There seems to be a tacit assumption in these discussions that the Xth percentile curves in all of these different subjects all represent the same people, but that isn't necessarily the case [*]. Surely some of what we are seeing is a result of specialization; students decide they like some subjects and not others, and for the ones they don't like they do the minimum they have to to get by. Those students will contribute to the "didn't learn anything" line in their disfavored subjects, even if they contribute to the "got something out of it" line in other subjects. I don't really see a problem with that.
[*] This mistake of interpretation happens all the time, especially in research comparing distributions over time. It's always worth reminding yourself that the people who make up, say the 3rd quartile, of a distribution in 2010 aren't necessarily the same people who make up that quartile in 2020.
Yeah, and it's even more of a problem when you bring in the reading scores, which show the same pattern. But, of course, a student with a 75th percentile reading score isn't necessarily also in the 75th percentile in math-- they could be higher, or could be lower. Which is mostly a question of taste: do they enjoy math more than reading, or vice versa?
I'd say put some of those "wasted" years into understanding statistics and probability, enough to understand media IF media presentations were not specious nad to understnd that they are specious when they are.
That. In France, compared to 30 years ago, they've increased the stats/probas content of high school maths. But they need to switch more time (who needs trigonometry in high school?!) to it so as to achieve reasonable media understanding/broader statistic literacy.
Well, beyond people going into the STEM fields you might expect, people going into metalworking or carpentry, people going into surveying, people going into boat piloting. Lots of reasons people might benefit from learning at least the basics of trigonometry in high school. And then there's the idea that there is value in knowledge and learning beyond just what is "necessary".
And I'd ask, what level of "statistic literacy" do you hope to achieve, and how will that be of value? Is it possible that we end up in a place where we have a lot of people who *think* they understand things, and are thus confidently wrong? I see on social media discussions of science ALL THE TIME where people say, "Oh, that sample size is too small, that's not a valid study," and that comes from some basic familiarity with statistics, probably what you'd expect from someone who's taken a high school class in it.
Hmm, I think we want kids to be doing something useful (for themselves) during the 15-18 year old span. We don’t want them to be spending those fairly prime years killing time in school not learning much and socializing at lunch. And there’s a reason many countries public education ends in 9th, 10th or 11th grades. Which all of these graphs support IMO. And doing apprenticeship or technical school or even a minimum wage job till you figure out what you want can all be fine choices. But Americans flinch at the idea that someone else gets to decide that a kid is “not University material” at 16 years old. And me too actually, but I think we can happily address this by just having later on ramps young adults (or just adults) can access through community colleges or even directly to University. Some kids with the intellectual ability don’t find motivation till they’re 20 and they should still be able to become lawyers or doctors but we don’t need to inflict three extra years of high school on everyone to achieve this. However today not graduating high school is a predictor of a host of poor life outcomes in America. Even for those for whom college was never in the cards. Is it the piece of paper or something else? I do think the obvious outcome we want is that everyone can write a decent, clear email/letter and to read and understand government letter to them and yes understand percentages because they will have trouble living a decent life without those skills.
The question is - can a great number of kids do something more useful than HS during the 15-18 yo period? And maybe... could we more narrowly tailor the curriculum, to reflect that not that many people need advanced maths/physics/biology skills but do need, say, more statistics/probabilities and maybe other things like media literacy or financial literacy or even social skills?
Right now, social skills are acquired by teenagers in a fairly haphazard manner. Either you're socially competent enough to "get it" or you end up a nerd, a geek, a dork or a goth. But things like the PUA community (and its various softer proponents on social skills/charisma training like improv' theater) prove that social skills can be taught to at least the vast majority of nerds to a decent standard. And that would serve them better than some extra geometry unless they specifically want to work in STEMs.
On children of academics becoming academics, you might aim for an odds ratio similar to that for the population at large, which is that people whose parents are in a given trade or profession are about 10 times more likely than others to be in the same trade or profession (much higher numbers for doctors, farmers and plumbers from what I can tell). The standard figure is that academics are 25 times more likely to have a parent with a PhD. On the guess that half of PhD grads become academics, that suggests that the odds ratio is fairly typical
I've wondered about that general population odds ratio before, but never been able to find a good number for it with the low level of effort I've been willing to put into searching for it. You never see it cited, but the "25 times more likely to have a parent with a Ph.D." factoid comes up all the time...
I don't know that we necessarily need to stop teaching--or even specifically stop teaching math--to the lowwr-performers. This may just be a sign that tracking should be better. Give the lower-performers slower paced (possibly more practice-oriented) courses that end at a less difficult point in that subject's curriculum, and give the higher performers faster paced courses that go farther. Let the non-math-inclined learn the math of geometry and statistics that is most likely to actually impact their lives. Let the mathy students get past calculus. Let the non-wordy ones have courses that involve more reading for pleasure and writing for business emails, resumes, etc.
A lot of teens would benefit more from a shop class than precalculus, but some people treat academic success as a moral good and look at teaching practical subjects as 'abandoning' certain children.
Got me. to thinking about how one teacher can fuck up a mind. One teacher taught me in the 1st grade to sit down and shut up. I was doing that when she pulled a student sitting across from me out of his seat and gave him a whack. I have no memory of what he did or said. The experience made me an observer instead of an actor. I was the child of two college educated teachers. I have two degrees in mechanical engineering.
