You can't get a college degree without passing the College Algebra weedout course (let alone Calculus, which is required for the bulk of STEM courses), and you can only realistically pass College Algebra by getting a lot of rigorous math in K-12. Lowering the bar is doing every student a disservice, and the most vulnerable students will be the hardest hit.
Yes pretty much every college requires "college algebra". But some schools have "college algebra for stem majors" vs "college algebra for non stem majors". Guess which one is easier, has lots of bonus credit and extra curricular stuff to earn extra credit. (You attended the college showing of "vagely related math movie?! Here's 10 points on your final!") And also grades on a curve. Also you only need 69.5 (and sometimes just a D!) to graduate.
There's also other cheats/hacks. Like lots of state schools will let you transfer from a community college with credit for your "core courses", and some of those have questionable standards. There's also the fact that college algebra usually has some kind of test out or online option. There was a whole sub industry of "pay you to take the online test for me" at colleges for stuff like college algebra. Some of those courses did have some kind "you have to take 1 test in person so we know its you" rule. But they didnt check super heavily that you were actually that person other than a cursory examination of your drivers license name matched who was supposed to take the test. (and oh boy let me tell you about how covid and masks interacted with all of that)
Dont get me started on the "Statistics for Sociology" that was different than actual "Statistics" (but fulfilled the Stats requirement for the degree)
This is also ignoring that taking College Algebra to begin with IN COLLEGE. Was a major sign you were not a Stem Major. Stem Majors took that in high school and were taking at minimum precalculus. (and even that was viewed as the slow lane, you should be talking Calc 1 as a red blooded STEM freshman)
An acquaintance asked me if she should take "Calculus for Artists" after I suggested she take a calculus course. I laughed, and said that such a course should be named "Pretend to Learn Calculus". She should take a real calculus course, which she did, and did well in it.
If you're in college, stick to the real math classes, not the "math for losers who are forced to take a math class". You'll be with other students who want to learn math, and you'll have a prof that wants to teach math (the loser math course has a prof who doesn't want to be there, either). It'll be a much more pleasant experience.
Hey, if I was running a college, I'd have the two track math system, too. That way the students who want to learn won't be bothered by the ones who don't.
And yet people don’t feel the same way about “Calculus for Engineers” despite it also being a ridiculously dumbed down course full of rote memorization of formulas, “procedures,” and “strategies” with the bare minimum of hand-wavy theory. Compared to the courses for maths students it’s just as much pretending to learn calculus.
dae STEM has got to be one of the most exhausting memes on the internet. Hell, I’m 3/4 of the letters and even I find this aspect of our culture insufferable.
Knowing the theorems behind calculus is difficult. But they don’t magically make you able to solve limits, integrals, etc. So having different courses that focus on different parts is smart.
E.g., there can be a course on compilers that teaches automata theory. There can also be a course that just jumps in and codes a compiler. Both courses teach different, but valuable skills. Now, having a course “Compiler for Artists” where you’re taught such useful gems as “a compiler translates between human-level languages and machine code,” not so much.
I don't think that's fair. I can't say anything about Calculus for Artists, but Calculus for engineers won't be dumbed down. It will be focused more on the practice of using calculus to solve real-world problems, while a 'regular' Calculus course will be focused more on the development of theory, proofs, etc.
I've seen the real world result of dumbed down math for engineers - applying the wrong formula for the task, inability to adapt the formula to the task, and poking around in the dark because they were terrified of math. "Walter, can you go help him out" is what I'd hear.
So, yeah, in the real world, it doesn't work out so good.
I eventually learned to appreciate that Caltech never taught how to use formulas, but instead taught where the formulas came from. I recall a class on jet engines (really, an awesome class!), where the prof spent the entire lecture deriving the formula for a jet engine's performance. It was breathtaking. I knew where every term came from. I finally understood how the damned thing worked. All those other handwavy explanations mystified me.
If I was just handed the formula, it wouldn't have meant much of anything to me.
The theorems they prove in mathematician's calculus are useless for engineers, and they take time away from learning useful tricks for doing integrals, which if not that critical for a world with numerical methods, are crucial for solving problems on future tests.
> The specific theorems students prove are not really the point.
Right, that's why they should skip the calculus and start students directly on Real analysis. Then they might actually have some use for what they prove in the class.
I prefer to know where the formulas come from, to know when the formulas apply, when they don't apply, what their limits are, and how to adapt them to a specific problem.
> pretty much every college requires "college algebra".
