Why is there a shortage of people with AL Mathematics?...

[Samsonknight]

The most obvious answer to my above question, is probably because "it is too
hard of an AL..." which is fair enough, yet however I personally believe
that if you are taught well and the individual is determined/well motivated
enough he/she can with sheer hardwork pass this subject .

Another argument I have heard is that the reasons why students refuse to do
AL Maths because *they don't see the point of using algebra as it will never
be used in real life*. Which again I just find very bizarre, because from
being in the progress of exploring AL Maths this year I have found that
absolutely everything in the AL course is actually practical - statistics
can be used as part of a business/psychology degree, aspects of mechanics
can be used as part of a product design degree or a computer animation
degree (which is very popular) and other degrees which may not necessary be
related directly to mathematics. Yeah, sure you don't use concepts such as
logarithms in non science degrees, but isn't it interesting to know the
practicality behind logs? - as once upon a time before calculators they were
used.

I am wondering weather the *true* reason why people shy away from
mathematics is not any of the above two reasons but because of the social
stigma attached to the subject. Since doing AL Maths I have for the first
time in my life been subjected to much ignorant abuse, the word *geek* and
*sad* comes to mind from some of my ignorant mates who feel that time is
much more wisely spent going out and binge drinking every night/weekend
instead of sitting down for x amount of hours doing static's of a particle.
Which yeah is a great thing to do in moderation, as I enjoy my pint now and
again, but I just find it very sad that as a subject mathematics is given
such a reputation, especially after knowing that without mathematics many of
the things that we take for granted may not have been invented. It should
deserve a lot more respect by my age group.
In conclusion, could or is this the reason why mathematics is low in numbers
at AL, and degrees such as Comp Sci/Maths are suffering as a result of the
above because people want to be seen as *cool* by learning about Karl Marx
for example (which is all very interesting) and not *uncool* because they
learnt about the magnitude of a vector, hence that's why loads of people go
and do degree or AL subjects geared towards
politics,art,music,history,English etc.

Ahh well if any of the above is the case, I wonder what ignorant
discrimination comp scientists face at uni socially. - or does that all die
out by then. If it doesn't , then I guess it would help if all comp
scientists looked like this guy http://www.jaycutler.com/ :D - which I am
sure some do of course.

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by Samsonknight
The most obvious answer to my above question, is probably because "it is too
hard of an AL..." which is fair enough, yet however I personally believe
that if you are taught well and the individual is determined/well motivated
enough he/she can with sheer hardwork pass this subject .

As I keep saying, the demand for A-leevl Maths is such that a moderate
A-level grade in Maths will get you on to degrees that a grade A in
less useful subjects won't.

Post by Samsonknight
Another argument I have heard is that the reasons why students refuse to do
AL Maths because *they don't see the point of using algebra as it will never
be used in real life*. Which again I just find very bizarre,

One could argue that giving teenagers freedom of choice over things like
A-level subject is cruel when they don't have the knowledge to
exercise that freedom wisely. It seems many choices over further study
are based not on life as it is but on life as presented by the entertainment
media. Hence the lunacy of many basic science degrees closing down, while
degrees in "sports science" and "forensic science" are booming - because
teenagers suppose they are all going to become sports stars or detectives
just like they see on the TV.

Post by Samsonknight
because from
being in the progress of exploring AL Maths this year I have found that
absolutely everything in the AL course is actually practical - statistics
can be used as part of a business/psychology degree, aspects of mechanics
can be used as part of a product design degree or a computer animation
degree (which is very popular) and other degrees which may not necessary be
related directly to mathematics. Yeah, sure you don't use concepts such as
logarithms in non science degrees, but isn't it interesting to know the
practicality behind logs?

Logarithms are such a basic mathematical concept that they crop up in
all sorts of places. I would have thought it's something that anyone
doing a decent business or economic degree would need to know about.

Post by Samsonknight
I am wondering weather the *true* reason why people shy away from
mathematics is not any of the above two reasons but because of the social
stigma attached to the subject. Since doing AL Maths I have for the first
time in my life been subjected to much ignorant abuse, the word *geek* and
*sad* comes to mind from some of my ignorant mates who feel that time is
much more wisely spent going out and binge drinking every night/weekend
instead of sitting down for x amount of hours doing static's of a particle.

See above. But anyhow, yes, we live in a profoundly anti-mathematical
society. People proudly announce their innumeracy in a way they would
never announce their illiteracy.

Post by Samsonknight
Ahh well if any of the above is the case, I wonder what ignorant
discrimination comp scientists face at uni socially. - or does that all die
out by then. If it doesn't , then I guess it would help if all comp
scientists looked like this guy http://www.jaycutler.com/ :D - which I am
sure some do of course.

Er, no, I don't know any who look like that. And to be honest there probably
is a bit of subject-based stereoyping in university. There is also the
problem that because of the stereotyping, people who fit that stereotype
tend to apply. E.g. a lot of people apply to do a CS degree because
they like playing computer games. I try to recruit people who don't fit
into the stereotype when I can, but it isn't always easy.

Matthew Huntbach

[John Porcella]

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
The most obvious answer to my above question, is probably because "it is too
hard of an AL..." which is fair enough, yet however I personally believe
that if you are taught well and the individual is determined/well motivated
enough he/she can with sheer hardwork pass this subject .

As I keep saying, the demand for A-leevl Maths is such that a moderate
A-level grade in Maths will get you on to degrees that a grade A in
less useful subjects won't.

Whilst this may very well be completely true, I do not doubt, what relevance
does it have to the Samsonknight's paragraph above or the remainder of his
post?

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
Another argument I have heard is that the reasons why students refuse to do
AL Maths because *they don't see the point of using algebra as it will never
be used in real life*. Which again I just find very bizarre,

One could argue that giving teenagers freedom of choice over things like
A-level subject is cruel when they don't have the knowledge to
exercise that freedom wisely.

Good point, but people can learn from their mistakes.

It seems many choices over further study

Post by Matthew Huntbach
are based not on life as it is but on life as presented by the

entertainment

Post by Matthew Huntbach
media. Hence the lunacy of many basic science degrees closing down, while
degrees in "sports science" and "forensic science" are booming - because
teenagers suppose they are all going to become sports stars or detectives
just like they see on the TV.

Hardly surprising, I suppose!

Post by Matthew Huntbach
Logarithms are such a basic mathematical concept that they crop up in
all sorts of places. I would have thought it's something that anyone
doing a decent business or economic degree would need to know about.

Calculators render such things pointless.

Post by Matthew Huntbach
See above. But anyhow, yes, we live in a profoundly anti-mathematical
society.

Indeed, and why do you personally think that is?

People proudly announce their innumeracy in a way they would

Post by Matthew Huntbach
never announce their illiteracy.

YES!

[Adam Atkinson]

Post by John Porcella

Post by Matthew Huntbach
Logarithms are such a basic mathematical concept that they crop up in
all sorts of places. I would have thought it's something that anyone
doing a decent business or economic degree would need to know about.

Calculators render such things pointless.

Log _tables_ may be pretty pointless these days (though knowing how to
use books of tables may still be useful for obscurer functions), but
the logarithm _function_ is absolutely vital. And indeed the concept
of logarithms to general bases.

[John Porcella]

Post by Adam Atkinson

Post by John Porcella

Post by Matthew Huntbach
Logarithms are such a basic mathematical concept that they crop up in
all sorts of places. I would have thought it's something that anyone
doing a decent business or economic degree would need to know about.

Calculators render such things pointless.

Log _tables_ may be pretty pointless these days (though knowing how to
use books of tables may still be useful for obscurer functions), but
the logarithm _function_ is absolutely vital. And indeed the concept
of logarithms to general bases.

Err, true, but what does that have to do with business studies?

[Matt]

Post by John Porcella

Post by Adam Atkinson

Post by John Porcella

Post by Matthew Huntbach
Logarithms are such a basic mathematical concept that they crop up in
all sorts of places. I would have thought it's something that anyone
doing a decent business or economic degree would need to know about.

Calculators render such things pointless.

Log _tables_ may be pretty pointless these days (though knowing how to
use books of tables may still be useful for obscurer functions), but the
logarithm _function_ is absolutely vital. And indeed the concept of
logarithms to general bases.

Err, true, but what does that have to do with business studies?

Lots of statistical formulae use logarithmic functions, presumably
business studies uses some of these forumlae for various purposes --
predicting growth and so on maybe?

[John Porcella]

Post by Matt

Post by John Porcella

Post by Adam Atkinson

Post by John Porcella

Post by Matthew Huntbach
Logarithms are such a basic mathematical concept that they crop up in
all sorts of places. I would have thought it's something that anyone
doing a decent business or economic degree would need to know about.

Calculators render such things pointless.

Log _tables_ may be pretty pointless these days (though knowing how to
use books of tables may still be useful for obscurer functions), but the
logarithm _function_ is absolutely vital. And indeed the concept of
logarithms to general bases.

Err, true, but what does that have to do with business studies?

Lots of statistical formulae use logarithmic functions, presumably
business studies uses some of these forumlae for various purposes --
predicting growth and so on maybe?

Granted!

[Adam Atkinson]

Post by John Porcella

Post by Adam Atkinson

Post by John Porcella

Post by Matthew Huntbach
Logarithms are such a basic mathematical concept that they crop up in
all sorts of places. I would have thought it's something that anyone
doing a decent business or economic degree would need to know about.

Calculators render such things pointless.

Log _tables_ may be pretty pointless these days (though knowing how to
use books of tables may still be useful for obscurer functions), but
the logarithm _function_ is absolutely vital. And indeed the concept
of logarithms to general bases.

Err, true, but what does that have to do with business studies?

Business studies, I have no idea. I'm pretty sure a decent economics
degree will have the log function turn up somewhere. Consequently,
"decent business or economic degree" is covered whatever business
studies does or doesn't do.

[John Porcella]

Post by Adam Atkinson

Post by John Porcella

Post by Adam Atkinson

Post by John Porcella

Post by Matthew Huntbach
Logarithms are such a basic mathematical concept that they crop up in
all sorts of places. I would have thought it's something that anyone
doing a decent business or economic degree would need to know about.

Calculators render such things pointless.

Log _tables_ may be pretty pointless these days (though knowing how to
use books of tables may still be useful for obscurer functions), but
the logarithm _function_ is absolutely vital. And indeed the concept
of logarithms to general bases.

Err, true, but what does that have to do with business studies?

Business studies, I have no idea. I'm pretty sure a decent economics
degree will have the log function turn up somewhere.

Such as where?

Consequently,

Post by Adam Atkinson
"decent business or economic degree" is covered whatever business
studies does or doesn't do.

It does not follow.

[Adam Atkinson]

Post by John Porcella

Post by Adam Atkinson

Post by John Porcella
Err, true, but what does that have to do with business studies?

Business studies, I have no idea. I'm pretty sure a decent economics
degree will have the log function turn up somewhere.

Such as where?

More or less any context involving integration or the solution of
differential equations, barring the most trivial ones. Also, I
suppose, any context where exponentials turn up (compound interest?)
is at serious risk of having logarithms appear.

