"Science before calculus is a waste of time." Huh?

[JumpyTheFrog]

I know a homeschooling family that is really into math. The dad, however, thinks that taking any science before calculus is a "waste of time." When I pointed out that most students graduate high school without taking calculus, and therefore may never take science, he didn't think it was a problem. He really seems to think that people don't need science unless they major in a related field in college.

 

I find it all strange because other than this, they are the most rigorous homeschooling family I know. They do lots of world history, math, and writing. He's also really into economics and government - basically anything but science.

 

I see scientific illiteracy as a big problem in our country, especially in areas related to medicine. How can people evaluate what they hear about new studies "showing this or that" if they have no biology or statistical knowledge at all? How will they know who is lying or spinning the truth?

[ThatCyndiGirl]

It sounds like he is quoting Robinson, maybe?

 

 

http://www.robinsoncurriculum.com/view/rc/s31p1015.htm

 

(I do not agree with Robinson. I am just posting this in response to OP's question.)

Edited November 27, 2011 by ThatCyndiGirl

[chepyl]

There are some sciences that I don't think are necessary unless you are going to major in a science field and they should be taken post calc or with calc. Physics is one. I don't think chemistry is needed, a basic understanding, yes. A full year course....no. I think a health and anatomy class would be more beneficial. I think the typical school plan of science courses is more college prep than life prep.

 

But, you don't need calc to get through bio, anatomy, or beginning chemistry.

[JumpyTheFrog]

It sounds like he is quoting Robinson,

 

At some point he did mention Robinson, so it's possible that's where the influence is from. While I understand Robinson's point about algebra based physics courses being just an approximation and calculus being needed for accuracy, students can still learn some of the concepts before they have the math knowledge, right? And you can learn a lot in biology without algebra even.

[FaithManor]

We have an absolute brain drain in the sciences in this country so failing to expose kids to it as youngsters isn't going to help anything.

 

Additionally, one would have no clue that one wanted to enter a STEM related field if one were never exposed to the discipline.

 

On top of this, many employers do not want to embrace employees of such ignorance. My dad is in the heating industry. It's very difficult to explain the properties of heat, radiance, heat loss, etc. to someone who completely ignorant of all physical science.

 

I wouldn't want to be a doctor attempting to explain an autoimmune disorder to patient who was never exposed to biology or a&p. I can think of a lot of other circumstances in which a lack of basic knowledge would be detrimental.

 

It also hampers a student who doesn't major in a STEM field. Nearly every college and university requires a science prerequisite. You can either cover the very heady 36 chapter Campbell's Exploring LIfe from total scratch and in one semester and hope you can retain ALL of that information and make a decent grade, or you can cover some of that information in high school and not be starting from scratch when your scholarship and EXPENSIVE tuition dollars are on the line.

 

I am not for collasal ignorance in any field....hence the classical homeschooling. My kids may not be experts by any stretch in everything, but on the other hand, they will not have a grand canyon chasm in their education that could come back to bite them in the rear later.

 

Oh, and how about just getting exposed to the scientific method enough to know junk science from the real thing. This scientific illiteracy in America has become so great that the general public tends to fall for all kinds of BAD science, out and out fallacies, myths, and dangerous misconceptions all because they don't know the first thing about scientific inquiry.

 

Nope, I am not for having a few elitists that majored in it spoon feed me false information because I am too illiterate to know the difference.

 

:D Seriously, I don't have a strong opinion on it! Do I? :lol:

 

Faith

[Parker Martin]

Subjects like the scientific method don't require calculus. Really, you can learn a lot about pretty much all scientific subjects without calculus. I can't imagine being sent out into the world as an adult without significant exposure to scientific terminology and concepts.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

I know a homeschooling family that is really into math. The dad, however, thinks that taking any science before calculus is a "waste of time." When I pointed out that most students graduate high school without taking calculus, and therefore may never take science, he didn't think it was a problem. He really seems to think that people don't need science unless they major in a related field in college.

