Opinion Piece: "Is Algebra Necessary?"

[Aightynine]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/29/opinion/sunday/is-algebra-necessary.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3&fb_source=message

TL;DR: Many students fail algebra, even after taking it multiple times, to the point where algebra requirements prevent kids from moving on in their education. Most people don't even really need it. We should teach different types of math instead--ones that are more applicable to the real world.

So...if I'm understanding his argument correctly, most people suck at algebra so we should just stop teaching it. Am I missing something, or is that pretty much what he's arguing?

[Роберт]

The aim would be to treat mathematics as a liberal art, making it as accessible and welcoming as sculpture or ballet.

Why is the author wanting to make math less accessible?

[Jahoclave]

Also, the idea that we don't need or use algebra is laughable. Solving for x, you do it far more than you think. The problem isn't that we don't need it, but that, at least from the anecdotal experience I've acquired, the U.S. school system sucks at teaching it. I know my biggest problem with maths was that all they would do is keep going through example after example without ever actually teaching the reasoning behind what you were doing. And the text books provided little explanation either, so I couldn't read them to get at something the teacher wasn't providing. I suspect, even if we taught a different set of maths, they'd be taught just as poorly.

[Aightynine]

The aim would be to treat mathematics as a liberal art, making it as accessible and welcoming as sculpture or ballet.

Why is the author wanting to make math less accessible?

XD Ballet is actually a particularly bad example for his argument. I don't know about you, but most people I know don't want to do ballet--particularly not on the level that any "real" ballet instructor would require. (From what I understand, unless you're at a real casual dance studio like I was, learning ballet involves A LOT of rigor from a young age.)

EDIT:

Also, the idea that we don't need or use algebra is laughable. Solving for x, you do it far more than you think. The problem isn't that we don't need it, but that, at least from the anecdotal experience I've acquired, the U.S. school system sucks at teaching it. I know my biggest problem with maths was that all they would do is keep going through example after example without ever actually teaching the reasoning behind what you were doing. And the text books provided little explanation either, so I couldn't read them to get at something the teacher wasn't providing. I suspect, even if we taught a different set of maths, they'd be taught just as poorly.

I agree--what we need to do is find a better way to teach algebra, not just axe it. Math is the subject with which most people I know have the hardest time, and I suspect it's because, in general, the U.S. hasn't figured out how to teach it in a way more people can understand.

[Роберт]

The aim would be to treat mathematics as a liberal art, making it as accessible and welcoming as sculpture or ballet.

Why is the author wanting to make math less accessible?

XD Ballet is actually a particularly bad example for his argument. I don't know about you, but most people I know don't want to do ballet--particularly not on the level that any "real" ballet instructor would require. (From what I understand, unless you're at a real casual dance studio like I was, learning ballet involves A LOT of rigor from a young age.)

That's my point. I don't feel like sculpture is any more accessible either, if you're talking about anything remotely advanced. (And since we're comparing it to algebra, we had better.)

[Jahoclave]

Well, it's also nice to see he added in some nice racism to pad out his point.

Also, his argument could pretty much be applied to any subject, except perhaps learning to read.

[Iulus Cofield]

Instead of investing so much of our academic energy in a subject that blocks further attainment for much of our population, I propose that we start thinking about alternatives. Thus mathematics teachers at every level could create exciting courses in what I call “citizen statistics.” This would not be a backdoor version of algebra, as in the Advanced Placement syllabus. Nor would it focus on equations used by scholars when they write for one another. Instead, it would familiarize students with the kinds of numbers that describe and delineate our personal and public lives.

It could, for example, teach students how the Consumer Price Index is computed, what is included and how each item in the index is weighted — and include discussion about which items should be included and what weights they should be given.

This need not involve dumbing down. Researching the reliability of numbers can be as demanding as geometry. More and more colleges are requiring courses in “quantitative reasoning.” In fact, we should be starting that in kindergarten.

