I despair of the education system.

paddyrg

Can you name all the kings and queens in order? Can you plumb in a shower? Can you fly a plane? Can you repair a damaged nerve? Can you spray a car flawlessly? Can you produce a movie? Can you draw a hand?

I can do some of those things, but not others. People have different abilities. The young lady in question may be working in a lowly paid position because she cannot be a rocket scientist, but she might be amazing with animals and just in the wrong job. It happens.

However, if mathematical prowess is the only axis upon which we measure value, then I'd not be shouting too loudly if I had based my argument on the extrapolation of a sample size of 33.

Pennywise

paddyrg wrote: »

if mathematical prowess is the only axis upon which we measure value

For a job that involves dealing in numbers or money, then a good level of numeracy skills is indeed required.

For a plumber's job, then an understanding and ability in dealing with pipework and radiators is required.

Horses for courses.

What we see in reality is people with very poor numeracy skills working in jobs that require basic numeracy skills that appear to be beyond them. That's the problem. We're not talking about complex mathematical modelling, we're talking about simple percentages i.e. 20% on £100 or simple basic maths operations such as small number multiplication and division.

Take journalism, newspapers, magazines and online media is full of basic literacy errors - I'm not talking complicated stuff like split infinitives, I'm talking about simple spelling mistakes, sentences that simply don't make sense, etc. If these "journalists" have good qualifications in English, then that's a spectacular fail for the education system. If they don't have such qualifications, then the employer has got the wrong person for the job.

Either the education system has failed spectacularly (over 10 years compulsory allegedly quality education) or the person is just plain thick (yes, or with a recognised learning disability) if they can't work out 20% on £100 or multiply 3 by 4 to get 12 (or indeed divide 12 by 3 or 4).

missbiggles1

takman wrote: »

Like I said earlier ive never really learned my times tables but I'm currently doing a course which has very advanced math and I don't have any difficulties. I can understand your points about needing to be able to do mental arithmetic, but it's not essential!. In your example of the supermarket I always do scan as you shop when in Tescos so this means I will notice any mistakes immediately and I don't have to queue up. When buying carpet I would get out my phone and know the exact price of the carpet before I spoke to any salesmen.

So because of this I think most people don't really practice mental arithmetic and loose the skill.

You've misunderstood the point being made.

It isn't a question of price per metre x number of metres = total cost but of calculating the area (in what's quite possibly an awkwardly shaped room) needed to be carpeted in the first place.

missbiggles1

Pennywise wrote: »

For a job that involves dealing in numbers or money, then a good level of numeracy skills is indeed required.

For a plumber's job, then an understanding and ability in dealing with pipework and radiators is required.

Horses for courses.

What we see in reality is people with very poor numeracy skills working in jobs that require basic numeracy skills that appear to be beyond them. That's the problem. We're not talking about complex mathematical modelling, we're talking about simple percentages i.e. 20% on £100 or simple basic maths operations such as small number multiplication and division.

Take journalism, newspapers, magazines and online media is full of basic literacy errors - I'm not talking complicated stuff like split infinitives, I'm talking about simple spelling mistakes, sentences that simply don't make sense, etc. If these "journalists" have good qualifications in English, then that's a spectacular fail for the education system. If they don't have such qualifications, then the employer has got the wrong person for the job.

Either the education system has failed spectacularly (over 10 years compulsory allegedly quality education) or the person is just plain thick (yes, or with a recognised learning disability) if they can't work out 20% on £100 or multiply 3 by 4 to get 12 (or indeed divide 12 by 3 or 4).

You need a pretty good grasp of maths to be a plumber, although I completely agree with the rest.

takman

missbiggles1 wrote: »

You've misunderstood the point being made.

It isn't a question of price per metre x number of metres = total cost but of calculating the area (in what's quite possibly an awkwardly shaped room) needed to be carpeted in the first place.

Yeah I did understand, what I'm trying to say is that I would know the exact price of the carpet without having to have any mental artithmaitc skills. So that's why it's not a skill that is taught or practiced as much these days. But when I have bought carpet I have had to buy enough to cover the area then cut out the bits I didn't need. But even if I had to work out the area I could still easily do it using my phone and get the exact answer without mental arithmetic required!.

missbiggles1

takman wrote: »

Yeah I did understand, what I'm trying to say is that I would know the exact price of the carpet without having to have any mental artithmaitc skills. So that's why it's not a skill that is taught or practiced as much these days. But when I have bought carpet I have had to buy enough to cover the area then cut out the bits I didn't need. But even if I had to work out the area I could still easily do it using my phone and get the exact answer without mental arithmetic required!.

