Is STEM mostly rote memorization?

[keith99]

You are right that a lot of problem solving is involved in the STEM programs. But in theory these programs are built on bricks of objectivity. Not subjectivity. Especially something like physics is very deterministic. And those concepts and tool can not be questioned--as they can in the humanities or something like history--or one fails the exam because the right answers are contingent on working within the strict limits of those concepts and tools. Not flying outside of them.

That there is a right answer =/= rote memorization.

I think Schrodinger, de Broglie and Heisenberg would be quite surprised by your claim that Physics is deterministic.

 

[SuperCloud]

What is this assumption based on? It's entirely possible to fail to master the skills that are needed to get these grades in English class. Do you have a source that says that the overall grade breakdown is different among these classes?

Yeah, some are not as good as others in writing up papers or taking essay exams. Some might even be very poor at it.

But I'm partly just recalling a difference I've noticed in non-STEM courses I've taken (the subjectivity part vs objective). And I'm partly recalling some of the criticisms about science I learned about in a philosophy of science course I took.

Nothing wrong with STEM courses. In fact, if a person was unsure what they wanted to study in college I'd suggest they'd pick from a STEM route.

But I'm not one that thinks STEM courses are the only worthwhile things to study. I've got no problem with people going to university for dance, painting, studying Chinese literature or whatever it may be.

Somethings aren't as marketable after college though.

There are some courses I think aren't worth much time. I would never take a comparative religious course, for example. There are some feminist courses I don't think well of either. I enjoyed the Africology course I took but prior to that I was a bit skeptical of Afrocentric studies. There might be some Afrocentric course I would think aren't worth much time too. Maybe.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

Eh, I don't really see the value in prioritizing the history of the theory or subdiscipline rather than the theory itself, until you're in graduate studies and are primarily reading the literature and conducting research. It's good to provide background information at the beginning of each unit about how the information was obtained and where the discipline is headed, but the bulk of STEM curricula up through undergrad should be about absorption, comprehension, and practical application.

I remember in 7th or 8th grade math--it was probably pre-algebra--I had classmates saying to the teacher, "When am I ever going to use this at a job?!".

When ideas are taken completely out of their intellectual context such struggle with appreciation results.

No matter what content is presented or what techniques are employed, teachers and students would all benefit from never losing sight of the big picture--never losing sight of the intellectual life of the mind that they are a part of and that goes back to the dawn of their civilization.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

Most people hate math...

Most people probably hate the rigorous, impersonal repetition that characterizes math in formal education.

But the Time-Life Books Mathematics, published in the 1960's, that I have is enjoyable reading.

 

[SuperCloud]

Most people probably hate the rigorous, impersonal repetition that characterizes math in formal education.

But the Time-Life Books Mathematics, published in the 1960's, that I have is enjoyable reading.

Yeah, I would say so. I also think it has to do with the fact of us don't spend a lot of our thinking time thinking quantitatively. You build what you expend energy building upon.

I hate math more than most people. No, I hate doing math and not really that I hate math in and of itself so much.

The problem was greatly exacerbated over time because I developed a math phobia. I was so afraid of math that when I was a kid if a stranger asked me what time it was I wot look down at my watch and in a panic tell them I didn't know. I didn't begin to confront my math phobia until I entered community college. I still have not expended much energy tackling it. Once I began to hit walls I began to shy away a bit.

You know... I found math taught in grade school and high school to be a bit like the swimming instructions taught in US Marine boot camp. The Swim Instructors were worse than the Drill Instructors. For non-swimmers the whole ordeal is made terrifying. They don't try to make you feel comfortable but pressure you and frighten you. I failed the first time in boot camp (I think it was phase 1) and retook the swim test later in boot camp (I think phase 3) and passed.

 

[Cearbhall]

I remember in 7th or 8th grade math--it was probably pre-algebra--I had classmates saying to the teacher, "When am I ever going to use this at a job?!".

When ideas are taken completely out of their intellectual context such struggle with appreciation results.

They were asking if anyone uses pre-algebra?? How do they think the classroom got its computers, for starters? For pete's sake, how do they think anything is designed?

Most people hate math. Consequently most people hate math.

Do they? That wasn't my experience.

 

[keith99]

Most people probably hate the rigorous, impersonal repetition that characterizes math in formal education.

But the Time-Life Books Mathematics, published in the 1960's, that I have is enjoyable reading.

Excellent point. Though I'd say the repetition part is more something of elementary education and rigor really does not show up at all until High School.

I wish I knew more about some of the new math ideas being taught. I've been told that when I was in elementary school I explained to my mother (Phi Beta Kappa as a Chem major at UCLA, so pretty good at math) the way I did things to make 'hard' problems easy. She was impressed what the school was teaching. That is until there was an open house and mentioned it to the teacher and got a blank look in return. I strongly suspect that at least part of 'new math' is designed to lay the foundations to do the things I came up with, but that they are being taught as rote drill by teachers who do not understand them and are thereby rendered less than useless.