This is a pretty reasonable point, kind of. And I find it extremely troubling that many students end up with the status of High School Dropout, one of the lowest classes in American society, because they failed one subject taught poorly. It's a little unclear to me if Hacker wants to abolish algebra altogether or just replace the system of teaching this formula so you can learn this formula so you can apply that formula to solve this system in a step by step hierarchy reminiscent of the classical method of teaching second languages with something a little more abstract and practical. The only math class I took in college, affectionately nicknamed Math for Non-Math Majors, was probably the funnest math class I've ever taken. The units were discrete and dealt with real world things, such as finding the most efficient route and why democracy is inherently flawed. I think that kind of class could be applied pretty successfully to high schools. And why not? Not every high school graduate needs to be prepared for college level mathematics and they shouldn't feel pressured to drop out because they're struggling with math classes that assume they're going to/might be math majors some day.

[LaserGuy]

I don't agree with the lot of the premises, but I do actually agree with the suggestion on the third page: It would be extremely useful for everyone to have a working knowledge of practical statistics--opinion polls, economic indicators, uncertainty, sample size, bias, etc. and a lot of school curricula do seem to focus too much on the theoretical side of subjects like (but not exclusive to) mathematics and don't spend enough time on these sort of ideas.

[Magnanimous]

I get (and mostly agree with) the arguments for replacing calculus with more practical classes, but... not algebra. Algebra isn't hard if you have a good teacher, and the teaching is the problem here. I tutor a lot of algebra students, and when I take away the textbook for a second and try to explain something intuitively they can generally understand it. And yes, you probably won't explicitly use algebra outside of class, but school isn't about teaching workplace skills: it's about learning how to learn and think critically so you can easily train for any specialized job. (It's also about building a work ethic, and unfortunately that's shoehorned into learning assignments... People should have a "work" grade and a "thinking" grade, dammit.)

One solution is to make an intuitive curriculum, then make it public domain and train teachers for free. (But good luck getting the money.) I don't know exactly what an optimal curriculum would look like, but there's probably enough good teachers(where's Feynman when we need him?) and education researchers in the world to get close. For one thing, I've seen a surprising number of students not understand the whole replacing-numbers-with-letters thing, so they might stress that variable names are completely arbitrary or take a more coding-ish approach. If you get students to understand that the volume of a cylinder is pi*radiusOfTheCircle²*lengthOfTheStraightPart, they'll eventually want to be lazy and just write pi*r²*h.

[MartianInvader]

This has probably been posted on this forum before, but remains relevant for pretty much any discussion of math education (including this one): http://www.maa.org/devlin/LockhartsLament.pdf

[omgryebread]

One solution is to make an intuitive curriculum, then make it public domain and train teachers for free. (But good luck getting the money.) I don't know exactly what an optimal curriculum would look like, but there's probably enough good teachers(where's Feynman when we need him?) and education researchers in the world to get close.

Not really. "Optimal" is really hard, because we don't know nearly enough about the brain, and, importantly, because kids learn different.

I think problems understanding algebra are due to traditional math teaching. Lack of progress in math scores was blamed on reform math, while ignoring other factors and falling grades in other subjects. Traditional math enforces rote memorization of algorithms. Learn this one way to subtract, practice. Learn this one way to multiply, practice. The actual concepts behind them isn't taught. Students aren't taught the relationship between adding and subtracting or multiplying and dividing. I think this enforces a concrete view of math. Since algebra is essentially abstract math, it makes it extremely hard to transition. When the only way you understand subtraction is through an algorithm (subtract this, regroup this, subtract, regroup), trying to understand "4 - x = 17" is very hard.

That being said, some other approaches are less than stellar too. When people in the 60s recognized that traditional math wasn't really working (and they wanted an edge to beat the USSR), they tried the jumble that was new math. A lot of the approaches in new math were good, but resisted. It focused on getting students to ask questions about the theories of math. Unfortunately, it ended up being quite confusing. Parents and teachers hated it, because by gosh they memorized their multiplication tables, dammit. It was also weird, confusing, and probably not necessary to teach students set theory or addition in base 6.