 

I find it all strange because other than this, they are the most rigorous homeschooling family I know. They do lots of world history, math, and writing. He's also really into economics and government - basically anything but science.

 

I see scientific illiteracy as a big problem in our country, especially in areas related to medicine. How can people evaluate what they hear about new studies "showing this or that" if they have no biology or statistical knowledge at all? How will they know who is lying or spinning the truth?

 

To me, this is like saying that you shouldn't learn a foreign language until you can diagram everything in English. Of course a deeper and wider understanding of your first language allows you to draw more nuanced understandings of other languages. But it doesn't follow that you must be expert in the first before starting the second.*

 

Calculus certainly allows for deeper exploration of many science topics. But it's not a requirement for beginning to explore and enjoy them.

 

(Personally, a statement like this would get my hackles up. I might debate it once; but after that, I'd probably just limit time spent with him.)

 

*Depending on the context in which a knew someone like this, I might ask if they also thought that you shouldn't bother to read the Bible until you could read it in the original languages. I think the situation is similar.

Edited November 27, 2011 by Sebastian (a lady)

[Sebastian (a lady)]

 

I am not for collasal ignorance in any field....hence the classical homeschooling. My kids may not be experts by any stretch in everything, but on the other hand, they will not have a grand canyon chasm in their education that could come back to bite them in the rear later.

 

 

Faith

 

"I'm not for colossal ignorance" is my new favorite phrase.

[dirty ethel rackham]

I know a homeschooling family that is really into math. The dad, however, thinks that taking any science before calculus is a "waste of time." When I pointed out that most students graduate high school without taking calculus, and therefore may never take science, he didn't think it was a problem. He really seems to think that people don't need science unless they major in a related field in college.

To quote Bugs Bunny, "What a maroon!"

I find it all strange because other than this, they are the most rigorous homeschooling family I know. They do lots of world history, math, and writing. He's also really into economics and government - basically anything but science.

Sounds like they are afraid of science.

I see scientific illiteracy as a big problem in our country, especially in areas related to medicine. How can people evaluate what they hear about new studies "showing this or that" if they have no biology or statistical knowledge at all? How will they know who is lying or spinning the truth?

 

:iagree: I cannot believe how many people I meet who are seriously lacking in the science literacy department ... people I consider to be otherwise well-educated.

[Parker Martin]

This scientific illiteracy in America has become so great that the general public tends to fall for all kinds of BAD science, out and out fallacies, myths, and dangerous misconceptions all because they don't know the first thing about scientific inquiry.

 

Nope, I am not for having a few elitists that majored in it spoon feed me false information because I am too illiterate to know the difference.

 

:iagree:

 

Plus, if you go into the world without any scientific literacy, you have a huge hole in your cultural literacy. What happens at the first dinner party such a person attends where a scientific subject is raised, say the space program or a highly publicized breakthrough in medicine? If the person knows absolutely nothing of science, he's going to be at a loss. You need some exposure to science to be able to converse intelligently, even if you never consider pursuing science as a career.

[RegGuheert]

Subjects like the scientific method don't require calculus. Really, you can learn a lot about pretty much all scientific subjects without calculus. I can't imagine being sent out into the world as an adult without significant exposure to scientific terminology and concepts.

:iagree:

 

I'd skip Latin before skipping any science. Oh, wait! That's just what we did! :auto:

[gardenmom5]

gee, do you think he's intimidated by science?

 

I consider lab sciences a basic component of a high school curriculum. even 1dd, a classics major, had all lab sciences in high school (including two extra years of more indepth chemistry for IB.). she was the one who used peanut butter to remove the desitin ds smoothered all over himself. (2dd- chem major, wasn't here.) it worked when dawn wouldn't even touch it. she did the typical math course and started caluclus as a senior, when most of her high school science labs were behind her.

 

I did want to thunk 2ds, who mistakenly signed up for algebra physics (aka: high school level physics) when he was supposed to have signed up for calculus physics. (grrr.)

