Vintage Things That Have Disappeared In Your Lifetime?

[jamespowers]

We may have all those technological crutches, but I still can't do differential equations. I can't even do long division.

Thank you, New Math. Speaking of "nut bar ideas."

New math should have been a capital offense! I thank God for my mother Or I wouldn't have been able to do the math I can do today. She said:"I don't know how they do it that way but this is how I do it and you even get the right answer."
I went back and taught every one of my friends the old way and my teacher was POed to say the least. lol lol Eventually she relented because we couldn't get the new way so she let us do it the right way.
I had a recent laugh about another old way a few days ago when my son brought home greater than/less than problems. They told us the alligator and bird way. My son didn't get it because they didn't explain it well enough I guess. When I told him the alligator mouth goes to the big one and the bird beak goes to the small one---that solved it. No problems since. lol lol

 

[HudsonHawk]

We may have all those technological crutches, but I still can't do differential equations. I can't even do long division.

Thank you, New Math. Speaking of "nut bar ideas."

Not long ago, my niece, who was in the fourth or fifth grade (somewhere in there), called me for help were her homework. They were doing long division with decimals. I asked her why her parents weren't helping her, and she said "they don't know either". I helped her, but I had to think for a few minutes about moving the decimal point. Its' been a LONG time since I've done that by hand.

 

[jamespowers]

And here is an example of the stupidity of new math:

 

[HudsonHawk]

And here is an example of the stupidity of new math:

"New Math" wasn't stupid, it was just beyond the comprehension of most average students. It tried to teach what was actually important about math, rather than memorizing for the purpose of passing a test. People rail on "teaching to the test" now, but that's exactly what "old math" did, and "new math" was an attempt to move beyond that. The folly wasn't in the method, but in the belief that it could be taught to those who weren't interested in anything other than passing the next test.

 

[jamespowers]

"New Math" wasn't stupid, it was just beyond the comprehension of most average students. It tried to teach what was actually important about math, rather than memorizing for the purpose of passing a test. People rail on "teaching to the test" now, but that's exactly what "old math" did, and "new math" was an attempt to move beyond that. The folly wasn't in the method, but in the belief that it could be taught to those who weren't interested in anything other than passing the next test.

Ok, explain this:
Try this method of long division:
The folly is in the method when you can't understand the damned thing.

 

[HudsonHawk]

Ok, explain this:
Try this method of long division:
The folly is in the method when you can't understand the damned thing.

I get that you don't understand it. That doesn't make it wrong. The idea behind New Math was that concepts and real-world application are what's important, not simply getting the right answer. It was a response to the Cold War and the push to get American kids more competitive and interested in science and engineering. In the real world of those fields, you're not simply asked to solve an equation...you have to understand math not as a numerical exercise, but as a language that describes concrete relationships. The problem was, most people didn't get it, didn't want to get it, and only wanted to be able to figure sales tax or balance their checkbook, not build a rocketship, so they revolted against the process.

 

[jamespowers]

I get that you don't understand it. That doesn't make it wrong. The idea behind New Math was that concepts and real-world application are what's important, not simply getting the right answer. It was a response to the Cold War and the push to get American kids more competitive and interested in science and engineering. In the real world of those fields, you're not simply asked to solve an equation...you have to understand math not as a numerical exercise, but as a language that describes concrete relationships. The problem was, most people didn't get it, didn't want to get it, and only wanted to be able to figure sales tax or balance their checkbook, not build a rocketship, so they revolted against the process.

Let's not get ridiculous here. Tell me how this method is any better than the old method and how it will help you get the answer any easier? It won't! In fact, this very method was responsible for people not getting it, not wanting to get it, not being able to balance their checkbooks or being able to build a rocket ship in the long run. Math should be done with the simplest method possible for remedial functions. If you want to teach math application then do that at an entirely different level AFTER they have learned the basics. The fact that this is/was a complete and utter failure for an entire generation of students should not be lost on the argument---it was. The method could well have been sent to us by the Russians to screw up our future engineers. I know I changed from that long ago partially because of my hate of the math system taught then....

 

[LizzieMaine]

The whole experience permanently soured me on math. I had a strong interest in science in grammar school -- but the new math put me right off that too. I never got better than a C in any math course after the fourth grade, and it wasn't till I was long out of high school that our schools here wised up and got rid of the new math approach. They must've really gotten stuck by the guy that sold them the text books, because my brother was still using the exact ones in the '80s. (He hates math too.)

 

[jamespowers]

The whole experience permanently soured me on math. I had a strong interest in science in grammar school -- but the new math put me right off that too. I never got better than a C in any math course after the fourth grade, and it wasn't till I was long out of high school that our schools here wised up and got rid of the new math approach. They must've really gotten stuck by the guy that sold them the text books, because my brother was still using the exact ones in the '80s. (He hates math too.)

Oh great! Two generations ruined by the degeneracy called new math. Fortunately I did my part and killed it for my area. After that, they decided that it was far too hard to get not only instituted but that grades suffered enormously and that wasn't good for their bottom line----the parents who pay.

