LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!
Comments
-
Why not roll it back the whole hog and re-introduce home economics...
I suspect the syllabus providers do spend more time thinking about this than we do, and do the best they can in the confines of the political direction upstairs.
One thing I have noticed having looked at primary schools in general, certainly round where I live, there is absolurely a sense that if you want your kid to do something that isn't core English and STEM, the state sector is not the one.0 -
I wouldn't.kingstongraham said:
When they can get some more teachers. I wonder if anyone's calculated when that will be without any new money.pblakeney said:
It's an announcement that they are going to force students to study something that they are not interested in. That's going to end well...kingstongraham said:
It's an announcement rather than an initiative. There's not more maths teachers.wallace_and_gromit said:
It is a shame that the level of political debate in the country gets us to the point where an initiative to improve the nation's maths skills can be dismissed as populism, but I guess that's where we are!sungod said:feels like a desperate appeal to the gammons, reading, riting, rithmatic. beat them into the plebs
If it was called "financial literacy" would anyone complain?
But that should have been covered prior to 16 as has been pointed out earlier.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Home economics was just rolled into design and technology. I think it's referred to as Food Technology now.rick_chasey said:Why not roll it back the whole hog and re-introduce home economics...
I suspect the syllabus providers do spend more time thinking about this than we do, and do the best they can in the confines of the political direction upstairs.
One thing I have noticed having looked at primary schools in general, certainly round where I live, there is absolurely a sense that if you want your kid to do something that isn't core English and STEM, the state sector is not the one.
It'd be great if everyone stopped basing their educational opinions on their own decades-out-of-date experience.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
You've pretty much proven my point. I'm not saying math is hard (which it definitely is, at the top level), or easy. And if you found Y1 at uni easy, good on you. What I'm saying is that the logical constructs of it are beautiful, and some bits of it are often described as elegant. And that this is not appreciated by most folks.rick_chasey said:
I'll use the opportunity to brag > history was hard to get into at my uni but maths wasn't.drhaggis said:For starters, the fact that maths can be beautiful and elegant. Although, to be fair, that's also missed in a very large subset of adults with STEM degrees.
As part of my 1st year course we had to do a non-history module so I did two half-maths modules, one pure, one mechanics.
Anyway, they were old fashioned enough to post the module results in rank order with your student number and course code.
Suffice to say, everyone was cheesed off that the only person not doing a maths degree was top
Maths is great, and the easier to revise for up to Uni. You just "do it" for an hour or two a day.
Since someone mentioned Pythagoras, here's a website with 118 different proofs of the theorem:
https://www.cut-the-knot.org/pythagoras/
Here's a statement that may be proven true in many, many different ways. How's this not beautiful?1 -
-
I don't think telling someone about financial literacy and then not mentioning it to them in the next few years before they actually go and get some money and independence is necessarily the best way of doing things, but I could be wrong.pblakeney said:
I wouldn't.kingstongraham said:
When they can get some more teachers. I wonder if anyone's calculated when that will be without any new money.pblakeney said:
It's an announcement that they are going to force students to study something that they are not interested in. That's going to end well...kingstongraham said:
It's an announcement rather than an initiative. There's not more maths teachers.wallace_and_gromit said:
It is a shame that the level of political debate in the country gets us to the point where an initiative to improve the nation's maths skills can be dismissed as populism, but I guess that's where we are!sungod said:feels like a desperate appeal to the gammons, reading, riting, rithmatic. beat them into the plebs
If it was called "financial literacy" would anyone complain?
But that should have been covered prior to 16 as has been pointed out earlier.
If they have to be in education, I don't see a problem with having a bit of maths at an appropriate level. Nobody is saying everyone needs to do maths A-level.1 -
This thread is the way it is because Rishi has not outlined what would be covered other than "maths". He's also not said where all the teachers are coming from.kingstongraham said:
...pblakeney said:
I wouldn't.kingstongraham said:
When they can get some more teachers. I wonder if anyone's calculated when that will be without any new money.pblakeney said:
It's an announcement that they are going to force students to study something that they are not interested in. That's going to end well...kingstongraham said:
It's an announcement rather than an initiative. There's not more maths teachers.wallace_and_gromit said:
It is a shame that the level of political debate in the country gets us to the point where an initiative to improve the nation's maths skills can be dismissed as populism, but I guess that's where we are!sungod said:feels like a desperate appeal to the gammons, reading, riting, rithmatic. beat them into the plebs
If it was called "financial literacy" would anyone complain?
