• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Algebra Necessary? [W:227]

I wonder how many people that were caught in the housing failure had a poor grasp of algebra.
The entire concept of the Time Value of money, including the Future value of an annuity, present value, etc.... all basic algebraic formulas.

Not only do I feel Algebra should be compulsory, but basic financial calculations should be included in the class.
 

The problem I have with this approach is that most kids don't know exactly what they want to do until after high school. Limiting their exposure because a very, very, very small number of people will struggle with algebra is probably the surest way to encourage the general dumbing-down of our student body.

And what's most funny to me about this thread is all the people listing professions that supposedly don't use algebra...except they do. Basic algebraic principles are so deeply ingrained in so many "mundane" tasks and processes we perform...and without exposure to those basics you'll see people struggle who were otherwise quite capable.

I'm not saying we need to push kids through Algebra and into Trig and Calculus and all the rest. I'm saying that the last thing we need to do is lessen the challenges of math if we expect society to flourish.

And honestly? Part of the comprehension problem could be addressed by modifying the ways in which we approach math. If, for example, we focused on practical application instead of a laundry list of math problems perhaps more people in this thread would realize how wrong they are when they start listing all the places algebra is "never" used.
 

It's been a long time since I took any math, but isn't the time value of money is a calculous formula?
 
imagep said:
It's been a long time since I took any math, but isn't the time value of money is a calculous formula?
Click to expand...

I am posting with my phone so I can't really type out the formula. But, it really isn't. It may look that way because there are multiple variables. But for each of those variables you have a value except for the one for which you're solving the problem.
 
I really think it algebra gets a bad rap because it looks scary. You do algebra every day. I gave the example of the beer. Dividing beer up amongst your friends is easy. Writing it as 3X equals 24 is scary.

That is where I believe a more practical approach to the teaching of algebra is in order. if you show people how you can use it in your daily life. How it can save you money. Make you money. Make your life easier. Then they will be more motivated to learn it.
 

Did you ever take algebra?

If you did, then most likely you think that you don't need it because you actually got some of it. I suspect that you understand at least the most simple forms of algebra, and thus you think you don't need it. The reason that you understand it is most likely because it was taught to you somewhere between the 8th and 10th grade.

I could easily claim that I didn't need any of the science that I took in grade school, but when I go to the doc, I understand what the doc means when the doc explains why this or that hurts. I have the ability to understand it because I took some biology, chemistry and general science. I know what "bones" and "joints" are, I understand that there is connective tissues that bind everything together, and I am thus able to understand what a "torn ligament" is, or a swollen gland is, or why a shortage of this chemical or that nutrient is making me feel bad.

In another thread there has been a lot of talk about "making connections" and "reasoning ability". We are able to make connections and use reasoning ability because of the total cummulative knowledge that we have accumulated, the less we know, the fewer connections we can make and the less we can figure out. Because I have a liberal arts education and was taught at least the basics about a lot of different subjects I can figure out stuff that someone who has a lesser education can't.
 

OK, I took a quick peek at Wilkipedia, it does appear that you are correct, depending on what type of numbers you are looking for. For the most part, it looks like fairly simple algebra, but when it comes to cummulative values, I do see some symbols that I only seem to remember from my calculus classes.

Time value of money - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

I totally agree. I remember in the 10th grade taking algebra II, and making fun of the kids taking "business math" where they just learned to solve the type of simple problems that you illustrated. Looking back, they probably got more out of business math than many of us who took algebra II because they learned algebra in the form of real life type equasions that everyone can relate to. 3people/24 beers = ? is a lot easier to understand that 3X/24Y=Z (solve for Z).
 
