But don't deny yourself an understanding of the meaning of limits. Almost all mathematics before calculus leaves you with a misimpression that neat formulas exist to solve problems. In reality, you've learned to draw straight lines with a ruler, and maybe a few curves with a compass. Before Calculus, you might actually believe that numbers that can be expressed as the ratio of two integers are typical, and that numbers like pi and the square root of two are "irrational" rarities (and until calculus, you probably don't know about Euler's constant unless it was introduced in precalc as another one of those odd and rare numbers).
Look out at nature, where are the triangles, rectangles, and circles? Maybe a wasp nest? Nah, not really. Try to draw a cloud, a tree, a tiger, or a human face. How useful is that straight line or compass? How useful is a line at all, other than to hint at something you can't actually draw, maybe by implying it exists as an ever vanishing limit from above and below? Math required calculus the instant humans decided to describe the world as it is, rather than by the limits of what we impose on it.
Also - in stats, how do you know what the area is under the probability density function?
My claim is that, given the finite amount of time allotted to mathematics in a secondary school curriculum, it's better to spend that time learning about medians/means, regressions, statistical tests, and so forth, instead of memorizing power laws and derivatives of trigonometric functions.
I've used one once. I wanted to make a volume control that I thought sounded subjectively even across the range and gave the right amount of control. So I used a polynomial regression calc on a random website and gave it some data points I wanted it to go through.
But that's not actually doing a regression, just knowing it exists and computers can do them.
Is there any math that has any use whatsoever unless you know a whole lot of it and plan to do some technical projects? I thought the whole point of learning any math(Even arithmetic, since phones exist now) is just so you can learn other more advanced math, and maybe someday be a solid state chemist or something.
Statistics lets you read a scientific paper, but you don't actually need to understand it, unless you're actually going to be reviewing their raw data. Most everyday people just trust the p values and move on to wondering about confounders they forgot.
Seems like you could cover all the statistics people will actually use it about 4 hours.
Perhaps because they never took statistics.
If you want people to understand that numbers are concepts / descriptions of something potentially infinite, and that it's ok to totally work with non-finite describable numbers without ever really writing out their values, just fucking start with that. I honestly think the start of most undergrad math curriculums should be a logic & foundations class with proofs, sets, number theory and the whole "numbers are more logical concepts, not really specific values" vs. calculus. Then teach calculus, with a big dose of 'what is infinity, really?'.
I think it's actually a great disservice and the hand wave that most calculus math classes do about those exact concepts really fucks over a lot of people. It makes calculus a weed out class because the fundamentals are not explained properly so a good amount of people just go into it as yet another thing they have to ape without real understanding. And for the people who don't work well with things they half understand, they really struggle, like I did. It really made my computer science degree a lot worse, because of the instance of starting all undergrad math with hand wavy calculus, for 3 or 4 classes.
I even wrote blog articles about it, it was probably the worse part of my computer science degree, and if math education was done differently where they didn't handwave, I probably would've had a much better time.
https://www.thoughtfunction.com/2019/11/doing-my-compsci-deg...
https://www.thoughtfunction.com/2019/11/what-i-wished-i-knew...
Most people don’t need mathematical statistics, but far more will find meaning/interest in the immediate applications of lighter statistics than the another-math-class-full-of-equations that calculus feels like to many.
Anecdotally, most universities are scrambling to add lighter data science courses to their humanities majors. These all teach basic stats, and many ignore the low-level calculus required for those methods (again, speaking of the humanities versions here).
I was a math major and didn't understand calc all that well until I took advanced calc, and I didn't understand statistics all that well until I took the upper-level mathematical stats courses.
This does not only extend to literature. I have had similar experiences with religion (which I thought of as utterly useless and potentially dangerous, as it "deactivates critical thinking and creates sheep-people which will follow whatever their shepherd/priest/guru tells them"), creative arts (both painting as well as music), and the basic sciences (biology, chemistry, physics).
Now, I don't genetically engineer the stuff in my garden, but understanding Mendel was useful. I don't speak in iambic pentameters, but I can appreciate when it is being used as a stylistic choice. I am in no way a church-going, devout Christian, but I have found meaning in some of the deeper wisdom enshrined in the Bible (and the Koran, and the Bhagavad Gita, and about half a dozen Sutras.)
Would I have come to that if I didn't have primers in school? Maybe. But the primers certainly helped.