But that should have been covered prior to 16 as has been pointed out earlier.
If they have to be in education, I don't see a problem with having a bit of maths at an appropriate level. Nobody is saying everyone needs to do maths A-level.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.1 -
Does your kid not get a say in the matter?rick_chasey said:
...
One thing I have noticed having looked at primary schools in general, certainly round where I live, there is absolurely a sense that if you want your kid to do something that isn't core English and STEM, the state sector is not the one.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Calculating interest is more interesting than declaring it.0
-
Eh? It's just a turn of phrase from the parent perspective. They're the ones filling in the forms etc.pblakeney said:
Does your kid not get a say in the matter?rick_chasey said:
...
One thing I have noticed having looked at primary schools in general, certainly round where I live, there is absolurely a sense that if you want your kid to do something that isn't core English and STEM, the state sector is not the one.0 -
At infant/primary school?pblakeney said:
Does your kid not get a say in the matter?rick_chasey said:
...
One thing I have noticed having looked at primary schools in general, certainly round where I live, there is absolurely a sense that if you want your kid to do something that isn't core English and STEM, the state sector is not the one.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
And youthful offspring do sometimes need a little “guidance” from parents re academic choices.rick_chasey said:
Eh? It's just a turn of phrase from the parent perspective. They're the ones filling in the forms etc.pblakeney said:
Does your kid not get a say in the matter?rick_chasey said:
...
One thing I have noticed having looked at primary schools in general, certainly round where I live, there is absolurely a sense that if you want your kid to do something that isn't core English and STEM, the state sector is not the one.
0 -
Not sure what you mean, my kids are both at primary school and definitely don't just do english and science subjects.
English, maths, science, history, geography, bit of languages, music, art, p.e, a bit of what is probably best described as classics, no doubt other stuff that i've missed - what else do they need?rick_chasey said:
One thing I have noticed having looked at primary schools in general, certainly round where I live, there is absolurely a sense that if you want your kid to do something that isn't core English and STEM, the state sector is not the one.0 -
Thought so.rick_chasey said:
Eh? It's just a turn of phrase from the parent perspective. They're the ones filling in the forms etc.pblakeney said:
Does your kid not get a say in the matter?rick_chasey said:
...
One thing I have noticed having looked at primary schools in general, certainly round where I live, there is absolurely a sense that if you want your kid to do something that isn't core English and STEM, the state sector is not the one.
Writing it's what you want is poorly written though and leads to misunderstandings.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
He talked about financial literacy, basic maths helping in things like calculating dosages in healthcare, discounts in retail, managing household budgets, understanding mortgages. And said "Now let me be absolutely clear – I am not saying the answer is A-Level maths for everyone."pblakeney said:
This thread is the way it is because Rishi has not outlined what would be covered other than "maths". He's also not said where all the teachers are coming from.kingstongraham said:
...pblakeney said:
I wouldn't.kingstongraham said:
When they can get some more teachers. I wonder if anyone's calculated when that will be without any new money.pblakeney said:
It's an announcement that they are going to force students to study something that they are not interested in. That's going to end well...kingstongraham said:
It's an announcement rather than an initiative. There's not more maths teachers.wallace_and_gromit said:
It is a shame that the level of political debate in the country gets us to the point where an initiative to improve the nation's maths skills can be dismissed as populism, but I guess that's where we are!sungod said:feels like a desperate appeal to the gammons, reading, riting, rithmatic. beat them into the plebs
If it was called "financial literacy" would anyone complain?
But that should have been covered prior to 16 as has been pointed out earlier.
If they have to be in education, I don't see a problem with having a bit of maths at an appropriate level. Nobody is saying everyone needs to do maths A-level.
It seems fine as an aspiration, but there does clearly need to be someone to teach it.
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-speech-on-improving-attainment-in-mathematics-17-april-20230 -
If anything schools are being given more and more things to teach that should arguably be done by parents such as health and relationships (I would also include teenagers learning basic home budgeting etc. as a parental responsibility). The problem is that often parents themselves don't have a clue. Then chuck in campaigns such as teaching first aid and the like, I'm never quite sure where the time and resources to teach everything is supposed to come from.0
-
I'm not sure money is always the issue. I'd be happy to do a bit of maths teaching as a retirement job, but becoming a teacher sounds really unpleasant.kingstongraham said:
When they can get some more teachers. I wonder if anyone's calculated when that will be without any new money.pblakeney said:
It's an announcement that they are going to force students to study something that they are not interested in. That's going to end well...kingstongraham said:
It's an announcement rather than an initiative. There's not more maths teachers.wallace_and_gromit said:
It is a shame that the level of political debate in the country gets us to the point where an initiative to improve the nation's maths skills can be dismissed as populism, but I guess that's where we are!sungod said:feels like a desperate appeal to the gammons, reading, riting, rithmatic. beat them into the plebs
If it was called "financial literacy" would anyone complain?1 -
Pure maths is a different thing at a higher level, so the term becomes a bit confusing. For example, pure maths would include proving there are no integers between 0 and 1.rick_chasey said:Totally. Especially when you start to see "pure" maths pop up all over the place in nature.