The next attempt was the more successful reform math, which took a similar approach in being student-centered learning. But a combination of being too radical in it's approach in some cases (we don't need to let students find the formula for a circle on their own to get them to understand the concept behind it), and a combination of people still being nostalgic over their multiplication tables didn't really help.


Thus the math wars. The modern approach is some sort of synthesis between the two. But it's hard to place where that divide should be. Traditional math seems to mean people can do quick mental math easier, while reform math makes it easier to transition into higher topics. Reform math usually has students learning algebra in middle school, while traditional math puts algebra in high school and calculus/statistics in college.

I've heard good things about Singapore Math. It takes a moderate approach, moving very slowly at first. It reinforces like traditional math but moves slower in early grades, so as to blend in teaching about the concepts. As the student moves up, their grasp of the basic concepts behind math, as opposed to algorithms, moves them past the traditional math student, letting them reach Algebra as early as 6th grade.

[cjmcjmcjmcjm]

probably not necessary to teach students set theory or addition in base 6.

That's a very strange view to have.

In seriousness, though, having nostalgia about multiplication tables is holding back education. If you need to use numbers that often anyway, you'll memorize them anyway.

[Thesh]

To be honest, you only really need algebrra for higher maths, physics, chemistry, statistics, computer science, biology, engineering, economics, accounting, and other science/business related fields.

[Dauric]

To be honest, you only really need algebrra for higher maths, physics, chemistry, statistics, computer science, biology, engineering, economics, accounting, and other science/business related fields.

I don't entirely agree with this but mostly because I think that the way we group mathematical techniques and methods is becoming obsolete. To wit: determining the root of polynomials certainly has limited applications for people outside those fields sure, however the basic algebra lesson of using variables could stand to be taught at lower grades in light of the accessibility of relatively simple scripting languages, including fairly basic spreadsheet use, and as has been mentioned previously some basic understanding of statistics would probably be appropriate in social studies classes.

Of course the thought of having to teach parts of various branches of mathematics at different times in a student's life as opposed to a discrete class of "algebra", "geometry" or "calculus" will probably cause an epidemic of mathematics instructors spontaneously exploding....

[Sheikh al-Majaneen]

Ah, yes. "Math is hard!" As if anything easy was worthwhile. Except your mom; we had some good times.

[Garm]

Algebra is good for teaching people about important things like what a variable is or how to read a graph (like something posted in your newspaper or online). It's also really good at teaching pattern recognition, so if for no other reason, it should taught. I think there are a number of ways to make algebra more accessible, if not easier. First thing is to acknowledge that it's really hard. I didn't know wtf was going on in high school when we were supposed to factoring cubics. No one taught me the generalized form or any of the tools that actually make doing such things sensible. When I took Math History in college and learned that it had taken literally hundreds of years to discover things that we consider basic methods it was a huge sense of relief.

[Magnanimous]

I don't entirely agree with this but mostly because I think that the way we group mathematical techniques and methods is becoming obsolete. To wit: determining the root of polynomials certainly has limited applications for people outside those fields sure, however the basic algebra lesson of using variables could stand to be taught at lower grades in light of the accessibility of relatively simple scripting languages, including fairly basic spreadsheet use, and as has been mentioned previously some basic understanding of statistics would probably be appropriate in social studies classes.

I think it'll be interesting to see how computer technologies affect math classes (and every class, really). I'm in college now, and I grew up seeing technologies progress from chalkboards in elementary school to smartboards in college... It really is a lot easier to understand math and physics concepts when you can see how manipulating formulas changes the result in real time. Teaching programming is making its way into schools too: I couldn't find the US program I was thinking of, but here's something comparable in Taiwan.

[Soralin]

probably not necessary to teach students set theory or addition in base 6.

That's a very strange view to have.

In seriousness, though, having nostalgia about multiplication tables is holding back education. If you need to use numbers that often anyway, you'll memorize them anyway.

You can just do math in binary, it makes multiplication tables easy.

x|0 1
-+----
0|0 0
1|0 1

[Zcorp]

Really the bigger problem that he doesn't seem to realize he is touching on is how we grade students. We should be focusing on assessing individual skills and areas of knowledge. A high school diploma, college diploma and pretty much every assessment system that currently exists, is to abstract to be truly useful in understanding a persons skill and knowledge profile.

Instead if we focused on accurately assessing what a person can do and how well, we would have a much more useful educational assessment system which would benefit employers, teachers and students.

Break skills down into defined categories of ability (each of which would be clearly defined based on severity and frequency of mistakes, also looking at bloom's taxonomy for references would likely be relevant), possibly : unskilled, proficient, adept, expert and master (each of these could apply to each area bloom as suggested relating to an ability).

A student after 4 years of high school might have a skills profile such as (each of these is an example and still to abstract, look at Khan Academy's Math break down for an example of more concrete examples):

Woodworking: Expert
Arithmetics: Adept
US History: Proficient
Algebra: Proficient
English: unskilled


Something along these lines allows us to never 'fail' a student but instead not move them up if they are not able to demonstrate their ability to apply the knowledge. Graduating in the sense it works now wouldn't exist, instead students would be given resources to allow them to try and move forward in as many areas as they can as far as they can during their time in school. This could also be easily applied outside of high school, in post secondary school or through professional development, to assess more complex abilities or ones that individual did not focus on while in public school.

[yurell]

My favourite response was from Pharyngula (P.Z. MYers).

Basically, it's a stupid idea.

[morriswalters]

Algebra is an abstraction. If you need it then you can't live without it, and if you don't, then try to name a basic skill that it teaches that can't be taught another way. It's a tool set. In and of itself it's valueless. Without it, any other math you take, wouldn't make sense, not to mention science. But if you have no intention of entering those fields, then I am having a problem seeing what you need Algebra for. Most people I know that get panic attacks about Algebra, can manipulate simple formulas and do everything that simple Algebra teaches you to do without thinking about it. A good carpenter can use slopes, calculate angles, measure and manipulate fractions, and read fairly complex schematics, all without the benefit of Algebra.

[Obby]

A good carpenter can use slopes, calculate angles, measure and manipulate fractions, and read fairly complex schematics, all without the benefit of Algebra.

Just because you don't call it algebra does not magically make it something else.

[morriswalters]

No, it's called arithmetic. Algebra just gives you a tool set that formalizes the manipulation of numbers through abstractions called variables. But for most calculations, that most people make, it simplifies to arithmetic. A refrigeration mechanic uses advanced chemistry, Algebra, and thermodynamics to do his job. I guarantee you that most would deny knowledge of any of the three by those names, in most cases. He understands partial pressures, variations of the ideal gas law, isentropic expansion of gases, latent heat and cooling, and a lot of other things. And he understands how to manipulate those things that he uses. The most difficult thing I have seen people have problems with is that leap to abstraction, were numbers aren't important, per se, rather the manipulations that you can do to them.

edit corrected isotopic to isentropic

[dalcde]

In the interest of maintaining rigor, we’re actually depleting our pool of brainpower

May I quote Richard Feynman?

In general we look for a new [physics] law by the following process. First we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right... It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is – if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong.

OK, it is about Physics, but replace "experiment" with "rigor", and the same applies to Maths. Rigor is needed, but is not the key. The key is to be creative. It is because we are not teaching creativity but procedure-following that makes Maths seem so boring and horrible. I often say this to my younger brother - If you are expecting me to give you a new formula to apply, then I can as well replace you with a robot. If you can derive new formulas from existing ones in order to solve your problem, then THAT's real Maths.

[Zamfir]

A good carpenter can use slopes, calculate angles, measure and manipulate fractions, and read fairly complex schematics, all without the benefit of Algebra.

Just because you don't call it algebra does not magically make it something else.

Perhaps, depending on definitions. But I think the relevant issue is not whether the activities should be called algebra, but whether formal schooling in relatively pure algebra would help them.

Abstraction can be powerful because if the generalization to more cases, but it can also create barriers. Especiallly if people do not become skllied enough in the abstraction to actually make those generalizations.

[BlackSails]

The writer of the article obviously failed statistics too, since his stats are garbage.

"X% of people failed a state exam, obviously it is because of the algebra section."

[Tirian]

To be honest, you only really need algebrra for higher maths, physics, chemistry, statistics, computer science, biology, engineering, economics, accounting, and other science/business related fields.

I can't decide whether you are making a "What have the Romans ever done for us?" style argument, but on a philosophic level the consequences of understanding algebraic concepts goes quite a bit deeper. Every time someone speaks decisively about an object that doesn't have a concrete identity, that's abstraction of the sort that is first fully analyzed in algebra class. For instance, when a shift worker at a fast food restaurant talks about serving the customer, what is "the customer"? It's not about serving a specific customer, it's about the embodiment of serving any arbitrary customer from the general population. We don't say "Let x be a customer" and then solve the problem of serving x, but that is our intellectual process. That's a mature philosophic discussion -- Piaget called it the formal operational stage -- and it's a concept that requires extensive training in order to master any non-trivial exercise in decision-making.

[KnightExemplar]

Algebra is an abstraction. If you need it then you can't live without it, and if you don't, then try to name a basic skill that it teaches that can't be taught another way. It's a tool set. In and of itself it's valueless. Without it, any other math you take, wouldn't make sense, not to mention science. But if you have no intention of entering those fields, then I am having a problem seeing what you need Algebra for. Most people I know that get panic attacks about Algebra, can manipulate simple formulas and do everything that simple Algebra teaches you to do without thinking about it. A good carpenter can use slopes, calculate angles, measure and manipulate fractions, and read fairly complex schematics, all without the benefit of Algebra.

True. But there's a difference between a good carpenter and a Materials Engineer.

The "Carpenter" who can use AutoCad to simulate his designs before building them will be significantly more productive than a Carpenter who just willy nilly creates things. To understand the models behind the simulation, or to pick out the proper kinds of wood easily requires knowledge of variables. And that kind of knowledge is applied to things as trivial as hockey sticks.

In today's world of automation and machines, the "Carpenter" who is also a materials engineer is significantly more valuable. Furthermore, the Materials Engineer probably doesn't need Carpentry skills to create 100,000 Hockey Sticks (that sort of stuff is left to machines now). So its clear which kind of person is more valuable to a large company.

Its not important today to be able to create a hockey stick. Whats important is being able to design a hockey stick thats better than everyone else's hockey stick. Good luck doing that without basic algebra.

[Radical_Initiator]

Abstraction can be powerful because if the generalization to more cases, but it can also create barriers. Especiallly if people do not become skllied enough in the abstraction to actually make those generalizations.

Then we help them surmount the barriers, not give up in frustration when a barrier appears.

[morriswalters]

@ KnightExemplar

Sure there is a difference between a Materials Engineer and a Carpenter. One needs Algebra and one doesn't. Carpenters don't design buildings, Architects do. Craftsmen who work in wood have a skill set every bit as difficult to obtain as an Engineering degree, It just doesn't include Algebra. He may well understand wood as a material as well as a Materials Engineer if not better. I suggest that you look at what skilled Carpenters do. Working in factories is not it. This is true for most of the skilled trades.

There seems to be some confusion as to what Algebra is. It's a procedural language, no more. One step above arithmetic. You take it, not because it is important in and of itself, rather for the tools it gives you in the greater maths. It's the elementary language of science. Take out the things that are abstractions, like variables, curve sketching, and the specialized forms and you are left with a few important concepts. Order of operations and simple formulas. You don't need, in most cases to know how the formulas came to be.

[KestrelLowing]

Personally, my guess is the biggest problem is unprepared teachers. There are very few self described "math people" who become teachers. A lot of teachers will likely teach by just going over example over example because they don't understand much beyond that. Obviously there are definitely exceptions, but I think the average teacher likely teaches like that because they don't know how to teach beyond that.

But IMO not teaching algebra is stupid. It's one of the most useful maths. Granted, some things probably aren't directly relevant to everyday life. However, things like exponential curves, logarithmic decay, solving for an unknown, manipulating equations, etc. are things that general people need everyday - they may just not realize it.

Let's take, for instance, the problem of gas mileage. That's algebra. People use it every day. Say you're painting your house and you want to figure out what paint is more cost effective. You're going to need algebra. Only thing is, people don't call it algebra and therefore it's not intimidating.

[HungryHobo]

True. But there's a difference between a good carpenter and a Materials Engineer.

The "Carpenter" who can use AutoCad to simulate his designs before building them will be significantly more productive than a Carpenter who just willy nilly creates things. To understand the models behind the simulation, or to pick out the proper kinds of wood easily requires knowledge of variables. And that kind of knowledge is applied to things as trivial as hockey sticks.

This sounds like something from someone who's only ever done hobby carpentry.

have you ever even watched a real master carpenter at work?

It's a pleasure to watch one work. not arsing around with cad or fancy gimmicks, just being able to *look* at a door sitting on some blocks then shaving off exactly enough to make it a perfect fit without even touching a measuring tape and hanging it so that it doesn't stick, even years later.

I know at least one foreman(former chippy) who bemoans the pack of "usless idiots" coming out of college courses who are "great at using fancy tools and nice equations but can't bloody well make something that actually fits into where it's actually meant to go"

minor example: a recent grad who was supposed to make something for the corner of a room. Did lots of math, mocked it up in CAD then had to be stopped before he destroyed a load of perfectly good timber because he didn't actually measure the curves of the wall/floor it was supposed to rest against/on.

He was then shown how to do everything he'd done in about 10% of the time with a bit of string, a weight and a pencil.

You can know all the math in the world and be great with fancy tools but if you're too inept to actually do the job you're still utterly useless.

Carpentry as a trade long predates algebra.Hell people were making beautiful woodwork before the general idea of math took off.

I see this topic is decending into the same shite where people claim that everyone uses algebra but "don't know it" on the basis that you can express things they do in algebra. Just because you can express it in terms of an algebratic expression does not mean that someone is "using algebra" any more than the fact that you can express any programming language in any other means that someone writing C is writing haskell.

I like math but I don't delude myself that everyone is "doing algebra"

[Radical_Initiator]

Personally, my guess is the biggest problem is unprepared teachers. There are very few self described "math people" who become teachers. A lot of teachers will likely teach by just going over example over example because they don't understand much beyond that. Obviously there are definitely exceptions, but I think the average teacher likely teaches like that because they don't know how to teach beyond that.

I was just thinking about this recently. I'm in that place several years beyond high school where most of the people you knew are done with college and are either starting or are in the very early stages of a career, and when I see the lists of people I went to school with who got a degree and went back to my hometown to be school teachers, I think "This guy/girl is teaching high school math? Really? No wonder our kids are screwed!" These are people who decided they wanted to become teachers (many of them since they never left high school, mentally) and then decided that teaching math wouldn't be all that bad. At least they'd get the teachers' editions of all the math books, right?

What we need are not teachers who will agree to teach math, we need mathematicians who are interested in teaching.

[Wnderer]

The fallacy here is that the education you've been given is for your own good and that you will need to use it in the future.