In any event, what does your claim that logarithms are "irrelevant"
cover? Just economics and business studies? It seemed as though you
meant it to be wider than that. Logarithms (via the log function, not
as a way to multiply things) turn up in so many places (e.g. pH in
chemistry, the definition of decibels in physics/engineering) I can't quite
believe you're claiming what you seem to be claming. Logs turned up in the
fractals course I did last year, and are in the number theory course I'm
doing this year. I don't remember seeing them in coding theory yet, but I
wouldn't be surprised to see them. I've used them in the context of
probability, information theory and algorithmic complexity too. Whether
log tables are defunct or not, the logarithm function still turns up all
over the place.

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by Adam Atkinson

Post by John Porcella

Post by Adam Atkinson

Post by John Porcella
Err, true, but what does that have to do with business studies?

Business studies, I have no idea. I'm pretty sure a decent economics
degree will have the log function turn up somewhere.

Such as where?

More or less any context involving integration or the solution of
differential equations, barring the most trivial ones. Also, I
suppose, any context where exponentials turn up (compound interest?)
is at serious risk of having logarithms appear.
In any event, what does your claim that logarithms are "irrelevant"
cover? Just economics and business studies? It seemed as though you
meant it to be wider than that.

Logarithms turn up in my first year course unit in algorithms and data
structures, where I have to explain why binary search is more efficient
than linear search, and merge sort is more efficient than selection
sort. Having a calculator to evaluate logarithms has nothing to do with
this, since the issue isn't doing calculations, but just having the
general idea of one thing being proportional to the logarithm of
another. It is obviously of great help to me here if I can just
assume students have the basic concept of what a logarithm is, so
that I don't have to give up a lecture explaining it.

Matthew Huntbach

[Adam Atkinson]

Post by Matthew Huntbach
Logarithms turn up in my first year course unit in algorithms and data
structures, where I have to explain why binary search is more efficient
than linear search, and merge sort is more efficient than selection
sort.

Well, obviously.

I don't think either of us imagined for a minute there was any mileage
in "logarithms are irrelevant" claim of JPs.

Post by Matthew Huntbach
Having a calculator to evaluate logarithms has nothing to do with
this, since the issue isn't doing calculations, but just having the
general idea of one thing being proportional to the logarithm of
another.

Well, of course.

Post by Matthew Huntbach
It is obviously of great help to me here if I can just
assume students have the basic concept of what a logarithm is, so
that I don't have to give up a lecture explaining it.

_Can_ you assume this?

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by Adam Atkinson

Post by Matthew Huntbach
It is obviously of great help to me here if I can just
assume students have the basic concept of what a logarithm is, so
that I don't have to give up a lecture explaining it.

_Can_ you assume this?

Unfortunately, no. In the days when we had enough applicants to CS that
we could make having a reasonable A-level in Maths a normal requirement,
I could. These days, when we have to recruit a large number from alternative
backgrounds with possibly only a GCSE in Maths, I can't.

Matthew Huntbach

[Dr A. N. Walker]

[Knowledge of logs:]

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Adam Atkinson
_Can_ you assume this?

Unfortunately, no. In the days when we had enough applicants to CS that
we could make having a reasonable A-level in Maths a normal requirement,
I could. These days, when we have to recruit a large number from alternative
backgrounds with possibly only a GCSE in Maths, I can't.

I think you may have been making a false assumption even then.
Well over a decade ago, my wife was teaching algorithms to CS students
at a prestigious university that claimed to insist on A-level maths.
She was brought up short by their ignorance of logs. Turned out that
(a) quite a few of those *with* A-level maths nevertheless knew zilch
about logs [perhaps because their teacher had decided that logs were
no longer useful in the calculator era], (b) there were maths-less
students in the CS course, the AT having decided that AAA in other
subjects was too good to turn down, and (c) unknown to her, the PTB
had made her module available to students on a course that didn't
require maths. Of course, (b,c) may not have applied to you, but I'd
bet that (a) did.

On the other hand, even these days, all the *ingredients* of
logs -- power laws, index manipulation -- are still part of maths much
lower down the school, so it *ought* to be the case that anyone with
GCSE knows about logs -- they're on the calculator!

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
[Knowledge of logs:]

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Adam Atkinson
_Can_ you assume this?

Unfortunately, no. In the days when we had enough applicants to CS that
we could make having a reasonable A-level in Maths a normal requirement,
I could. These days, when we have to recruit a large number from
alternative backgrounds with possibly only a GCSE in Maths, I can't.

I think you may have been making a false assumption even then.
Well over a decade ago, my wife was teaching algorithms to CS students
at a prestigious university that claimed to insist on A-level maths.
She was brought up short by their ignorance of logs. Turned out that
(a) quite a few of those *with* A-level maths nevertheless knew zilch
about logs [perhaps because their teacher had decided that logs were
no longer useful in the calculator era], (b) there were maths-less
students in the CS course, the AT having decided that AAA in other
subjects was too good to turn down, and (c) unknown to her, the PTB
had made her module available to students on a course that didn't
require maths. Of course, (b,c) may not have applied to you, but I'd
bet that (a) did.

Yes, I'm sure (a) applied, I suppose at best you could say they would
know they ought to know about logs.

(b) certainly applied. We were never in a position where we could make
A-level Maths an absolute requirement. Even at the height of the
boom we took on a few with exceptionally good vocational etc
qualifications, an A in A-level Computing would generally be considered
worth taking regardless of other subjects, and BBB in all-round unsuitable
subject might have been considered worth a risk if the person seemed
enthusiastic.

(c) was generally avoided, most other departments always ran their own
service programming courses rather than use ours.

Matthew Huntbach

[Samsonknight]

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
[Knowledge of logs:]

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Adam Atkinson
_Can_ you assume this?

Unfortunately, no. In the days when we had enough applicants to CS that
we could make having a reasonable A-level in Maths a normal requirement,
I could. These days, when we have to recruit a large number from alternative
backgrounds with possibly only a GCSE in Maths, I can't.

I think you may have been making a false assumption even then.
Well over a decade ago, my wife was teaching algorithms to CS students
at a prestigious university that claimed to insist on A-level maths.
She was brought up short by their ignorance of logs. Turned out that
(a) quite a few of those *with* A-level maths nevertheless knew zilch
about logs [perhaps because their teacher had decided that logs were
no longer useful in the calculator era], (b) there were maths-less

Why are the rules of log so hard to remember, there are only a few rules:

log x A + log x B = log x A * B
log xA - log x B = log A / log B
C log x A = log x (a)^c
log a A = 1

and of course the method to change the base of a log to 10 if its base is 8
or something.

As for those students with AL maths (that you were referring to in the
paragraph above), it is strange that they do not know logs because I am sure
that it is in P3 integration with partial fractions .

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
students in the CS course, the AT having decided that AAA in other
subjects was too good to turn down, and (c) unknown to her, the PTB
had made her module available to students on a course that didn't
require maths. Of course, (b,c) may not have applied to you, but I'd
bet that (a) did.
On the other hand, even these days, all the *ingredients* of
logs -- power laws, index manipulation -- are still part of maths much
lower down the school, so it *ought* to be the case that anyone with
GCSE knows about logs -- they're on the calculator!

GCSE students don't learn about the rules of logs or even if they do it must
be higher tier students that do it .

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by Samsonknight
GCSE students don't learn about the rules of logs or even if they do it must
be higher tier students that do it .

When I was at school it was something you did around the second year
of secondary school. It is indeed a mark of the deterioration of standards
of maths in this country if it's now considered too advanced for those
below sixth form.

Matthew Huntbach

[Dr A. N. Walker]

In article <***@frank.dcs.qmul.ac.uk>,
Matthew Huntbach <***@dcs.qmul.ac.uk> wrote:
[logs:]

Post by Matthew Huntbach
When I was at school it was something you did around the second year
of secondary school. It is indeed a mark of the deterioration of standards
of maths in this country if it's now considered too advanced for those
below sixth form.

Not "too advanced" so much as displaced by other things.
*You* had to do it at that stage, else you couldn't tackle even
slightly complicated arithmetic and trig. SK didn't, because that
can be done by calculator. *You* then learned things about the
log function in calculus and elsewhere; SK may or may not learn
those things in the sixth form. They are "important", but so are
lots of other bits of maths, including many which were not around
in O-level or A-level in my day or yours.

[Dr A. N. Walker]

Post by Samsonknight
As for those students with AL maths (that you were referring to in the
paragraph above), it is strange that they do not know logs because I am sure
that it is in P3 integration with partial fractions .

"P3" is a modern invention! But in any case, there is a big
difference between knowing that some functions integrate to something
called "log", and knowing what that log function does for you -- eg
its order of magnitude when analysing algorithms, its relation to
exponential growth, and so on.

Post by Samsonknight
GCSE students don't learn about the rules of logs or even if they do it must
be higher tier students that do it .

Nevertheless, they learn about powers and laws of indices,
from which logs are a short step.

[Alun Harford]

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
[Knowledge of logs:]

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Adam Atkinson
_Can_ you assume this?

Unfortunately, no. In the days when we had enough applicants to CS that
we could make having a reasonable A-level in Maths a normal requirement,
I could. These days, when we have to recruit a large number from alternative
backgrounds with possibly only a GCSE in Maths, I can't.

I think you may have been making a false assumption even then.
Well over a decade ago, my wife was teaching algorithms to CS students
at a prestigious university that claimed to insist on A-level maths.
She was brought up short by their ignorance of logs. Turned out that
(a) quite a few of those *with* A-level maths nevertheless knew zilch
about logs [perhaps because their teacher had decided that logs were
no longer useful in the calculator era], (b) there were maths-less
students in the CS course, the AT having decided that AAA in other
subjects was too good to turn down, and (c) unknown to her, the PTB
had made her module available to students on a course that didn't
require maths.

There's nothing more annoying than a lecture where most of the time is spent
on a subject that everybody in the room *HAS* to know to be there. If they
can't meet the requirements (in this case: A-level knowledge of Maths) then
I can put up with a lecturer spending a minute to give those people an
author and title of a book they can find it in, or a URL - but anything more
than that gets on my nerves.

Alun Harford

[cowboy carl]

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
[Knowledge of logs:]

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Adam Atkinson
_Can_ you assume this?

Unfortunately, no. In the days when we had enough applicants to CS that
we could make having a reasonable A-level in Maths a normal requirement,
I could. These days, when we have to recruit a large number from

alternative

Post by Dr A. N. Walker

Post by Matthew Huntbach
backgrounds with possibly only a GCSE in Maths, I can't.

I think you may have been making a false assumption even then.
Well over a decade ago, my wife was teaching algorithms to CS students
at a prestigious university that claimed to insist on A-level maths.
She was brought up short by their ignorance of logs. Turned out that
(a) quite a few of those *with* A-level maths nevertheless knew zilch
about logs [perhaps because their teacher had decided that logs were
no longer useful in the calculator era], (b) there were maths-less
students in the CS course, the AT having decided that AAA in other
subjects was too good to turn down, and (c) unknown to her, the PTB
had made her module available to students on a course that didn't
require maths.

