School maths standards

Hi all,

There seems to have been a spat of reports in the media about schools in 
various countries encouraging children to avoid anything hard, 
particularly maths. I wonder what the reality is that lies behind 
headlines which are sensationalist by their very nature.

Its 30 years since I left university. We started breeding late, so my 
own kids are still in primary school. I am seldom brought face to face 
with current academic behaviour. When I am, I am usually saddened by 
what seems like a major shift from teaching the strategic to teaching 
the tactical. The tactical knowledge taught in a youngster's early years 
seems likely to be obsolete before they even leave education, and need 
to seriously use it. These recent report seem to indicate things are 
going even further. That youngsters are being encouraged to learn 
nothing of substance at all. These are, however, media reports, so they 
may have no truck with reality.

There was a BBC report about UK universities needing to run remedial 
maths classes. When I was at a UK university, such a thing would have 
been the subject for a good joke, not for a teaching program. The BBC 
report compared entrance tests from the UK and China, with a much more 
meaningful geometry question from the Chinese test than from the UK one. 
Since a test of this kind can be expected to have a selection of 
questions ranging from simple to quite deep, the questions were probably 
picked out for dramatic effect. However, what struck me was why either 
question would be in a university level test at all. Both questions were 
too trivial to be even at the simple end of the range for testing an 
entrant to a university science course.

Most countries have expanded university entrance over the years. In the 
UK this has happened in a very destructive manner. They turned a graded 
selection of tertiary education options for people of different 
abilities, to a scheme where tertiary education == university + degree. 
The result is poor quality degrees, and high costs for students. A 
wonderful system in which everyone looses, except the university staff. 
Expanding university entrance will inevitably degrade the value of a 
degree. Not only are there more of them, but less smart people are 
taking them. What concerns me is have people given up trying to apply 
any standards at all?

Can anyone who faces this stuff more directly comment on the reality.

Steve

On Aug 12, 5:06 pm, Steve Underwood <ste...@dis.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> There seems to have been a spat of reports in the media about schools in
> various countries encouraging children to avoid anything hard,
> particularly maths. I wonder what the reality is that lies behind
> headlines which are sensationalist by their very nature.
>
> Its 30 years since I left university. We started breeding late, so my
> own kids are still in primary school. I am seldom brought face to face
> with current academic behaviour. When I am, I am usually saddened by
> what seems like a major shift from teaching the strategic to teaching
> the tactical. The tactical knowledge taught in a youngster's early years
> seems likely to be obsolete before they even leave education, and need
> to seriously use it. These recent report seem to indicate things are
> going even further. That youngsters are being encouraged to learn
> nothing of substance at all. These are, however, media reports, so they
> may have no truck with reality.
>
> There was a BBC report about UK universities needing to run remedial
> maths classes. When I was at a UK university, such a thing would have
> been the subject for a good joke, not for a teaching program. The BBC
> report compared entrance tests from the UK and China, with a much more
> meaningful geometry question from the Chinese test than from the UK one.
> Since a test of this kind can be expected to have a selection of
> questions ranging from simple to quite deep, the questions were probably
> picked out for dramatic effect. However, what struck me was why either
> question would be in a university level test at all. Both questions were
> too trivial to be even at the simple end of the range for testing an
> entrant to a university science course.
>
> Most countries have expanded university entrance over the years. In the
> UK this has happened in a very destructive manner. They turned a graded
> selection of tertiary education options for people of different
> abilities, to a scheme where tertiary education == university + degree.
> The result is poor quality degrees, and high costs for students. A
> wonderful system in which everyone looses, except the university staff.
> Expanding university entrance will inevitably degrade the value of a
> degree. Not only are there more of them, but less smart people are
> taking them. What concerns me is have people given up trying to apply
> any standards at all?
>
> Can anyone who faces this stuff more directly comment on the reality.
>
> Steve