Losers as a label doesn't cut it.....
I like to say that a person who aims high and still falls short a little is NOT a failure, but a person who aims low and hits the mark isn't a success. This isn't a black/white issue, there are lots of shades of gray.
First semester algebra is fairly easy, but the real meat and potatoes of math starts with exponential functions. Financial calculations use exponents a lot.
I think first year algebra is a good thing, and trig as well, but have yet to use geometry in my daily life. But MY work experience is electronics and nuclear operations. I have asked a few engineers that I worked for how much they use the math they learned, and most of them say they don't use it at all, but those were electrical engineers mostly. Civil engineers would use higher math a lot. But we are not a nation of civil engineers, and higher math will be just another tool in thier tool box that never gets used.
The idea that we should all learn as much as possible is nice, but who is going to pay for it?
My last year in the Navy I was sent to a couple of short schools, and I asked the Lt. sending me why....he knew I was getting out soon. He said they wanted to send someone who could pass the school, so as to not embarass the command. OK, I went, and then I got out of the Navy and took my skills to a higher bidder. Most of electronics repair is not that hard, once you understand how the circuits work. Only occasionally will a particularly hard problem come up, then the extra knowledge I had allowed me to shine a little brighter in the eyes of my employers, or those who had the sense to appreciate me. If they didn't, I moved on to greener pastures. Most daily issues can be solved without algebra, when algebra is needed, we just need to apply a better educated person to the problem. Lots of education is nice, but it is also expensive. Most of us don't have the resources to waste trying to expose all our kids to all the knowledge available, and surely we don't expect our rich Uncle Sam (currently facing bankruptcy) to pay for unnecessary education, do we?.
 
Last edited:

I see your point and I don't totally disagree, but are you suggesting that lower performing students should end their education shy of graduation from the 12th grade? That would actually make some sense if we were only looking at direct taxpayer expense, or if we needed a lot more low wage workers, but there are indirect taxpayer expenses such as unemployment, welfare, and the cost of incarceration, which are all at least in part due to having more low skilled workers than we have low skilled jobs.

Shouldn't we be striving to have a larger portion of the workforce who have higher level skills rather than a smaller portion? How can we do that if all we are doing is making the exit door for dropouts larger or more inviting?
 

That's actually part of what I think we need to reform about education and our attitude regarding education. Accepting lower standards isn't going to solve anything. At best it will get the "distractions" out of the class room, but then what? Those who do achieve can expect to keep less and less of what they earn as the subsidize those we allowed to drop out and give up.

The solution lies in changing attitudes while simultaneously changing practices. Ranking children by their ability and imposing challenging but attainable goals is one possible change in practice. Another is to introduce subjects in a manner that applies the knowledge to the real world these kids are living in. Convincing parents to get on board is another major factor we must consider, and making that happen will involve much more than changes in how we educate. We need to show poverty-stricken parents that there is worth in education and opportunity for their children (and for them), but in order to do that we need to completely revamp our welfare system.

So yeah, the solution ain't simple and it won't be easy. Effecting that much change will take a long, long time. But the goal is worthy of the work, IMO.
 
QUOTE=UtahBill;1060770876]Losers as a label doesn't cut it.....
I like to say that a person who aims high and still falls short a little is NOT a failure, but a person who aims low and hits the mark isn't a success. This isn't a black/white issue, there are lots of shades of gray.
First semester algebra is fairly easy, but the real meat and potatoes of math starts with exponential functions. Financial calculations use exponents a lot.
I think first year algebra is a good thing, and trig as well, but have yet to use geometry in my daily life. But MY work experience is electronics and nuclear operations. I have asked a few engineers that I worked for how much they use the math they learned, and most of them say they don't use it at all, but those were electrical engineers mostly. Civil engineers would use higher math a lot. But we are not a nation of civil engineers, and higher math will be just another tool in thier tool box that never gets used.
The idea that we should all learn as much as possible is nice, but who is going to pay for it?
My last year in the Navy I was sent to a couple of short schools, and I asked the Lt. sending me why....he knew I was getting out soon. He said they wanted to send someone who could pass the school, so as to not embarass the command. OK, I went, and then I got out of the Navy and took my skills to a higher bidder. Most of electronics repair is not that hard, once you understand how the circuits work. Only occasionally will a particularly hard problem come up, then the extra knowledge I had allowed me to shine a little brighter in the eyes of my employers, or those who had the sense to appreciate me. If they didn't, I moved on to greener pastures. Most daily issues can be solved without algebra, when algebra is needed, we just need to apply a better educated person to the problem. Lots of education is nice, but it is also expensive. Most of us don't have the resources to waste trying to expose all our kids to all the knowledge available, and surely we don't expect our rich Uncle Sam (currently facing bankruptcy) to pay for unnecessary education, do we?.[/QUOTE]