On the other hand, I didn't learn plumbing in school, or laying electrical wires, or "doing my taxes", but these are things I can simply have someone do for me who is a lot better equipped and trained to do so, or - for the small stuff - I can figure them out on the fly.
I'm willing to believe that some people like Shakespeare, but it's a small minority. You can tell by the number of people who read Shakespeare for pleasure - is that number larger or smaller than the number of people who read JK Rowling? Why should we teach the entertainment that a small number of people prefer in schools? I believe the only reason we actually do is tradition.
You mention that you can simply have someone learned in plumbing or sundry skill do those tasks for you. I can do one better. I can simply have no one read Shakespeare for me and I can not read it at all and nothing is lost. That is, of course, because unlike plumbing or laying wire there is no reason to need Shakespeare.
It's good that you enjoy Shakespeare, but some people enjoy plumbing. Plus, plumbing has a practical purpose, unlike Shakespeare. There is no real reason to teach Shakespeare, other than tradition, and people trying to seem smart or educated. There are many other subjects that make a much stronger case for deserving to be in school curriculum.
I read a quote somewhere that goes something like "A society that separates warriors and scholars will have an army led by fools and thinking done by cowards." Similar logic, with different vocabulary, applies, I think, to a society where scholars can't do manual labor.
On the other hand, less-than-popular culture still is the foundation for our popular culture today - the amount of times "Romeo and Juliet" or "Macbeth" has been adapted, referenced and deconstructed in (popular) media is astonishing, and without knowing the original, you wouldn't fully get the modern references.
You don't need to love Shakespeare (I don't exactly, though I like to see the "Scottish play" every few years) to reap these benefits.
School is not about what people like. If you go by that measure, there's no real need in math, because you will find a lot less people doing calculus for fun, as compared to people who play fantasy football. Of course, you can't really understand the ideas behind fantasy football if you don't know maths, but who cares, it's not popular...
Please note that I did not claim physical labour has no value and one should not know about it. I said that it's relatively easy to pick up, and that it may be more worthwhile to get a professional when the job demands it (a professional, I would like to add, who learned his craft after school, ideally in some kind of apprenticeship). In my country, to get a driver's license, you need to know basic first-aid procedures (and yes, there's a one-day course you need to attend). That doesn't make you a neurosurgeon, and if you have persistent headaches, it's probably better to ask a professional than to depend on me with my first-aid course - or some guy who "learned about surgery techniques" in high school.
What about meta-mathematics? Topology? Logics? History of mathematics? Philosophy of mathematics? Combinatorics? Number theory? Discrete mathematics? Graph theory? In the post, the fieds under "electives" are by far the most interesting ones, IMHO.
And I fully agree, in-depth knowledge of probability theory as well as descriptive statistics and of course the application to systematic and sound decision making is absolute key, and ought to be taught to anyone from medic to policy makers (scary: Gigerenzer showed that medics tend to be confused about the difference between P(A|B) and P(B|A) - the very people whose job it is to diagnose whether you have cancer or not!).
Honestly all of those feel more niche than calculus. I agree with you and joatmon-snoo on the usefulness of statistics and would probably support bumping calculus in favor of statistics, but meta-mathematics, topology, logic (which bleeds into meta-mathematics), combinatorics (which is kind of covered by stats), number theory, discrete mathematics, and graph theory are all much less useful even in adjacent STEM fields (discrete mathematics and graph theory matter more in CS, but far less for day-to-day programming). History of mathematics is effectively an entirely separate discipline and philosophy of mathematics has meta-mathematics/mathematical logic as a prerequisite.
Calculus unlocks much of physics and engineering (and lots of stats!). Large cardinal theory does not unlock any other field to the best of my understanding.
There ought to be some way to encourage late high school/early college students to "survey" the field without necessarily taking full courses in these topics. This could also give some earlier understanding in how the different fields relate - for example you could present a toy graph theory problem within linear algebra as a matrix problem, later presenting the same problem in graph theory section and walk through it using graph representation. I think high school courses struggle with memorability precisely because most units are taught basically in a vacuum.
Regardless though, the point of the survey course wouldn't be to remember details so much as to find topics of interest for further study/be generally aware of their existence in case a relevant problem comes up in the future.
And, from that perspective (with which I agree), calculus itself is just another instance of trying to turn a non-linear problem into a problem in linear algebra!
