interest rates, investing, depreciation: these things all involved some algebra! They all involved problem solving! How about frequencies, wavelengths, things that play into both art (light, color) and music (notes, tuning)? Programmers need their own kind of math, and lots of art majors work with computers, too. There could be ways to make these things more applicable to people who don’t need the hard-core math.

And those who do – you could integrate it into their programs as well. For example, my diff-EQ could have been taught alongside with the chemical reaction differential equations I was solving and plotting and adjusting for an entire semester’s class.

The biggest problem with a system like that is that it involves *work*. More specialized math-teaching means a more specialized math program overall, which means more specialized teachers who can change and cater their teaching to whatever mix of students they have this year. Which means 2010 students may not learn exactly what 2009 students learn. Which might not be a bad thing, but based on the way colleges and universities earn their teaching credentials, it’s not very likely.

sorry, long ramble. I'll try to stop now. XD

It's ok, I was hoping you'd get through this.

First off: I started this little poll to help me with research for work, which I'm actually getting a feel for things that will teach pre-algebra to kids. I know you're like OMG COLLEGE and all that, but really, I know college is fucked up. XD

Second off: Some schools do integrated units on the junior high level. Mine did. In fact, we had a choice between the more traditional block of classes or the integrated unit. Which was pretty cool, except the math was probably the least integrated, because math teachers (on a non-college level) tend to be just good enough at math they can show someone how to do, say, pre-algebra as long as it's in their specific way of thinking about it.

Mind you, I'm talking basic public schools. Personally, I couldn't give a damn what private and magnate schools are doing, they're not available to everyone and are kind of useless then, imo.

Third: Math may be just is but I have never gotten it through someone droning on about laws and theorems. And I am an engineer. XD I think half the reason I did fairly well in Linear Algebra is I took it in conjunction with basic dynamic systems at the same time (learning matrix rotations in the context and the theory at the same time). I mean, you are biased. Not that that's a problem at all, but it's true. You're an abstract research-based engineer, I'd be quite fine working with the old school Gemini Program cowboys.

And your wrench analogy doesn't work because you still a combination of example, explanation, usage to get how to use one. I mean, think about if you're a kid and told to use a wrench. Wrenches look WEIRD. XD It's not the "why does a wrench work" that is the problem with math and most people, it's "how do I use this to get the job done?" that actually tends to be glossed over. I can think of about 70% of my math classes are some dude at the board going over the why---fiddling around at a chalkboard with some proof someone a thousand years ago came up with--and then in the last five minutes cram in an example.

You don't get tested on the why, you get tested on the how. How the fuck do you get the how if you're only given one example and expected to extrapolate from there? It's like someone spent the whole time talking about how it's a wrench because it's got the fiddly bits and in 1786 some dude realized that if you open it really wide it looks like a mouth.

Fourth: Yes, I think more people should learn math in relation to finances, regardless of their goal in life because everyone uses money. I'd rather see a kid not have to take Calculus and take finances, personally.

High school math is definitely a different beast. Let me think back that 10-14 years ago (holy fuck, you guys, I am old) and see what I remember. In our HS, a lot of math was required, probably up at least to Junior year. The freshman and soph courses were split up somehow I can’t quite remember; I think it was like algebra and geometry and proofs? And then you could take Pre-Calc and Calc, or Pre-Calc and AP Calc, or you could just take Pre-Calc and take something else senior year if you weren’t a math person.

The thing is, talking about within a high school level, it would be pretty easy to integrate maths with other stuff, actually! High schools often only offer a few different courses or options within the HS curriculum, so you’d have a lot less specializing required for teachers and tests. And a lot of high schools already integrate stuff. Back when I was a freshman and soph, we did a trial of two joined periods, combining our “social studies” with our “English” into a joint multi-cultural world-and-world-literature thing. And that was in 1996 -- it was new back then; I’m sure plenty of other places and programs have gone on since then!

In that case it would be fairly easy to create an integrated math-science program, and possibly a math-other integrated program (most high schools don't really go into accounting, or economics, or computer programming, as far as I know, although again, it’s been a long time since I was there).

As for “wrenching” I think we both agree – it isn’t necessarily the “what makes a wrench a wrench” that’s important: people need to know how it works to get that damn bolt out of your wall. And yes, if basic math tools aren’t being explained in that way, there’s no way you’re going to get it! Again, I think what I’m saying agrees with you: the theory of “what’s behind math” isn’t important to being actually able to use math. I think the point YOU’RE making is that often teachers focus on the theory rather than telling you how to use the tools, and yes, that’s pretty much worthless overall to EVERYONE involved.

Like I said, focusing on “Why does my wrench work on this bolt” isn’t the right question for people to be asking, and it isn’t the right question for teachers to be answering, really.

I think any class where a teacher (or professor) drawls on about laws and theorems is likely to lose people. It’s the same in libarts, too – if one professor simply talks about the rules of English language and grammar, and another puts some examples on the board and diagrams a sentence, which are you more likely to learn from? It’s a basic flaw in teaching style, if you (general you XD) think simply outlining a list of rules is going to be sufficient; most people learn very easily from example, as long as you make it clear that the examples are not the ONLY examples. You need examples, but you also need to be able to use the examples to apply the rules in a more general sense, because we can’t be taught every single example, whether it’s English OR Math.

Fifth: I think they really start fucking up in math in Junior High.

Elementary school math tends to actually be pretty friendly from what I've seen. And most people can add and multiply and all that, provided they've been drilled properly. Do I think even in elementary school they could do more bean-counting, so to speak? Yeah. Some things require half steps.