 

[dnjan]

You are lucky they didn't have "Discovery Math" back then. Our local school district has adopted that as THE method that will be used for teaching math.
Great for kids that don't understand math. A turn-off for those who do.

 

[jamespowers]

You are lucky they didn't have "Discovery Math" back then. Our local school district has adopted that as THE method that will be used for teaching math.
Great for kids that don't understand math. A turn-off for those who do.

I couldn't find anything about it. What is it and what does it espouse? I bet it is just another idea put forth to sell new books to schools but I am willing to check and be sure.

 

[HudsonHawk]

Let's not get ridiculous here. Tell me how this method is any better than the old method and how it will help you get the answer any easier? It won't! In fact, this very method was responsible for people not getting it, not wanting to get it, not being able to balance their checkbooks or being able to build a rocket ship in the long run. Math should be done with the simplest method possible for remedial functions. If you want to teach math application then do that at an entirely different level AFTER they have learned the basics. The fact that this is/was a complete and utter failure for an entire generation of students should not be lost on the argument---it was. The method could well have been sent to us by the Russians to screw up our future engineers. I know I changed from that long ago partially because of my hate of the math system taught then....

It doesn't help you get the answer any easier, that's the whole point. The point is not to arrive at an answer easier, but to understand mathematical relationships in real world engineering problems. And we've already established it was a failure as a teaching system, as people didn't get it.

 

[HudsonHawk]

The whole experience permanently soured me on math. I had a strong interest in science in grammar school -- but the new math put me right off that too. I never got better than a C in any math course after the fourth grade, and it wasn't till I was long out of high school that our schools here wised up and got rid of the new math approach. They must've really gotten stuck by the guy that sold them the text books, because my brother was still using the exact ones in the '80s. (He hates math too.)

Losing interest in science between grade school and high school is very common. Eight year olds love science, eighteen year olds, not so much. That's pretty true irrespective of the math-teaching system.

 

[HudsonHawk]

I couldn't find anything about it. What is it and what does it espouse? I bet it is just another idea put forth to sell new books to schools but I am willing to check and be sure.

Discovery Math espouses that kids have to "discover" concepts on their own by working problems that are meaningful to them in the world they understand. In other words, it only teaches how to figure sales tax and balance your check book. It's more or less the opposite end of the spectrum from New Math.

 

[jamespowers]

It doesn't help you get the answer any easier, that's the whole point. The point is not to arrive at an answer easier, but to understand mathematical relationships in real world engineering problems. And we've already established it was a failure as a teaching system, as people didn't get it.

Mathematics is hard enough to get without making the answer hard to get or even understand how you get it. Addition, subtraction, multiplication and division is tough enough for a new math learner without making it quixotic and Byzantine. I am glad we can agree it failed.

 

[jamespowers]

Discovery Math espouses that kids have to "discover" concepts on their own by working problems that are meaningful to them in the world they understand. In other words, it only teaches how to figure sales tax and balance your check book. It's more or less the opposite end of the spectrum from New Math.

Oh great. Idiot Math replaced New Math. :doh: I wonder how they are going to discover the concepts on their own. lol lol Riiiiggghhhttttt. Geez and I thought it couldn't get worse......

 

[HudsonHawk]

Mathematics is hard enough to get without making the answer hard to get or even understand how you get it. Addition, subtraction, multiplication and division is tough enough for a new math learner without making it quixotic and Byzantine. I am glad we can agree it failed.

Understood. But the point of math, at least at the level above balancing your checkbook, isn't about getting the right answer, per se. It's about understanding *how* to use math...that 2 and 4 are not simply numerals, but they are related in concept and practice and that 2 x 2 isn't simply "4", but that "4" is also 2 groups of 2 things.

And while we can agree it failed, I don't agree this was necessarily a good thing.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

[video=youtube;UIKGV2cTgqA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIKGV2cTgqA[/video]

 

[jamespowers]

Understood. But the point of math, at least at the level above balancing your checkbook, isn't about getting the right answer, per se. It's about understanding *how* to use math...that 2 and 4 are not simply numerals, but they are related in concept and practice and that 2 x 2 isn't simply "4", but that "4" is also 2 groups of 2 things.

And while we can agree it failed, I don't agree this was necessarily a good thing.

I don't remember if you have children or not but from my experience with my two boys, they do that now with regular math. They not only do 5 + 4 but there are the same number of objects above each number so they can understand. However, eventually they are going to have to go without the objects and counting and rely more on the idea that the numbers are symbols of such. I don't think the concept is lost on them. Even without the objects to count they know what the number means. Making that more complex than it has to is beyond the part of usefulness. When I do inventory at my job, they don't care how I got the number but only that it is correct. Do it the easy way not a long draw out way. Pretty soon you end up with this:
[video=youtube_share;vLNOpoQztFo]http://youtu.be/vLNOpoQztFo[/video]

 

[jamespowers]

[video=youtube;UIKGV2cTgqA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIKGV2cTgqA[/video]

Ok, aside from that making my head hurt and the last answer being wrong, children can't do it. Oh boy you know the process but you get the wrong answer. Nice.