Linear algebra became a lot more interesting once you had cheap computers and Matlab.
The Math in my 4 year engineering degree was structured something like this:
First Semester Year 1 two math courses: Calculus 1, Linear Algebra
Second Semester Year 1 two math courses: Calculus 2, Sequences and Series (this one was probably least useful all I remember from this 15+ years later is Taylor Series and Binomial Theorem)
First Semester year 2 two math courses: Differential Equations, Statistics for Engineers.
From second semester year 2 onwards there were no more discrete math classes this was where the degree really specialized into various engineering streams, Mech Eng, Chem Eng, Civil etc. Had their own courses. I studied Materials Engineering some courses were shared with other eng students (For example I shared Thermodynamics with Mechanical Engineering students) but others such as Non-ferrous metallurgy were pretty deeply specialized.
A lot of subject used built on earlier math (Fluid Dynamics was backed up by lots of differential equations for example, stuff like Gamma Function would come up in a lot of places. Solid Mechanics had a lot of integrals second moment of area etc.), Linear Algebra I can remember from Fracture mechanics and crack propagation (Stress and Strain tensors etc.)
Have a Master's in Material Science and still don't remember a lot of Linear Algebra specifically.
I have some appreciation for calculus now but I really did not enjoy it much in high school or even in college. It turned me away from learning more math for some time which is unfortunate - linear algebra isn't my favorite either but I liked that much more off the bat, so I wish I had some exposure to it in high school. Then again, maybe the high school teaching style is what made me dislike calc to begin with.
And yes probability and statistics are fundamental. I was shocked a bit when I learned it was not taught in highschools world wide (i.e. not in the U.S.A.). But then again I had gotten numb with the current average level in the taught topics people arrive at undergrad at.
Note there is a lot of interconnectivity. To understand a new concept you might need concepts in another. E.g. number theory and probability.
The true foundational classes in the typical undergraduate mathematics curriculum are logic and abstract algebra. People rarely start with them, because the usual way of teaching mathematics is applications before foundations. You learn linear algebra before abstract algebra, proofs before formal logic, and axiomatic probability before measure theory.
And there is definitely such thing as too much linear algebra. Once upon a time, I wanted a decent mathematical background for theoretical CS and continued (at least) until the first graduate-level class in most major topics. Graduate linear algebra was "foundations without applications" for me, as I've never worked on anything building on it.
In the first year (non US) you learn linear algebra, some real analysis and how to write proofs as well as important basics. In your second year you can choose all these electives, which then don't have to spend time introducing natural numbers, induction etc.
If anything should be dropped from a highschool level its all of the insane memorization you have to do for some of the lower level math classes - I found that totally useless. You then learn some basic calculus and realize "I just wasted so much of my life" and never need to memorize those things again.
In the land of the blind the guy with one eye walks everyone off a cliff.
What happens is you learn numerical approximation methods and then recreate the tables with human 'computers', like we used to do before electrical computers came into play. Or create mechanical analog computers like they did in the 1800s or greek times.
How would the typical person go about calculating the normal distribution by hand? Are we going to call everyone blind because they haven’t memorized e to arbitrary precision?
IDK, what does R do?
I also think you could and should start by teaching probability and statistics and using that to introduce calculus as and when it shows up naturally, rather than teaching calculus in the abstract first and then showing the applications much later.
What sort of memorizations do you have in mind that you no longer need to memorize once you know calculus?
To work around the fact that many of us were still in precalc, our teacher just taught us the power rule, the relationship between slopes of tangent lines, etc., without diving into the "why" of why those things worked.
That said, yeah maybe for the most basic of university of physics the whole "derive it on the fly" strategy works, I guess? But when you get to more advanced courses like mechanics of materials, you'll do yourself the favor and take to memorizing at least a few of the commonly used equations.
I'm trying to remember when I had one of those last!
I actually don't love the idea of cheat-sheets but maaaybe if it's a cumulative final I could see it being helpful? If you're taking chapter exams on some material, I think you ought to have worked enough problems so that formulas/constants are drilled into your head. But I guess too, where do you draw the line at engineering appendices? I sure don't have the MoI of every common body memorized.