There's nothing more annoying than a lecture where most of the time is spent
on a subject that everybody in the room *HAS* to know to be there. If they
can't meet the requirements (in this case: A-level knowledge of Maths) then
I can put up with a lecturer spending a minute to give those people an
author and title of a book they can find it in, or a URL - but anything more
than that gets on my nerves.

Most lectures get on my nerves.

Except the really hard and fast ones.

Not that I'm clever or anything, but I only need stuff explained once
(usually) and if I need it explained more than once, I can ask at the end.

If it's not a fast lecture then I tend to fall asleep and miss
everything :-/

cc

[Dr A. N. Walker]

Post by Alun Harford
There's nothing more annoying than a lecture where most of the time is spent
on a subject that everybody in the room *HAS* to know to be there. If they
can't meet the requirements (in this case: A-level knowledge of Maths) [...]

Not so easy, A-level maths being a very moveable feast. For
my sins, I have to teach maths for physicists, all of whom have decent
grades in maths. I have to teach complex numbers from scratch, because
although 90% of the audience did them for A-level, 10% didn't. Ditto
for vectors [not the same 10%, tho']. Around half the module is *very*
boring for most of the audience. Currently, rather less than AS maths
is *guaranteed* to be known to all students, which makes the *entire*
module pretty boring to the significant fraction who have A in FMaths.
Solutions on a postcard ....

It may be better when the new "core" modules work through.

[H Bergeron]

Post by Dr A. N. Walker

Post by Alun Harford
There's nothing more annoying than a lecture where most of the time is spent
on a subject that everybody in the room *HAS* to know to be there. If they
can't meet the requirements (in this case: A-level knowledge of Maths) [...]

Not so easy, A-level maths being a very moveable feast. For
my sins, I have to teach maths for physicists, all of whom have decent
grades in maths. I have to teach complex numbers from scratch, because
although 90% of the audience did them for A-level, 10% didn't. Ditto
for vectors [not the same 10%, tho']. Around half the module is *very*
boring for most of the audience. Currently, rather less than AS maths
is *guaranteed* to be known to all students, which makes the *entire*
module pretty boring to the significant fraction who have A in FMaths.
Solutions on a postcard ....
It may be better when the new "core" modules work through.

Don't bet on it. The changes to the core are minimal - it is just its
distribution over the modules that has changed (and that has always
varied from board to board.)

It seems that the variation you are seeing is due to the extent to
which your students have done FM, and to which "pure" modules have
been chosen. This variation is set to increase. Under the old system,
AS Further Maths allowed/allows considerable choice of "pure" modules
but the full A level FM doesn't. Under the new system we can choose
whether to teach 2, 3, or 4 "further pure" modules. In the syllabus
that we use, that will mean that we could teach as few as one module
from the three that cover {complex numbers, hyperbolic functions},
{differential equations, polar coordinates, limits} and {matrices,
vectors}.

We have not yet decided what we will do, but it will be an awkward
choice between continuing to teach what we think FM students really
*should* know and maximising grades.

[Adam Atkinson]

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Adam Atkinson

Post by Matthew Huntbach
It is obviously of great help to me here if I can just
assume students have the basic concept of what a logarithm is, so
that I don't have to give up a lecture explaining it.

_Can_ you assume this?

Unfortunately, no.

This isn't one I've heard specifically mentioned before. I remember
as CS lecturer elsewhere expressing surprise that some/many students thought
all functions were linear. (a+b)^2 = a^2 + b^2, sin(a+b)=sin a + sin b, and
so on. This was people with A-level maths, for the most part, iirc.

Do you get this one as well?

[John Porcella]

Post by Adam Atkinson

Post by Matthew Huntbach
Logarithms turn up in my first year course unit in algorithms and data
structures, where I have to explain why binary search is more efficient
than linear search, and merge sort is more efficient than selection
sort.

Well, obviously.
I don't think either of us imagined for a minute there was any mileage
in "logarithms are irrelevant" claim of JPs.

JP or JP's.

Whilst you thought that there was no mileage, you were not even sure of the
limits of my claim (see your previous post in this thread). I suggest that
you do not put words into the mouth, so to state, of the other poster (MH)
as I am sure he is perfectly capable of making such comments.

[John Porcella]

Post by Adam Atkinson

Post by John Porcella

Post by Adam Atkinson

Post by John Porcella
Err, true, but what does that have to do with business studies?

Business studies, I have no idea. I'm pretty sure a decent economics
degree will have the log function turn up somewhere.

Such as where?

More or less any context involving integration

?? In which case, just integrate! Why bring logs into it?

or the solution of

Post by Adam Atkinson
differential equations,

?? In which case, just differentiate! Why bring logs into it?

barring the most trivial ones. Also, I

Post by Adam Atkinson
suppose, any context where exponentials turn up (compound interest?)
is at serious risk of having logarithms appear.

You are guessing!

Post by Adam Atkinson
In any event, what does your claim that logarithms are "irrelevant"
cover? Just economics and business studies?

Yes, though I concede that growth issues might just be an exception.

It seemed as though you

Post by Adam Atkinson
meant it to be wider than that.

Nope.

[Adam Atkinson]

Post by John Porcella

Post by Adam Atkinson

Post by John Porcella
Such as where?

More or less any context involving integration

?? In which case, just integrate! Why bring logs into it?

Bring logs into it if the integral has logs in it. e.g. the integral of
1/x, or of anything of the form f'/f. These _must_ still be on A-level,
surely?

Post by John Porcella
or the solution of

Post by Adam Atkinson
differential equations,

?? In which case, just differentiate! Why bring logs into it?

The solution might have logs in it. And you don't generally solve
differential equations by differentiating.

Post by John Porcella
barring the most trivial ones. Also, I

Post by Adam Atkinson
suppose, any context where exponentials turn up (compound interest?)
is at serious risk of having logarithms appear.

You are guessing!

Not really. log is the inverse of the exponential function. In much
the same way that roots are likely to become relevant quite quickly if
you're doing anything with powers, logs aren't likely to be far behind
if you're doing anything with exponentials. (Half-life of a
radioactive substance, time for an investment to double in value, that
sort of thing.)

I notice you've ignored pH and decibels. And entropy.

Also, I still see graphs around where one or both axes has a log scale
on it.

[cowboy carl]

Post by John Porcella

Post by Matthew Huntbach
Logarithms are such a basic mathematical concept that they crop up in
all sorts of places. I would have thought it's something that anyone
doing a decent business or economic degree would need to know about.

Calculators render such things pointless.

No they don't.

Someone who knows what a log function *is* is clearly in a better
position to use them than someone who can push a button on a calculator
and not have a clue what it does.

cc

[John Porcella]

Post by cowboy carl

Post by John Porcella
Calculators render such things pointless.

No they don't.
Someone who knows what a log function *is* is clearly in a better
position to use them than someone who can push a button on a calculator
and not have a clue what it does.
cc

That is like stating that somebody who knows how to use an abacus or slide
rule is in a better position than somebody who knows how to use a
calculator!

[Matt]

Post by John Porcella

Post by cowboy carl

Post by John Porcella
Calculators render such things pointless.

No they don't.

Calculators render logarithms pointless where they were once used for
multiplying large numbers. Of course, they aren't pointless for everything
else they're used for.

Post by John Porcella

Post by cowboy carl
Someone who knows what a log function *is* is clearly in a better
position to use them than someone who can push a button on a calculator
and not have a clue what it does.

That is like stating that somebody who knows how to use an abacus or slide
rule is in a better position than somebody who knows how to use a
calculator!

Someone who knows how to count is clearly in a better position though. I
think we've mixed up different uses of logarithms here.

[Samsonknight]

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
The most obvious answer to my above question, is probably because "it is too
hard of an AL..." which is fair enough, yet however I personally believe
that if you are taught well and the individual is determined/well motivated
enough he/she can with sheer hardwork pass this subject .

As I keep saying, the demand for A-leevl Maths is such that a moderate
A-level grade in Maths will get you on to degrees that a grade A in
less useful subjects won't.

I believe you. Though there should be more people should be doing it. But I
guess they are not because of the reasons you have suggested below.

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
Another argument I have heard is that the reasons why students refuse to do
AL Maths because *they don't see the point of using algebra as it will never
be used in real life*. Which again I just find very bizarre,

One could argue that giving teenagers freedom of choice over things like
A-level subject is cruel when they don't have the knowledge to
exercise that freedom wisely. It seems many choices over further study
are based not on life as it is but on life as presented by the
entertainment
media. Hence the lunacy of many basic science degrees closing down, while
degrees in "sports science" and "forensic science" are booming - because
teenagers suppose they are all going to become sports stars or detectives
just like they see on the TV.

Yeah I agree, many of my friends chose sports science et al because they
thought it was an easier AL to get an A in. I guess that is what it comes
down to, but never the less there is still that *stigma* attached to
mathematics and those that do it.

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
because from
being in the progress of exploring AL Maths this year I have found that
absolutely everything in the AL course is actually practical - statistics
can be used as part of a business/psychology degree, aspects of mechanics
can be used as part of a product design degree or a computer animation
degree (which is very popular) and other degrees which may not necessary be
related directly to mathematics. Yeah, sure you don't use concepts such as
logarithms in non science degrees, but isn't it interesting to know the
practicality behind logs?

Logarithms are such a basic mathematical concept that they crop up in
all sorts of places. I would have thought it's something that anyone
doing a decent business or economic degree would need to know about.

Sounds interesting, I am yet to explore p3/4 so I look forward to seeing how
it will be used at the more higher ends of maths. Out of interest how would
a concepts such as logs be implemented into a business degree? as I have a
friend who recently graduated from Oxford in business and he said he never
used it. The only bit of mathematics he used was from statistics.

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
I am wondering weather the *true* reason why people shy away from
mathematics is not any of the above two reasons but because of the social
stigma attached to the subject. Since doing AL Maths I have for the first
time in my life been subjected to much ignorant abuse, the word *geek* and
*sad* comes to mind from some of my ignorant mates who feel that time is
much more wisely spent going out and binge drinking every night/weekend
instead of sitting down for x amount of hours doing static's of a particle.

See above. But anyhow, yes, we live in a profoundly anti-mathematical
society. People proudly announce their innumeracy in a way they would
never announce their illiteracy.

Yes, its all silly really. Why is it a norm to say that "I am rubbish at
mathematics?", when it has improved out living standards considerably.

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
Ahh well if any of the above is the case, I wonder what ignorant
discrimination comp scientists face at uni socially. - or does that all die
out by then. If it doesn't , then I guess it would help if all comp
scientists looked like this guy http://www.jaycutler.com/ :D - which I am
sure some do of course.

Er, no, I don't know any who look like that. And to be honest there probably
is a bit of subject-based stereoyping in university. There is also the
problem that because of the stereotyping, people who fit that stereotype
tend to apply. E.g. a lot of people apply to do a CS degree because
they like playing computer games. I try to recruit people who don't fit
into the stereotype when I can, but it isn't always easy.

lol. That guy is so massive, look at his lats. No one would dare to
criticise him even if he was doing comp science.