BTW I learned simple probability from those same Time-Life books which became interesting in High School when the biology teacher did not understand basic probability. The technique of the books was excellent, showing by enumerating all possible outcomes for a small problem and then showing how that illustrated the general rules which could be applied to much larger problems.

 

[Cearbhall]

Most people probably hate the rigorous, impersonal repetition that characterizes math in formal education.

Interesting. I loved that. Timed tests and things like that.

 

[keith99]

I remember in 7th or 8th grade math--it was probably pre-algebra--I had classmates saying to the teacher, "When am I ever going to use this at a job?!".

When ideas are taken completely out of their intellectual context such struggle with appreciation results.

No matter what content is presented or what techniques are employed, teachers and students would all benefit from never losing sight of the big picture--never losing sight of the intellectual life of the mind that they are a part of and that goes back to the dawn of their civilization.

One funny thing there. They scream even louder when they get to geometry and that does have lots of application in jobs and at home.

One classic example is a problem given using similar triangles and a tree to work out if a felled tree will hit a home. That one I've done for real. Actually a more complicated one as I was topping the tree. But actually having the geometry down it was obvious that if a tree as tall as the remaining height above the cut was clear then the topping would be clear. If I had taken the whole tree down it would not have been clear of the house.

 

[keith99]

Interesting. I loved that. Timed tests and things like that.

I do have some concerns re timed tests. Now for some things they are spot on. I want an artillery officer to be able to calculate their shot lightening fast. I don't care if a guy demolishing a building (in the civilian world) is fast all that much.

Far from sour grapes on my part. I recall one calculus test in college where it was pick 4 of these 5 questions. The Prof said that if anyone had the time they could do the 5th for extra credit firmly implying that was not very likely (and that some would be fortunate to finish 4). All 5 done and checked at about the 45 minute mark.

 

[Cearbhall]

I do have some concerns re timed tests. Now for some things they are spot on. I want an artillery officer to be able to calculate their shot lightening fast. I don't care if a guy demolishing a building (in the civilian world) is fast all that much.

I'm talking about in elementary school, where the timed tests were just binary operations and you get a maximum of three minutes or so to complete a sheet of problems.

 

[KCfromNC]

Eh, I don't really see the value in prioritizing the history of the theory or subdiscipline rather than the theory itself

For fields which don't actually reach conclusions, there's little else to teach but the idea that lots of people had random opinions about things and then other people had opinions about those opinions.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

STEM is "rote memorization"? I'm an engineer...and I haven't memorized anything much past 2+2. There's just TOO much information, TOO many ways to look at a problem...one of my latest problems was calculating pipe stress on a certain overhead pipe trestle. I spent a lot of time using reference materials, my "cheat excel sheets", looking at the design and various solutions BEFORE I could BEGIN to calculate the stresses. There were multiple factors to consider, liquid temp, height of the trestle, flow rates, ambient temperatures, pipe material, insulation requirements...there's no way to memorize the solution when there's that many variables.

STEM classes, at least at the undergrad level, start teaching you HOW to think, how to survey multiple issues and arrive at an answer. Upper level classes start teaching you the analysis end of problem solving.

I remember my physics 1 class...I had a 2 page cheat sheet for formulas...however, the prof wouldn't let us label the formulas...you had to know which one to use. I also used those same sorts of cheat sheets for other classes...again...too much to memorize.

 

[RDKirk]

I remember conversations exactly like this in middle school science classes, albeit rarely. It was very common in my high school classes, though (and all of us in AP Calc cursed Newton ). I remember watching a documentary in a high school math class that was all about a single mathematician's journey to complete a proof.

And there is also Danica McKellar, a child television star, who went on as a math undergrad to solve a mathematical problem that had dogged professional mathematicians for decades and has a theorem named after her. No "rote memorization" there.

 

[RDKirk]

I remember in 7th or 8th grade math--it was probably pre-algebra--I had classmates saying to the teacher, "When am I ever going to use this at a job?!".

When ideas are taken completely out of their intellectual context such struggle with appreciation results.

No matter what content is presented or what techniques are employed, teachers and students would all benefit from never losing sight of the big picture--never losing sight of the intellectual life of the mind that they are a part of and that goes back to the dawn of their civilization.

When I finished my basement--doing all the plumbing, carpentry, electrical work, flooring, cabinetry, et cetera, myself--I used basic algebra and plane geometry constantly. Constantly.

Rote memorization in STEM studies is like rote memorization in learning a second language. At some point, you gotta know the vocabulary.

 

[SuperCloud]

I do have some concerns re timed tests. Now for some things they are spot on. I want an artillery officer to be able to calculate their shot lightening fast. I don't care if a guy demolishing a building (in the civilian world) is fast all that much.

Far from sour grapes on my part. I recall one calculus test in college where it was pick 4 of these 5 questions. The Prof said that if anyone had the time they could do the 5th for extra credit firmly implying that was not very likely (and that some would be fortunate to finish 4). All 5 done and checked at about the 45 minute mark.

