Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

Today's _Washington Post_ has an editorial decrying the poor showing
of American students on math tests and discussing how the U.S. needs
to train more Americans for science and math jobs in case the students
who presently come from overseas to study in the U.S. start deciding to
go home when they are finished. It says such things as "Mathematical
competence boosts the productivity of mid-level workers, and
mathematical stardom fuels industrial and financial innovation."
Well, as a mid-level worker math has done me some good, but I'm
a mid-level worker in science. If it is really all that necessary
for mid-level workers in other areas, I've seen no evidence of it.
(Some mid-level workers where my sister works can't figure out that
the radio needs to be plugged in or it won't work, but math won't
cure that. :-) ) Perhaps work that needs mathematics should be
reclassified as high level work, paying high level wages like those
executives get. If math can help mid-level workers, why isn't it
being leveraged even more by high level workers? How many CEO's
can do the simplest calculus, I wonder? Why aren't stockholders
clamoring for the next CEO of GM to be a Fields medalist if math
is so useful in business? :-)

As far as mathematical stardom goes, IIRC a Fields medalist gets
a prize smaller than the average salary of major league baseball
players, and they may have spent a decade on the work that wins the
prize. And most mathematicians never reach that level of "stardom".
And as for financial innovations, yes, there has been a lot of
innovation in finance based on mathematics, but that begs the question
of whether those innovations were really good ideas. Those innovations
include the plethora of financial derivatives which helped fuel
speculation in the 1980s which, among many other bad results, helped
create the savings and loan crisis. In this case mathematics was
the whore of the sciences (with apologies to C. F. Gauss).

The editorial hopes "that math in middle and high schools can be
strengthened." Give people a reason to study the subject, like
the prospect of good jobs, and maybe there would be grass root
efforts to make that happen. Actually the math instruction I see
in the schools is very good, well advanced what from I had when I
was in school at the same grade levels, but my experience is with
good school districts. I suppose many may be far worse. In any
case I don't see math teachers (or any others) making all that much
money. In this area there are now efforts underway to make developers
put aside a portion of the residential units they build as "affordable
housing" for supposedly "middle class" workers like policemen, firemen,
and teachers, because many of them are finding it hard to afford to
live anywhere near their jobs. Bully for that, but here's an idea:
Let's pay them enough so they can afford to compete in the housing
market. How many students see their math teacher and think "I want
to go to college and do a double major (math and education to be
really well prepared for the job, IMO) so I can be poorly paid to put
up with working under the conditions he/she works under? Will teachers
get paid more? That question comes down to "Will taxes get raised?"
With the present "leadership" of the country this is equivalent to
asking "Can pigs fly?"

Cheers,
Russell
--
All too often the study of data requires care.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

R. Martin wrote:
> How many CEO's
> can do the simplest calculus, I wonder?

According to my CEO (the company contributes to DJ) they need only two
arithmetic operations - division and subtraction. With the first one he
calculates profit per share and with the second one determines layoffs.
Old Pif

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

R. Martin wrote:
> Today's _Washington Post_ has an editorial decrying the poor showing
> of American students on math tests and discussing how the U.S. needs
> to train more Americans for science and math jobs in case the students
> who presently come from overseas to study in the U.S. start deciding to
> go home when they are finished. It says such things as "Mathematical
> competence boosts the productivity of mid-level workers, and
> mathematical stardom fuels industrial and financial innovation."
> Well, as a mid-level worker math has done me some good, but I'm
> a mid-level worker in science. If it is really all that necessary
> for mid-level workers in other areas, I've seen no evidence of it.
> (Some mid-level workers where my sister works can't figure out that
> the radio needs to be plugged in or it won't work, but math won't
> cure that. :-) ) Perhaps work that needs mathematics should be
> reclassified as high level work, paying high level wages like those
> executives get. If math can help mid-level workers, why isn't it
> being leveraged even more by high level workers? How many CEO's
> can do the simplest calculus, I wonder? Why aren't stockholders
> clamoring for the next CEO of GM to be a Fields medalist if math
> is so useful in business? :-)

One of the things I saw while I was teaching was that most students
detest algebra and calculus. They would rather that everything be set
up on a calculator and all they have to do is punch in the necessary
numbers to get the answer. When things got really difficult, they could
always look up the necessary expressions in a handbook and program their
calculators accordingly.

All they were really interested in is what I once heard someone refer to
as "burger math"--enough mathematics to be able to get a job in a greasy
spoon somewhere, or the equivalent thereof. After all, once they
graduate, that was going to be the end of their schooling, so why bother
learning something they were never going to use.