What I don't get, is if comp scientists do get the subject based
stereotyping that I'd imagine them to get, why should they?As if it wasn't
for them and their achievements, the rest of the non comp-scientist
population would not be using the internet at this present moment of time.
Which is ironic, as people spend hours on the internet. Yet it is much more
socially acceptable to spend hours on the internet and do a politics degree,
then do something productive with a computer.

Although some do. You are right by saying that not all individuals fit that
stereotype, I am not a comp scientist yet but I don't think I fit that very
stereotypical image. As my interests are very diverse.

Doesn't everyone play computer games?

[John Porcella]

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Matthew Huntbach
Logarithms are such a basic mathematical concept that they crop up in
all sorts of places. I would have thought it's something that anyone
doing a decent business or economic degree would need to know about.

Sounds interesting, I am yet to explore p3/4

P3 was a big jump from P1 or P2. Maybe it was too much of a jump, hence why
P1-3 is now over four papers C1-4.

so I look forward to seeing how

Post by Samsonknight
it will be used at the more higher ends of maths. Out of interest how would
a concepts such as logs be implemented into a business degree?

It would not. Calculators render logs irrelevant for business studies
purposes.

as I have a

Post by Samsonknight
friend who recently graduated from Oxford in business and he said he never
used it.

There you go!

The only bit of mathematics he used was from statistics.

No surprise, though differentiation can be used from pure mathematics.

Post by Samsonknight
Yes, its all silly really. Why is it a norm to say that "I am rubbish at
mathematics?",

Indeed, I am still wondering.

[Samsonknight]

Post by John Porcella

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Matthew Huntbach
Logarithms are such a basic mathematical concept that they crop up in
all sorts of places. I would have thought it's something that anyone
doing a decent business or economic degree would need to know about.

Sounds interesting, I am yet to explore p3/4

P3 was a big jump from P1 or P2. Maybe it was too much of a jump, hence why
P1-3 is now over four papers C1-4.

Oops I am doing the core units, I keep thinking that I am doing pure
mathematics. I am so used to that.

I agree though the jump is massive P1/P2 was big, though for the core units
those new text books that Edexcel have endorsed for the core units are very
well written. They are colourful too, which is a massive bonus. I will be
starting C3-C4 start of march, at the moment all I am doing is the applied
units, well mechanics...as M1 uses a lot of the tools from the core units,
such as trig - which is currently a problem area of mine. Plus it introduces
vectors, which is a bonus as this is in C3/C4.

The only other pure mathematics I am doing at the moment, so that my algebra
is very very strong in preperation for the later unis is basically via this
book:

"Mathematics The Core Course for Alevel by L.Bostock and S.Chandler" - which
is a very old Maths book , but is very good as it teaches you so many new
techniques e.g. finding the max/minimum point of a parabola where the values
of x are not integers by using functions.

[cowboy carl]

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Matthew Huntbach
One could argue that giving teenagers freedom of choice over things like
A-level subject is cruel when they don't have the knowledge to
exercise that freedom wisely. It seems many choices over further study
are based not on life as it is but on life as presented by the
entertainment
media. Hence the lunacy of many basic science degrees closing down, while
degrees in "sports science" and "forensic science" are booming - because
teenagers suppose they are all going to become sports stars or detectives
just like they see on the TV.

Yeah I agree, many of my friends chose sports science et al because they
thought it was an easier AL to get an A in. I guess that is what it comes
down to, but never the less there is still that *stigma* attached to
mathematics and those that do it.

Maths is awesomely cool.

However it's only awesomly cool when you get to the really hard stuff.

And then, people like me, who is/are pretty good at maths struggle to
understand it and see the utter coolness of being able to represent
ideals as sublattices etc.

So, maybe it's because other subjects are more accessible. You can get
to the 'cool' stuff quicker. Anyone can discuss the ethics of abortion
or the pros and cons of New Labour, whereas you have to be uber-smart
and study for years and years to be able to discuss the cutting edge
stuff in "geeky" subjects like maths and science.

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Matthew Huntbach
See above. But anyhow, yes, we live in a profoundly anti-mathematical
society. People proudly announce their innumeracy in a way they would
never announce their illiteracy.

Yes, its all silly really. Why is it a norm to say that "I am rubbish at
mathematics?", when it has improved out living standards considerably.

Because it is the norm to *be* rubbish at maths.

Also, there's the whole geek/ugliness thing going on.

Okay, so this may not be PC, but I don't care ... geeks are ugly, but
why? Is it because ugly people become geeks, or geeks somehow become ugly?

I reckon it's the former, cos the latter seems silly.

And I reckon it's because, in primary and secondary school, the ugly
kids get picked on, and become reclusive, and don't have much to do, so
they become worky, and clever.

Whereas the good looking kids mess around and have fun and remain thick
and ignorant their entire lives.

Post by Samsonknight
What I don't get, is if comp scientists do get the subject based
stereotyping that I'd imagine them to get, why should they?As if it wasn't
for them and their achievements, the rest of the non comp-scientist
population would not be using the internet at this present moment of time.
Which is ironic, as people spend hours on the internet. Yet it is much more
socially acceptable to spend hours on the internet and do a politics degree,
then do something productive with a computer.

That's a slightly trickier one, but may be related to my theory above.

There's also the fact that "doing something productive with a computer"
isn't a social activity, whereas discussing politics is.

But the problem with that is, reading about politics isn't a social
activity, cos you are just sitting on your lonesome reading a book.

Maybe it's because it's easier to discuss politics than computing or
maths. Again, it is more accessible. I see people's eyes glaze over when
I start to explain my project to them ... but if I tell them a random
fact about the origin of some random word, or some famous chap in
history, they are much more interested.

Well, except the computing people, who glaze over at that, and are
interested in the geeky stuff.

Post by Samsonknight
Although some do. You are right by saying that not all individuals fit that
stereotype, I am not a comp scientist yet but I don't think I fit that very
stereotypical image. As my interests are very diverse.

I reckon everyone has diverse interests. But the second you meet
someone, you instantly form a judgement about them. It may be 'wrong'
to, from a moral standpoint, but we do, we can't help it.

So when, at the union council yesterday, I saw a bunch of guys with long
hair and beards and scruffy t-shirts, and another guy in a shirt and
jumper, neatly cut hair and very presentable ... I know that they are
all socialist-types, but I would much rather have a conversation with
the latter, and would probably ignore and laugh at the former.

And people complain about being judged on their appearance.

When appearance is all other people have to go on ... what do they
expect? If you look like an uncouth hooligan, what the hell do you
think people are gonna expect from you?

Anyway, mildly tipsy rant over.

Post by Samsonknight
Doesn't everyone play computer games?

No.

cc

[Samsonknight]

Post by cowboy carl

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Matthew Huntbach
One could argue that giving teenagers freedom of choice over things like
A-level subject is cruel when they don't have the knowledge to
exercise that freedom wisely. It seems many choices over further study
are based not on life as it is but on life as presented by the entertainment
media. Hence the lunacy of many basic science degrees closing down, while
degrees in "sports science" and "forensic science" are booming - because
teenagers suppose they are all going to become sports stars or detectives
just like they see on the TV.

Yeah I agree, many of my friends chose sports science et al because they
thought it was an easier AL to get an A in. I guess that is what it comes
down to, but never the less there is still that *stigma* attached to
mathematics and those that do it.

Maths is awesomely cool.

I am not even doing degree level Maths yet I am quiet interested in the
A-level course. Probably because my tutor who guides me, is guiding me in a
much more practical/different way then what the teachers at my old school
6th form did (and I only have him for 3 hours a week! whereas I had teaching
for 9 hours at my old sixth form). My ex subject teachers always used to
tell us to learn x formulae straight away without really giving you a proper
explanation on what your supposed to be doing - the concept behind the
theory.

I remember two years back when I was doing P1/S1, the teachers spent hardly
any time of actually explaining why we used calculus and jumped straight
into "dy/dx". No wonder why people got confused and when you did ask a
question that ended up leading to being patronised. - which meant that those
with problems , never did get those basic problems resolved.

Post by cowboy carl
However it's only awesomly cool when you get to the really hard stuff.
And then, people like me, who is/are pretty good at maths struggle to
understand it and see the utter coolness of being able to represent ideals
as sublattices etc.
So, maybe it's because other subjects are more accessible. You can get to
the 'cool' stuff quicker. Anyone can discuss the ethics of abortion or
the pros and cons of New Labour, whereas you have to be uber-smart and
study for years and years to be able to discuss the cutting edge stuff in
"geeky" subjects like maths and science.

Yes I agree, but bloody hell after doing some AL Maths/physics (Mechanics),
it is actually the equivilent to learning history, but with numbers.
Absolutely everything I have encountered so far has had a part to play in
history. Mathematics in my opinion is just a bunch of tricks used to solve
real life practical problems (will probably get flamed for saying that.)

There should not be discrimination. I guess you could blame poor teaching,
in respect that teachers should spend time making sure that students
understand the theory behind the concepts, instead of jumping straight into
the "maths". AS that is the IMO for student success as only then they will
be able to visualise what they are doing.

Post by cowboy carl

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Matthew Huntbach
See above. But anyhow, yes, we live in a profoundly anti-mathematical
society. People proudly announce their innumeracy in a way they would
never announce their illiteracy.

Yes, its all silly really. Why is it a norm to say that "I am rubbish at
mathematics?", when it has improved out living standards considerably.

Because it is the norm to *be* rubbish at maths.
Also, there's the whole geek/ugliness thing going on.
Okay, so this may not be PC, but I don't care ... geeks are ugly, but why?
Is it because ugly people become geeks, or geeks somehow become ugly?
I reckon it's the former, cos the latter seems silly.
And I reckon it's because, in primary and secondary school, the ugly kids
get picked on, and become reclusive, and don't have much to do, so they
become worky, and clever.
Whereas the good looking kids mess around and have fun and remain thick
and ignorant their entire lives.

Yeah I agree, there is a whole geeky/ugly/sad thing going on. Yet it is so
strange, because it is only after doing AL maths this year I have heard that
term being used against me by some of my mates who do goto University,
before that it was ok. Though before, I was never brillaint at school (got
average GCSE grades - never tried that hard at GCSE and mediocore AL
grades - which was due to a poor year 12), I have a social life and before
maths my activities/interests was mainly of an artistic, political
background. I have always been interested in computers, but this was an
interest I was unable to prusue properly until this year. Due to the
circumstances of recent years. If you see me walking down the street you
would probably think I am an urban Londoner or something. So I dont quiet
fit the above image.

However with all this in mind, I have seen loads of thick people who are
*ugly*. Yet its ok for them because they are thick.

Is it just me or is ignorance just bliss for the average joe? I mean, ever
since admiring *mathematical* knowledge to the point that I would if I was
not going to university this year, I would have studied further maths and
physics, which when telling other people that you get reactions like your a
*weirdo*. Whereas its much more socially acceptable to spend your time
watching Trisha every afternoon on ITV with a cup of tea in your hand.