I remember asking a math teacher of mine in community college why the tests had a mandatory time. He was/is a mathematician. So, his response was that he didn't know why. Just the rules he said. He allowed me extra time to complete the exam. I was last out the class and went maybe 15 minutes over the time limit. I think I got an A on that exam. (That was an interesting math class... helped me understand the purpose of math a little better. It was not a rigorous course either, so, I was able to get an A in that class. The teacher was awesome too. I sat down talking to him about the mafia and gambling too--both subjects he knew something about.)

As I said in another thread... in general I'm ambivalent about formal education. The professional schools are needed and certainly will impact your life dramatically if you obtain one of their degrees. Medical schools are needed more than law schools. I imagine you could in-house train lawyers. You might be able to do some of that with medicine but medical science and the technology used in it has advanced so far from the 1800s that I don't know how practical it would be to train someone in house. But I digress with that.

I agree with your point that some tests need to pressure candidates or student in short crunch times.

I don't see the need for it in every instance. But I live and survive through it. It would not be my methodology to test everyone. Of course, not all schools and not all teachers are equal. Kind of like not every boxing gym in the USA was a Kronk's gym out of Detroit. But for someone reason a good number of people think teaching is not only easy but that everyone can do the same at it. I think not.

Personally, I think the way the Marine Corps runs--or at least ran when I was in--its swim program in boot camp is stupid. And I think the way math is often taught in schools is kind of stupid too. Just my view and no one is changing it.

(Prior to Galileo the way science was taught was via not questioning authorities above you, not questioning the traditions within science, but rather just reciting "what everyone knows is true.")

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

For fields which don't actually reach conclusions, there's little else to teach but the idea that lots of people had random opinions about things and then other people had opinions about those opinions.

A red herring.

The origins of an academic discipline; its understood purpose; its understood goals; the major figures who have influenced its development; its history; its present direction; its likely future; etc. are irrelevant only if one believes that formal education is for nothing but job training.

If formal education is for more than just preparing people to perform work in the formal economy--if it is to develop minds; enrich the lives of individuals and communities; support a shared sense of history; etc.--then references to intellectual history are essential.

I do not know what it is like inside STEM fields, but it is probably safe to say that nobody within them takes them for granted. It is probably safe to say that people in Civil Engineering want Civil Engineering to continue to grow and develop just like people in Sociology, Philosophy, and Theater want their fields/disciplines to continue to grow and develop. Maybe I am completely wrong and people in mathematics, the hard sciences and technical fields do not see themselves as stewards of traditions that are greater than their own selves and transcend cultures, political boundaries, historical periods, etc.--do not see themselves as passing the torch of their fields/disciplines to students. But I doubt it. A Google search for the keywords "the future of science" or "the future of engineering" would probably yield results similar to a search for the keywords "the future of Anthropology" or "the future of literary criticism".

Without some appreciation for it a tradition will likely die. Even if it is computer science. My point is that fostering appreciation by referring to context in intellectual history would likely contribute to greater appreciation and, therefore, greater, broader educational attainment in disciplines like mathematics.

And you played some of the same cards that deconstructionists / postmodern theorists play. That is not a wise move if your intent is to bolster STEM fields.

Maybe what we are dealing with is scientism. Maybe people think that mathematics and the hard sciences are the only sources of truth and the only intellectual activities with real utility and the sooner that every other intellectual tradition dies the better.

But in my opinion, when people in STEM fields mock, belittle and dismiss the social sciences and humanities they do so at the peril of their own fields.

 

[RDKirk]

But in my opinion, when people in STEM fields mock, belittle and dismiss the social sciences and humanities they do so at the peril of their own fields.

I run into a whole lot more computer programmers and engineers who are avid amateur historians and artists than I do historians and artists who are avid amateur programmers and engineers.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

I run into a whole lot more computer programmers and engineers who are avid amateur historians and artists than I do historians and artists who are avid amateur programmers and engineers.

This is true...the question for this though is did the intellectual curiosity get developed through the training for our field? I'm an engineer and my biggest fault is intense curiosity. I can fall in a Google rabbit hole just from reading a news article. A friend of mine who is a systems engineer is also an accomplished ballroom dancer. Another is a very good artist and woodcarver. My passion is car racing and, right now, fostering for our local humane society/no kill shelter. I also tutor and volunteer in the local STEM/Vo-Tech high schools. There's a WIDE range of interests for us outside the office or field. However, I've noticed that most engineers/programmers are a little strange. We tend to get VERY involved in something almost to the point of obsession. Another friend is an AVID stamp collector and spends hours studying the stamps, researching the history of them...not my thing but I think you get the gist of what I'm saying.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

I run into a whole lot more computer programmers and engineers who are avid amateur historians and artists than I do historians and artists who are avid amateur programmers and engineers.

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere", wrote Martin Luther King, Jr.

My point is that anti-intellectualism of any kind is a threat to intellectualism of all kinds.