TOW #19- The Wrong Way to Teach Math

From the time we begin elementary school, we are taught about the importance of math. By the time we get to high school, we have mastered addition through division and are sent through geometry, algebra, and calculus. But what are we getting out of this? How does all this math help us in the real world? Through Andrew Hacker’s article, “The Wrong Way to Teach Math,” it is evident that there is minimal correlation between the rigorous content that we are taught in math class and its application in the real world.

For one thing, many students “can’t see how such formulas connect with the lives they’ll be leading.” As a high school student, I can understand this statement. It’s one thing to understand a concept in math class and it’s another to understand why you’re doing it. Teachers put so much emphasis on the rigor and range of the math we are taught. I can understand how math acts as a way of problem solving and exercising our brains, but for the amount of time and brain-power we put into something, as students, we deserve to know why we are doing what we are doing. As Hacker stresses, we need to raise the importance in the proficiency of “quantitative literacy.” We need to be comfortable reading graphs and charts and adept at calculating simple figures in our heads. As Hacker puts it, “Ours has become a quantitative century, and we must master its language.” The problem is, there is this assumption made that all kinds of math will make us more numerically adept. But this is flawed. Our society needs to put more emphasis on the idea of quantitative literacy than on our high advancements in math levels. 

TOW #18- Would You Care More If I Was a Panda?

The World Wildlife Fund is an organization that challenges environmental issues through various campaigns. In this advertisement, they make the argument that in today’s society we tend to only focus on well- known endangered species such as the panda and neglect other lesser known animals like the bluefish tuna. The image displays several bluefish tuna, one of which is wearing a panda mask, and questions, “Would you care more if I was a panda?” This interesting approach by the organization is quite to the point. Without researching this advertisement, I wouldn’t have known that it was a bluefish tuna fish. The unrealistic aspect of the lone fish wearing a mask with the question being asked are intriguing because they hold truth to an audience guilty of paying more attention to the well-known endangered animals.

The audience aren’t the only ones guilty of this. The logo of the World Wildlife Fund depicts the image of a panda. By choosing the mask of a panda to cover the face of the fish, this organization is guilty too. Despite this, it makes the argument even more effective. With many people being guilty of focusing only on well-known endangered species, including the organization advertising the problem, there is more unity in making change to a realistic issue. The World Wildlife Fund effectively promotes helping all endangered species, not just the ones we’re more aware of. They’re changing the idea of how people, including their own organization, make change within biodiversity conservation.
 

TOW #17- Flaws in the New SAT

As a junior in high school, the stress of college-admissions tests is something that I’ve become familiar with this school year. With the addition of the New SAT as another test option, deciding which test I wanted to take wasn’t the easiest. But after reading public education director of FairTest Bob Schaeffer’s view on the New SAT, I don’t regret deciding to take the ACT. In his brief letter, he highlights how “none of the coming changes to the SAT address the test’s historic flaws.”

He focuses on how the revised exam is still “just as susceptible to high-priced, test-prep “steroids” as its predecessor.” It is understandable that these exams help colleges make decisions, but there must be a better way. The unfair financial problem created by these exams leaves those that can’t afford tutoring with bad results and those that can with good results. The same disadvantageous aspects of the test are still here, skewed significantly “by race, gender and family income.”

Schaeffer closes the letter with facts that look into the direction colleges are starting to go in. More and more are no longer requiring applicant to submit scores from any standardized exam. He supports his position by including that this is true with more than 850 accredited, bachelor-degree-granting institutions, including 200 of the most selective in the country. Schools are seeing the problems with these tests and want to get rid of them too. It is evident that this college-admissions process is changing, especially with the dissatisfaction that people like Mr. Schaeffer are seeing in the direction that the New SAT is going.