Caltech didn't. In fact, they expect you to know calculus before entering. I didn't, and that nearly capsized my college career before it left the dock.
They now do have a remedial kind of class, "Math 1d", which is to be taken concurrently with Math 1a. I was placed into it after not trying very hard on my placement test, but they let me drop it when I told them I didn't need it.
Sad to hear that. It suggests their admissions process has succumbed. When I attended, it was very rare for the admissions people to admit someone who couldn't do the work. I only knew one who couldn't.
Yeah, heaven forbid 17 year olds decide they want to take on a career in STEM later in High School. They must be real dummies. REAL engineers decide to be engineers as HS Freshmen and never waver from, struggle on, or doubt the One True Path.
Colleges should only admit those who pledge themselves to the Guild of Software Engineering at 13, so we can keep the noble profession of building CRUD apps in JavaScript free of riffraff.
Grandparent was talking specifically about Caltech. I don’t see how anyone can go to Caltech without knowing calculus, possibly even linear algebra. This school has tougher admission standards than MIT.
Frankly, a major thing that Caltech admissions looked for is a very strong interest in engineering and science. It's gotta be in your bones, or you ain't going to thrive there. With their limited resources (it's small) it's just not pragmatic to accept those with a more casual interest. And really, why would you want to go there if you weren't? After all, 9 out of 10 classes were 90% math, math, more math, and math.
There should exist places designed to provide maximum learning opportunity to those who come in already knowing a fair bit. It is a loss to society if such places start disappearing, or perhaps a sign of such loss if the reason is less demand.
This does not in any way imply that those should be the only kind of places to exist.
This does not in any way imply that there's anything wrong with people who started to recently to have relevant background.
I could have put this comment nearly anywhere in this thread. As a German I'm really surprised by this. Calculus was part of regular math school education and just expected knowledge for the mandatory math classes during my CS undergraduate studies. I did graduate at one of the universities that do use the first years to weed out students though and dunno if less competitive ones are more lenient.
We also do split students as early as after the 4th year (end of elementary school) in three different school systems with about 50% of students attending the highest university track tier. The other two tiers might not have calculus or only in a limited form, but also don't qualify for university without further education. Thus setting students on different paths based on ability/performance early on seems very natural to me. Students always can up/downgrade schools based on performance at any year later on.
I’m a math tutor at a run-of-the-mill state university and I can tell you for certain that the average student in college algebra and especially in pre-calculus has to work hard to pass. Both classes have a substantial amount of easy credit like mandatory lab time, credit for filling out notes, etc. with tutors there on the clock and available, but in both classes student struggle mightily with the material and spend a ton of time in the lab beyond the requirement.
For cheating we proctor all of the tests, which are worth by far the highest portion of the grade. I’m sure people have cheated on the proctored tests, but there’s not rampant purchasing of passing grades.
This is specifically to rebut your implication that students are cheating or being carried by the grading structure, not necessarily to discount your position in the overall discussion.
I also worked at a run of the mill state university as a teaching and CS/IT assistant.
It was well known there was a side hustle for some of that. And certain proctors would at times be told to drop it if they pressed. It was notoriously an issue with the non english speaking population. They would show up with an id that was clearly not them, proctors would be told to just let them take the test, same student would still be at classes months later. Though to be fair foreign students and schools chasing that money is probably its own kettle of fish.
One of my favorite courses was an into to geology course I took on a lark. Turned out everyone (including the professor) called it "rocks for jocks". It was incredibly easy, and years after being out of college I don't recall much of anything I learned there that I didn't already know from high school or earlier, but I do remember the professor at least made the material engaging.
I do expect that such "workarounds" will always exist. I just don't think they're more realistic than just getting some good-enough math fundamentals in K-12, without mucking about with "data science" silliness. (Data literacy is of course appropriate to Science class, and the letter even mentions that.)
How the heck can you call college algebra a “weedout course”?! I was a math major and skipped over it to start college in Calc 2, but I saw my friends tutoring those intro classes and saw the work my professor-friends put into trying to make basic algebra accessible and get them over the line. They really did everything they could. Many students still struggled though because public high school utterly fails most people and/or those peoples brains just weren’t wired for math.
That's probably true. But there's just not much that you can do to teach years of junior high and high school math in a single college class, to students who never got the chance to seriously engage with that material because their school replaced actual math courses with this new "data science" thing (or for countless other reasons which would fully apply even today). "Weedout course" might not be the intention, but it's definitely the real-world outcome.