Post by cowboy carl

Post by Samsonknight
What I don't get, is if comp scientists do get the subject based
stereotyping that I'd imagine them to get, why should they?As if it
wasn't for them and their achievements, the rest of the non
comp-scientist population would not be using the internet at this present
moment of time. Which is ironic, as people spend hours on the internet.
Yet it is much more socially acceptable to spend hours on the internet
and do a politics degree, then do something productive with a computer.

That's a slightly trickier one, but may be related to my theory above.
There's also the fact that "doing something productive with a computer"
isn't a social activity, whereas discussing politics is.
But the problem with that is, reading about politics isn't a social
activity, cos you are just sitting on your lonesome reading a book.
Maybe it's because it's easier to discuss politics than computing or
maths. Again, it is more accessible. I see people's eyes glaze over when I
start to explain my project to them ... but if I tell them a random fact
about the origin of some random word, or some famous chap in history, they
are much more interested.
Well, except the computing people, who glaze over at that, and are
interested in the geeky stuff.

Indeed, I am sure politics students have to spend hours reading about marx
and his communist ideas, and yeah that can be regarded as equally sad -
however it's not. Such double standards and hypocracy on their behalf.
Besides, who said that someone into Computers can not discuss politics? MMH
certainly does and I do with some of my friends who do study politics at
university.

Post by cowboy carl

Post by Samsonknight
Although some do. You are right by saying that not all individuals fit
that stereotype, I am not a comp scientist yet but I don't think I fit
that very stereotypical image. As my interests are very diverse.

I reckon everyone has diverse interests. But the second you meet someone,
you instantly form a judgement about them. It may be 'wrong' to, from a
moral standpoint, but we do, we can't help it.

Sure. However in my old 6th form, there were some people that despite people
knowing relatively well, they continued to get the stick. I guess it all
comes down to variation in terms of intelligence as you said and how peoples
opinions are formed. I just wonder if this trend continues at unis. Probably
not at Imperial as everyone there is doing a sciency degree.

Post by cowboy carl
So when, at the union council yesterday, I saw a bunch of guys with long
hair and beards and scruffy t-shirts, and another guy in a shirt and
jumper, neatly cut hair and very presentable ... I know that they are all
socialist-types, but I would much rather have a conversation with the
latter, and would probably ignore and laugh at the former.
And people complain about being judged on their appearance.
When appearance is all other people have to go on ... what do they expect?
If you look like an uncouth hooligan, what the hell do you think people
are gonna expect from you?
Anyway, mildly tipsy rant over.

I am in agreement with you there, "image is quiet literally everything" in
this day and age and there is no denying that first impressions do count.
But as mentioned above, after first impressions, *geeky* people still do get
a lot of stick despite their personality, in social environments - unless of
course they are stinkingly rich or have a body like http://www.jaycutler.com
lol

What is sad about all of this, is that it is so sad and immature, how can
people just brand this person as geeky/ugly because he/she studies this, how
can a subject determine if someone is ugly or good looking. Its just so
absurd IMO, as looks are a matter of preference and is not determined by
he/she studying maths/comp sci. It is also very sad that intelligence is
seen as something negative in this day and age, although I don't agree with
the examination systems in the country as a indication of intelligent for
reasons discussed in previous threads, being cultured and having the ability
to formulate your own opinion is far superior then looking like Johnny Depp.
He's just hyped anyway, if any bloke was as hyped as he was by the media,
they would get as many chicks as him.

Post by cowboy carl

Post by Samsonknight
Doesn't everyone play computer games?

No.

Not even Counter-strike?

[Matt]

Post by Samsonknight

Post by cowboy carl
So, maybe it's because other subjects are more accessible. You can get
to the 'cool' stuff quicker. Anyone can discuss the ethics of abortion
or the pros and cons of New Labour, whereas you have to be uber-smart
and study for years and years to be able to discuss the cutting edge
stuff in "geeky" subjects like maths and science.

Yes I agree, but bloody hell after doing some AL Maths/physics
(Mechanics), it is actually the equivilent to learning history, but with
numbers. Absolutely everything I have encountered so far has had a part to
play in history. Mathematics in my opinion is just a bunch of tricks used
to solve real life practical problems (will probably get flamed for saying
that.)

No, that's exactly what Mathematics is! (Well, if you substitute "tool"
for "bunch of tricks" anyway.)

Post by Samsonknight
Sure. However in my old 6th form, there were some people that despite
people knowing relatively well, they continued to get the stick. I guess
it all comes down to variation in terms of intelligence as you said and
how peoples opinions are formed. I just wonder if this trend continues at
unis. Probably not at Imperial as everyone there is doing a sciency
degree.

In my experience, it stops. Generally there's respect for the
"cleverest in the class". There's still subject rivalry, of course :-).

Post by Samsonknight

Post by cowboy carl

Post by Samsonknight
Doesn't everyone play computer games?

No.

Not even Counter-strike?

I don't either. No, not even counterstrike. I played KBounce¹ yesterday
for about 5 minutes, does that count?

[Samsonknight]

Post by Matt

Post by Samsonknight

Post by cowboy carl
So, maybe it's because other subjects are more accessible. You can get
to the 'cool' stuff quicker. Anyone can discuss the ethics of abortion
or the pros and cons of New Labour, whereas you have to be uber-smart
and study for years and years to be able to discuss the cutting edge
stuff in "geeky" subjects like maths and science.

Yes I agree, but bloody hell after doing some AL Maths/physics
(Mechanics), it is actually the equivilent to learning history, but with
numbers. Absolutely everything I have encountered so far has had a part to
play in history. Mathematics in my opinion is just a bunch of tricks used
to solve real life practical problems (will probably get flamed for saying
that.)

No, that's exactly what Mathematics is! (Well, if you substitute "tool"
for "bunch of tricks" anyway.)

Looks like I am learning fast.

Post by Matt

Post by Samsonknight
Sure. However in my old 6th form, there were some people that despite
people knowing relatively well, they continued to get the stick. I guess
it all comes down to variation in terms of intelligence as you said and
how peoples opinions are formed. I just wonder if this trend continues at
unis. Probably not at Imperial as everyone there is doing a sciency
degree.

In my experience, it stops. Generally there's respect for the
"cleverest in the class". There's still subject rivalry, of course :-).

Even at polytechinics or universities that do not specialise in computer
science, but politics, english and those subjects. - Where individuals are
computer illiterate?

Post by Matt

Post by Samsonknight

Post by cowboy carl

Post by Samsonknight
Doesn't everyone play computer games?

No.

Not even Counter-strike?

I don't either. No, not even counterstrike. I played KBounce¹ yesterday
for about 5 minutes, does that count?

Yes unfortunantly that counts, why doesn't anyone here play
Counterstrike/Championship manager - they are popular among the average
joes.

Post by Matt
--
Matt
¹ KBounce: http://docs.kde.org/en/3.1/kdegames/kbounce/strategy.html

[Matt]

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Matt

Post by Samsonknight

Post by cowboy carl
So, maybe it's because other subjects are more accessible. You can get
to the 'cool' stuff quicker. Anyone can discuss the ethics of
abortion or the pros and cons of New Labour, whereas you have to be
uber-smart and study for years and years to be able to discuss the
cutting edge stuff in "geeky" subjects like maths and science.

Yes I agree, but bloody hell after doing some AL Maths/physics
(Mechanics), it is actually the equivilent to learning history, but
with numbers. Absolutely everything I have encountered so far has had a
part to
play in history. Mathematics in my opinion is just a bunch of tricks
used to solve real life practical problems (will probably get flamed
for saying
that.)

No, that's exactly what Mathematics is! (Well, if you substitute "tool"
for "bunch of tricks" anyway.)

Looks like I am learning fast.

Post by Matt

Post by Samsonknight
Sure. However in my old 6th form, there were some people that despite
people knowing relatively well, they continued to get the stick. I
guess it all comes down to variation in terms of intelligence as you
said and how peoples opinions are formed. I just wonder if this trend
continues at unis. Probably not at Imperial as everyone there is doing
a sciency degree.

In my experience, it stops. Generally there's respect for the "cleverest
in the class". There's still subject rivalry, of course :-).

Even at polytechinics or universities that do not specialise in computer
science, but politics, english and those subjects. - Where individuals are
computer illiterate?

Sorry, I meant to say, "In my experience, at Imperial, it stops."

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Matt

Post by Samsonknight

Post by cowboy carl

Post by Samsonknight
Doesn't everyone play computer games?

No.

Not even Counter-strike?

I don't either. No, not even counterstrike. I played KBounce¹ yesterday
for about 5 minutes, does that count?

Yes unfortunantly that counts, why doesn't anyone here play
Counterstrike/Championship manager - they are popular among the average
joes.

I'll play an FPS if I'm playing against people I know, i.e. with friends,
but I don't care to play against either the computer or random people on
the internet.

[cowboy carl]

Post by Samsonknight

Post by cowboy carl
Maths is awesomely cool.

I am not even doing degree level Maths yet I am quiet interested in the
A-level course. Probably because my tutor who guides me, is guiding me in a
much more practical/different way then what the teachers at my old school
6th form did (and I only have him for 3 hours a week! whereas I had teaching
for 9 hours at my old sixth form). My ex subject teachers always used to
tell us to learn x formulae straight away without really giving you a proper
explanation on what your supposed to be doing - the concept behind the
theory.
I remember two years back when I was doing P1/S1, the teachers spent hardly
any time of actually explaining why we used calculus and jumped straight
into "dy/dx". No wonder why people got confused and when you did ask a
question that ended up leading to being patronised. - which meant that those
with problems , never did get those basic problems resolved.

Agree entirely, maths at uni, you are told the proof to *everything* and
you assume *nothing*, right back to basics, division algorithim, adding
numbers, multiplying things, you can no longer take it for granted that
two positive numbers multiplied together don't equal zero.

If things are built upon solid foundations, then people will have a much
better understanding. For most maths which people do (including
calculus), people don't need to worry about non integral domains (where
you can get things multiplying together to equal zero), but it is still
important that they understand where integrals come from, otherwise,
when they try and do stuff with them, they might have the complete wrong
idea in their head about it.

Post by Samsonknight

Post by cowboy carl
However it's only awesomly cool when you get to the really hard stuff.
And then, people like me, who is/are pretty good at maths struggle to
understand it and see the utter coolness of being able to represent ideals
as sublattices etc.
So, maybe it's because other subjects are more accessible. You can get to
the 'cool' stuff quicker. Anyone can discuss the ethics of abortion or
the pros and cons of New Labour, whereas you have to be uber-smart and
study for years and years to be able to discuss the cutting edge stuff in
"geeky" subjects like maths and science.

Yes I agree, but bloody hell after doing some AL Maths/physics (Mechanics),
it is actually the equivilent to learning history, but with numbers.
Absolutely everything I have encountered so far has had a part to play in
history. Mathematics in my opinion is just a bunch of tricks used to solve
real life practical problems (will probably get flamed for saying that.)

Maybe, at A-level, but 4th year degree stuff is crazy-abstract and has
no relation to the real-world whatsoever.

Well, apart from cryptography, but that's not because the maths was
developed *because* it was needed, the maths was developed because
people like maths, then other people figured they could use it for this.
Mathematicans don't want to find a quick way of factorising prime
numbers *so* they can break codes. They want to do it *so* they can do it.