This attitude made teaching my courses quite difficult: try teaching
dynamics without using vector algebra, particularly cross products!

>
> As far as mathematical stardom goes, IIRC a Fields medalist gets
> a prize smaller than the average salary of major league baseball
> players, and they may have spent a decade on the work that wins the
> prize. And most mathematicians never reach that level of "stardom".
> And as for financial innovations, yes, there has been a lot of
> innovation in finance based on mathematics, but that begs the question
> of whether those innovations were really good ideas. Those innovations
> include the plethora of financial derivatives which helped fuel
> speculation in the 1980s which, among many other bad results, helped
> create the savings and loan crisis. In this case mathematics was
> the whore of the sciences (with apologies to C. F. Gauss).

I remember reading about the brokerage firm established by
mathematicians a few years ago. Initially, they were quite successful
and made a lot of money. But that assumed that the stock market is a
rational entity which can be accurately described by a set of equations.
Most long-term investors will say that logic and rationality don't
exist there.

>
> The editorial hopes "that math in middle and high schools can be
> strengthened." Give people a reason to study the subject, like
> the prospect of good jobs, and maybe there would be grass root
> efforts to make that happen. Actually the math instruction I see
> in the schools is very good, well advanced what from I had when I
> was in school at the same grade levels, but my experience is with
> good school districts.

So did I. However, I went to school during the '60s and early '70s,
when the development of scientific and technical skills was considered
essential to not just the economy, but national security. Sputnik, and
the threat it represented, was in everyone's mind, and watching men go
into space didn't hurt, either.

I suppose many may be far worse. In any
> case I don't see math teachers (or any others) making all that much
> money. In this area there are now efforts underway to make developers
> put aside a portion of the residential units they build as "affordable
> housing" for supposedly "middle class" workers like policemen, firemen,
> and teachers, because many of them are finding it hard to afford to
> live anywhere near their jobs. Bully for that, but here's an idea:
> Let's pay them enough so they can afford to compete in the housing
> market. How many students see their math teacher and think "I want
> to go to college and do a double major (math and education to be
> really well prepared for the job, IMO) so I can be poorly paid to put
> up with working under the conditions he/she works under? Will teachers
> get paid more? That question comes down to "Will taxes get raised?"
> With the present "leadership" of the country this is equivalent to
> asking "Can pigs fly?"
>
> Cheers,
> Russell

Teachers have to do much more than teach nowadays. Often, they're
called upon to be surrogate parents, social workers, and psychologists,
leaving little time to master their subjects. This results in high
school graduates who are often ill-prepared academically. I frequently
found myself having to teach material to students who should have
learned it before receiving their diplomas.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004, R. Martin wrote:

> Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 21:24:04 GMT
> From: R. Martin <russell.martin@wdn.com>
> Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
> Subject: We need math, Post declares
>
> Today's _Washington Post_ has an editorial decrying the poor showing
> of American students on math tests

Personally it is an embarassment to me to see declines in many
characteristics of this country but a cross section of this society shows
lots of problems getting worse.

and discussing how the U.S. needs
> to train more Americans for science and math jobs in case the students
> who presently come from overseas to study in the U.S. start deciding to
> go home when they are finished.

(sarcasm on) Oh, yes, we've had at least 100 math-related businesses close
their doors locally ("Math Express: Cheap Fast Math Solutions" closed 15
branches in a 50 mile radius and "Fast Math Answers" closed all their 25
stores, too, near us, and we're going to be in crisis because we don't
know who is going to do our integral calculus, number theory, and
satellite orbits......)(sarcasm off)

It says such things as "Mathematical
> competence boosts the productivity of mid-level workers, and
> mathematical stardom fuels industrial and financial innovation."

I thought it was MBAs and their spreadsheets. And, h ow the spreasheets
tell them how to put less in the box and raise the price??

> Well, as a mid-level worker math has done me some good, but I'm
> a mid-level worker in science. If it is really all that necessary
> for mid-level workers in other areas, I've seen no evidence of it.

Calculus? Who needs that? Decades ago I had to calculate the volume of a
mountain.... they gave me a planimeter and aerial photographs. Old
fashioned calculus. At power plants they do the same thing to figure out
how much coal is in the pile.

> (Some mid-level workers where my sister works can't figure out that
> the radio needs to be plugged in or it won't work, but math won't
> cure that. :-) )

Yeah, it needs a couple of little gray cells, doesn't it? Or, are they
saying they need a PDA to tell them how to do it?