Sorry, still missing the point.

It's not a question of mental arithmetic but of calculating the amount needed (rather than using what might be the incredibly wasteful method you suggest:eek:). You might use a calculator to help you do the calculation but you'd need to know how to work out area to know what calculation you needed to do in the first place.

takman

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Sorry, still missing the point.

It's not a question of mental arithmetic but of calculating the amount needed (rather than using what might be the incredibly wasteful method you suggest:eek:). You might use a calculator to help you do the calculation but you'd need to know how to work out area to know what calculation you needed to do in the first place.

Yes I agree it's very poor that they couldn't work out the area. But when I bought carpet they wouldn't just charge me for the area I am covering. They said I had to buy it the width that it came off the roll and how ever long i wanted it. So what I'm trying to say is that if you have a room that has a recessed part in the wall. I thought they would make you buy the entire width of the room and you had to cut off the extra bits either side of the recess because you can only buy it in rectangular sections. But I was fitting it myself and it was a very odd shape! So the offcuts were of no use to anyone.

daytona0

paddyrg wrote: »

However, if mathematical prowess is the only axis upon which we measure value, then I'd not be shouting too loudly if I had based my argument on the extrapolation of a sample size of 33.

The way you write suggests a good understanding of mathematics/statistics (and I'm intrigued as to how you derived n=33, because such a sample would not be representative of N, which in this case includes all UK residents).

I think maths is a beautiful subject. There is no incorrect way of doing things (as long as you solve the problem) and many many mathematicians in the past have made their name in a non-conventional way. John Nash was my favorite mathematician, god rest his soul.

paddyrg

daytona0 wrote: »

I'm intrigued as to how you derived n=33, because such a sample would not be representative of N, which in this case includes all UK residents

Someone up above posted that they plus all of the other 32 people in their class could recite times tables, which is why I challenge the sample size. Indeed, being a science ponce for a moment, I'd also query the sample selection process - could have been at a grammar school, for instance.

I am a calculus dunce, which drove me away from maths and sadly meant I wasn't cut out for some of the theoretical microprocessor design courses that interested me, but were still where digital electronics met analogue! I know enough statistics to be generally untrusting of any figures anyone uses to try to sell me a product or ideology, the sample sizes used in shampoo adverts in particular are insulting. And as for trial methodology...

I believe wholeheartedly in double blind randomised trials where the trial is registered before beginning (so the results cannot be retrospectively used to demonstrate a different conjecture, or 'bad' trials buried until random chance throws up a 'good' one). I cringe on a regular basis when I read 'x cures/causes cancer' on the front page of the Mail, when the researchers behind it would immediately and completely refute that extrapolation of a very marginal set of results.

Another rallying cry is 'correlation is not causation', again poorly understood and regularly abused by papers and bigots to 'prove' their world view - take the MMR scandal which has set science back, has been proved in a law court to be based on corrupt (as in financial incentives to say words) evidence, and had caused deaths and disfigurement from diseases we had pretty much wiped out. The correlation often cited by the ignorant was that since the introduction of MMR there was an increase in autism diagnoses. Actually, at a similar time, the diagnosis guidelines changed to be more inclusive, so more truly were diagnosed because the goalposts had moved.

Oh dear I seem to be going on, but I do hate to see maths and science being abused. A girl in the wrong job isn't the same as the collapse of one of the greatest of education systems in the world and one of the reasons so many people want to come here - free universal education for all until the age of 18 is remarkable. Education, in particular educating girls equally, is probably the smartest moves any country can make if it wants to be progressive (the opposite of Boko Haraam by definition). The girl in the OP either didn't or couldn't take the opportunity and that's very sad, and smarter management would not put her in tills - but smart management is a separate tirade for another day :-$

Mathematicians I particularly admire include Ada Lovelace and George Boole. Boole's work is at the very heart of any device you're reading this post on, in fact ;-)

Nick_C

paddyrg wrote: »

Boole's work is at the very heart of any device you're reading this post on, in fact ;-)

Well, it is or it isn't.