 

(snip) Oh, and how about just getting exposed to the scientific method enough to know junk science from the real thing. This scientific illiteracy in America has become so great that the general public tends to fall for all kinds of BAD science, out and out fallacies, myths, and dangerous misconceptions all because they don't know the first thing about scientific inquiry.

 

(snip)

I agree with everything you wrote, but especially the bolded!

 

dd likes to complain about the BAD scientific method in mythbusters. (but hey, it's an "entertainment" program.)

 

eta: good science education should start young.

Edited November 27, 2011 by gardenmom5

[SkateLeft]

Additionally, one would have no clue that one wanted to enter a STEM related field if one were never exposed to the discipline.

 

:iagree:

 

That makes me sad. Science is awesome! I can't wrap my mind around why anyone would put off studying any science until after calculus. Honestly, that's just ignorant. I'm betting that family is using this "philosophy" to justify skipping science.

 

My oldest daughter wants to major in chemical engineering or biochemistry. She's currently taking two college chem classes. However, she won't take calculus until next year. Would she have loved science this much if she hadn't been exposed to it until her last year of high school?

[Carol in Cal.]

What a coward.

[FaithManor]

What a coward.

 

:lol: I "thunk" it...you said it!

 

New mantra - Homeschooling is not for cowards!

 

Faith

[creekland]

As a science person myself who fully understand that most people won't ever get to calculus, his thinking/reasoning/plan of action annoys me tremendously.

 

There are plenty of concepts and terminology in many branches of science that ought to be learned by pretty much everyone - just for basic foundational knowledge. Those who go into it can study Calculus and then get exact with calculations. Not everyone needs to go that far.

 

It sure is helpful just to know that acids and bases neutralize each other (sometimes explosively), or how the body works, or basics of ecology, or action and reaction, or... I could go on and on.

[nmoira]

If I turn out kids who are not scientifically literate, I have failed dismally no matter what they choose to do with their lives.

[KungFuPanda]

What? Not even Good Eats episodes are allowed?

 

Don't take the ACTs!

[JumpyTheFrog]

I'm curious what his profession is.

 

This is what I find amusing. He's an engineer, and not the type to be easily intimidated.

 

He also thinks college is a waste of time for anyone not going into a profession. Apprenticeships for almost everything is what he wants. While I think apprenticeships are greatly underused and many more people are pushed into college than need to be, I read something the other day that said even in 1800, only 20% of white American males ages 15-20 were in a formal apprenticeship. Within a few decades, it was much lower than that. It sounds like it was never as popular in the US as some people think, maybe because almost everyone farmed.

Edited November 27, 2011 by HoppyTheToad
Typo

[Farrar]

What Faith said.

 

I had very little exposure to science as a kid. So by the time high school rolled around and we were actually expected to study science, I had already decided it "wasn't my thing." I wish I had had positive early experience to encourage me because it turned out science is awesome. Maybe it wouldn't have changed anything for me, but maybe it would have.

 

I've heard that attitude from STEM field people before and it feels to me like it's hopeless arrogance. Like a classical studies prof who thinks it's worthless to read The Odyssey until you can read it in the ancient Greek or an artist who thinks no one's opinion of art matters unless they're a trained art expert or something. Nonsense.

[JumpyTheFrog]

I've been thinking lately about how some things seem to intimidate people as adults more than if they tried them as kids. For example, making bread seems to intimidate many women, but I doubt an average (non-perfectionist) kid would be overly concerned if their first attempt was a failure. This suggests that skipping science might lead to adults that are more afraid of the topic than if they had taken some (even if they never "used" it in real life).

 

I also mentioned that I think a student that has taken some science in middle or high school will do better in the same subject if they end up going to college than if all the information is new.

[creekland]

This is what I find amusing. He's an engineer, and not the type to be easily intimidated.

