Vintage Things That Have Disappeared In Your Lifetime?

[Kahuna]

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.)

Nice to hear there are others who were permanently screwed up because of new math. I actually enjoyed and did well in math up until the 7th grade when new math was introduced. It didn't help that I had a teacher who probably didn't understand the concepts himself. By my sophomore year in high school I had finished the required math courses and never wanted to take another math course. Oh how I wish the old-school method of learning math had been continued. Maybe I wouldn't be so math-phobic today.

 

[jamespowers]

Nice to hear there are others who were permanently screwed up because of new math. I actually enjoyed and did well in math up until the 7th grade when new math was introduced. It didn't help that I had a teacher who probably didn't understand the concepts himself. By my sophomore year in high school I had finished the required math courses and never wanted to take another math course. Oh how I wish the old-school method of learning math had been continued. Maybe I wouldn't be so math-phobic today.

I often wonder if that was the purpose. Half of the people nowadays don't understand how much debt the government is in. Hmmmmm......coincidence?

 

[HudsonHawk]

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]

If they're learning the concepts on a concrete level, and not just learning abstract memorization with things such as multiplication tables and "carry the one", they are learning "New Math", at least at the basic level.

 

[HudsonHawk]

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.

You're not getting the wrong answer, you're getting the right answer in base 8 not base 10.

 

[jamespowers]

If they're learning the concepts on a concrete level, and not just learning abstract memorization with things such as multiplication tables and "carry the one", they are learning "New Math", at least at the basic level.

Pa learned New Math a long time ago. They are learning multiplication tables and carry the one. I expect no less from private school. Government school--I expect Idiot math. I think we have already found out that we shouldn't be experimenting with our children. Stick to the basics. They have worked for a very long time. We got to the moon on Old Math. Where have we gone since? :eusa_doh:

 

[jamespowers]

You're not getting the wrong answer, you're getting the right answer in base 8 not base 10.

Oh yes and I am sure when I give the person change for his money; he will be thrilled to be getting it back in base of 8 and not ten. :rofl: I'll have to tell the owner of the company that every time my figures are wrong it is because I am using a base of 8 instead of ten. :rofl: Yeah, works great for merchandise or money. lol lol

 

[HudsonHawk]

Oh yes and I am sure when I give the person change for his money; he will be thrilled to be getting it back in base of 8 and not ten. :rofl: I'll have to tell the owner of the company that every time my figures are wrong it is because I am using a base of 8 instead of ten. :rofl: Yeah, works great for merchandise or money. lol lol

Don't be silly. Currency is not in base 8, but you use math in bases other than 10 every day. Ever use a computer? It's in base 2. Looked at a clock? It's in base 60. Tell our boss you're late because you're telling time in base 10 and see how far it gets you. Without logarithms you'd still be living in the dark ages.

 

[jamespowers]

Don't be silly. Currency is not in base 8, but you use math in bases other than 10 every day. Ever use a computer? It's in base 2. Looked at a clock? It's in base 60. Tell our boss you're late because you're telling time in base 10 and see how far it gets you. Without logarithms you'd still be living in the dark ages.

Well you can divide 10 by two and 60 by ten and still find that useful. However, with what I do, I NEVER use anything other than base 10. The computer may use it but I make no calculations myself based as such. Let computer programmers take that stuff. Leave our 7 years olds alone with it. Oh and currency did have a base of 8---in the 1700s.

 

[HudsonHawk]

Well you can divide 10 by two and 60 by ten and still find that useful. However, with what I do, I NEVER use anything other than base 10.

If you can tell time you do. If you measure in something other than the metric system you do.

And you're exactly the demographic that New Math was aiming for...and missed.

 

[jamespowers]

If you can tell time you do. If you measure in something other than the metric system you do.

And you're exactly the demographic that New Math was aiming for...and missed.

My five year old can tell time without understanding such things. Actually, I measure things here in mm.

 

[jamespowers]

And you're exactly the demographic that New Math was aiming for...and missed.

New math missed by far. It made no sense and still doesn't. For a guy was a BS in Finance with a minor in Economics, it missed waaaayyyy far.

 

[HudsonHawk]

My five year old can tell time without understanding such things. Actually, I measure things here in mm.

Next time your boss tells you to show up at a half past 7:00, roll in at 7:50 and explain that you only work in base 10.

And your son either understands it or he can't really tell time.

 

[HudsonHawk]

New math missed by far. It made no sense and still doesn't. For a guy was a BS in Finance with a minor in Economics, it missed waaaayyyy far.

Obviously.

 

[kiwilrdg]

As Tom Lehrer said "base eight is the same as base ten, if you're missing two fingers.

New math taught the concepts better than many of the current curriculums. Watch anyone under 30 trying to make change if you think that is not true.

Remember, there are 10 types of people. Ones that know how a computer works, and those that don't.

 

[jamespowers]

Next time your boss tells you to show up at a half past 7:00, roll in at 7:50 and explain that you only work in base 10.

And your son either understands it or he can't really tell time.

At base ten that of course would be three tens. That makes absolutely no sense.

He can tell time but he does it by tens just like everyone else.

 

[jamespowers]

Obviously.

Interesting how new math never did anything for me in Finance. Old Math worked and works just fine. They have been doing it since the beginning of accounting.
You must sell New Math books to be so emphatic. I have no vested interest other than making sure the next generation of children can actually do math without obstacles being placed before them. Obviously you think they need to be tortured more. Forgetaboutit.

 

[jamespowers]

As Tom Lehrer said "base eight is the same as base ten, if you're missing two fingers.

New math taught the concepts better than many of the current curriculums. Watch anyone under 30 trying to make change if you think that is not true.

Remember, there are 10 types of people. Ones that know how a computer works, and those that don't.

Math for cripples eh?

New Math taught nothing. That is why it doesn't exist anymore. New Math effected those under 30 year olds who can't count---along with discovery math and a host of other stupid ideas that do not work. I wonder how people like Carnegie, Rockefeller, JP Morgan and like ever made it without new math.

How Binary.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

The whole sordid history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Math

 

[HudsonHawk]

At base ten that of course would be three tens. That makes absolutely no sense.

He can tell time but he does it by tens just like everyone else.

You may count by tens, but the system is based on 60...60 seconds in a minute, 60 minutes in an hour. One half of an our is not 5 minutes, nor even 50 minutes, no how much you want it to be. If it's 7:30 now, in 45 minutes it will not be 7:75. I'm guessing your kids know this.

 

[jamespowers]

The whole sordid history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Math

And the concept that I have been saying is wrong summed up quite correctly in Why Johnny can't Add:
the new topics "ignored completely the fact that mathematics is a cumulative development and that it is practically impossible to learn the newer creations if one does not know the older ones" (p. 17). Furthermore, noting the trend to abstraction in New Math, Kline says "abstraction is not the first stage but the last stage in a mathematical development" (p. 98).