Post by Samsonknight

Post by cowboy carl
Because it is the norm to *be* rubbish at maths.
Also, there's the whole geek/ugliness thing going on.
Okay, so this may not be PC, but I don't care ... geeks are ugly, but why?
Is it because ugly people become geeks, or geeks somehow become ugly?
I reckon it's the former, cos the latter seems silly.
And I reckon it's because, in primary and secondary school, the ugly kids
get picked on, and become reclusive, and don't have much to do, so they
become worky, and clever.
Whereas the good looking kids mess around and have fun and remain thick
and ignorant their entire lives.

Yeah I agree, there is a whole geeky/ugly/sad thing going on. Yet it is so
strange, because it is only after doing AL maths this year I have heard that
term being used against me by some of my mates who do goto University,
before that it was ok. Though before, I was never brillaint at school (got
average GCSE grades - never tried that hard at GCSE and mediocore AL
grades - which was due to a poor year 12), I have a social life and before
maths my activities/interests was mainly of an artistic, political
background. I have always been interested in computers, but this was an
interest I was unable to prusue properly until this year. Due to the
circumstances of recent years. If you see me walking down the street you
would probably think I am an urban Londoner or something. So I dont quiet
fit the above image.

I got crappy GCSEs too, I think I was only ever considered a 'swot'
because of the people I chose to hang out with, rather than anything
inherent.

I dunno, I'm too drunk to think about primary school now, maybe I'll
reply again in the morning.

Post by Samsonknight
However with all this in mind, I have seen loads of thick people who are
*ugly*. Yet its ok for them because they are thick.

I don't think it's so much that it's "okay" for them ... I think it's
more that, when people come to judge them - what do they have to go on?

Looks ... okay, nothing there. Personality, well, if they are the
'bully' type, then maybe they come across as big, strong, confident etc.

I think it has less to do with looks than I might have implied in my
previous post, and much more to do with confidence. And confidence is
shaped from a very early age, and any bullying, no matter how small
(like, not being part of a certain 'popular' group in primary school)
*will* have an effect on the development of the child.

Post by Samsonknight
Is it just me or is ignorance just bliss for the average joe? I mean, ever
since admiring *mathematical* knowledge to the point that I would if I was
not going to university this year, I would have studied further maths and
physics, which when telling other people that you get reactions like your a
*weirdo*. Whereas its much more socially acceptable to spend your time
watching Trisha every afternoon on ITV with a cup of tea in your hand.

Reminds me of what we are doing in philosophy at the moment, if you
want, read Jeremy Bentham and John Stewart Mill's writings on
utilatarianism.

Basically, and I am willing to stand corrected on this by people who
know more than me, but they take the position that decision are moral
based on the level of happiness that results from that decision
(greatest happiness for the greatest number of people).

Mill addressed the critism that this would mean people just have sex all
the time (or, words to that effect), by pointing out that people who
have experienced the "higher pleasures" of, for example, mathematical
reasoning and enjoyment of music, would never sanely give it up for the
life of a pig who was constantly orgasming (if orgasming is a word).

So yeah, maybe ignorance is bliss, but experiencing 'higher pleasures'
is better.

Post by Samsonknight

Post by cowboy carl
That's a slightly trickier one, but may be related to my theory above.
There's also the fact that "doing something productive with a computer"
isn't a social activity, whereas discussing politics is.
But the problem with that is, reading about politics isn't a social
activity, cos you are just sitting on your lonesome reading a book.
Maybe it's because it's easier to discuss politics than computing or
maths. Again, it is more accessible. I see people's eyes glaze over when I
start to explain my project to them ... but if I tell them a random fact
about the origin of some random word, or some famous chap in history, they
are much more interested.
Well, except the computing people, who glaze over at that, and are
interested in the geeky stuff.

Indeed, I am sure politics students have to spend hours reading about marx
and his communist ideas, and yeah that can be regarded as equally sad -
however it's not. Such double standards and hypocracy on their behalf.
Besides, who said that someone into Computers can not discuss politics? MMH
certainly does and I do with some of my friends who do study politics at
university.

But in general (which is always a dangerous statment to make, but I
think it is true), people who are 'computer scientists' aren't
interested in politics.

Stereotypes are legitimate. If they didn't exist, the world would be FAR
too complicated for people to handle. We *have* to categorise people as
soon as we see them, so that we know whether, for example, we can use
coarse humor around them, or whether we need to be especially polite.

Only after we have got to know them better can we act 'ourselves' around
them.

Post by Samsonknight

Post by cowboy carl
So when, at the union council yesterday, I saw a bunch of guys with long
hair and beards and scruffy t-shirts, and another guy in a shirt and
jumper, neatly cut hair and very presentable ... I know that they are all
socialist-types, but I would much rather have a conversation with the
latter, and would probably ignore and laugh at the former.
And people complain about being judged on their appearance.
When appearance is all other people have to go on ... what do they expect?
If you look like an uncouth hooligan, what the hell do you think people
are gonna expect from you?
Anyway, mildly tipsy rant over.

I am in agreement with you there, "image is quiet literally everything" in
this day and age and there is no denying that first impressions do count.
But as mentioned above, after first impressions, *geeky* people still do get
a lot of stick despite their personality, in social environments - unless of
course they are stinkingly rich or have a body like http://www.jaycutler.com
lol
What is sad about all of this, is that it is so sad and immature, how can
people just brand this person as geeky/ugly because he/she studies this, how
can a subject determine if someone is ugly or good looking. Its just so
absurd IMO, as looks are a matter of preference and is not determined by
he/she studying maths/comp sci. It is also very sad that intelligence is
seen as something negative in this day and age, although I don't agree with
the examination systems in the country as a indication of intelligent for
reasons discussed in previous threads, being cultured and having the ability
to formulate your own opinion is far superior then looking like Johnny Depp.
He's just hyped anyway, if any bloke was as hyped as he was by the media,
they would get as many chicks as him.

Ya know, this goes back to the whole "girls would rather be with a good
looking guy than a smart guy" thing. Brad Pitt vs Einstein.

It's a tricky one and there is no simple answer.

I hated it when my former girlfriend called me a geek or dork, even tho
she didn't mean anything by it, the connotations I associate with it
made me feel inferior.

Heh, once, I dunno if they were actually talking about me (I'm really
paranoid just walking down the street) but I heard a couple of chav kids
say 'Einstein' quite loudly, so I took it as an insult to me (cos I was
looking quite geeky that day). Then I was thinking how weird it is for
being called Einstein to be an insult. I mean, a really smart guy,
changed the world, improved the lives of millions of people, how can "Oi
Einstein!" possibly be an insult?

Post by Samsonknight

Post by cowboy carl

Post by Samsonknight
Doesn't everyone play computer games?

No.

Not even Counter-strike?

Ah, well ... okay ... I have played that a few times, and I did enjoy it.

But I haven't played in ages.

Used to play it in halls, loved it, cos you knew all the people you were
playing with, it was a *really* social thing.

Never liked playing it online tho, cos everyone was way better than me,
and it wasn't at all social.

cc

[Alun Harford]

Post by cowboy carl
Well, apart from cryptography, but that's not because the maths was
developed *because* it was needed, the maths was developed because
people like maths, then other people figured they could use it for this.
Mathematicans don't want to find a quick way of factorising prime
numbers *so* they can break codes. They want to do it *so* they can do it.

Factorising numbers that you know are prime?
Bet that took years to work out.

:-)

Alun Harford

[John Porcella]

Post by Alun Harford

Post by cowboy carl
Well, apart from cryptography, but that's not because the maths was
developed *because* it was needed, the maths was developed because
people like maths, then other people figured they could use it for this.
Mathematicans don't want to find a quick way of factorising prime
numbers *so* they can break codes. They want to do it *so* they can do it.

Factorising numbers that you know are prime?
Bet that took years to work out.
:-)
Alun Harford

Ha-ha!

[cowboy carl]

Post by Alun Harford

Post by cowboy carl
Well, apart from cryptography, but that's not because the maths was
developed *because* it was needed, the maths was developed because
people like maths, then other people figured they could use it for this.
Mathematicans don't want to find a quick way of factorising prime
numbers *so* they can break codes. They want to do it *so* they can do it.

Factorising numbers that you know are prime?
Bet that took years to work out.
:-)

Heh, I blame the beer.

(embarassed looking) cc

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by Samsonknight
Indeed, I am sure politics students have to spend hours reading about
marx and his communist ideas, and yeah that can be regarded as equally
sad - however it's not. Such double standards and hypocracy on their
behalf. Besides, who said that someone into Computers can not discuss
politics? MMH certainly does and I do with some of my friends who do
study politics at university.

But in general (which is always a dangerous statment to make, but I think
it is true), people who are 'computer scientists' aren't interested in
politics.

I don't think it is at all true "in general". I have found that people
who work in Computer Science are no more or less interested in politics
than anyone else. Actually I'd say most of my fellow academics in the
Computer Science department have enough interest and knowledge about
politics to be able to engage in a decent conversation about it, and
quite a few of them have quite passionate views on politics. Although
this may be more because we're academics than because we're Computer
Scientists.

I've met people doing *Politics* degrees who seem to have no interest in
politics. Do people doing things like English Literature have any more
interest in politics than people doing Computer Science? I think this is
a ridiculously stereotyped view, and one which is so wrong as to make
me angry.

Matthew Huntbach

[John Porcella]

Post by cowboy carl

Post by Samsonknight
Yes, its all silly really. Why is it a norm to say that "I am rubbish at
mathematics?", when it has improved out living standards considerably.

Because it is the norm to *be* rubbish at maths.

That then really begs the question, why is it the norm to be so?

Post by cowboy carl
Also, there's the whole geek/ugliness thing going on.
Okay, so this may not be PC, but I don't care ... geeks are ugly, but
why? Is it because ugly people become geeks, or geeks somehow become ugly?

By being solitary and studious, people will not have the social skills of a
party animal: lack of cleanliness, lack of fashionable clothes, lacking
'interesting' conversation etc. So from this, people will not look their
best according to non-acadamic standards/norms.

Post by cowboy carl
I reckon it's the former, cos the latter seems silly.

In favour of your viewpoint it could be argued that the unattractive are
less likely to have as many distractions from study?

Post by cowboy carl
There's also the fact that "doing something productive with a computer"
isn't a social activity, whereas discussing politics is.
But the problem with that is, reading about politics isn't a social
activity, cos you are just sitting on your lonesome reading a book.
Maybe it's because it's easier to discuss politics than computing or
maths. Again, it is more accessible. I see people's eyes glaze over when
I start to explain my project to them ... but if I tell them a random
fact about the origin of some random word, or some famous chap in
history, they are much more interested.
Well, except the computing people, who glaze over at that, and are
interested in the geeky stuff.

Post by Samsonknight
Although some do. You are right by saying that not all individuals fit that
stereotype, I am not a comp scientist yet but I don't think I fit that very
stereotypical image. As my interests are very diverse.

I reckon everyone has diverse interests. But the second you meet
someone, you instantly form a judgement about them. It may be 'wrong'
to, from a moral standpoint, but we do, we can't help it.