 

He also thinks college is a waste of time for anyone not going into a profession. Apprenticeships for almost everything is what he wants. While I think apprenticeships are greatly underused and many more people are pushed into college than need to be, I read something the other day that said even in 1800, only 20% of white American males ages 15-20 were in a formsl apprenticeship. Within a few decades, it was much lower than that. It sounds like it was never as popular in the US as some people think, maybe because almost everyone farmed.

 

I'll just say I'm glad I wasn't born into his family. ;)

[kiana]

This is what I find amusing. He's an engineer, and not the type to be easily intimidated.

 

I do know a few people (mostly physicists) who think this because so much of Physics I/II was (for them) along the lines of "Well, we were fibbing to you in elementary school, but here's how it REALLY works."

 

However -- I think the chances of the average student with no exposure whatsoEVER jumping directly into calc-based physics and excelling would be rather low. A science-minded family with a bent for unschooling would probably be fine, as the child would've been exposed to many topics simply through daily life, living books and discussions with the parents.

 

Full disclosure -- I was homeschooled and we unschooled for everything but math, and the first lab science that I took was after Calc III. I took bio/chem/geology and did fine. I didn't take physics because I was more interested in the others.

 

BUT we were constantly discussing science topics -- i.e. when my brother spilled the battery acid in the driveway, we were neutralizing it with baking soda while my mother was talking about acid-base reactions.

[TravelingChris]

How stupid. My dh is a PhD scientist and always encouraged the children in learning science. As it is, while all of our children will have calculus, only one will probably ever take a science class that requires calculus. The older two are humanities/social science majors and have or will end up taking basic science courses in college to fulfill requirements.

 

I don't even think that much biology research requires calculus. Some, like health research, probably require more statistics and research methodology than calculus.

 

For that matter, I have taken calculus but also never took any science classes that required calculus- including field biology. I have found that my science instruction has been very helpful over the years. I can't even imagine keeping that discipline only to people who took calculus and then only to those who would use calculus in the science they took.

[Perry]

That's just silly. I have graduate degrees in a STEM field, and although I took 3 semesters of calculus, I didn't actually need it for any of my science classes. I enjoyed it, and am glad that I took it, but in reality have never actually used it. Algebra and statistics I use all the time.

[regentrude]

I teach physics at a university, both calculus based and non-calculus based, and I completely disagree. Yes, there are some concepts that can only be understood using calculus, but there are many, many concepts that can be taught just fine using algebra or, in some cases, no math at all.

There are many ways to teach science without calculus. Obviously, if you decide to start with biology, there is no calculus involved. If you adopt a "physics first" model (which we do in our homeschool), an algebra based physics course is just fine for starters, followed by chemistry, biology, and THEN a calculus based physics class from which the student will get a lot more if he had prior physics exposure.

All the above refers to a formal, high school level study of science.

 

At elementary and middle age, I would argue that no formal treatment is needed at all. those years can serve to expose children to a variety of scientific concepts and facts and establish a broad base of scientific knowledge which will be beneficial when they move into a formal science treatment in high school.

 

Postponing ALL science until after calculus seems absurd to me. All I am willing to concede is that a) formal study of science is more effective if reserved for the high school grades and b) a real thorough understanding of physics requires calculus. But bring on the science in the early years, get the kids excited, do as much formal work as possible before calculus, and use the work after calc as the cherry on top.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

I would guess the statistics on apprenticeship are skewed by sons learning at the elbow of their father or another relative without a formal apprentice relationship.

 

I think that college is rather oversold. Or at least that in the US, we take courses at a college or university that might be taken at a trade school elsewhere. I'm not sure, for example, why you need to go to college to learn to be a tour guide (picking on one course of study at my local community college).

 

Having said that, I think even those who are college skeptics wonder if we want to be the one to tell our kids to skip college, when everyone and his brother are headed there. If it is now considered the new minimal credential, then I want them to have that sheepskin. But I am going to give them a lot of advice on how best to use their time at university, because it's too steep of a price (imho) to use that time for self-exploration as a primary goal.

[JumpyTheFrog]

I would guess the statistics on apprenticeship are skewed by sons learning at the elbow of their father or another relative without a formal apprentice relationship.