Perhaps work that needs mathematics should be
> reclassified as high level work, paying high level wages like those
> executives get.

When is the last time an executive said he's rich because he can do
calculus and nobody else can?

If math can help mid-level workers, why isn't it
> being leveraged even more by high level workers?

Most math used in everyday society/economies is represented by +,-,*, and
1/x

How many CEO's
> can do the simplest calculus, I wonder?

They're all so smart that the only thing they need to know is how to find
the part in their contract that spells out how much the package is worth
and then figure out how long--in hundreds of feet-- they can make a yacht
with that loot.

Why aren't stockholders
> clamoring for the next CEO of GM to be a Fields medalist if math
> is so useful in business? :-)

Maybe a letter to the editor would be in order. Why, by the way, do we
need a balistic missle defense when they can carry bombs on their backs as
they enter illegally from Mexico?

> As far as mathematical stardom goes, IIRC a Fields medalist gets
> a prize smaller than the average salary of major league baseball
> players, and they may have spent a decade on the work that wins the
> prize. And most mathematicians never reach that level of "stardom".

Forget math and look where the money is flowing in the USA.

> And as for financial innovations, yes, there has been a lot of
> innovation in finance based on mathematics, but that begs the question
> of whether those innovations were really good ideas.

I vote for all the mechanisms used in the past: monopoly formation,
corporate crime (and just steal enough money so you can pay the lawyers
and have a ton left when you're done). All those mechanisms have been
proven in the past to work in 90% of the cases (the other 10% go to jail
but many manage to keep their loot).

Those innovations
> include the plethora of financial derivatives which helped fuel
> speculation in the 1980s which, among many other bad results, helped
> create the savings and loan crisis. In this case mathematics was
> the whore of the sciences (with apologies to C. F. Gauss).

oooooooo- ooooooooooo (snide remark there!)

> The editorial hopes "that math in middle and high schools can be
> strengthened." Give people a reason to study the subject, like
> the prospect of good jobs, and maybe there would be grass root
> efforts to make that happen.

Good idea.

Actually the math instruction I see
> in the schools is very good, well advanced what from I had when I
> was in school at the same grade levels, but my experience is with
> good school districts. I suppose many may be far worse.

Article in one of the papers talked about immigrants (mostly Hispanic) in
the south. They can't speak english, the teachers can't speak Spanish.
The kids are all from poor backgrounds. And, the school system doesn't
have the resources, and the increase in enrollment of Hispanics runs from
400-800% in some areas. Big mess, eh?

In any
> case I don't see math teachers (or any others) making all that much
> money. In this area there are now efforts underway to make developers
> put aside a portion of the residential units they build as "affordable
> housing" for supposedly "middle class" workers like policemen, firemen,
> and teachers, because many of them are finding it hard to afford to
> live anywhere near their jobs. Bully for that, but here's an idea:
> Let's pay them enough so they can afford to compete in the housing
> market. How many students see their math teacher and think "I want
> to go to college and do a double major (math and education to be
> really well prepared for the job, IMO) so I can be poorly paid to put
> up with working under the conditions he/she works under? Will teachers
> get paid more? That question comes down to "Will taxes get raised?"
> With the present "leadership" of the country this is equivalent to
> asking "Can pigs fly?"

Um...Russell...we gotta have all those hundreds of billions for four more
wars. And, our glorious leader wants to cut taxes, make the cuts
permanent? Mess with Social Security?

> Cheers,
> Russell
> --
> All too often the study of data requires care.
>

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

BMJ wrote:
>
> R. Martin wrote:

snip

> > As far as mathematical stardom goes, IIRC a Fields medalist gets
> > a prize smaller than the average salary of major league baseball
> > players, and they may have spent a decade on the work that wins the
> > prize. And most mathematicians never reach that level of "stardom".
> > And as for financial innovations, yes, there has been a lot of
> > innovation in finance based on mathematics, but that begs the question
> > of whether those innovations were really good ideas. Those innovations
> > include the plethora of financial derivatives which helped fuel
> > speculation in the 1980s which, among many other bad results, helped
> > create the savings and loan crisis. In this case mathematics was
> > the whore of the sciences (with apologies to C. F. Gauss).
>
> I remember reading about the brokerage firm established by
> mathematicians a few years ago. Initially, they were quite successful
> and made a lot of money. But that assumed that the stock market is a
> rational entity which can be accurately described by a set of equations.
> Most long-term investors will say that logic and rationality don't
> exist there.

