Re: Paul Lockhart's book reviewed in the L.A. Times!

From: tschibasch <tschibasch_at_yahoo.com_at_hypermail.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 02:08:18 -0000

Over my years of tutoring I have been struck by the number of people who inform me they are no good at math. I almost always discover that they could not grasp the horrors of "practical math" taught in our schools.

How sad that so many otherwise intelligent people are convinced they have this intellectual deficit. (Though on the upside, this does benefit tutors in need of money.)

People who went into mathematics and stuck with it and later entered technical fields should be commended.


John


--- In OliveStarlightOrchestra_at_yahoogroups.com, "barkofdelight" <barkofdelight@...> wrote:
>
> --- Rin wrote:
>
> > On the one hand, I disapprove of math (having been traumatized by just such teachers throughout my education,....
>
> One of Paul's points throughout the book is that what you
> learned in school was really not "Math" but some strange
> made-up subject *claiming* to be useful but really is not:
>
> How many people actually use any of this "practical math"
> they supposedly learn in school? Do you think carpenters
> are out there using trigonometry? How many adults remember how
> to divide fractions, or solve a quadratic equation? Obviously
> the current practical training program isn't working, and for
> good reason: it is excruciatingly boring, and nobody ever uses
> it anyway. So why do people think it's so important?
>
> Real Math, says PL (& I agree), is about reasoning and
> deduction, curiosity and creativity, not rote:
>
> In fact, if I had to design a mechanism for the express
> purpose of destroying a child's natural curiosity and love
> of pattern-making, I couldn't possibly do as good a job
> as is currently being done— I simply wouldn't have the
> imagination to come up with the kind of senseless, soul-
> crushing ideas that constitute contemporary mathematics
> education.
>
> One analogy I use is this: Suppose you discovered that the
> "English" classes taught today were entirely spelling and
> grammar. Suppose they contained no reading of books or poetry.
> Further suppose that students were not exposed to a library
> or had any knowledge of any great writer. What would be your
> reaction when they said to you, "Literature? Yuuck! A bunch
> of memorization and drills and crap."?
>
> [Paul uses similar analogies in Music and Painting.]
>
> Bark!
>
Received on 2009-04-15 19:08:23