 

I did wonder about this as well.

 

My concern is that he really wants kids 14 and up in almost full-time apprenticeships, at least if they know what they want to do, rather than wait until after high school. I'm concerned that this approach could close too many doors. We aren't in colonial times anymore, like it or not, and I don't think we can just import a system from another time and expect it to work as well.

 

On another funny note, a different man I know who is even more enamored with "apprenticeships good, college generally bad" and has gone to industry conferences to push other businesses to take on apprentices, is no longer taking any unless they pay him a multi-thousand dollar fee. Years ago, he paid them, then they worked for free, and now he's charging.

 

I guess I know some interesting people.

[laundrycrisis]

Whatever...

 

Anyway I think science is fun and there are lots of things to know and learn in the realm of science that don't need any math.

 

:iagree:

 

I've heard that attitude from STEM field people before and it feels to me like it's hopeless arrogance.

 

I'm an engineer and :iagree:.

Edited November 27, 2011 by laundrycrisis

[elegantlion]

I did wonder about this as well.

 

My concern is that he really wants kids 14 and up in almost full-time apprenticeships, at least if they know what they want to do, rather than wait until after high school. I'm concerned that this approach could close too many doors. We aren't in colonial times anymore, like it or not, and I don't think we can just import a system from another time and expect it to work as well.

 

On another funny note, a different man I know who is even more enamored with "apprenticeships good, college generally bad" and has gone to industry conferences to push other businesses to take on apprentices, is no longer taking any unless they pay him a multi-thousand dollar fee. Years ago, he paid them, then they worked for free, and now he's charging.

 

I guess I know some interesting people.

 

My dh was a carpenter for many years. He would have loved to take on apprentices, but there is no way he could have held together a business and had an apprentice at the same time. Customers demand a certain speed, he would have had to take twice as long to teach while doing. Not many people are willing to pay double so their contractor can teach the trade.

[kalanamak]

I know a homeschooling family that is really into math. The dad, however, thinks that taking any science before calculus is a "waste of time." When I pointed out that most students graduate high school without taking calculus, and therefore may never take science, he didn't think it was a problem. He really seems to think that people don't need science unless they major in a related field in college.

 

Complete crack pot. Ignore.

[QueenCat]

We have an absolute brain drain in the sciences in this country so failing to expose kids to it as youngsters isn't going to help anything.

 

Additionally, one would have no clue that one wanted to enter a STEM related field if one were never exposed to the discipline.

 

On top of this, many employers do not want to embrace employees of such ignorance. My dad is in the heating industry. It's very difficult to explain the properties of heat, radiance, heat loss, etc. to someone who completely ignorant of all physical science.

 

I wouldn't want to be a doctor attempting to explain an autoimmune disorder to patient who was never exposed to biology or a&p. I can think of a lot of other circumstances in which a lack of basic knowledge would be detrimental.

 

It also hampers a student who doesn't major in a STEM field. Nearly every college and university requires a science prerequisite. You can either cover the very heady 36 chapter Campbell's Exploring LIfe from total scratch and in one semester and hope you can retain ALL of that information and make a decent grade, or you can cover some of that information in high school and not be starting from scratch when your scholarship and EXPENSIVE tuition dollars are on the line.

 

I am not for collasal ignorance in any field....hence the classical homeschooling. My kids may not be experts by any stretch in everything, but on the other hand, they will not have a grand canyon chasm in their education that could come back to bite them in the rear later.

 

Oh, and how about just getting exposed to the scientific method enough to know junk science from the real thing. This scientific illiteracy in America has become so great that the general public tends to fall for all kinds of BAD science, out and out fallacies, myths, and dangerous misconceptions all because they don't know the first thing about scientific inquiry.

 

Nope, I am not for having a few elitists that majored in it spoon feed me false information because I am too illiterate to know the difference.

