We Can Do by Moshe Kai with guest Robert Levy discussing Saxon Math.

[NPLight]

I haven't gone through the whole post, but, have you read "Anumeric man"? It reflects the consequences of the total lack of basic mathematical knowlege in all kind of people (including the a priori well-educated). Anumerism and the general lack of scientific knowledge extends everywhere. I am a physicist and work in a private research centre. I work with engineers, chemists and other physicists, and you wouldn't believe the kind of things I see everyday. Many of them cannot understand/ perform the simplest calculations (not just mental calculation, I'm also talking about very simple programming or excel files), it is just incredible, and very, very, sad.

[Mandabplus3]

Mummyroo, I couldn't get why the 11 times tables was considered so hard either! Gees louse! Maybe one of those people who can't do math made up the survey?   

[nee1]

I haven't gone through the whole post, but, have you read "Anumeric man"? It reflects the consequences of the total lack of basic mathematical knowlege in all kind of people (including the a priori well-educated). Anumerism and the general lack of scientific knowledge extends everywhere. I am a physicist and work in a private research centre. I work with engineers, chemists and other physicists, and you wouldn't believe the kind of things I see everyday. Many of them cannot understand/ perform the simplest calculations (not just mental calculation, I'm also talking about very simple programming or excel files), it is just incredible, and very, very, sad.

NPLight, could you post the link to ``Anumeric man''? Is there a link somewhere on the web? (Google did not give me much info.) Is the book sold on amazon? Thanks.

[sonya_post]

Tamsyn,

I don't have girls, but if I had them I would be inclined to agree with you. Manda here is the thing that you might be missing - even though Tamsyn hasn't articulated it - I know she believes it: Her daughters will get a very good education because what her daughters know is roughly what her grandkids will know, including her grandsons. There is no cutting girls slack here.

While I think education is VERY important - I think having it combined with entrepreneurial skills is even better. If I had to choose, I would pick business skills over an education any day, but I see no reason for us to pick. However, I have 2 brothers - 1 graduated from high school the other didn't. One is a plumber, own his own business, has 15 employees and is doing VERY well for himself. The other is a chef - he never went to college. His makes well over $150,000 a year. He is not just a chef - he is a business person. I have a friend who can barely read who builds prefab malls, hospitals, office buildings. 30 employees and makes more money than nearly anyone I know. One last person is a pilot friend - also does not have a high school diploma. He just wanted to fly planes. He worked his way up to a Gulf Stream certification. He now owns 5 Lear jets and manages several more. 

Many of the people I know with PHDs are stuck in jobs they hate. They make decent money but they are waiting out their time so they can retire and do what they love.

Shop Class as Soul Craft is an excellent book - food for thought.

[Drjuliadc]

I have loved this entire thread and especially Robert Levy's contribution to it.

Since raising children is so important, I can't imagine a more important reason for a woman to have the most extensive education, perhaps even more important than a man who would ultimately be supporting a family if conditions allowed that.  The last poster indicated many ways lack of education doesn't always limit income. There is some issue of a woman owing a great deal of money on that education if they didn't get a monetary return on investment for 20 years or so, though.

I do remember thinking after I graduated from chiropractic college that my education was so valuable even if I never got to work as a chiropractor.  It was so mind expanding, motivational, practical and taught me to think out of the box. It was expensive then, but it is exorbitant now.  I owed $50,000 then. Now it is probably well over $100,000 and I might not have that same sentiment.

What difference would it make what else a person did in their life if they messed up raising their children anyway?

As for math idiocy,  I will admit to being pretty bad at adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing from lack of practice.  I knew how when it was required of me (and was very good at it in elementary school) and quickly forgot important chunks of math facts as soon as a calculator was allowed.  I absolutely loved math and left basic math in the dust when higher math hit the scene.  I did very well in higher math and I felt using the calculator to do calculations didn't limit me at all.

I will absolutely make sure my children know their math facts, but after they know them, I'm not as adverse to a calculator as others because of my own experience.

I am open to the idea that I'm totally wrong too.  Ha ha.

[NPLight]

I'm sorry, Nee1, I have the Spanish version "El hombre anumérico" and just translated into English without checking. The original title in English is "Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and its consequences", by John Allen Paulos (http://www.amazon.com/Innumeracy-Mathematical-Illiteracy-Its-Consequences/dp/0809058405/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1363382272&sr=8-1&keywords=innumeracy+mathematical+illiteracy+and+its+consequences).
Sorry for that!!

[nee1]

I'm sorry, Nee1, I have the Spanish version "El hombre anumérico" and just translated into English without checking. The original title in English is "Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and its consequences", by John Allen Paulos (http://www.amazon.com/Innumeracy-Mathematical-Illiteracy-Its-Consequences/dp/0809058405/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1363382272&sr=8-1&keywords=innumeracy+mathematical+illiteracy+and+its+consequences).
Sorry for that!!

