# Would US Education Be Better If We Replaced Algebra Requirements With Stats & Logic?

### from the *reshuffling* dept

By now you may have heard about the NY Times article from over the weekend in which political science professor Andrew Hacker makes the somewhat contrarian suggestion that the US education system would function much better if we ditched algebra requirements. The whole article is worth reading, but the basic gist of it is that many people who end up dropping out of school do so in part because of trouble they have in getting past basic algebra. It's a key stumbling block.
I will admit that my initial reaction to this article was to scoff and think that it's ridiculous. Understanding basic algebra, to me, seems fundamental to understand a variety of other important things -- including some forms of logic and statistics. So, I wondered how dropping algebra as a requirement might make those already lacking fields even worse.California's two university systems, for instance, consider applications only from students who have taken three years of mathematics and in that way exclude many applicants who might excel in fields like art or history. Community college students face an equally prohibitive mathematics wall. A study of two-year schools found that fewer than a quarter of their entrants passed the algebra classes they were required to take.

"There are students taking these courses three, four, five times," says Barbara Bonham of Appalachian State University. While some ultimately pass, she adds, "many drop out."

Another dropout statistic should cause equal chagrin. Of all who embark on higher education, only 58 percent end up with bachelor's degrees. The main impediment to graduation: freshman math. The City University of New York, where I have taught since 1971, found that 57 percent of its students didn't pass its mandated algebra course. The depressing conclusion of a faculty report: "failing math at all levels affects retention more than any other academic factor." A national sample of transcripts found mathematics had twice as many F's and D's compared as other subjects.

However, Hacker's piece actually suggests something of a solution: potentially replacing algebra

*with a form of statistics*, which is rarely a required course.

I will admit to being unsure how such a class will workInstead of investing so much of our academic energy in a subject that blocks further attainment for much of our population, I propose that we start thinking about alternatives. Thus mathematics teachers at every level could create exciting courses in what I call "citizen statistics." This would not be a backdoor version of algebra, as in the Advanced Placement syllabus. Nor would it focus on equations used by scholars when they write for one another. Instead, it would familiarize students with the kinds of numbers that describe and delineate our personal and public lives.

It could, for example, teach students how the Consumer Price Index is computed, what is included and how each item in the index is weighted - and include discussion about which items should be included and what weights they should be given.

*without*a basic underpinning in algebra. However,

*conceptually*, what Hacker is saying makes sense. Focusing on the formulaic side of algebra isn't particularly practical for many people. I could see how classes that focus on practical mathematical skills around statistics

*and*logic, could actually be a lot more useful. And while he says these don't need to be "backdoor" algebra classes, I'm not so sure that's a bad thing. Having people understand the basics of algebra by putting them in realistic situations they understand, and showing how to apply such things in a useful manner doesn't seem like such a bad idea...

Filed Under: algebra, drop outs, education, logic, math, statistics

## Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Josh in CharlotteNC(profile),1 Aug 2012 @ 9:30am## Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Real world skills

The fossil record does not show any missing links. Every time a new fossil is found, it is deemed a new species. We do not have one species as it "evolved" over time. If we do, please cite it for me.This statement makes it clear that you fundamentally misunderstand evolution.

Of course the fossil record does not show "missing links" - which you still have not given a definition of. The fossil record shows individual snapshots at a certain time. Think of them as a single frame of a movie - one frame will not show movement, but put them all together and the movement is quite clear.

You seem hung up on an arbitrary label of a species. It is exactly that, and arbitrary label. What we have are constant lines of descedents that branch out from a single organism. Hominids did not evolve from chimpanzees - both chimpanzees and hominids descended from a common ancestor (somewhere between 5 and 7 million years ago).

We age rock layers by the fossils found in them and we age fossils by the rock layer they were found in. Pretty circular logic.Keep on showing your ignorance. Please look up radiometric dating (that is, dating using radioactive isotopes). This is well understood, verifiable physics. Here's a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating - Now, once you have identified fossils between layers that have been dated, you can make inferences as to the age of those fossils, and you may be able to use those same fossils elsewhere to confirm other rock layers. But there is no circular logic here.

Now, you spent a lot of time arguing against fossil evidence. Would you care to try arguing against any of the other lines of evidence supporting evolution, which in and of themselves would be all the proof we needed even without fossils?

## Add Your Comment