0 -
Fair enough. I remember having to teach myself how to work with i numbers as they would appear and then disappear in various mechanics models I was doing for my mechanics course.
In my mind that's pure maths.
(quite funny, I didn't know it because I hadn't done what would have otherwise been the compulsory module if I was a full maths student, so like a good historian I borrowed a book from the library to learn it. Turned out I was the first person in 20 years to borrow it!)0 -
Have you seen parents?Pross said:If anything schools are being given more and more things to teach that should arguably be done by parents such as health and relationships (I would also include teenagers learning basic home budgeting etc. as a parental responsibility). The problem is that often parents themselves don't have a clue. Then chuck in campaigns such as teaching first aid and the like, I'm never quite sure where the time and resources to teach everything is supposed to come from.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
As I said, they often don't have a clue themselves. I don't think schools should be responsible for raising their kids though.rjsterry said:
Have you seen parents?Pross said:If anything schools are being given more and more things to teach that should arguably be done by parents such as health and relationships (I would also include teenagers learning basic home budgeting etc. as a parental responsibility). The problem is that often parents themselves don't have a clue. Then chuck in campaigns such as teaching first aid and the like, I'm never quite sure where the time and resources to teach everything is supposed to come from.
1 -
Fair. I still think it should be taught before 16 though.kingstongraham said:
He talked about financial literacy, basic maths helping in things like calculating dosages in healthcare, discounts in retail, managing household budgets, understanding mortgages. And said "Now let me be absolutely clear – I am not saying the answer is A-Level maths for everyone."pblakeney said:
This thread is the way it is because Rishi has not outlined what would be covered other than "maths". He's also not said where all the teachers are coming from.kingstongraham said:
...pblakeney said:
I wouldn't.kingstongraham said:
When they can get some more teachers. I wonder if anyone's calculated when that will be without any new money.pblakeney said:
It's an announcement that they are going to force students to study something that they are not interested in. That's going to end well...kingstongraham said:
It's an announcement rather than an initiative. There's not more maths teachers.wallace_and_gromit said:
It is a shame that the level of political debate in the country gets us to the point where an initiative to improve the nation's maths skills can be dismissed as populism, but I guess that's where we are!sungod said:feels like a desperate appeal to the gammons, reading, riting, rithmatic. beat them into the plebs
If it was called "financial literacy" would anyone complain?
But that should have been covered prior to 16 as has been pointed out earlier.
If they have to be in education, I don't see a problem with having a bit of maths at an appropriate level. Nobody is saying everyone needs to do maths A-level.
...
Not all stay on to 6th year and they still need those skills.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
He didn't make it at all clear that it only applies to England which I guess it must be, since there is a requirement for some form of education/training until 18 here which there isn't in Scotland or Wales.pblakeney said:
Fair. I still think it should be taught before 16 though.kingstongraham said:
He talked about financial literacy, basic maths helping in things like calculating dosages in healthcare, discounts in retail, managing household budgets, understanding mortgages. And said "Now let me be absolutely clear – I am not saying the answer is A-Level maths for everyone."pblakeney said:
This thread is the way it is because Rishi has not outlined what would be covered other than "maths". He's also not said where all the teachers are coming from.kingstongraham said:
...pblakeney said:
I wouldn't.kingstongraham said:
When they can get some more teachers. I wonder if anyone's calculated when that will be without any new money.pblakeney said:
It's an announcement that they are going to force students to study something that they are not interested in. That's going to end well...kingstongraham said:
It's an announcement rather than an initiative. There's not more maths teachers.wallace_and_gromit said:
It is a shame that the level of political debate in the country gets us to the point where an initiative to improve the nation's maths skills can be dismissed as populism, but I guess that's where we are!sungod said:feels like a desperate appeal to the gammons, reading, riting, rithmatic. beat them into the plebs
If it was called "financial literacy" would anyone complain?
