Expert calls for optional maths

I'm 40, with a maths MA and I'm still learning maths.

Children who are not interested in studying, for example, trigonometry in the years 10 or 11, could indeed be put into small, manageable groups and taught about money. Visiting supermarkets and comparing prices can be a useful exercise but it is not possible with a class of 30 disinterested pupils. Instead, such pupils are often "exposed" to card, scissors, rulers and so on and left to discover what they can. The latter is a total waste of time but, unless the school promotes good study methods (they all should but many don't), such lessons will continue.

If a school does not promote academic study, taking the children from one wasted lesson called maths to another wasted lesson called something else will do no more than reinforce the pupils' preconception that they had it sussed when they decided maths is not important.

IMO everyone should be taught about personal finance and business.

Kids who are not interested in academic learning hold back those who are, and should be separated at the earliest opportunity.

Daytona

I wholeheartedly agree, but can I suggest that we teach politicians first, because their stupidity and complete inability to understand even the most simple concepts in financial services is driving the industry to destruction.

When that is done, which may take quite some time, and assuming that their are some politicians left after the exercise (because they should have to pass a test on the topic to continue to be an MP, and prove that they keep up to date with a fully documented CPD plan) then we can turn to children and the public at large.

Come to think of it, MPs should have to pass a properly constructed souse of study, with final exams and practical exercises observed by invigilators that the potential MPs would have to pay for out of their own money, to cover the complicated subjects they seem to have difficulty with such as reading, writing and uttering complete sentences that make sense. Only when they have got a pass certificate can they offer themselves for election. This will, of course, result in an empty House of Commons, which I think could be quite a desirable outcome.

Absolutely ! Professionalise them, monitor them and pay them good money when they've proved their worth. There's many good people that currently won't have anything to do with politics, such a scheme might encourage them.

Daytona

I can see part of his point, but is predicated on the shortage of skilled maths teachers. The main problem is that the biggest shortage of maths skills in other subjects that use maths. This solution would seem to kill off other science study post-14 or post-11 (or force those subjects to teach maths) and maybe shift the direction of lots of other subjects (economics, geography) away from numerate areas.

I think most adults need more maths knowledge than they have. In my experience, many workplaces are full of otherwise competent people who skip over the maths-related aspects of their jobs or leave it to one or two 'techies'.

Thom

Why not pay pupils for passing useful exams like maths and physics, like

2500 per exam for a real A level A pass, and get rid of continuous assessment to help stop cheating. That way pupils won't be paid 40/week to waste their time on subjects like modern dance and inclusivity studies.

With a proper education at school there shouldn't be a need for 50% to spend more time outside the workplace. I've been reviewing a lot of CVs recently and I'm shocked most graduates don't seem to start full time work nowadays until about age 25.

Dave.

In message , Dave writes

That is a brilliant idea! Then we wouldnt need student loans!

Thats only because there isnt an 'a' level in 'time keeping'.

You may be surprised to know that some 50 years ago, very few people graduated until they were 23 or 24, due to the intervention of something called National Service. That was, of course, full time compulsory work.

At the same time, you had to pass 5 subjects plus English Language to get a School Certificate, and it was normal to spend 3 years in the sixth form if you wanted to get to university. If your Higher School Certificate results were good enough, you might get a State Scholarship or even a County Major Scholarship, which paid your fees and gave you a grant. They were not given away like bus tickets. If you got an award to go to Teacher's Training College, you probably had to work for several years for your Local Education Authority after graduation.

It's time to reintroduce scholarships for vocational courses for which there is a real demand.

This idea could be extended into the universities. No grants but payment for results. Useful subjects draw higher payments. Soft option get nothing.

R

We don't *need* "Football and Society" or "Sports Psychology" Wallahs.

Seen our results in the Olympics!

DG

How many of them know how to use a newsreader properly?

There is very little of anything, be it mathematics, English, science or anything else that you need. In this country you don't have to learn anything in school, you don't have to work, you can live on income support in a council house.

I bet that most 11 or 14 year olds or even adults don't know enough about compound interest, which is at the heart of most financial calculations, and it may be costing them several hundred or even thousands of pounds each year. Most people don't understand how bad "investment" the lottery is, either.

Mathematics has many useful aspects. I have used quadratic equations, differential and integral calculus in "real life". Simply because I know that I have these tools available, I can solve practical problems that others avoid.