Plane geometry is used often in everyday life to buy paint, lawn care products and floor coverings (you need to compute the area to be covered). Hiring TWO people to do the same job is not very efficient, one to do the work and another to figure out what work needs to be done. I agree that if you NEED two people that you may save a bit by having one "expert" and another "trainee" but, given the choice, most hiring a building maintanence man would require one with HVAC skills rather than hiring a general handyman and then contracting out only the HVAC work.
 

My wife is a retired teacher, our son still teaches, both 8th grade....
They both like teaching, they both dislike dealing with the kids who don't want to be there. Making some subjects mandatory just creates more of those who don't want to be there. These kids aren't stupid, most just can't see the relevance. Yes, when I was in high school, I took all the math and science I could get, because I liked it.....but there were others who did not like it. We create dropouts by expecting more from some of them than they can do.
I can say that high expectations will yield high results most of the time, but low expectations will yeild low results pretty much all the time. That being said, it is usually easy for teachers to identify those who aren't cut out for higher level courses.
The trend is to make more and more of the higher level courses required while at the same time the information age has made a lot of those courses obsolete. I took French because I thought I might get into college, and a foreign language was required.
Looking back, that was a waste of time. Only a VERY SMALL percentage of college graduates will retain much of that foreign language, and the time wasted there could have been applied learning more useful information.
.
 

Plane geometry is used often in everyday life to buy paint, lawn care products and floor coverings (you need to compute the area to be covered). Hiring TWO people to do the same job is not very efficient, one to do the work and another to figure out what work needs to be done. I agree that if you NEED two people that you may save a bit by having one "expert" and another "trainee" but, given the choice, most hiring a building maintanence man would require one with HVAC skills rather than hiring a general handyman and then contracting out only the HVAC work.[/QUOTE]

Computing area is simple arithmetic, not geometry. How can anyone think otherwise?
 

So we just stop teaching particular subjects because only a small percentage of people retain or are able to utilize the info? That seems reasonable, but don't we actually need a small percent of people who have the ability to speak French, and don't we need a few people that are math experts? Is there a way to identify students who will not retain French, or who will never use higher mathematics before they take the class? Like an accurate pre-test or something? Is that even possible?

I took Spanish in the 9th grade, now I find myself dealing with Spanish speaking customers almost daily, and I have even had some Spanish speaking employees. I regret not continuing my Spanish classes further into high school or college, and now, at age 47, I am attempting to learn Spanish. I only wish that there was some type of test that I could have taken at the age of 14 that would have identified me as someone who would ultimately have a need to be profecient in Spanish.
 

Computing area is simple arithmetic, not geometry. How can anyone think otherwise?[/QUOTE]

What if the area is in the shape of a triangle, or a circle? Do you really think that making a grid and then adding up whole blocks and counting partial blocks as half blocks is the most time efficient or accurate way to compute the area of a non-rectangle?
 
imagep said:
Computing area is simple arithmetic, not geometry. How can anyone think otherwise?
Click to expand...

What if the area is in the shape of a triangle, or a circle? Do you really think that making a grid and then adding up whole blocks and counting partial blocks as half blocks is the most time efficient or accurate way to compute the area of a non-rectangle?[/QUOTE]

if the angles are right angles, it is arithmetic.. Half of a square or rectangle is easy, no matter how you cut it....
a circle is easier, you use the diameter squared and multiply the result by .785.
Still arithmetic....
as long as the lines are straight.
curves are more difficult, of course....
 

no, we don't stop teaching it, we just don't make everybody learn it...
 

IMO, people who aren't reading/writing/arithmaticking at grade level, have no business wasting time taking an algebra class. It's the idea that it's mandatory in most schools that is irking. I could almost see a 6-week introduction to algebra and a 6-week introduction to geometry. But that's it. To devote an entire school year to the study of Algebra is a waste of time for most people.