 

:D Seriously, I don't have a strong opinion on it! Do I? :lol:

 

Faith

 

:iagree:You said it better than I could even think to explain my view on the issue of science illiteracy.

[snickelfritz]

Maybe when they are against "formal science" they are really FOR Charlotte Mason style nature studies? It's been a bit since I've looked at Robinson, but didn't they live on a farm? Farm kids (with animals and gardens and woods) get heaps and heaps more science, naturally, than kids reading a a textbook do.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

Well, in a way I could see a professional wanting an apprentice to really make a commitment. A "master" nowadays has far less authority over an apprentice than a hundred years ago.

 

I do like the idea of having a hand skill to fall back on. You can't outsource plumbing work. On the other hand, it seems like we don't value such work much either.

 

I've watched my dad, who was in a generation where you could go to work in a door plant and work through computer programming on punch cards to plant management. But his lack of a degree (in anything) did make it harder for him to get jobs when a company downsized.

 

He is about to fully retire. The company had to hire 2-3 people to do what he was doing and they still won't know as much as he did.

[JumpyTheFrog]

Maybe when they are against "formal science" they are really FOR Charlotte Mason style nature studies?

 

This may be the case for some people, but not for the man I originally posted about. I almost think he might be romanticizing the past and the "superior education" he seems to think everyone had back then. I haven't looked into it, but I seriously doubt average white Americans were generally as well educated as the Founding Fathers. (If I am incorrect, please send links.)

 

He talked about how much better the writing quality of the time was and I said that maybe only the quality stuff survived. How many letters or articles that look like they were written by commenters on YouTube would people save and read today?

[RegGuheert]

That's just silly. I have graduate degrees in a STEM field, and although I took 3 semesters of calculus, I didn't actually need it for any of my science classes. I enjoyed it, and am glad that I took it, but in reality have never actually used it. Algebra and statistics I use all the time.

:iagree:

 

As an electrical engineer (applied mathematics and physics) I do use some calculus, but not nearly as often as algebra. Part of the reason for that is that many calculus problems are not easily solved by hand, so we often use solvers which are coded into engineering software to improve the speed and accuracy of the calculations. And I've always found the algebra to be the hardest part of calculus anyway.

 

But the point is that the math is only a part of the battle. To me, the bigger part is understanding how things work. While some problems require math to solve, there are many more day-to-day problems that require educated intuition or experience. I would say you can learn a lot of basic circuit theory without knowing any calculus, or at least only needing to know a very few calculus basics which can be taught in a much-simplified form.

 

Engineers can be the darnedest people! :tongue_smilie:

Edited November 28, 2011 by RegGuheert

[creekland]

My Civil Engineer uses Trig, Geom, and Algebra often, but rarely uses Calc. He comes to me when he has an issue with that and I can only recall twice in 23+ years of marriage.

[AuntieM]

Hmph. The best skill a scientist can have is the ability to accurately make detailed observations. The best time to capitalize on a student's interest and train in those observation skills, IMO, are the early elementary years.

 

Follow that with critical thinking skills. How to formulate questions and follow a logical course of investigation. Late elementary to middle grades, the Logic Stage, is prime time for that.

 

Being able to complete great scientific calculations and being a great scientist are two very different things.

[gardenmom5]

(snip) or an artist who thinks no one's opinion of art matters unless they're a trained art expert or something. Nonsense.

 

which is how some fool in England ended up buying a toddler's preschool crayon drawing for some enormous sum back in the 80's. (his mother was an artist, and told her work wasn't "primitive" enough by the "experts" - so she entered her son's drawing.) Murphy brown made an episode exploiting the incident.

[gardenmom5]

(snip) or an artist who thinks no one's opinion of art matters unless they're a trained art expert or something. Nonsense.

 

which is how some fool in England ended up buying a toddler's preschool crayon drawing for some enormous sum back in the 80's. (his mother was an artist, and told her work wasn't "primitive" enough by the "experts" - so she entered her son's drawing.) Murphy brown made an episode exploiting the incident. so much for "expertise".