Was that Long-Term Capital Management, the company that was wiped
out in Russian bonds, IIRC, and had to be bailed out to keep the
Western financial system from imploding? Yeah, that was amusing
as long as the financial system didn't implode and one didn't have
money in LTCM. Fortunately for most of us, it was a private fund
that required a large (by my standards) investment to get in, so all
we had to worry about was the financial system, not our individual
investment in LTCM. It is a classic example of the validity of my
sig (All too often the study of data requires care). When an extreme
event occurs (which it does more often than it would with the
distributions most people assume for the market), liquidity drys up
and then last person out the door gets stuck with the bill. If you're
over-leveraged like LTCM was, you can't even pay the bill.

rest snipped

Cheers,
Russell
--
All too often the study of data requires care.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

R. Martin wrote:
> BMJ wrote:
>
>>R. Martin wrote:
>
>
> snip
>
>
>>>As far as mathematical stardom goes, IIRC a Fields medalist gets
>>>a prize smaller than the average salary of major league baseball
>>>players, and they may have spent a decade on the work that wins the
>>>prize. And most mathematicians never reach that level of "stardom".
>>>And as for financial innovations, yes, there has been a lot of
>>>innovation in finance based on mathematics, but that begs the question
>>>of whether those innovations were really good ideas. Those innovations
>>>include the plethora of financial derivatives which helped fuel
>>>speculation in the 1980s which, among many other bad results, helped
>>>create the savings and loan crisis. In this case mathematics was
>>>the whore of the sciences (with apologies to C. F. Gauss).
>>
>>I remember reading about the brokerage firm established by
>>mathematicians a few years ago. Initially, they were quite successful
>>and made a lot of money. But that assumed that the stock market is a
>>rational entity which can be accurately described by a set of equations.
>> Most long-term investors will say that logic and rationality don't
>>exist there.
>
>
> Was that Long-Term Capital Management, the company that was wiped
> out in Russian bonds, IIRC, and had to be bailed out to keep the
> Western financial system from imploding? Yeah, that was amusing
> as long as the financial system didn't implode and one didn't have
> money in LTCM. Fortunately for most of us, it was a private fund
> that required a large (by my standards) investment to get in, so all
> we had to worry about was the financial system, not our individual
> investment in LTCM. It is a classic example of the validity of my
> sig (All too often the study of data requires care). When an extreme
> event occurs (which it does more often than it would with the
> distributions most people assume for the market), liquidity drys up
> and then last person out the door gets stuck with the bill. If you're
> over-leveraged like LTCM was, you can't even pay the bill.
>
> rest snipped
>
> Cheers,
> Russell

The name sounds familiar. There was a documentary about it on PBS's
"Frontline" a few years ago.

This goes back to an earlier comment I made about Black Monday '87 and
the Kondratief Cycle. Too often, "experts" tend to over-analyze past
data while completely ignoring or disregarding factors which are staring
them in the face. (Regrettably, they often recommend investment
strategies that would make a house of cards seem earthquake-proof by
comparison.)

On the other hand, I've heard of one investment newsletter that bases
its recommendations upon astrological signs. So much for logic and
reason in the stock market.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

straydog wrote:

<snip>

> Personally it is an embarassment to me to see declines in many
> characteristics of this country but a cross section of this society
> shows lots of problems getting worse.

I've seen that decline during the years I was teaching. To give you an
example, shortly after I started, I'd set up my exams based on 3:1 times
(I could complete the exam in one hour, while it would take my students
three). Towards the end of my time as an instructor, that increased to 5:1.

When I started, most of the exams I set were closed-book. Later, that
was the exception with many of the students being miffed that I
restricted them to one textbook only.

<snip>

>
> I thought it was MBAs and their spreadsheets. And, h ow the spreasheets
> tell them how to put less in the box and raise the price??

If you look at the job ads on PhDs.org, many of them are for investment
banks and require a doctorate with a good math background.

>
>> Well, as a mid-level worker math has done me some good, but I'm
>> a mid-level worker in science. If it is really all that necessary
>> for mid-level workers in other areas, I've seen no evidence of it.
>
>
> Calculus? Who needs that? Decades ago I had to calculate the volume of a
> mountain.... they gave me a planimeter and aerial photographs. Old
> fashioned calculus. At power plants they do the same thing to figure out
> how much coal is in the pile.

That's sounds a lot like what happened with me. The only place I really
used the math that I learned as a student was in grad studies. Even
when I worked for "R & D" firms, the amount of math I used was minimal,
with most of it being equations I could look up in a textbook.