Don't blame the staff. The governments have introduced 'bums on seats'
ie funding pro rata with no of students. If they don't get the
students they close down. Witness how many Physics depts in the UK
have closed and how many EEE depts have merged with computer science
and other depts. Until funding is made independent of no of students
this problem will go on.
Instead of having a go at staff you should be congratulating them for
doing what they can with the raw material they have. It's what you get
out versus what you put in that matters - and they are not doing too
bad. The best students nearly always go to the best Unis of course and
what are left is fought over by the remainder. That's why they had
"Physics with knitting' courses!

gyansorova@gmail.com wrote:
> On Aug 12, 5:06 pm, Steve Underwood <ste...@dis.org> wrote:
>> Can anyone who faces this stuff more directly comment on the reality.
>>
>> Steve
> 
> Don't blame the staff. The governments have introduced 'bums on seats'
> ie funding pro rata with no of students. If they don't get the
> students they close down. Witness how many Physics depts in the UK
> have closed and how many EEE depts have merged with computer science
> and other depts. Until funding is made independent of no of students
> this problem will go on.
> Instead of having a go at staff you should be congratulating them for
> doing what they can with the raw material they have. It's what you get
> out versus what you put in that matters - and they are not doing too
> bad. The best students nearly always go to the best Unis of course and
> what are left is fought over by the remainder. That's why they had
> "Physics with knitting' courses!

Why not blame the staff? It seems like it was the academics who pushed 
to abandon the old layered system that worked pretty well, with a flat 
system where everything beyond 18 is a degree.

Did it benefit parents? No. The government could afford to pay for the 
old system, so it was accessible to even the poorest parents. Now 
university means financial burden.

Did it benefit the students? No. A three year degree is no longer worth 
the paper it is written on, so the smart kids need to study for a 
minimum of 4 to have anything worthwhile. The less capable ones get a 
degree that means little more than the old HNC they would have got 30 
years ago, but it takes a lot more hardship for them to get it.

Did it benefit industry? The remedial activities now so prevalent seem 
to answer that one pretty well.

Did it benefit the academic industry? Well, it probably didn't benefit 
the staff running those physics courses that closed down, but I think 
they have generally been winners.

Now all the mainland countries are trying to follow Britain's wonderful 
lead.

I expect Britain still has the same old core problem with education that 
it had when I was at school, though. Its summed up by the line I often 
heard when young - "Why did you study engineering at college? you got 
such good grades at school.".

Steve

On 12 Aug, 07:06, Steve Underwood <ste...@dis.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> There seems to have been a spat of reports in the media about schools in
> various countries encouraging children to avoid anything hard,
> particularly maths. I wonder what the reality is that lies behind
> headlines which are sensationalist by their very nature.
>
> Its 30 years since I left university. We started breeding late, so my
> own kids are still in primary school. I am seldom brought face to face
> with current academic behaviour. When I am, I am usually saddened by
> what seems like a major shift from teaching the strategic to teaching
> the tactical.

I have a number of rants over suche matters here, you might have seen
one or two of them.

What primary school is concerned, I have no other experience than
my own stint, which ended 20+ years ago, and an observation that
the people who become teachers (strictly speaking, the people how
start on the education to become teachers) have been those with
the *poorest* results from "previous education" (I don't know the
correct English term). Those people are likely not the best teachers
of any subject. I have no idea what they might teach instead; your
guess is as good as mine.

As for university, I am not impressed. These days a professorship
is more about getting the "right" person, in the sense "politically
correct," or a salesman to bring in funds. The one professor I
know who actually possesed skills and knowledge at the level
most people expect from a professor, retired ten years ago.

> Most countries have expanded university entrance over the years. In the
> UK this has happened in a very destructive manner. They turned a graded
> selection of tertiary education options for people of different
> abilities, to a scheme where tertiary education =3D=3D university + degre=
e=2E
> The result is poor quality degrees, and high costs for students. A
> wonderful system in which everyone looses, except the university staff.
> Expanding university entrance will inevitably degrade the value of a
> degree. Not only are there more of them, but less smart people are
> taking them. What concerns me is have people given up trying to apply
> any standards at all?

