Re:California's math overhaul focuses on equity
by eesmith on Wednesday June 02, 2021 @04:33AM
(#27366326)
> Teaching Bayesian stats at the undergrad level is a big novelty
That was taught in my undergrad stats class in 1991. I still remember one of the examples was about using the true/false positive/negative rates in AIDS testing to estimate that if someone tests positive for AIDS, do they likely have AIDS?
> The statistics which is currently taught in HS is no more respected than an AP CS course.
I fail to understand the relevance of this point. You like HS calc but not HS stats, and colleges like neither?
> The undergraduate intro course to statistics
Except we're talking about HS math pedagogy, not college. HS English classes are also taught rather different than college English classes. Plus, HS classes are mostly taught by teachers trained in pedagogy, while most college ones are not.
I still can't believe how my grad school dropped wet-behind-the-ears grad students like me into TA'ing courses, and making up our own quizzes for students, without any real guidance on how to teach or make tests.
You make broad assertions about soul killing. I point to existing HS classes in statistics. Are you really saying that those courses are soul killing? On what basis do you make your strong assertion?
> especially when there's a stratum of HS infrastructure which can deliver results that colleges are willing to trust
You just said that the calculus courses are no more trusted than the statistics courses. You can't have both ways.
> This isn't true for stats.
Where is your evidence?
Your pedagogical views:
(1) is a matter of cultural change. If people believe statistics education is important - which it is - then there's a new bridge. Just like how Euclid's Elements was once that cultural bridge, replaced by a focus on calculus. Now the emphasis is that focusing on a single bridge is wrong as it dissuades students interested in other bridges.
(2) assumes nearly everyone will go to college. For those who don't go to college, will statistics training be a better education than calculus? Indeed, part of the complaint is that this pedagogical emphasis on calculus overly biases education towards a specific type of college-track student - those with money, or those not afraid of taking on possibly life-crippling debt
Based on my experience some 30 years after college, I think there should have been more statistics training in my education and less calculus.
(3) I pointed you to various resources which, to my mind, demonstrate that the goal is indeed the development of mental machinery. You have only continued to repeat your assertions, not provide evidence.
I took a college course in Linear Algebra. I have not needed to compute an eigenvalue in nearly 30 years, and rarely do I need matrix multiplication for my work. I need to know statistics much more often than that.
How would learning the basics of linear algebra for most people (medical doctor, social worker, plumber, lawyer, fire fighter, or news reporter, mechanic, office manager, etc.) be better than learning the basics of statistics? Surely these are all people who need the mental machinery to understand if evidence is credible and to make predictive models.
That was taught in my undergrad stats class in 1991. I still remember one of the examples was about using the true/false positive/negative rates in AIDS testing to estimate that if someone tests positive for AIDS, do they likely have AIDS?
> The statistics which is currently taught in HS is no more respected than an AP CS course.
I fail to understand the relevance of this point. You like HS calc but not HS stats, and colleges like neither?
> The undergraduate intro course to statistics
Except we're talking about HS math pedagogy, not college. HS English classes are also taught rather different than college English classes. Plus, HS classes are mostly taught by teachers trained in pedagogy, while most college ones are not.
I still can't believe how my grad school dropped wet-behind-the-ears grad students like me into TA'ing courses, and making up our own quizzes for students, without any real guidance on how to teach or make tests.
You make broad assertions about soul killing. I point to existing HS classes in statistics. Are you really saying that those courses are soul killing? On what basis do you make your strong assertion?
> especially when there's a stratum of HS infrastructure which can deliver results that colleges are willing to trust
You just said that the calculus courses are no more trusted than the statistics courses. You can't have both ways.
> This isn't true for stats.
Where is your evidence?
Your pedagogical views:
(1) is a matter of cultural change. If people believe statistics education is important - which it is - then there's a new bridge. Just like how Euclid's Elements was once that cultural bridge, replaced by a focus on calculus. Now the emphasis is that focusing on a single bridge is wrong as it dissuades students interested in other bridges.
(2) assumes nearly everyone will go to college. For those who don't go to college, will statistics training be a better education than calculus? Indeed, part of the complaint is that this pedagogical emphasis on calculus overly biases education towards a specific type of college-track student - those with money, or those not afraid of taking on possibly life-crippling debt
Based on my experience some 30 years after college, I think there should have been more statistics training in my education and less calculus.
(3) I pointed you to various resources which, to my mind, demonstrate that the goal is indeed the development of mental machinery. You have only continued to repeat your assertions, not provide evidence.
I took a college course in Linear Algebra. I have not needed to compute an eigenvalue in nearly 30 years, and rarely do I need matrix multiplication for my work. I need to know statistics much more often than that.
How would learning the basics of linear algebra for most people (medical doctor, social worker, plumber, lawyer, fire fighter, or news reporter, mechanic, office manager, etc.) be better than learning the basics of statistics? Surely these are all people who need the mental machinery to understand if evidence is credible and to make predictive models.