>
>> (Some mid-level workers where my sister works can't figure out that
>> the radio needs to be plugged in or it won't work, but math won't
>> cure that. :-) )
>
>
> Yeah, it needs a couple of little gray cells, doesn't it? Or, are they
> saying they need a PDA to tell them how to do it?

Nah. It ain't information until it's shown in a PowerPoint presentation
where the audience is first told what's going to be presented, then
they're shown it, and, finally, they're told what they just saw. (I've
sat through pre-PowerPoint sessions like that. It's a wonder I never
drifted off to sleep.)

>
> Perhaps work that needs mathematics should be
>
>> reclassified as high level work, paying high level wages like those
>> executives get.
>
>
> When is the last time an executive said he's rich because he can do
> calculus and nobody else can?

Ah, but there's Al Capone's calculus: a Smith & Wesson beats four aces.

<snip>

> How many CEO's
>
>> can do the simplest calculus, I wonder?
>
>
> They're all so smart that the only thing they need to know is how to
> find the part in their contract that spells out how much the package is
> worth and then figure out how long--in hundreds of feet-- they can make
> a yacht with that loot.

What about the derivatives (no pun intended) market? Some of the math
there gets rather flaky, though I doubt that a CEO gets involved in
those details.

<snip>

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, BMJ wrote:

> Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 01:40:51 GMT
> From: BMJ <parametric_equation@yahoo.com>
> Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
> Subject: Re: We need math, Post declares
>
> straydog wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Personally it is an embarassment to me to see declines in many
>> characteristics of this country but a cross section of this society shows
>> lots of problems getting worse.
>
> I've seen that decline during the years I was teaching. To give you an
> example, shortly after I started, I'd set up my exams based on 3:1 times (I
> could complete the exam in one hour, while it would take my students three).
> Towards the end of my time as an instructor, that increased to 5:1.

They figure if they have more time, then they might have a bright idea
that would give them a brownie point.

> When I started, most of the exams I set were closed-book. Later, that was
> the exception with many of the students being miffed that I restricted them
> to one textbook only.

So, let them bring as many as they want. Or...give oral exams.

> <snip>
>
>>
>> I thought it was MBAs and their spreadsheets. And, h ow the spreasheets
>> tell them how to put less in the box and raise the price??
>
> If you look at the job ads on PhDs.org, many of them are for investment banks
> and require a doctorate with a good math background.

Um...haven't we been over this issue that "what they ask for" and "what
they hire for" are two different universes?

>>
>>> Well, as a mid-level worker math has done me some good, but I'm
>>> a mid-level worker in science. If it is really all that necessary
>>> for mid-level workers in other areas, I've seen no evidence of it.
>>
>>
>> Calculus? Who needs that? Decades ago I had to calculate the volume of a
>> mountain.... they gave me a planimeter and aerial photographs. Old
>> fashioned calculus. At power plants they do the same thing to figure out
>> how much coal is in the pile.
>
> That's sounds a lot like what happened with me. The only place I really used
> the math that I learned as a student was in grad studies. Even when I worked
> for "R & D" firms, the amount of math I used was minimal, with most of it
> being equations I could look up in a textbook.

The only place I really used math was in the next math course. And, I
didn't use math in my physics courses. I used physics in my physics
courses. I can assure you that they physics in my physics courses "looked
like" math, but it really wasnt. And, the physics profs made all kinds of
assumptions that they confessed would drive mathematicians nuts.

>>
>>> (Some mid-level workers where my sister works can't figure out that
>>> the radio needs to be plugged in or it won't work, but math won't
>>> cure that. :-) )
>>
>>
>> Yeah, it needs a couple of little gray cells, doesn't it? Or, are they
>> saying they need a PDA to tell them how to do it?
>
> Nah. It ain't information until it's shown in a PowerPoint presentation
> where the audience is first told what's going to be presented, then they're
> shown it, and, finally, they're told what they just saw. (I've sat through
> pre-PowerPoint sessions like that. It's a wonder I never drifted off to
> sleep.)

YOu did better than I did. I _DID_ fall asleep.

>>
>> Perhaps work that needs mathematics should be
>>
>>> reclassified as high level work, paying high level wages like those
>>> executives get.
>>
>>
>> When is the last time an executive said he's rich because he can do
>> calculus and nobody else can?
>
> Ah, but there's Al Capone's calculus: a Smith & Wesson beats four aces.