Those who are interested? Give them the ability to carry on. Those who are not? Let them learn how to read faster/better. Write coherent sentences. Spell. Whatever! I could think of dozens of other classes that could take algebra's place as a "requirement." It's so unwise to waste learning time in a class that one is hardly likely to use.


I imagine you would regret it. I do as well. I was put into a class to learn Russian for two years. :rofl I think students should be carefully counselled about just that aspect of life.

IMO, our government uses some of these classes to identify genius -- to identify our scientists etc. To identify those who are foreign-language gifted. That is a good thing. But it can be done in other ways. The majority of us are not gifted in these areas. To waste precious learning time on something we will never use? That's just foolish.
 

if the angles are right angles, it is arithmetic.. Half of a square or rectangle is easy, no matter how you cut it....
a circle is easier, you use the diameter squared and multiply the result by .785.
Still arithmetic....
as long as the lines are straight.
curves are more difficult, of course....[/QUOTE]

It's arithmetic, but if I didn't know that straight out of memory (and I didn't) and I looked it up, it would be a formula, probably stated something like "Area = π × r2 " (I know, only because I just looked it up). While that is arithmetic, it is also simple algebra. Someone who had never taken 9th grade algebra would look at that and just laugh and say "you can't multiply or square letters, that stuff is for numbers". It takes the understanding that those letters are variables and that in real life we substitute appropriate numbers for those variables and that understanding is gained in algebra class.

And yes Maggie, that level of understanding of algebra could probably be taught and acquired in just 6 pr 9 weeks. And figuring out the area of a circle or the volume of a square could likely also be taught in six week or nine, basic trig about the same amount of time, and basic graphing in about the same amount of time. Looks like all of the basics of higher mathmatics could be taught in a standard year long 8th or ninth grade class, at least taught to a level of understanding that we might tend to use in real life. I've never really thought of it like that. Maybe an additional year in the 9th or 10th grade of applying arithmetic and basic algebra/trig/geometry to real life type situations just to firm up those skills and understand how they could be valuable could be justified also - something like that "business math" class that I made ridiculed when I was in the 10th grade.

That brings me back to my belief that while algebra seemed scary, most of us learned first year algebra (or at least that first few weeks of it) well enough that your formula for determining the area of a circle seems simple and not scary at all. Thank God that you and I both took basic entry level algebra so that we don't fear having to figure out real life problems.
 
Last edited:
UtahBill said:
Computing area is simple arithmetic, not geometry. How can anyone think otherwise?
Click to expand...

You seem confused as to WHY you are using that "simple arithmetic", one must FIRST KNOW that length x width = area of a rectangle (plane geometry) otherwise why would you measure length/width and then mutiply those numbers? Just because I used a VERY simple, example does not mean that other shapes will not be encountered "in everyday life", or that you may even need some 3D computations (e.g. pouring a slab of concrete).
 
Last edited:
imagep said:
Thank God that you and I both took algebra so that we don't fear having to figure out the area of a circle.
Click to expand...

Yes, I can't even begin to tell you how many times this has come in handy in my life. That would be sarcasm, by the way.
 

Holy crap, I agree with one of your posts. :shock:

#2 is a huge point. The goal of school is not to predict exactly what you will be doing for the rest of your life and tailor their curricula around that. The goal is to get you a set of fundamental skills that you can apply at almost any job you encounter. Case in point, I may never need to know how to critically analyze a piece of literature. So what? I can use those same skills to have an intelligent conversation about a movie I just saw. I may never need to know anything that I learned in thermodynamics. So what? Knowing it taught me the critical difference between a diesel and a gasoline engine. And I could go on.

The skills we learn in school were never meant to be 100% applied. They are TOOLS, like a box of hardware equipment, to be used as needed.
 

That purplemath.com article is excellent. It really answers some of the common complaints against it.

Really--and I have to be honest here--a lot of those complaints show little difference than those who come from middle school and high school students who simply don't want to take Algebra 1.
 

Dude. "Algebra" can mean any of a number of classes. That's why I've been specifically mentioning Algebra 1 in this thread. Trigonometry and infinite series--concepts generally taught in Algebra 2--have a far more limited application than proportions, linear equations, and basic graphing do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…