The Math Myth, by Bryan Caplan

Math professor David Edwards sent me this short essay on mathematical education.  Printed with his permission.

The Math Myth

The
math myth is the myth that the future of the American economy is
dependent upon the masses having higher mathematics skills. This myth goes back
to at least Sputnik, when the Russians were going to surpass us because they
were better in math and science. It returned in the late 80's when the Germans
and Japanese were going to surpass us because they were better in math and
science. It's occurring again now because the Indians and Chinese are better
than us in math and science.

  

I find it difficult to find anyone who uses more than Excel and eighth grade
level mathematics (=arithmetic, and a little bit of algebra, statistics and
programming). In the summer of 2007 I taught an advanced geometry course and
had two students in the class who had been engineers and one who had been an
actuary. They claimed never to have used anything beyond Excel and eighth grade
level mathematics; never a trig function or even a log or exponential function!
There is in fact a deskilling going on in our economy, where even the ability
to make change is about to disappear as an important skill.

  

Vivek Wadhwa has described how there's no shortage of scientists and engineers. I've been concerned with what skills those who are working as scientists and
engineers actually use. I find that the vast majority of scientists, engineers
and actuaries only use Excel and eighth grade level mathematics. This suggests
that most jobs that currently require advanced technical degrees are using that
requirement simply as a filter. In particular, I'm working on documenting the
following:

  

Math Myth Conjecture: If one restricts one's attention to the
hardest cases, namely, graduates of top engineering schools such as MIT,
 RPI,  Cal. Tech., Georgia Tech., etc., then the percent of such
individuals holding engineering as opposed to management, financial or other
positions, and using more than Excel and eighth grade level mathematics
(arithmetic, a little bit of algebra, a little bit of statistics, and a little
bit of programming) is less than 25% and possibly less than 10%.

  

This is a conjecture that desperately needs resolving with solid statistics and
in-depth interviews.

 

Actually,  I'm already totally convinced of the veracity of the conjecture.
This conviction is based upon the numerous scientists, engineers, and
professors of science, engineering and math education that I've communicated
with. In particular, Prof. Warren Seering, an engineering professor at MIT, who
does surveys of their graduates, agreed with the conjecture. As did Prof. Julie
Gainsburg, an ethnographer of mathematics in the workplace, whose done on-site
work with structural engineers.



The following story also confirms the conjecture. Accenture, the former
consulting part of the now defunct Arthur Anderson, was recruiting at UGA for
math and computer science majors. I invited them-one professional recruiter and
three consultants-to give their spiel to my class Math for Computer Science.
After they finished, I asked the consultants: So, what mathematics do you
actually use? They sheepishly responded: None. So, I asked them: What
computer science do you actually use? Again the answer was: None.
They were only interested in math or computer science majors as a convenient
filter!

 

Acceptance of the conjecture should have revolutionary
educational implications . In particular, it undermines the legitimacy of
requiring higher mathematics of all students. Such mathematics is
actually needed by only a minute fraction of the workforce.

  

There are two counter-arguments. The first is that higher mathematics is
central to a serious higher education. This argument I agree with. Any Harvard
undergraduate majoring in philosophy would certainly want to be able to
understand Roger Penrose's book The Road to Reality. Unfortunately,
that type of student is only a minute fraction of higher education. It is both
unreasonable and unworkable to insist that all students get such training. Of
course, such training should be available to all who desire it.

  

The second argument is the one I always hear around the mathematics department:
mathematics helps you to think clearly. I have a very low opinion
of this self-serving nonsense. In sports there is the concept of the
specificity of skills: if you want to improve your racquetball game,
don't practice squash! I believe the same holds true for intellectual
skills. In any case, the case for transference of mathematical skills is
unsettled. Moreover, mathematics is of little use in most problems of ordinary
life. For example, mathematics could be of help in computing the costs of
having children; but is useless in computing the benefits!

 

In conclusion, it would be wonderful to be able to get all students competent
in Excel and arithmetic, and a little bit of algebra, statistics and
programming. Higher mathematics should be offered and taken by those who need
it, or want it; but never required of all students.

(34 COMMENTS)