I absolutely love this statement from Cohen:
You will never need to know algebra. I have never once used it and never once even rued that I could not use it.
It takes a certain measure of hubris to assume that anything that you don't know is inherently worthless. I can think of no end of things that I don't know, but that I'm glad someone does. I can do nothing more mechanically sophisticated than change the windshield wipers on my car, but I'm awfully glad that my mechanic can. I can't drill a tooth, and have no desire to learn, but I don't think I'd tell a high school student that it's a useless skill. I can't perform brain surgery, don't have the courage to be a cop or a fire fighter, and have no interest in accounting, but I think that Mr. Cohen would agree that the people who do these things have a certain benefit to society.
Another gem:
Writing is the highest form of reasoning. This is a fact. Algebra is not. The proof of this, Gabriela, is all the people in my high school who were whizzes at math but did not know a thing about history and could not write a readable English sentence.
I can't quite understand how a person who makes his living at the "highest form of reasoning" can be quite so unclear on what a "fact" is. It could just be me, but that looks an awful lot like an "opinion." And just how does the existence of people who can do algebra but who cannot write well "prove" that writing is somehow more important? If I am reading it right, his reasoning seems to be something like: "Some people can do algebra but can't write. Therefore, writing is harder. Therefore, it's a higher form of reasoning." This is particularly puzzling since Cohen sets himself up as an example of a person who can read and write well but not do algebra. So isn't he equal evidence that math is the "highest form of reasoning"?
I know, I'm a math teacher, and therefore Cohen can dismiss me as a partisan. Unlike him, I haven't the mental capacity or the intestinal fortitude to make a living at the highest form of reasoning, so I have to content myself with torturing students with word problems about people mowing the lawn.
The thing is, I sort of assume that one of the values of educating people is to expose them to new ideas. I sometimes have this argument with members of the faculty at my own University who argue that our math requirement is too stringent. "How would you like it," they say, "if we required your students to take more humanities courses?" My answer is, "Great idea!" I think math majors should learn to write and to speak, and should learn a broad variety of types of knowledge. I no more want them to graduate with exposure to only math and science than I want the English and Art majors to graduate with no such exposure. Cohen's friend Shelly who can't find the Gobi desert appals me just as much as Gabriella, who presumably has intellectual talents, but can't pass algebra.
I think that there is an argument to be made for requiring less math of some students. Here in Wisconsin, our governor has suggested a minimum requirement of three years of math for graduation from high school. Quite frankly, my department has some concerns about this requirement. We certainly don't want it to lead to a dumbing down of the curriculum to reach the poorest students, which thereby sends the best students on to college with even less of the required knowledge. I think that one could argue that it is not in Gabriella's best interest to keep her from graduating from high school based on this requirement. But if there's such an argument to be made, Cohen sure hasn't made it.
technorati tag: teaching-carnival
0 comments:
Post a Comment