Thanks for the link, NPLight. I'll get the book.

I've been pondering this problem of innumeracy among the general populace. My thoughts are that this problem occurs because people rarely get to use their math skills in their daily lives. Their skills therefore become rusty due to lack of use. It's not everyday you get to calculate the area of a triangle or find the second derivative of a partial differential equation.  And with the presence of calculators, people’s mental maths skills decline even further.

Reading, on the other hand, is everywhere. You need to read grocery labels, to read aloud books to your kids, to read traffic signs, to read complex materials in books etc. So people tend to get better at reading and understanding complex material than they are at math. To therefore become as good at math as they are at reading, they need to put in special efforts to keep their math skills and knowledge fresh.

Thoughts?

[PokerDad]

I think you're right about that Nee. I've forgotten more math than I currently know, how sad is that?

In browsing through the comments for Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and Its Consequences it seems that one of the themes addressed is the overall lack of understanding in probability. A few months ago, I read Think Fast and Slow, and while reading it my jaw dropped several times in astonishment at how stupid the typical person is and even experts that ought to know better.

Most people who are competent in math can still make significant mistakes in estimating probability. The "Let's Make a Deal" situation incited a lot of anger from professors and mathematicians when they disagreed with the fact that if Monty Hall opens one of the three doors after you've chosen among three, that you will double your probability of winning by taking the deal and altering your choice. For reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem

A similar problem relevant to parents: suppose you find out that you're pregnant, but with fraternal twins! You go in to get your ultra-sound and the radiologist is about to tell you the sexes. The woman spots the gender of both and is now about to reveal them to you. She says, "Okay, at least one of them is a girl, and...."....
assuming 50/50 birth rates for gender, what is the probability that the other child will be a girl, too?
Needless to say, the vast majority of people get this wrong.

[Chris1]

A similar problem relevant to parents: suppose you find out that you're pregnant, but with fraternal twins! You go in to get your ultra-sound and the radiologist is about to tell you the sexes. The woman spots the gender of both and is now about to reveal them to you. She says, "Okay, at least one of them is a girl, and...."....
assuming 50/50 birth rates for gender, what is the probability that the other child will be a girl, too?
Needless to say, the vast majority of people get this wrong.

The answer that most people give would be correct if the first born was a girl.

It is important to be aware of how badly equipped we are to get our heads around issues of probability and likelihood. We can all fall prey to similar traps when we are attempting to be rational.

Imagine a terrible disease that is absolutely fatal and affects only one in ten thousand people. You are concerned and decide to undergo a medical test to see if you have the disease. Your doctor explains that the test is 99% accurate-it will produce a correct positive or negative result 99% of the time. The envelope arrives a week later from the testing centre. You open the envelope, and read the contents. Staring you in the face is the answer that you dreaded: the results are positive. The test has indicated that you have this lethal disease. You are devastated.
How likely are you to have the disease? 


Chris.

[PokerDad]

Chris.... you Bayesian, you!

 

My response is below in white. Highlight to view

These Bayesian problems seem to give me fits, but this one only took a few seconds so hopefully I didn't miss something. My answer is 1%

The way I see it, there's a false positive every 100 test; In a sample of 10,000 people we expect one infected and 100 false positives. Therefore your chances of being infected after getting a 99% accurate result of positive is 1/100.

Did I get it right?

[Tamsyn]

Sonya, you're right about my sentiments.   

As this thread has touched on dumbing students down, I'm hoping that sharing Glenn Beck's recent post is relevant.  I don't normally follow Beck, but I like the panel he put together for this presentation.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/14/is-the-common-core-initiative-dumbing-down-americas-students/

I've been following Crystal Swasey on my own homefront:

http://www.utahnsagainstcommoncore.com/

This is scary stuff.

[Mandabplus3]

Now back to Saxon 
I just wanted to put out a warning to all your mummies advancing your children's math. PLease be careful to ensure your children do the Saxon books and CHAPTERS in order. Twice ( maybe 3 times) we have mixed up where we are up to in the books and my girl has done one a few chapters ahead of where she is at. It's not good  she spends ages doing a chapter that she isn't ready for, doesn't know how to complete all the problems and makes Lots of mistakes.
On the upside once she goes back to do the ones she skipped she finds them dead easy! 
She hasn't gone much ahead but it seems to make a rather large difference when she is working above grade level and so each single skill is new to her. I assume if it was revision or she was working at grade level it wouldn't matter as much.
Also children who know their plus and minus math facts ( reasonably well) but are still learning their times tables by rote can get started on 5/4. My 7 year old is finding it pretty simple. Although we are moving her at a slower pace to give her time to learn her math facts at the same time. She just needed a new challenge so we got started. She is doing a handful of problems each day to keep the info fresh in her head but still slow the pace slightly until those facts are internalised.

[nee1]

Now back to Saxon 
I just wanted to put out a warning to all your mummies advancing your children's math. PLease be careful to ensure your children do the Saxon books and CHAPTERS in order. Twice ( maybe 3 times) we have mixed up where we are up to in the books and my girl has done one a few chapters ahead of where she is at. It's not good  she spends ages doing a chapter that she isn't ready for, doesn't know how to complete all the problems and makes Lots of mistakes.
On the upside once she goes back to do the ones she skipped she finds them dead easy! 
She hasn't gone much ahead but it seems to make a rather large difference when she is working above grade level and so each single skill is new to her. I assume if it was revision or she was working at grade level it wouldn't matter as much.
Also children who know their plus and minus math facts ( reasonably well) but are still learning their times tables by rote can get started on 5/4. My 7 year old is finding it pretty simple. Although we are moving her at a slower pace to give her time to learn her math facts at the same time. She just needed a new challenge so we got started. She is doing a handful of problems each day to keep the info fresh in her head but still slow the pace slightly until those facts are internalised.

Thanks for the info. I'm working through the Saxon 65 book, and I'm finding that book will also be easy for a child who has multiplication, division, addition, and subtraction mastered. It teaches how to tell time, metric and US measurements (and their conversion), how to read calendars, fractions, decimals, probability, arithmetic and geometric sequences, even patterns. Simply put, it covers everything Saxon may cover in their k-3 book, plus lots more. It seems that my search for the perfect math curriculum is over. And the lessons are short and their explanations very clear and understandable. I can now see why Robinson said Saxon (from 54) could be used for self-teaching by a child who can read and comprehend well.
And I would recommend people skip the Saxon K-3 books, and just start at 54 and build up from there. 
 

Yes, as you mentioned, a child that has math facts (multiplication, division, addition, subtraction) mastered is set for Saxon 54. The other things like patterns, calendar, time, measurements, etc., are covered in 54 and 65. My emphasis now with my boy is teaching  him math facts. Just that and only that; nothing else. Once he's gotten all those mastered, I'll start him on 54. He'll learn patterns, calendars, time-telling, and everything else in the 54 and 65 books. Thoughts?

[Chris1]

PokerDad
Sorry for the belated response- yes your answer is correct.

You are less than 1 per cent likely to have the disease and this fact is very counter-intuitive for most people.
Generally people will fail to factor in the fact that the disease only hits one in ten thousand people.

A positive result could mean that you are one of the 99% of people who have been correctly diagnosed.
Alternatively you could be part of the 1% of people who don’t have the disease but have been wrongly diagnosed that they do.

If 1,000,000 people are tested we would expect one hundred people to have the disease. Remember that the disease only strikes one in ten thousand people.
Ninety-nine out of this hundred will be correctly diagnosed as having the disease because the test is 99% accurate.
We know that 999,900 people out of the 1,000,000 tested won’t have the disease, but 1 per cent (or 9,999 of them) will be wrongly diagnosed as having it.
So you are either one of those ninety-nine who have it, or one of those 9,999 who don’t. You’re over one hundred times more likely to be in the second, safe, category.

The answer that most people give to the Monty Hall problem is correct if Monty doesn’t know which door the prize is behind.
Chris.

[Robert Levy]

We had a fun time with the Monte Hall problem yesterday.  Here's my summary:
(quick background:  3 doors, one has a car, 2 have goats)
1)  Everyone involved knows that Monte will open a door that is not the one selected, but is a goat.  That is part of the rules of the game.
2)  The contestant will pick a door (one of three)
3)  Monte will open a second door, which is a goat
4)  The contestant will be given a chance to change to the remaining door (the one not mentioned above), if he wants to.

Here's our quick answer:
a)  From (2, above), the odds that the contestant picked the right door is one in three
b)  Opening the second door cannot change the odds of the first door, since that step was going to happen regardless of which door was chosen (i.e., no useful information was given to the contestant)
c)  Therefore the odds of the that contestant picked the right door remains one in three
d)  One third door remains not open and one of the two remaining unopened doors still has the car
e)  Therefore the odds for that other door must then be two of three

document.getElementById('recent_loading').style.display = 'none';document.getElementById('recent_page_box').style.display = '';

Page: 1/4  

Loading...

Members

• Total Members: 214769
• Latest: Meobi

Stats

• Total Posts: 110526
• Total Topics: 19136
• Online Today: 649
• Online Ever: 826
• (January 22, 2020, 12:09:49 AM)

Users Online

• Users: 0
• Guests: 478
• Total: 478