But that should have been covered prior to 16 as has been pointed out earlier.
If they have to be in education, I don't see a problem with having a bit of maths at an appropriate level. Nobody is saying everyone needs to do maths A-level.
...
Not all stay on to 6th year and they still need those skills.0 -
I think it's just unrealistic to expect parents to be able to adequately cover this when a lot of it is quite technical and there have been quite significant legal and social changes since we were at school.Pross said:
As I said, they often don't have a clue themselves. I don't think schools should be responsible for raising their kids though.rjsterry said:
Have you seen parents?Pross said:If anything schools are being given more and more things to teach that should arguably be done by parents such as health and relationships (I would also include teenagers learning basic home budgeting etc. as a parental responsibility). The problem is that often parents themselves don't have a clue. Then chuck in campaigns such as teaching first aid and the like, I'm never quite sure where the time and resources to teach everything is supposed to come from.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
My grandson joined the Navy at 16.kingstongraham said:
He didn't make it at all clear that it only applies to England which I guess it must be, since there is a requirement for some form of education/training until 18 here which there isn't in Scotland or Wales.pblakeney said:
Fair. I still think it should be taught before 16 though.kingstongraham said:
He talked about financial literacy, basic maths helping in things like calculating dosages in healthcare, discounts in retail, managing household budgets, understanding mortgages. And said "Now let me be absolutely clear – I am not saying the answer is A-Level maths for everyone."pblakeney said:
This thread is the way it is because Rishi has not outlined what would be covered other than "maths". He's also not said where all the teachers are coming from.kingstongraham said:
...pblakeney said:
I wouldn't.kingstongraham said:
When they can get some more teachers. I wonder if anyone's calculated when that will be without any new money.pblakeney said:
It's an announcement that they are going to force students to study something that they are not interested in. That's going to end well...kingstongraham said:
It's an announcement rather than an initiative. There's not more maths teachers.wallace_and_gromit said:
It is a shame that the level of political debate in the country gets us to the point where an initiative to improve the nation's maths skills can be dismissed as populism, but I guess that's where we are!sungod said:feels like a desperate appeal to the gammons, reading, riting, rithmatic. beat them into the plebs
If it was called "financial literacy" would anyone complain?
But that should have been covered prior to 16 as has been pointed out earlier.
If they have to be in education, I don't see a problem with having a bit of maths at an appropriate level. Nobody is saying everyone needs to do maths A-level.
...
Not all stay on to 6th year and they still need those skills.
That'll count as training but I doubt they are teaching financial planning.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Maybe they are getting 35 year mortgages because they don't understand the maths.ddraver said:The ridiculous idea that people aren't getting mortgages because they don't understand tha maths is just a total vibe...
/genZ0 -
You mean complex numbers? You must have taken a very unpopular book if it hadn't been loaned in 20 years, given complex analysis is a branch taught to undergrad physics and some engineering students in Y2/Y3... precisely because it is useful when evaluating integrals (amongst other things)!rick_chasey said:Fair enough. I remember having to teach myself how to work with i numbers as they would appear and then disappear in various mechanics models I was doing for my mechanics course.
In my mind that's pure maths.
(quite funny, I didn't know it because I hadn't done what would have otherwise been the compulsory module if I was a full maths student, so like a good historian I borrowed a book from the library to learn it. Turned out I was the first person in 20 years to borrow it!)
Very ironically, complex numbers appeared because real numbers produced apparently total nonsense solving a particular equation, when people of the era knew a normal real solution had to exist. In some cases, they even knew from inspection what the solution was. And the imaginary i was born. But I digress...
The whole loop closes with Quantum Mechanics (QM), which provides our best understanding of the microscopic world. While QM is using complex numbers left right and centre, the predictions all result in real numbers. So, for a while, people thought that maybe QM could be written using only real numbers. But no! We now know that QM is indeed complex, putting the "pure math" bit of complex numbers to bed.
https://physics.aps.org/articles/v15/70 -
Yeah I think it was modelling springs/swinging doors > i think in the instance of deceleration you end up with complex numbers at some point.
And my limited experience of maths at uni was that everything you needed to learn was written out in the lecture, so why would they take the book out?0 -
If Matthew only buys avocado on toast and chai lattes every other week instead of every week, how much more quickly can he save up for a house deposit.ddraver said:The ridiculous idea that people aren't getting mortgages because they don't understand tha maths is just a total vibe...
/genZ
0