There seems to be a tacit assumption in these discussions that the Xth percentile curves in all of these different subjects all represent the same people, but that isn't necessarily the case [*]. Surely some of what we are seeing is a result of specialization; students decide they like some subjects and not others, and for the ones they don't like they do the minimum they have to to get by. Those students will contribute to the "didn't learn anything" line in their disfavored subjects, even if they contribute to the "got something out of it" line in other subjects. I don't really see a problem with that.
[*] This mistake of interpretation happens all the time, especially in research comparing distributions over time. It's always worth reminding yourself that the people who make up, say the 3rd quartile, of a distribution in 2010 aren't necessarily the same people who make up that quartile in 2020.
Yeah, and it's even more of a problem when you bring in the reading scores, which show the same pattern. But, of course, a student with a 75th percentile reading score isn't necessarily also in the 75th percentile in math-- they could be higher, or could be lower. Which is mostly a question of taste: do they enjoy math more than reading, or vice versa?
I was just typing out this same point
I'd say put some of those "wasted" years into understanding statistics and probability, enough to understand media IF media presentations were not specious nad to understnd that they are specious when they are.
That. In France, compared to 30 years ago, they've increased the stats/probas content of high school maths. But they need to switch more time (who needs trigonometry in high school?!) to it so as to achieve reasonable media understanding/broader statistic literacy.
> who needs trigonometry in high school?!
Well, beyond people going into the STEM fields you might expect, people going into metalworking or carpentry, people going into surveying, people going into boat piloting. Lots of reasons people might benefit from learning at least the basics of trigonometry in high school. And then there's the idea that there is value in knowledge and learning beyond just what is "necessary".
And I'd ask, what level of "statistic literacy" do you hope to achieve, and how will that be of value? Is it possible that we end up in a place where we have a lot of people who *think* they understand things, and are thus confidently wrong? I see on social media discussions of science ALL THE TIME where people say, "Oh, that sample size is too small, that's not a valid study," and that comes from some basic familiarity with statistics, probably what you'd expect from someone who's taken a high school class in it.
Hmm, I think we want kids to be doing something useful (for themselves) during the 15-18 year old span. We don’t want them to be spending those fairly prime years killing time in school not learning much and socializing at lunch. And there’s a reason many countries public education ends in 9th, 10th or 11th grades. Which all of these graphs support IMO. And doing apprenticeship or technical school or even a minimum wage job till you figure out what you want can all be fine choices. But Americans flinch at the idea that someone else gets to decide that a kid is “not University material” at 16 years old. And me too actually, but I think we can happily address this by just having later on ramps young adults (or just adults) can access through community colleges or even directly to University. Some kids with the intellectual ability don’t find motivation till they’re 20 and they should still be able to become lawyers or doctors but we don’t need to inflict three extra years of high school on everyone to achieve this. However today not graduating high school is a predictor of a host of poor life outcomes in America. Even for those for whom college was never in the cards. Is it the piece of paper or something else? I do think the obvious outcome we want is that everyone can write a decent, clear email/letter and to read and understand government letter to them and yes understand percentages because they will have trouble living a decent life without those skills.
And that.
The question is - can a great number of kids do something more useful than HS during the 15-18 yo period? And maybe... could we more narrowly tailor the curriculum, to reflect that not that many people need advanced maths/physics/biology skills but do need, say, more statistics/probabilities and maybe other things like media literacy or financial literacy or even social skills?
Right now, social skills are acquired by teenagers in a fairly haphazard manner. Either you're socially competent enough to "get it" or you end up a nerd, a geek, a dork or a goth. But things like the PUA community (and its various softer proponents on social skills/charisma training like improv' theater) prove that social skills can be taught to at least the vast majority of nerds to a decent standard. And that would serve them better than some extra geometry unless they specifically want to work in STEMs.
On children of academics becoming academics, you might aim for an odds ratio similar to that for the population at large, which is that people whose parents are in a given trade or profession are about 10 times more likely than others to be in the same trade or profession (much higher numbers for doctors, farmers and plumbers from what I can tell). The standard figure is that academics are 25 times more likely to have a parent with a PhD. On the guess that half of PhD grads become academics, that suggests that the odds ratio is fairly typical
I've wondered about that general population odds ratio before, but never been able to find a good number for it with the low level of effort I've been willing to put into searching for it. You never see it cited, but the "25 times more likely to have a parent with a Ph.D." factoid comes up all the time...
Here's the link I found https://qz.com/1030000/the-20-jobs-americans-are-most-likely-to-follow-their-parents-into
I don't know that we necessarily need to stop teaching--or even specifically stop teaching math--to the lowwr-performers. This may just be a sign that tracking should be better. Give the lower-performers slower paced (possibly more practice-oriented) courses that end at a less difficult point in that subject's curriculum, and give the higher performers faster paced courses that go farther. Let the non-math-inclined learn the math of geometry and statistics that is most likely to actually impact their lives. Let the mathy students get past calculus. Let the non-wordy ones have courses that involve more reading for pleasure and writing for business emails, resumes, etc.
A lot of teens would benefit more from a shop class than precalculus, but some people treat academic success as a moral good and look at teaching practical subjects as 'abandoning' certain children.
Got me. to thinking about how one teacher can fuck up a mind. One teacher taught me in the 1st grade to sit down and shut up. I was doing that when she pulled a student sitting across from me out of his seat and gave him a whack. I have no memory of what he did or said. The experience made me an observer instead of an actor. I was the child of two college educated teachers. I have two degrees in mechanical engineering.
Someday, we'll be in a better world, where you will be the Education Czar, or at least a senior advisor thereto.