That ain't really calculus; its called "I got the heat and it don't matter
what you got unless its another S&W (or a Kalashnikov/AK47/minigun)"

> <snip>
>
>> How many CEO's
>>
>>> can do the simplest calculus, I wonder?
>>
>>
>> They're all so smart that the only thing they need to know is how to find
>> the part in their contract that spells out how much the package is worth
>> and then figure out how long--in hundreds of feet-- they can make a yacht
>> with that loot.
>
> What about the derivatives (no pun intended) market?

Ahhhhh....now there is some "calculus" but it doesn't matter as long as
our IRS gets snookered.

Some of the math there
> gets rather flaky, though I doubt that a CEO gets involved in those details.

Its doesn't matter if its flaky as long as -- hand is quicker than the eye
-- black ink flows in the bank accounts and red ink flows on the tax
returns.

> <snip>
>

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

straydog wrote:

<snip>

>> I've seen that decline during the years I was teaching. To give you
>> an example, shortly after I started, I'd set up my exams based on 3:1
>> times (I could complete the exam in one hour, while it would take my
>> students three). Towards the end of my time as an instructor, that
>> increased to 5:1.
>
>
> They figure if they have more time, then they might have a bright idea
> that would give them a brownie point.

Many weren't that clever. They'd rather look up an answer than figure
it out themselves.

(OK, I did it for some undergrad courses, but that was because I never
really grasped the material, which was usually *my* fault, not the prof's.)

>
>> When I started, most of the exams I set were closed-book. Later, that
>> was the exception with many of the students being miffed that I
>> restricted them to one textbook only.
>
>
> So, let them bring as many as they want. Or...give oral exams.

Oral exams would have been too difficult with the numbers of students
that I had. Even if it was possible, most would have failed and guess
whose fault that would have been?

To give them an idea what sort of questions I'd ask, I often put old
exams on reserve for the students to copy and study. Those with good
mewling and puking skills made ample use of them because I didn't give
the answers as well.

I often selected questions from those same exams for my finals, so I
figured that if they worked their way through my exams, they would ace
them. Ha! Many were too lazy to do even that much.

For one course, I finally had a class average of less than 50% on the
final, with complaints that it was "too hard" following almost
immediately after. When I reminded them that I selected the questions
from those same old exams (I announced to them well in advance that they
were on reserve), the response was often "huh?". I decided to quit
teaching it soon afterwards.

>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>
>>> I thought it was MBAs and their spreadsheets. And, h ow the
>>> spreasheets tell them how to put less in the box and raise the price??
>>
>>
>> If you look at the job ads on PhDs.org, many of them are for
>> investment banks and require a doctorate with a good math background.
>
>
> Um...haven't we been over this issue that "what they ask for" and "what
> they hire for" are two different universes?

Ah, yes, the issue of "fit" and being able to give proper answers to the
"warm and fuzzy" interview questions... ("Suppose a demented moose ran
through your office and started trashing it--how would you react?")

<snip>

>> That's sounds a lot like what happened with me. The only place I
>> really used the math that I learned as a student was in grad studies.
>> Even when I worked for "R & D" firms, the amount of math I used was
>> minimal, with most of it being equations I could look up in a textbook.
>
>
> The only place I really used math was in the next math course. And, I
> didn't use math in my physics courses. I used physics in my physics
> courses. I can assure you that they physics in my physics courses
> "looked like" math, but it really wasnt. And, the physics profs made all
> kinds of assumptions that they confessed would drive mathematicians nuts.

Many of my engineering profs weren't any different. Then there were the
purists in the crowd who took exception to that approach. ("You might
get away with that with Dr. xxxxx, but you won't do so with me!")

<snip>

>> Nah. It ain't information until it's shown in a PowerPoint
>> presentation where the audience is first told what's going to be
>> presented, then they're shown it, and, finally, they're told what they
>> just saw. (I've sat through pre-PowerPoint sessions like that. It's
>> a wonder I never drifted off to sleep.)
>
>
> YOu did better than I did. I _DID_ fall asleep.

At one company I worked for, I was required to attend periodic meetings
at which some head office bigwig would always be in attendance. (They
weren't so much meetings but rather sessions to select who would be next
to be fed royal jelly and allowed to commune with the managerial gods.)
I eventually got so bored with them that I started taking along
reading material just to make them less painful.

That went over well....

<snip>

>> What about the derivatives (no pun intended) market?
>
>
> Ahhhhh....now there is some "calculus" but it doesn't matter as long as
> our IRS gets snookered.