Over here, there is a tendency to establish ever more universities.
Until a few years ago, there were only four universities in Norway
(Oslo, Bergen,Trondheim, Troms=F8). Som five years ago, the
fifth was established (Stavanger) and a couple of weeks ago
the sixth (Agder). Now some voices are raised that no more
universities should be established, since these newer ones
are at an academic level not even remotely close to the "four
big ones." One commenter said that "if Bod=F8, which is next
in line, gets a university, the term "university" is for all
intents and purposes meaningless."

I think the issue is about money. Universities are funded
over one bidget, "H=F8gskoler" which these new universities
used to be, over another.

Rune

Rune Allnor wrote:
> On 12 Aug, 07:06, Steve Underwood <ste...@dis.org> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> There seems to have been a spat of reports in the media about schools in
>> various countries encouraging children to avoid anything hard,
>> particularly maths. I wonder what the reality is that lies behind
>> headlines which are sensationalist by their very nature.
>>
>> Its 30 years since I left university. We started breeding late, so my
>> own kids are still in primary school. I am seldom brought face to face
>> with current academic behaviour. When I am, I am usually saddened by
>> what seems like a major shift from teaching the strategic to teaching
>> the tactical.
> 
> I have a number of rants over suche matters here, you might have seen
> one or two of them.
> 
> What primary school is concerned, I have no other experience than
> my own stint, which ended 20+ years ago, and an observation that
> the people who become teachers (strictly speaking, the people how
> start on the education to become teachers) have been those with
> the *poorest* results from "previous education" (I don't know the
> correct English term). Those people are likely not the best teachers
> of any subject. I have no idea what they might teach instead; your
> guess is as good as mine.
> 
> As for university, I am not impressed. These days a professorship
> is more about getting the "right" person, in the sense "politically
> correct," or a salesman to bring in funds. The one professor I
> know who actually possesed skills and knowledge at the level
> most people expect from a professor, retired ten years ago.
> 
>> Most countries have expanded university entrance over the years. In the
>> UK this has happened in a very destructive manner. They turned a graded
>> selection of tertiary education options for people of different
>> abilities, to a scheme where tertiary education == university + degree.
>> The result is poor quality degrees, and high costs for students. A
>> wonderful system in which everyone looses, except the university staff.
>> Expanding university entrance will inevitably degrade the value of a
>> degree. Not only are there more of them, but less smart people are
>> taking them. What concerns me is have people given up trying to apply
>> any standards at all?
> 
> Over here, there is a tendency to establish ever more universities.
> Until a few years ago, there were only four universities in Norway
> (Oslo, Bergen,Trondheim, Troms&#4294967295;). Som five years ago, the
> fifth was established (Stavanger) and a couple of weeks ago
> the sixth (Agder). Now some voices are raised that no more
> universities should be established, since these newer ones
> are at an academic level not even remotely close to the "four
> big ones." One commenter said that "if Bod&#4294967295;, which is next
> in line, gets a university, the term "university" is for all
> intents and purposes meaningless."

The pattern in the UK was to turn all the old polytechnics and technical 
colleges into universities. In a few cases those places have become 
respected universities. In most cases, it has just dragged down the term 
university. In the UK, universities award their own degrees, but there 
is a national moderation scheme to try to make "degree" a common ground 
term. This inevitably drags down the whole system.

> I think the issue is about money. Universities are funded
> over one bidget, "H&#4294967295;gskoler" which these new universities
> used to be, over another.

In the UK it had a lot to do with national stupidity. In the 1980s, when 
Japan was at a high point, and the UK at a low one, the great cry was 
"18% of Japan's youth goes to University, but only a few percent of the 
UK's does". This rather ignored the fact than nearly 18% of the UK's 
youth engaged in some form of tertiary education, and basically all 
tertiary education in Japan is called "university". The response was the 
completely brain dead destruction of a system that worked pretty well. I 
remember at the time we didn't seem to think it worked so well, but now 
I realise we were nit picking :-(. Nothing was done to fix what was 
broken, and a lot was done to break what worked.