It is surely hardwired into us. People would have had to make quick
decisions to size up whether somebody looked friendly or hostile, or was
attractive as a mate or not when when we were running around in fur.

[Dr A. N. Walker]

[...]

Post by Samsonknight
Yeah I agree, many of my friends chose sports science et al because they
thought it was an easier AL to get an A in. I guess that is what it comes
down to, but never the less there is still that *stigma* attached to
mathematics and those that do it.

The stigma [which is real, I agree] applies almost entirely
at school/college. At univ, it goes away when people discover that
mathematicians are the highest-paid graduates .... It re-appears
in the general public at the level of "Oh, I could never do maths
at school", but that's envy/ignorance rather than stigma.

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Matthew Huntbach
Logarithms are such a basic mathematical concept that they crop up in
all sorts of places. I would have thought it's something that anyone
doing a decent business or economic degree would need to know about.

Sounds interesting, I am yet to explore p3/4 so I look forward to seeing how
it will be used at the more higher ends of maths. Out of interest how would
a concepts such as logs be implemented into a business degree?

Note that logs in the sense of "to multiply two numbers, take
the antilog of the sum of the logs" have, as JP says, been rendered
totally obsolete, like the slide rule, by calculators. But the
*concept* is still useful. Even business people ought to be able
to make sense of logarithmic or exponential growth/decay, as they
often apply to the way companies expand, make profits, etc., etc.
CS types definitely need the concept, else they will find concepts
of information, complexity, etc beyond them.

[...]

Post by Samsonknight
What I don't get, is if comp scientists do get the subject based
stereotyping that I'd imagine them to get, why should they?As if it wasn't
for them and their achievements, the rest of the non comp-scientist
population would not be using the internet at this present moment of time.

Umm. Bear in mind that there was no "comp sci" population
at all until 1970-ish, and precious few until the '80s. Almost all
the pioneers and "big names" in CS were mathematicians or electrical
engineers.

[cowboy carl]

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
[...]

Post by Samsonknight
Yeah I agree, many of my friends chose sports science et al because they
thought it was an easier AL to get an A in. I guess that is what it comes
down to, but never the less there is still that *stigma* attached to
mathematics and those that do it.

The stigma [which is real, I agree] applies almost entirely
at school/college. At univ, it goes away when people discover that
mathematicians are the highest-paid graduates .... It re-appears
in the general public at the level of "Oh, I could never do maths
at school", but that's envy/ignorance rather than stigma.

Funny, is that because University is the one place in life where you are
only exposed to the top, say, 30% of people in terms of cleverness
(however you wish to define that)?

Both before and aftwards (where the 'stigma' and stereotyping occurs) is
when you are exposed to the whole range of intelligences of human beings.

cc

[John Porcella]

Post by cowboy carl
Funny, is that because University is the one place in life where you are
only exposed to the top, say, 30% of people in terms of cleverness
(however you wish to define that)?
Both before and aftwards (where the 'stigma' and stereotyping occurs) is
when you are exposed to the whole range of intelligences of human beings.
cc

Hmm, with the Labour Party target of 50%, I imagined that the current rate
stood a little over 40%.

[Rebecca Loader]

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
The stigma [which is real, I agree] applies almost entirely
at school/college. At univ, it goes away when people discover that
mathematicians are the highest-paid graduates .... It re-appears
in the general public at the level of "Oh, I could never do maths
at school", but that's envy/ignorance rather than stigma.

I don't think it's peculiar to maths. I got that reaction when I started to
study a degree in French. I think modern languages occupy a similar area -
people are always quick to tell you they weren't any good at them at school.

Becky

[Samsonknight]

Post by Rebecca Loader

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
The stigma [which is real, I agree] applies almost entirely
at school/college. At univ, it goes away when people discover that
mathematicians are the highest-paid graduates .... It re-appears
in the general public at the level of "Oh, I could never do maths
at school", but that's envy/ignorance rather than stigma.

I don't think it's peculiar to maths. I got that reaction when I started to
study a degree in French. I think modern languages occupy a similar area -
people are always quick to tell you they weren't any good at them at school.
Becky

Well, in my experience doing modern langauges was ofter seen as academically
different and not really academically geeky, and doesn't have the stigma
attached to any of the sciences. Yeah, people would say that "they wern't
good at them", but I wouldn't think you would get bombarded with criticisms
in the form of "your a sad geek for studying french".

[Samsonknight]

Post by Rebecca Loader

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
The stigma [which is real, I agree] applies almost entirely
at school/college. At univ, it goes away when people discover that
mathematicians are the highest-paid graduates .... It re-appears
in the general public at the level of "Oh, I could never do maths
at school", but that's envy/ignorance rather than stigma.

I don't think it's peculiar to maths. I got that reaction when I started to
study a degree in French. I think modern languages occupy a similar area -
people are always quick to tell you they weren't any good at them at school.
Becky

Well, in my experience doing modern langauges was ofter seen as academically
different and not really academically geeky, and doesn't have the same
stigma
attached to it . Yeah, people would say that "they wern't
good at them", but I wouldn't think you would get bombarded with criticisms
in the form of "your a sad geek for studying french".

[Matt]

Post by Samsonknight
Well, in my experience doing modern langauges was ofter seen as
academically different and not really academically geeky, and doesn't have
the same stigma
attached to it . Yeah, people would say that "they wern't good at them",
but I wouldn't think you would get bombarded with criticisms in the form
of "your a sad geek for studying french".

The worst thing is when the people then expect you to fix their computer
for them. I get really fed up being seen as Tech Support, when it's people
asking who wouldn't normally communicate with me.

[Samsonknight]

Post by Matt

Post by Samsonknight
Well, in my experience doing modern langauges was ofter seen as
academically different and not really academically geeky, and doesn't have
the same stigma
attached to it . Yeah, people would say that "they wern't good at them",
but I wouldn't think you would get bombarded with criticisms in the form
of "your a sad geek for studying french".

The worst thing is when the people then expect you to fix their computer
for them. I get really fed up being seen as Tech Support, when it's people
asking who wouldn't normally communicate with me.
--
Matt

Yeah right pricks they are, I bet if the media glamourised computer
science - it would turn into something hard and cool like Medicine is seen
as. When my god , that is unbelieveably 20 times more geeky - 4 As just to
get into the profession plus 5 years of studying! Maybe they should make a
TV show that is similar to ER but replacing the Drs with Computer Scientists
, maybe just maybe this will inspire generations to come - especially if one
of the *geeks* is supposebly fit like George Clooney.

[cowboy carl]

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Matt

Post by Samsonknight
Well, in my experience doing modern langauges was ofter seen as
academically different and not really academically geeky, and doesn't have
the same stigma
attached to it . Yeah, people would say that "they wern't good at them",
but I wouldn't think you would get bombarded with criticisms in the form
of "your a sad geek for studying french".

The worst thing is when the people then expect you to fix their computer
for them. I get really fed up being seen as Tech Support, when it's people
asking who wouldn't normally communicate with me.
--
Matt

Yeah right pricks they are, I bet if the media glamourised computer
science - it would turn into something hard and cool like Medicine is seen
as. When my god , that is unbelieveably 20 times more geeky - 4 As just to
get into the profession plus 5 years of studying! Maybe they should make a
TV show that is similar to ER but replacing the Drs with Computer Scientists
, maybe just maybe this will inspire generations to come - especially if one
of the *geeks* is supposebly fit like George Clooney.

I remember shortly after the first Matrix film came out, everybody
wanted to be a Hacker, and for a month or two, it was cool to be a geek.
Everyone wanted to know how to hack into their friends computers and
read their emails or whatever.

Didn't last very long tho.

We need more films like the Matrix.

:)

cc

[Samsonknight]

<snip>

I remember shortly after the first Matrix film came out, everybody wanted
to be a Hacker, and for a month or two, it was cool to be a geek. Everyone
wanted to know how to hack into their friends computers and read their
emails or whatever.
Didn't last very long tho.
We need more films like the Matrix.
:)
cc

Yeah I remember that craze, though I think they really should make a TV
series glamourising the life of computer scientists. One that is filled with
programming & high paid jobs, with sex, drugs and rock and roll. That will
remove the stereotype.

[Rebecca Loader]

Post by Samsonknight
Yeah I remember that craze, though I think they really should make a TV
series glamourising the life of computer scientists. One that is filled with
programming & high paid jobs, with sex, drugs and rock and roll. That will
remove the stereotype.

Well, it appears that mathematicians at least have Bob Dylan on their side:

"I know there are groups at the top of the charts that are hailed as the
saviours of rock'n'roll and all that, but they are amateurs. They don't know
where the music comes from," he wrote [in the programme notes for his latest
American tour], adding, "I wouldn't even think about playing music if I was
born in these times... I'd probably turn to something like mathematics. That
would interest me."

Becky

[H Bergeron]

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 19:27:44 -0000, "Rebecca Loader"

Post by Rebecca Loader

Post by Samsonknight
Yeah I remember that craze, though I think they really should make a TV
series glamourising the life of computer scientists. One that is filled

with

Post by Samsonknight
programming & high paid jobs, with sex, drugs and rock and roll. That

will

Post by Samsonknight
remove the stereotype.

"I know there are groups at the top of the charts that are hailed as the
saviours of rock'n'roll and all that, but they are amateurs. They don't know
where the music comes from," he wrote [in the programme notes for his latest
American tour], adding, "I wouldn't even think about playing music if I was
born in these times... I'd probably turn to something like mathematics. That
would interest me."
Becky

Dylan is also the author of the only song I know that refers to
"mathematicians" in its lyrics.

[Alun Harford]

Post by H Bergeron
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 19:27:44 -0000, "Rebecca Loader"

Post by Rebecca Loader

Post by Samsonknight
Yeah I remember that craze, though I think they really should make a TV
series glamourising the life of computer scientists. One that is filled

with

Post by Samsonknight
programming & high paid jobs, with sex, drugs and rock and roll. That

will

Post by Samsonknight
remove the stereotype.

"I know there are groups at the top of the charts that are hailed as the
saviours of rock'n'roll and all that, but they are amateurs. They don't know
where the music comes from," he wrote [in the programme notes for his latest
American tour], adding, "I wouldn't even think about playing music if I was
born in these times... I'd probably turn to something like mathematics. That
would interest me."
Becky

Dylan is also the author of the only song I know that refers to
"mathematicians" in its lyrics.

I'm sure Tom Lehrer has one.

Alun Harford

[H Bergeron]

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 00:34:59 -0000, "Alun Harford"

Post by Rebecca Loader

Post by H Bergeron
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 19:27:44 -0000, "Rebecca Loader"

Post by Rebecca Loader

Post by Samsonknight
Yeah I remember that craze, though I think they really should make a TV
series glamourising the life of computer scientists. One that is filled

with

Post by Samsonknight
programming & high paid jobs, with sex, drugs and rock and roll. That

will

Post by Samsonknight
remove the stereotype.