But really, what I've been finding is that it's Pre-Algebra that tends to encourage or discourage a kid towards or away from tech and science. I was pretty good at Pre-Algebra, but I actually spent a lot of time working at it comparison to my other classes. And I still managed a C in Trig later. I mean, that's just a little perspective I-got-depressed-and-got-B. I got depressed and got kicked out for a semester.

And some things are fixed by practice and repetition, but if you're not practicing and repeating the RIGHT WAY you're going to suck. This is why the whole "well just study more" thing pisses me off so badly.

But in junior high, this is when they have the golden opportunity to really show kids how it works. And standardized testing is a level or two behind what most kids are actually learning in their classes. Most standardized tests are just basic math with mixes geometry and the like.

Really, going an extra bit of time and actually working relevant examples would probably help so many that were confused before it isn't even funny.

Sixth: Not emphasized? Do you see how many of these people in this poll alone went past what was required? Most kids that want to go to college in this state have to take up to Calculus, and very few of them will ever really need it. No, I think it's emphasized in the wrong way, just like making engineers take Eng 101: Eng 101 is a terrible class. It's full of people that don't want to be there, both teachers and students. It involves no "technical writing".

Do I believe everyone should take classes outside their majors? Yes! But what are we going to accomplish forcing them into the dregs of other majors? Why not ACTUALLY have them take technical writing? Because if they got into college, they had to have already learned how to write on a basic level. And being taught to use the language they're going to be accustomed to--technical--might actually make them hate the subject less and WANT to go read Shakespeare.

It's like how taking History of Aviation got me so into history I minored in it (when I hated history before then, because it was so boring before then). You don't want to bore them to death and get them to hate the subject right off the bat!

Same can be said for the flipside. You're taking someone that isn't confident in a subject and making them take it to an abstract level and sort of shuffling them into a major that they may or may not love. Most basic non-technical aimed math classes for kids that just need to take a requirement are AWFUL.

Why further the divide between the arts and sciences? They are the same thing fundamentally, use the same practices, and hell, even use similar parts of the brain.

Probably because we do create artificial boundaries of subject matter with classes. Or because it takes work. Hell, I don't get it, that's for sure.

Seventh(ha): But we can all agree that by hand calculations are recockulous. You should have a basic knowledge, but I'm damned sick of being penalized for just not writing down the right number and fucking up my whole equation. Even my crap professor told us to use matlab for a lot of calculations, and I wrote an interpolation program for thermo. That's just the problem of the technology divide that's going on and older people not wanting to admit they're not quite getting something that they should.

Okay, so my original answer to this turned into a rant on arts and sciences I'm not really sure I'm ready to post in public, so I'm going to sit on it for a while and instead answer something else interesting here:

TECHNOLOGY.

Is it just me, or is there a huge gap between the technology we have and the way we teach it? I mean, why do we even NEED to memorize things anymore (past, say, middle school, when rote memorization is still used as a learning tool for our brains)? We have textbooks, we have phones and Google and the internet and we actually have publications at our fingertips: why am I still expected to memorize equations? Or chemical formulas? Why do I need to be able to draw the monomer unit of polymethyl methacrylate ON DEMAND?

In terms of math, too: the TI-89 does algebra, diff-EQ, graphing, multiple non-linear equation solving -- and I had one in 1999. They've been around for a while and I am sure calculators have only gotten better. Maybe classes need to start focusing more on using the tools we have at hand? Another example: EXCEL. if you ask what kind of math we do here at work, everyone's first answer would probably be Excel. Which sounds lame, until you think: that's linear algebra (with cell references)! Sometimes it's Solver! There's a lot of math and understanding involved there.

There's a huge area of opportunity there that people just don't seem to be taking advantage of. And no, you don't want a generation of kids who don't know how to do math other than with the calculator in their hand -- but why not teach both?

I think the gap exists due to some things:

1. Funding. Public schools don't want to commit to too many techie shinies because they cost money and get worn out and all that. But that's less becoming an excuse because of the ubiquity and low cost of some things, like a calculator.

2. There is a gap between the comfort of the teachers with technology and the comfort of the students. Some teachers will spend the extra time to keep up, and others won't. Personally, the best ones were the kind that kept up and changed their curriculum every year and the bad ones were easy to cheat in because they used the same damn test and homeworks every. single. year.

But a lot of it is pride. Does the teacher admit when they don't know something or do they remove the possibility? I think that we're reaching a point where technology integration is NECESSARY and I will start my own damn school if I have to in order for that to happen.

3. Things becoming obsolete. Schools are hesitant to buy into some things because, ah, they might suddenly go obsolete. I can understand that worry, a little, but some things (like SPREADSHEETS) will be around forever and it's merely a difference in buttons and whistles over the years. Plus, if a school doesn't wnat to fork up the money to buy like say, a huge license for Excel there's things like Open Office that are open source and FREE.

But that would require them to pay attention. So who knows.

My theory about problem with mathematics is that we make our math pyramid wrong. Instead of having calculus as the pinnacle of our math education, I think that statistics should be taught. Calculus and algebra are useful for people like researchers and engineers, but a basic understanding of simple statistics would be far more useful for the average person (tracking poles with a plus-or-minus 5%, anybody?). Besides, it's a little shocking how many scientists and engineers might be able to play with models and build things but they just don't understand statistics! And stats are mathematics-for-daily-life. If we focused on stats rather than calculus, maybe people would be more interested in mathematics because they'd seem more practical and applicable to them!

/end rant.

-T. pirate