Well, sure, but, if you don't, then what's the point of punishing you? As a teacher, frankly, I'd be happy to have my students bring in any static resources they wanted to consult—I say 'static' to emphasise not, e.g., consulting a cheating site, although it's fine with me if they've pre-compiled solutions in advance to any problems they think might be interesting or important—except that (1) I think that would encourage bad study habits, and, more importantly, (2) it would be unwieldy in a packed classroom to try to have adjacent people juggling multiple textbooks, notebooks, etc.
In fact, I loved the freedom to give extended-time, fully open-book, open-note exams during the fully remote classes. I wish I could still do that; if cheating weren't so endemic under those conditions, then I would.
It's strongly self-selecting and as a result can afford to cover a truly insane amount of ground. The overwhelming majority of people who take it drop out (the usual dropout rate from people who take it in the first week is probably > 90%), but the people who stay almost all get As. And you will need to be almost entirely self-motivated because a lot (maybe most) of your waking hours will be thinking about math.
There's a very small minority of students for whom this is an optimal way of learning. For most students this is the quickest way to make them run screaming away from mathematics even faster than they already do.
Not at all, you are only prohibited from taking "freshman courses"[1]—that's what 55 is supposed to cover (definitely not all of the undergrad math curriculum), though some professors go beyond that. Many students go on to take at least some undergrad courses, with those in the 140's range being mathematical logic gems with no real counterpart in the graduate department.
[1]Students from Math 55 will have covered in 55 the material of Math 122 and Math 113. If you have taken 55, you should look first at Math 114, Math 123 and the Math 131-132 sequence. https://legacy-www.math.harvard.edu/pamphlets/courses.html
The Math 140 series have only become more serious courses in the last 10 - 15 years or so IIRC. The 240 series was generally where to go for serious mathematical logic courses (and generally is where you would go after e.g. a first 140 series course in set theory anyways).
Strong agree, but engineers probably need both. I'm currently watching a course on causal inference, and the tools are very much calculating gradients. And even if you just use someone else's MCMC, even in the models a differential equation or integral can randomly appear usefully.
In retrospect I should have taken a stats class in high school when I had that 1 hour gap for 1 semester, just to build a better intuition around the basic concepts.
They don't seem to have a problem intuiting what a plotted PDF is showing. I think that's because in some sense it can be read analogously to a histogram. Of course, they don't have the tools to generate or manipulate one. But that's honestly not something that applied social science researchers have to do often when using traditional methods.
I think math people may have a view of this question that is skewed in an interesting way.
Statistics is very useful and its common techniques are not difficult to apply.
But they seem to be very difficult to apply correctly. We have entire academic fields that are built mostly on the spurious application of statistical methods in contexts that make the whole project invalid.
And this sort of "techniques without theory" approach is what's being advocated for upthread and represents a failure mode that math people are unlikely to consider -- because they know that part of being able to apply a technique is being able to tell whether or not applying it is valid. Math people are unlikely to fall into the trap this approach sets. But the same people who want this approach are also likely to end up being hurt by it.
The only reason I took calculus is because it was the next math course after pre-calc and I still had a year left in high school. I didn’t even realize that there was a type of math that could be used to exactly calculate quantities related to continuously changing processes, but I was absolutely fascinated by how many real world problems calculus could solve - I realized that the problems given in algebra were contrived out of necessity to resolve in a neat manner. Now I had access to an entirely new vocabulary that allowed me to describe the world as it is, not as it needed to be to neatly fit in a 10th grade word problem.
Until that point I was interested in psychology (and had a vague notion that I’d drop out of school to make a career in music somehow), but I immediately dropped everything to take as many math and physics courses as I could. 14 years later and I work in a very math heavy engineering oriented field.
I know my story is probably atypical, and I have no clue what I’d be doing right now if I hadn’t taken calculus, but it’s one of those things that I look at in hindsight and think that I was that close to giving up on STEM, but for being forced to take Calculus. Instead, I earned my Ph.D. in applied math, and there’s not a day where I don’t use calculus of some kind.
And the basics of physics makes next to no sense without calculus, and even parts of intro chemistry make more sense after having taken calculus.
I remember in one economics class, which didn't have calc as a pre-req, the prof said "alright, for those of you who have taken calculus, this is an integral, you can now leave the classroom and come back tomorrow. Everyone else has to stay."
The ideas of calculus just seem so fundamental to me. It is sad that the American schooling system is so slow, and expectations so low, that it isn't taught to everyone. Meanwhile in other countries, everyone, artists to engineers, learns calculus.