Steve

On Aug 12, 7:42 pm, Steve Underwood <ste...@dis.org> wrote:
> Rune Allnor wrote:
> > On 12 Aug, 07:06, Steve Underwood <ste...@dis.org> wrote:
> >> Hi all,
>
> >> There seems to have been a spat of reports in the media about schools =
in
> >> various countries encouraging children to avoid anything hard,
> >> particularly maths. I wonder what the reality is that lies behind
> >> headlines which are sensationalist by their very nature.
>
> >> Its 30 years since I left university. We started breeding late, so my
> >> own kids are still in primary school. I am seldom brought face to face
> >> with current academic behaviour. When I am, I am usually saddened by
> >> what seems like a major shift from teaching the strategic to teaching
> >> the tactical.
>
> > I have a number of rants over suche matters here, you might have seen
> > one or two of them.
>
> > What primary school is concerned, I have no other experience than
> > my own stint, which ended 20+ years ago, and an observation that
> > the people who become teachers (strictly speaking, the people how
> > start on the education to become teachers) have been those with
> > the *poorest* results from "previous education" (I don't know the
> > correct English term). Those people are likely not the best teachers
> > of any subject. I have no idea what they might teach instead; your
> > guess is as good as mine.
>
> > As for university, I am not impressed. These days a professorship
> > is more about getting the "right" person, in the sense "politically
> > correct," or a salesman to bring in funds. The one professor I
> > know who actually possesed skills and knowledge at the level
> > most people expect from a professor, retired ten years ago.
>
> >> Most countries have expanded university entrance over the years. In the
> >> UK this has happened in a very destructive manner. They turned a graded
> >> selection of tertiary education options for people of different
> >> abilities, to a scheme where tertiary education =3D=3D university + de=
gree.
> >> The result is poor quality degrees, and high costs for students. A
> >> wonderful system in which everyone looses, except the university staff.
> >> Expanding university entrance will inevitably degrade the value of a
> >> degree. Not only are there more of them, but less smart people are
> >> taking them. What concerns me is have people given up trying to apply
> >> any standards at all?
>
> > Over here, there is a tendency to establish ever more universities.
> > Until a few years ago, there were only four universities in Norway
> > (Oslo, Bergen,Trondheim, Troms=F8). Som five years ago, the
> > fifth was established (Stavanger) and a couple of weeks ago
> > the sixth (Agder). Now some voices are raised that no more
> > universities should be established, since these newer ones
> > are at an academic level not even remotely close to the "four
> > big ones." One commenter said that "if Bod=F8, which is next
> > in line, gets a university, the term "university" is for all
> > intents and purposes meaningless."
>
> The pattern in the UK was to turn all the old polytechnics and technical
> colleges into universities. In a few cases those places have become
> respected universities. In most cases, it has just dragged down the term
> university. In the UK, universities award their own degrees, but there
> is a national moderation scheme to try to make "degree" a common ground
> term. This inevitably drags down the whole system.
>
> > I think the issue is about money. Universities are funded
> > over one bidget, "H=F8gskoler" which these new universities
> > used to be, over another.
>
> In the UK it had a lot to do with national stupidity. In the 1980s, when
> Japan was at a high point, and the UK at a low one, the great cry was
> "18% of Japan's youth goes to University, but only a few percent of the
> UK's does". This rather ignored the fact than nearly 18% of the UK's
> youth engaged in some form of tertiary education, and basically all
> tertiary education in Japan is called "university". The response was the
> completely brain dead destruction of a system that worked pretty well. I
> remember at the time we didn't seem to think it worked so well, but now
> I realise we were nit picking :-(. Nothing was done to fix what was
> broken, and a lot was done to break what worked.
>
> Steve

Well, you cannot have it both ways. The  Government wanted an
expansion in numbers and the Unis obliged. The smart ones are still
there of course but there is now a bigger tail of also rans.
If we went back to recruiting only the really smart ones then whole
departments would close.
I cannot see any lecturers queing up to jump off a cliff! Would you
volunteer tobe jobless?
Besides, there is a recognition in the UK that 3 year degrees are
technician engineer degrees and 4 year Masters are now the standard
for a prof engineer. Maybe a degree is an old HNC and an M.Eng is the
old BS.C. So what? If you are worried then recruit only M.Eng grads
(but you may find there are not enough to go round!)

gyansorova@gmail.com wrote:
> Well, you cannot have it both ways. The  Government wanted an
> expansion in numbers and the Unis obliged. The smart ones are still
> there of course but there is now a bigger tail of also rans.
> If we went back to recruiting only the really smart ones then whole
> departments would close.