And the creators of the financial "product" are deluged with filty lucre.

>
> Some of the math there
>
>> gets rather flaky, though I doubt that a CEO gets involved in those
>> details.
>
>
> Its doesn't matter if its flaky as long as -- hand is quicker than the
> eye -- black ink flows in the bank accounts and red ink flows on the tax
> returns.
>

I've mentioned the Bre-X scam in previous posts. Soon after the scandal
came to light, there was a managerial skedaddle from Canada to foreign
shores, accompanied, quite likely, with a lot of crying all the way to
appropriate financial institutions.

It's finally going to court, several years after it all happened.

<snip>

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

straydog wrote:

> I didn't use math in my physics courses. I used physics in my physics
courses.

Exactly ! Initially, physics was a qualitative science. And then,
around the time of Newton, some people started to include mathematics
into physics, and there was outcry in the Royal Academy of Science (or
was that Society ?) that physics should not contain mathematics -- it
would be not physics then. I absolutely agree with it. Some people
nowdays, namely numerical modellers, are screwing around, doing their
dirty stuff (aca numerical modelling), and claiming it is physics and
that's all what there is to science ! It would not be tragic but funny
if the same people get into administration of our R&D dept, and they
hire exclusively numerical modellers for scientific research positions
!They do not bother that the theoretical/numerical model does not fit
with thevreal-life physical world, but this allows them to get funding
for development of a device, spend the money (with some small amount
going to the numerical modellers -- they are cheaper than
experimentalists with their expensive equipment), and be happy ! Just
today I learnt that one more person got a permanent position at our
organisation to do modelling in a what is clearly an experimental work
! I have 10 years more work experience, and yet those fuckwits get the
jobs not me !!!

\|/.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

> According to my CEO (the company contributes to DJ) they need
> only two arithmetic operations - division and subtraction.

The CEOs also have the skills which you do not have -- that's emotional
intelligence. They also have connections with the right people. This is
what you do not have either. The right connectios make the business
going. People with no connections do not make business going.

\|/.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

> One of the things I saw while I was teaching was that most students
> detest algebra and calculus. They would rather that everything be set

> up on a calculator and all they have to do is punch in the necessary
> numbers to get the answer. When things got really difficult, they
could
> always look up the necessary expressions in a handbook and program
their
> calculators accordingly.
Exactly ! They are "numerical modellers" in making !

\|/.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

> One of the things I saw while I was teaching was that most students
> detest algebra and calculus. They would rather that everything be set

> up on a calculator and all they have to do is punch in the necessary
> numbers to get the answer. When things got really difficult, they
could
> always look up the necessary expressions in a handbook and program
their
> calculators accordingly.
Exactly ! They are "numerical modellers" in making !

\|/.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

afia boy wrote:
>>According to my CEO (the company contributes to DJ) they need
>>only two arithmetic operations - division and subtraction.
>
>
> The CEOs also have the skills which you do not have -- that's emotional
> intelligence. They also have connections with the right people. This is
> what you do not have either. The right connectios make the business
> going. People with no connections do not make business going.
>
> \|/.
>

One far important thing that's needed for a business to succeed and
that's $$$$. Without lots of them, one can't get started. Without more
coming in than going out, one can't continue for very long.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

afia boy wrote:
>>One of the things I saw while I was teaching was that most students
>>detest algebra and calculus. They would rather that everything be set
>
>
>>up on a calculator and all they have to do is punch in the necessary
>>numbers to get the answer. When things got really difficult, they
>
> could
>
>>always look up the necessary expressions in a handbook and program
>
> their
>
>>calculators accordingly.
>
> Exactly ! They are "numerical modellers" in making !
>
> \|/.
>

It's not as simple as that.

Many languages, such as Matlab and Smalltalk, have either numerical
libraries or routines/methods/expressions that can be used for that
purpose. One still has to formulate the algorithm from scratch to match
the application and still write and debug the code before the numerical
model is complete.

Then the fun begins....