It’s all integrals over pdf’s. A lot of integration by parts and other things in the core curriculum.
There's nothing a basic Stats 1 course needs calc grounding for (perhaps Riemann sums under a normal curve but that's more for deriving than the concept itself). As it stands now, AP Stats is used for kids that don't want to progress to an AP Calc, but want a math or need to hit a school or county requirement.
> The analytical type of thinking that proof-writing is certainly useful, but you can make much the same argument of many other curricula, and besides, it's not like most intro calc courses even do any proofs. The vast majority of them, I would assert, are simply pre-med weed-out courses.
A statistics course would be a much more brutal weed-out course.
Stats is not a generally useful skill (the concepts are, but can be taught in a data science course) but understanding how to work with data is.
Discrete math seemed to be the most applicable math class to my CS curriculum. I never took graphics so didn’t use linear algebra, and definitely never touched anything related to DiffEq.
I took calc 1 and stats 1 & 2. Much preferred the stats and it set me up for understanding all kinds of science lingo in articles and papers. I also indirectly use stats fairly often at work.
I'm all for giving tasters of as many different "beautiful ideas" as possible in school, but I think we should be elevating practical statistics into the top tier of subjects that we require kids to go through.
Because America has straight lines everywhere and no curves, unlike other places.
Calculus is absolutely required for most engineering tasks.
Maybe for CS students there could be more emphasis on statistics as well, without diluting the calculus.
Infact, where I studied, calculus was a prerequisite for certain statistics and probability classes. For good reason.
All fifty states or just continental?
I'm questioning your math pedagogy.
Calculus is the single most important math anyone, of any field, can learn as it's the first "practical math" you actually learn. Life behaves like calculus and in order to think about real life you need the concept of limits, derivatives, integrals, differentials, etc. It's patently absurd to say this should be replaced by statistics, which done to any rigor requires up to 2 years worth of calculus (through diff eq.) to even appreciate.
I'm shocked that you're a math major and didn't take away the biggest thing from learning analysis - the ability to think clearly through a problem and prove it correctly. While you may not be asked to vomit cantor's diagonalization onto paper for an interview the ability to think about problems you learned from doing these proofs translates to so many different fields, jobs, and life skills that I take the complete opposite view. If you want to understand anything you need to learn how to proof. I don't care if you're a nurse or an accountant. A rigorous proof based math course will change your life.
If by "learn statistics instead of calculus" you mean being able to mindlessly vomit today's new machine learning paradigm without understanding a thing then I think I can understand where you are coming from. Otherwise, I think this is some absurd parody of someone who studied math.
Otherwise it just gets absorbed and forgotten like another 'useless information' class. Ask how many CS majors post college use or remember calculus vs understanding stats for the seven millionth badly designed A/B test they ran at work today.
Probability theory is applied analysis. For example a measure density is a derivation of a measure with respect to another measure (Radon–Nikodym derivative). Or how do you often assign probabilities to measurable set: Lebesgue-Stieltjes integral.
So you better have a very good understanding of calculus before starting with probability and statistics.
I was a math major and this is not exclusive to calculus or analysis. If anything, algebra classes in things like group theory were much more instructive on this point. Everything from my third and fourth years (when I specialized into combinatorial optimization) was built on a cornerstone of proofs and theorems.
I do think logic is important, and teaching that instead of focusing on math proofs might be a good alternative.
For science-oriented high school curriculums, calculus is necessary, and should only be optional in a few cases where the student already really knows what they want to do.
By the time a student wants to specialize at say 20, they should have already had some foundational ability for that specialty, otherwise they wouldn't be able to compete internationally. For people who don't end up using calculus, it's a waste, but there is a trade-off. As a result, much of the high school curriculum is to build a broad foundation to prepare for multiple possible specializations.
Maybe it would help them not get scammed by keto diets and unsafe drugs and such though.
The analytical type of thinking that proof-writing is certainly useful, but you can make much the same argument of many other curricula, and besides, it's not like most intro calc courses even do any proofs. The vast majority of them, I would assert, are simply pre-med weed-out courses.
I still remember freshman year, showing up to the standard intro calc course, and dropping it as quickly as I could in favor of my uni's equivalent of Math 55 (i.e. the hardest u/g intro math course) because of how asinine I found the content...