Meet the US education system. A typical grading sieve. Its primary purpose is to produce the very valuable finest grade stuff at the bottom. You are taught algebra so you can be taught geometry and trigonometry which you need to learn calculus. You need these to understand physics, chemistry, and engineering. Higher you go in the education system the more useful the previous processing you've undergone. If you're rejected at some point, you're slag. We may perform some additional processing to re-purpose you but it is not a priority. We want the high grade stuff.

[Puppyclaws]

For instance, when a shift worker at a fast food restaurant talks about serving the customer, what is "the customer"? It's not about serving a specific customer, it's about the embodiment of serving any arbitrary customer from the general population. We don't say "Let x be a customer" and then solve the problem of serving x, but that is our intellectual process. That's a mature philosophic discussion -- Piaget called it the formal operational stage -- and it's a concept that requires extensive training in order to master any non-trivial exercise in decision-making.

...is this...are you... ...wut? There is zero need, zero need for an algebra course in order to understand or talk about abstract concepts.

What we need are not teachers who will agree to teach math, we need mathematicians who are interested in teaching.

...and willing to take huge massive pay cuts in order to do so. Which is why this problem will never be solved by trying to change who teaches in our society.

[Radical_Initiator]

What we need are not teachers who will agree to teach math, we need mathematicians who are interested in teaching.

...and willing to take huge massive pay cuts in order to do so. Which is why this problem will never be solved by trying to change who teaches in our society.

Well ... yeah. That's the flaw in my brilliant plan.

[Garm]

Massive pay cuts? What am I doing wrong with my life? It'd be a paycut, but not a massive one, if I left my current job to go teach math but only after five years of working my way through the company. It's not that teaching pays great (it doesn't, maybe 45k for high school math), it's just that high paying jobs for a pure math degree are kind of rare.

[KestrelLowing]

Massive pay cuts? What am I doing wrong with my life? It'd be a paycut, but not a massive one, if I left my current job to go teach math but only after five years of working my way through the company. It's not that teaching pays great (it doesn't, maybe 45k for high school math), it's just that high paying jobs for a pure math degree are kind of rare.

Yeah, but where you lose a large amount of people is in engineering. I'm in my last semester of school and if I get an offer lower than 50k, I will likely be a bit insulted. That's the average starting salary for mechanical engineers coming out of my school. As I'm in the top of my class, I would certainly expect to get paid more than the mean. It certainly wouldn't be unheard of for me to make something in the 6 figures range at the end of my career. Teaching doesn't hold a candle to that, not to mention you have to deal with kids' parents.




I am curious though about the "even though they're doing something that could be represented by algebra, they're not doing algebra" concept. Ummm, frankly I think you're just 100% wrong. No matter what you call a rose, it still will be a rose. The main difference is that having that framework that's associated with algebra allows people to more easily communicate and possible to be quicker at their jobs because of the organization of that.

[LaserGuy]

Massive pay cuts? What am I doing wrong with my life? It'd be a paycut, but not a massive one, if I left my current job to go teach math but only after five years of working my way through the company. It's not that teaching pays great (it doesn't, maybe 45k for high school math), it's just that high paying jobs for a pure math degree are kind of rare.

Yeah, but where you lose a large amount of people is in engineering. I'm in my last semester of school and if I get an offer lower than 50k, I will likely be a bit insulted. That's the average starting salary for mechanical engineers coming out of my school. As I'm in the top of my class, I would certainly expect to get paid more than the mean. It certainly wouldn't be unheard of for me to make something in the 6 figures range at the end of my career. Teaching doesn't hold a candle to that, not to mention you have to deal with kids' parents.

Well, they could just start paying teacher's better. My wife is a high school teacher (Canada), and her starting salary was around 40-50k, and tops out at around 80-90k plus benefits after 10 years.

[Magnanimous]

Another response article on Patheos.