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

There probably hasn't been a times since the industrial revolution
began
in the US in the 19th century where the press did not complain about
the
poor state of US education. Europe was always more rigorous, and
recently
the Asian countries. However, American business has done fine so far.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

America's math skills are source of personal amusement while waiting
in boring store lines. I am entertained by how neither a customer nor
sales clerk is able to add the figures themselves, resulting in many
errors.
Fortunately, the errors average out both ways, so I wont slow things
down
by intervening.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

afia boy wrote:
>
> straydog wrote:
>
> > I didn't use math in my physics courses. I used physics in my physics
> courses.
>
> Exactly ! Initially, physics was a qualitative science. And then,
> around the time of Newton, some people started to include mathematics
> into physics, and there was outcry in the Royal Academy of Science (or
> was that Society ?) that physics should not contain mathematics -- it
> would be not physics then. I absolutely agree with it. Some people
> nowdays, namely numerical modellers, are screwing around, doing their
> dirty stuff (aca numerical modelling), and claiming it is physics and
> that's all what there is to science ! It would not be tragic but funny
> if the same people get into administration of our R&D dept, and they
> hire exclusively numerical modellers for scientific research positions
> !They do not bother that the theoretical/numerical model does not fit
> with thevreal-life physical world, but this allows them to get funding
> for development of a device, spend the money (with some small amount
> going to the numerical modellers -- they are cheaper than
> experimentalists with their expensive equipment), and be happy ! Just
> today I learnt that one more person got a permanent position at our
> organisation to do modelling in a what is clearly an experimental work
> ! I have 10 years more work experience, and yet those fuckwits get the
> jobs not me !!!
>
> \|/.

One should not ignore the contribution that numerical modeling can
make to understanding, but it needs to be empirically grounded. In
my (soon to be ex-) job of climate and weather forecasting, there is
a constant interplay and feedback between observation and modeling.
Without modeling we'd be back in the Dark Ages of forecasting, but
without constant validation of the models performance against the
real world modeling would not be much more than producing a video
game that runs on a really big computer. :-) My present research
project in a sense is even modeling of the model, that is finding
biases in the model and correcting the model output to resemble the
real world more closely.

The need for numerical modeling depends on the complexity of the system,
but the ease of modeling is inversely proportional to complexity
(probably raised to some power). Maybe your bosses are being seduced
by the comparative ease of modeling your system and ignoring that the
need is relatively small (if you can get the information experi-
mentally). Or maybe they find slick computer generated graphics in a
Power Point presentation more convincing than a lab notebook.

Cheers,
Russell
--
All too often the study of data requires care.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

R. Martin wrote:
> afia boy wrote:
>
>>straydog wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I didn't use math in my physics courses. I used physics in my physics
>>
>>courses.
>>
>>Exactly ! Initially, physics was a qualitative science. And then,
>>around the time of Newton, some people started to include mathematics
>>into physics, and there was outcry in the Royal Academy of Science (or
>>was that Society ?) that physics should not contain mathematics -- it
>>would be not physics then. I absolutely agree with it. Some people
>>nowdays, namely numerical modellers, are screwing around, doing their
>>dirty stuff (aca numerical modelling), and claiming it is physics and
>>that's all what there is to science ! It would not be tragic but funny
>>if the same people get into administration of our R&D dept, and they
>>hire exclusively numerical modellers for scientific research positions
>>!They do not bother that the theoretical/numerical model does not fit
>>with thevreal-life physical world, but this allows them to get funding
>>for development of a device, spend the money (with some small amount
>>going to the numerical modellers -- they are cheaper than
>>experimentalists with their expensive equipment), and be happy ! Just
>>today I learnt that one more person got a permanent position at our
>>organisation to do modelling in a what is clearly an experimental work
>>! I have 10 years more work experience, and yet those fuckwits get the
>>jobs not me !!!
>>
>>\|/.
>
>
> One should not ignore the contribution that numerical modeling can
> make to understanding, but it needs to be empirically grounded. In
> my (soon to be ex-) job of climate and weather forecasting, there is
> a constant interplay and feedback between observation and modeling.
> Without modeling we'd be back in the Dark Ages of forecasting, but
> without constant validation of the models performance against the
> real world modeling would not be much more than producing a video
> game that runs on a really big computer. :-) My present research
> project in a sense is even modeling of the model, that is finding
> biases in the model and correcting the model output to resemble the
> real world more closely.

Some types of equations have no analytical solution (such as
Navier-Stokes) but numerical modelling of such systems provides a good
description of what they would look like.

>
> The need for numerical modeling depends on the complexity of the system,
> but the ease of modeling is inversely proportional to complexity
> (probably raised to some power). Maybe your bosses are being seduced
> by the comparative ease of modeling your system and ignoring that the
> need is relatively small (if you can get the information experi-
> mentally). Or maybe they find slick computer generated graphics in a
> Power Point presentation more convincing than a lab notebook.

Either the system is relatively simple or not very sensitive to
perturbations or other variations.

>
> Cheers,
> Russell

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged