Actually I was just talking to someone today about the math requirements of colleges in the US. I know a lot of people had trouble making it through college because of the math. A few years ago, my daughter had to complete calculus as part of general education requirements, but my younger daughter who is in university now, doesn't have to. The big question is why did they remove the calculus requirement? If they did it because people were having trouble passing it, then the degree my younger daughter will earn should be considered less valuable than my older daughter's.
Wouldn't that depend on the particular field of what the "degree" is in? I mean, if, say it was a degree in English; is calculus really something needed for such a degree? However, if it is something that deals with math, to such a scale, then, I would agree: it would be a "lesser degree" but if it isn't really applicable to the degree -- then why would it be less?
I haven't looked at any IQ tests recently, but I would be surprised if there was a huge math section. Like I said before, IQ should not measure knowledge but the ability to reason. The relationship to math would be that understanding math requires using logic. I don't believe that understanding math is crucial to intelligence but the ability to use logic is crucial. The ability to use both deductive and inductive reasoning is an example of intelligence.
I have taken quite a few in my life, some I was forced to take while in school 'cause some things I would do would show I had a high intelligence yet in many years in school, I flunked everything
Mainly every single one with the exception of a few
mainly dealt with math, or some form of math.
This is what I want you to do. Go to google or yahoo or whatever search engine you use, and type in "IQ test" (in quotes) and take the various tests provided and you come back here and tell me how many of them dealt less in math than more.
I think it would be counterproductive to require children to only learn those subjects in which they excel.
I agree and disagree with this statement. I agree that children at a learning age (from birth to say 12 to 14) should be taught the basics of everything but when they come to a certain age, where they're going to have to survive in a world that usually pushes them down rather than helps them up (not everyone who is able to go to college can afford to go, and not everyone who does go to college should actually be attending) should find the subjects and skills that they excell at, and focus mainly on those things so when they go out into the "real world", they won't be lost as much.
When I was a child, all I wanted to do was to be in the U.S. Navy. From when I was 7 or 8 all the way up to the car accident that wrecked my chances of ever being in any armed forces
. My preparation in life was to only do that but when that car accident happened; after that, I had nothing to fall on. I had no idea what I wanted to do with my life but if the educational system I went through cared at all for the learning process of the students
then perhaps I would have learned I had other skills that I could have learned. Many children, and current (and past) adults have gone through similar tribulations.
I find the educational system for children in the U.S. to be just a babysitter.
An argument could be made that we don't need to teach literature, for example, because it won't help a person succeed in life. I think it would be sad if children weren't exposed to the great works of previous generations.
Teaching literature is fine however most people who teach it do not teach the mechanics of it, or even, for that matter, the value. But literature isn't or shouldn't be (in my opinion) a requirement. It should be an elective. English should be a requirement (or whatever language is used where ever one learns a particular subject in that particular society), but literature shouldn't. Just as I feel P.E.
shouldn't be a requirement.
Math (to a point
History (to a point)
Science (to a point)
English (or whatever language in one's particular country/society)
As far as you personally having trouble with math, it is probably due to the method used to teach you.
Everyone always assumes such -- they are all wrong. I know my difficulty with math. I have the ability to memorize large sequences of numbers. Most recently I memorized 26 numbers in less than 2 seconds
. Sometimes all I have to do is look at them, not read them, and I automatically know them by heart. But my ability to memorize numbers has nothing to do with calculating numbers or figuring out complex answers to maths. They are separate but many people are under the delusion that they aren't; and that's the problem that teachers and/or math tudors (or what not) had with me. They stopped blaming the disability
of me being able to do the problem, and starting blaming me, entirely. I was being lazy. I just didn't care. I wasn't paying enough attention to them. I wasn't listening. It was all my fault.
Then I found this guy, regular guy, who helped me out a few years ago. And, he found that I'm not bad at math it's just my brain calculates the problems at a slower rate than the average person. So, he gave me series of tests. First he gave me basic maths at a normal pace; which I graded high on. Then he gave me harder maths at a normal pace; which I graded low on. Then he broke down each section of the varying problems, gave them to me separately, and then told me to take all the time I needed, and then timed me. It took me 2 and half hours to complete 10 questions, and I only got one incorrect. He told me that I'm not "bad at math", I'm just "slow at math". But since certain tests one takes (such as IQ tests or various tests for school etc.,) deals at a certain time-limit, I'm doom to fail them all. Therefore, I'm bad at math
in the eyes of society.
That is why I believe that all children should be taught all subjects until they are mature enough to determine what they want to do with their lives.
Maturity based on age is a myth. A fallacy.