I doubt that. I expect things would migrate back to the old technical 
college/poly/university way, and a degree would grow in stature again.

> I cannot see any lecturers queing up to jump off a cliff! Would you
> volunteer tobe jobless?
> Besides, there is a recognition in the UK that 3 year degrees are
> technician engineer degrees and 4 year Masters are now the standard
> for a prof engineer.

Isn't that rather sad? It seems like its robbing a year of the life of a 
smart young person. I really don't think the kind of degree I did needed 
extending by a year to get me to the baseline for being useful. I also 
strongly suspect I was grounded a lot better to see me through my whole 
working life.

> Maybe a degree is an old HNC and an M.Eng is the
> old BS.C. So what? If you are worried then recruit only M.Eng grads
> (but you may find there are not enough to go round!)

I've never seen much of a surplus of jobs for capable people in the UK. 
When jobs ads were completely non-existant, in 1992, I left the UK. You 
could have hired top class graduates for a dime a dozen that year. 
Surplus and shortage is a cyclical thing. The long term median is its 
hard to find a decent job in the UK. From job ads I see on UK web sites 
now, salaries kinda suck. That doesn't sound like an environment where 
it would be hard to recruit good people.

Steve

On Aug 12, 9:40 pm, Steve Underwood <ste...@dis.org> wrote:
> gyansor...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Well, you cannot have it both ways. The  Government wanted an
> > expansion in numbers and the Unis obliged. The smart ones are still
> > there of course but there is now a bigger tail of also rans.
> > If we went back to recruiting only the really smart ones then whole
> > departments would close.
>
> I doubt that. I expect things would migrate back to the old technical
> college/poly/university way, and a degree would grow in stature again.
>
> > I cannot see any lecturers queing up to jump off a cliff! Would you
> > volunteer tobe jobless?
> > Besides, there is a recognition in the UK that 3 year degrees are
> > technician engineer degrees and 4 year Masters are now the standard
> > for a prof engineer.
>
> Isn't that rather sad? It seems like its robbing a year of the life of a
> smart young person. I really don't think the kind of degree I did needed
> extending by a year to get me to the baseline for being useful. I also
> strongly suspect I was grounded a lot better to see me through my whole
> working life.
>
> > Maybe a degree is an old HNC and an M.Eng is the
> > old BS.C. So what? If you are worried then recruit only M.Eng grads
> > (but you may find there are not enough to go round!)
>
> I've never seen much of a surplus of jobs for capable people in the UK.
> When jobs ads were completely non-existant, in 1992, I left the UK. You
> could have hired top class graduates for a dime a dozen that year.
> Surplus and shortage is a cyclical thing. The long term median is its
> hard to find a decent job in the UK. From job ads I see on UK web sites
> now, salaries kinda suck. That doesn't sound like an environment where
> it would be hard to recruit good people.
>
> Steve

Well you know it's a matter of opinion. I know a guy who graduated in
the 1960s and says that you always need a min of a Masters to be a
good design engineer. Nowadays they have more on the syllabus to cover
than 30 years ago. Embedded systems didn't exist back then for
instance, no FPGAs,concurrent programming and DSP was just theory in
most places.
The new M.Eng degrees make you learn a language as well in some places
making it mcuh more like a European degree. In fact you may think that
the 3 years you spent was all you needed but look at Europe and see
that they have had 4 years for much longer - also Scotland and
Ireland. In fact in Scotland in some places it was 5 years for a first
degree if you include time in industry to go with it. Many of the top
Unis had no industrial placement whereas the Polytechnics did - and
they are the ones you are running down! The only problem was that the
Polys were not as hot on research as the trad Unis so they took a long
time to catch up and never have by all accounts. This is in contrast
to the 1960s when many new Unis were formed but the Government poured
money into them. Instead nowadays they changed the names and said they
had to get their own money from student numbers and research - not
possible unless you recruit different staff to get the research right.
Also you will find that the old Polytechnic degress were also
acredited by say the IEE whereas now many of them may not be.
Standards have gone up, not down.

gyansorova@gmail.com writes:
> [...]
> Standards have gone up, not down.

My response would be "yes" and "no." I think a chasm has developed
that separates the "good" math people from the "average" students, and
"average" has been going down while "good" has been going up.
-- 
%  Randy Yates                  % "She has an IQ of 1001, she has a jumpsuit
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC            %            on, and she's also a telephone."
%%% 919-577-9882                % 
%%%% <yates@ieee.org>           %        'Yours Truly, 2095', *Time*, ELO   
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

gyansorova@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> Well you know it's a matter of opinion. I know a guy who graduated in
> the 1960s and says that you always need a min of a Masters to be a
> good design engineer. Nowadays they have more on the syllabus to cover
> than 30 years ago. Embedded systems didn't exist back then for
> instance, no FPGAs,concurrent programming and DSP was just theory in
> most places.

That much is clearly untrue. A syllabus adapts the the circumstances and 
time available. It always covers a similar amount in a similar time. 10 
years before I went to college thermionic valves were covered in great 
detail. When I was at college we only did a little about them. Now, I 
guess the get scant mention, especially with CRT TVs disappearing.

I studied almost no DSP at college, like everyone else at that time. 
Still, I had been grounded well enough in basics that I went into my 
first job developing signal processing from the chip level up without 
any real problems.

I think your list is very oddly focussed. Embedded systems always 
existed, and using FPGAs has no fundamental difference from any other 
logic design.

> The new M.Eng degrees make you learn a language as well in some places
> making it mcuh more like a European degree. In fact you may think that
> the 3 years you spent was all you needed but look at Europe and see
> that they have had 4 years for much longer - also Scotland and
> Ireland. In fact in Scotland in some places it was 5 years for a first
> degree if you include time in industry to go with it. Many of the top
> Unis had no industrial placement whereas the Polytechnics did - and
> they are the ones you are running down! The only problem was that the

I wasn't trying to run anyone down. The universities, polys and 
technical colleges served pretty well balanced purposes in the old days. 
If M. Eng degrees now make you take a language, it sounds like they have 
run out of solid engineering material to fill the courses with. Not long 
before I went to college you needed O-level Latin to get into an 
engineering degree course. As soon as that stupidity stopped, our Latin 
teacher was left with nobody to teach. She also taught German, so she 
didn't loose her job. :-)

> Polys were not as hot on research as the trad Unis so they took a long
> time to catch up and never have by all accounts. This is in contrast

This was extremely variable. Some of the old polys did excellent 
research work. It depended pretty much on who was there, and their 
motivations. Their position made it hard for them to get funding, 
though. Some of the old polys deserved to be renamed as universities, 
and I believe some have a fine reputation now.

> to the 1960s when many new Unis were formed but the Government poured
> money into them. Instead nowadays they changed the names and said they
> had to get their own money from student numbers and research - not
> possible unless you recruit different staff to get the research right.
> Also you will find that the old Polytechnic degress were also
> acredited by say the IEE whereas now many of them may not be.
> Standards have gone up, not down.

The expansion in the 60s was a good thing. Before that, university 
places were very limited in the UK. I think after that surge of 
expansion, pretty much any of the people I grew up with who could cope 
with a university syllabus were able to find a place. Beyond that time 
expansion was pure dilution, and it appears to have had dire consequences.

When I was at college, there were obviously good and bad universities. 
However, a moderation scheme balanced standards well enough that people 
asked first what class of degree you had, and only then where you got 
it. If the IEE won't even accredit some degrees, it sounds like the 
system has descended badly from there. The old centrally issued poly 
degrees (CNAA, was it?) were as valued as the degrees from most 
universities. If that is no longer true, it sounds like standards have 
descended into the toilet.

Steve