Well, it appears that mathematicians at least have Bob Dylan on their
"I know there are groups at the top of the charts that are hailed as the
saviours of rock'n'roll and all that, but they are amateurs. They don't

know

Post by H Bergeron

Post by Rebecca Loader
where the music comes from," he wrote [in the programme notes for his

latest

Post by H Bergeron

Post by Rebecca Loader
American tour], adding, "I wouldn't even think about playing music if I

was

Post by H Bergeron

Post by Rebecca Loader
born in these times... I'd probably turn to something like mathematics.

That

Post by H Bergeron

Post by Rebecca Loader
would interest me."
Becky

Dylan is also the author of the only song I know that refers to
"mathematicians" in its lyrics.

I'm sure Tom Lehrer has one.

I can well believe it. A man who can rhyme "Harvard" with "discovered"
is capable of anything.

Post by Rebecca Loader
Alun Harford

[Alun Harford]

Post by H Bergeron
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 00:34:59 -0000, "Alun Harford"

Post by Rebecca Loader

Post by H Bergeron
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 19:27:44 -0000, "Rebecca Loader"

Post by Rebecca Loader

Post by Samsonknight
Yeah I remember that craze, though I think they really should make a TV
series glamourising the life of computer scientists. One that is filled

with

Post by Samsonknight
programming & high paid jobs, with sex, drugs and rock and roll. That

will

Post by Samsonknight
remove the stereotype.

Well, it appears that mathematicians at least have Bob Dylan on their
"I know there are groups at the top of the charts that are hailed as the
saviours of rock'n'roll and all that, but they are amateurs. They don't

know

Post by H Bergeron

Post by Rebecca Loader
where the music comes from," he wrote [in the programme notes for his

latest

Post by H Bergeron

Post by Rebecca Loader
American tour], adding, "I wouldn't even think about playing music if I

was

Post by H Bergeron

Post by Rebecca Loader
born in these times... I'd probably turn to something like

mathematics.

Post by H Bergeron

Post by Rebecca Loader
That

Post by H Bergeron

Post by Rebecca Loader
would interest me."
Becky

Dylan is also the author of the only song I know that refers to
"mathematicians" in its lyrics.

I'm sure Tom Lehrer has one.

I can well believe it. A man who can rhyme "Harvard" with "discovered"
is capable of anything.

Well I'm pushing it a little, but "mathematicians" is a spoken word in
Lobachevsky.
" Be that as it may, some of you may have had occasion to run into
mathematicians and to wonder therefore how they got that way, and here, in
partial explanation perhaps, is the story of the great Russian mathematician
Nicolai Ivanovich Lobachevsky. "

It was hard finding it in plural, but I managed.

Alun Harford

[cowboy carl]

Post by Matt

Post by Samsonknight
Well, in my experience doing modern langauges was ofter seen as
academically different and not really academically geeky, and doesn't have
the same stigma
attached to it . Yeah, people would say that "they wern't good at them",
but I wouldn't think you would get bombarded with criticisms in the form
of "your a sad geek for studying french".

The worst thing is when the people then expect you to fix their computer
for them. I get really fed up being seen as Tech Support, when it's people
asking who wouldn't normally communicate with me.

If they are cute and female I don't mind so much. I mean, fix their
computer, then ask them out for coffee (does anyone ever actually ask
anyone out for coffee?). If they say no, then they are mean, and they
would probably feel bad about ever asking you to fix their computer ever
again, most would say yes, then use that opportunty to show them how
normal you are :)

But yeah, it's annoying. Bloody annoying. Part of the reason I'm not
going into a computer job :)

cc

[Samsonknight]

Post by cowboy carl

Post by Matt

Post by Samsonknight
Well, in my experience doing modern langauges was ofter seen as
academically different and not really academically geeky, and doesn't have
the same stigma
attached to it . Yeah, people would say that "they wern't good at them",
but I wouldn't think you would get bombarded with criticisms in the form
of "your a sad geek for studying french".

The worst thing is when the people then expect you to fix their computer
for them. I get really fed up being seen as Tech Support, when it's people
asking who wouldn't normally communicate with me.

If they are cute and female I don't mind so much. I mean, fix their
computer, then ask them out for coffee (does anyone ever actually ask
anyone out for coffee?). If they say no, then they are mean, and they
would probably feel bad about ever asking you to fix their computer ever
again, most would say yes, then use that opportunty to show them how
normal you are :)
But yeah, it's annoying. Bloody annoying. Part of the reason I'm not going
into a computer job :)
cc

Is learning how to be a playa integrated into the mathematics degree at
Imperial?

[Samsonknight]

<snip>

Post by cowboy carl
again, most would say yes, then use that opportunty to show them how
normal you are :)
But yeah, it's annoying. Bloody annoying. Part of the reason I'm not going
into a computer job :)

Or better still just lie about your occupation, say that your a lawyer or
something? and just make up some lame excuse that you fix computers on a
part time bases. I actually wonder if computer scientists do that, a mate
told me that his mate who does computer science goes around telling women at
parties that hes studying sports science...hmmmm sneaky bugger!

[cowboy carl]

Post by Samsonknight
<snip>

Post by cowboy carl
again, most would say yes, then use that opportunty to show them how
normal you are :)
But yeah, it's annoying. Bloody annoying. Part of the reason I'm not going
into a computer job :)

Or better still just lie about your occupation, say that your a lawyer or
something? and just make up some lame excuse that you fix computers on a
part time bases. I actually wonder if computer scientists do that, a mate
told me that his mate who does computer science goes around telling women at
parties that hes studying sports science...hmmmm sneaky bugger!

I did that once, when introduced to a couple of nice girls back in sixth
form, they asked what I was going to do at university, and I said
"maths" instead of "maths and computing" cos I thought it was slightly
less geeky.

Now I say "maths and computing with a bit of politics and philosophy"
and it's funny watching the expression on the person's face change as
they hear each word :)

cc

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by Samsonknight

Post by cowboy carl
again, most would say yes, then use that opportunty to show them how
normal you are :)
But yeah, it's annoying. Bloody annoying. Part of the reason I'm not going
into a computer job :)

Or better still just lie about your occupation, say that your a lawyer or
something? and just make up some lame excuse that you fix computers on a
part time bases. I actually wonder if computer scientists do that, a mate
told me that his mate who does computer science goes around telling women at
parties that hes studying sports science...hmmmm sneaky bugger!

But as a Computer Scientist, I ****DON'T**** fix computers, and I am FED UP
with people who assume I do. I neither know nor care about how to "fix"
computers.

Matthew Huntbach

[Alun Harford]

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight

Post by cowboy carl
again, most would say yes, then use that opportunty to show them how
normal you are :)
But yeah, it's annoying. Bloody annoying. Part of the reason I'm not going
into a computer job :)

Or better still just lie about your occupation, say that your a lawyer or
something? and just make up some lame excuse that you fix computers on a
part time bases. I actually wonder if computer scientists do that, a mate
told me that his mate who does computer science goes around telling women at
parties that hes studying sports science...hmmmm sneaky bugger!

But as a Computer Scientist, I ****DON'T**** fix computers, and I am FED UP
with people who assume I do. I neither know nor care about how to "fix"
computers.

Mind you, if I had a problem with my telescope I'd ask an astronomer.

Alun Harford

[cowboy carl]

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight

Post by cowboy carl
again, most would say yes, then use that opportunty to show them how
normal you are :)
But yeah, it's annoying. Bloody annoying. Part of the reason I'm not

going

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight

Post by cowboy carl
into a computer job :)

Or better still just lie about your occupation, say that your a lawyer

or

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
something? and just make up some lame excuse that you fix computers on a
part time bases. I actually wonder if computer scientists do that, a

mate

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
told me that his mate who does computer science goes around telling

women at

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
parties that hes studying sports science...hmmmm sneaky bugger!

But as a Computer Scientist, I ****DON'T**** fix computers, and I am FED

UP

Post by Matthew Huntbach
with people who assume I do. I neither know nor care about how to "fix"
computers.

Mind you, if I had a problem with my telescope I'd ask an astronomer.

Well that would make sense, seeing as an astronomer would probably have
lots of experience using telescopes and might recognise the problem.

Similarily, with computers MMH ... if someone asked you how to do
something which they *know* you have been doing for years, then isn't
that reasonable?

The probably arises with the level of ignorance about computers, people
don't know that Linux and Windows are different (for example), and have
completely different programs, they just think "ah, computer guy, he'll
know".

cc

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by cowboy carl

Post by Alun Harford

Post by Matthew Huntbach
But as a Computer Scientist, I ****DON'T**** fix computers, and I am
FED UP with people who assume I do. I neither know nor care about how
to "fix" computers.

Mind you, if I had a problem with my telescope I'd ask an astronomer.

Well that would make sense, seeing as an astronomer would probably have
lots of experience using telescopes and might recognise the problem.

I understand a lot of academic astronomy these days is just pure maths.
I'm not at all sure that people who do research into astronomy *do* spend
time looking through telescopes. I guess even on the more practical side
of the subject these days, it'd be all about doing things with digital
data and not about peering down telescopes making observations.

Post by cowboy carl
Similarily, with computers MMH ... if someone asked you how to do
something which they *know* you have been doing for years, then isn't that
reasonable?

But I HAVEN'T spent my time all these years "fixing computers", which
means things like installing computers into networks, or loading
operating systems, or knowing the details of various office applications.

Post by cowboy carl
The probably arises with the level of ignorance about computers, people
don't know that Linux and Windows are different (for example), and have
completely different programs, they just think "ah, computer guy, he'll
know".

I couldn't care a shit for Linux or Windows. They're tools I use, but
I probably make no more use of them than the average secretary. I teach
programming, which is fairly much on the practical side of computing,
and I research into new programming languages, which is still more
practical than my more theoretical colleagues. But nothing in the work
I do requires me to have any specialist knowledge of Windows or Linux
apart from knowing how to run Java programs under them.

Matthew Huntbach

[cowboy carl]

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by cowboy carl

Post by Alun Harford

Post by Matthew Huntbach
But as a Computer Scientist, I ****DON'T**** fix computers, and I am
FED UP with people who assume I do. I neither know nor care about
how to "fix" computers.

Mind you, if I had a problem with my telescope I'd ask an astronomer.

Well that would make sense, seeing as an astronomer would probably
have lots of experience using telescopes and might recognise the problem.

I understand a lot of academic astronomy these days is just pure maths.
I'm not at all sure that people who do research into astronomy *do* spend
time looking through telescopes. I guess even on the more practical side
of the subject these days, it'd be all about doing things with digital
data and not about peering down telescopes making observations.

Right, but it is likely that they used telescopes once in their life,
and probably more than the average person.

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by cowboy carl
Similarily, with computers MMH ... if someone asked you how to do
something which they *know* you have been doing for years, then isn't
that reasonable?

But I HAVEN'T spent my time all these years "fixing computers", which
means things like installing computers into networks, or loading
operating systems, or knowing the details of various office applications.

Simply *using* a computer means that you are going to be more likely to
encounter problems with it, and would have gone on to find solutions to
these problems.

That's all I'm saying ... a dunce-brain who has never used a computer
before would be totally justified in asking you whether you know how to
do something.

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by cowboy carl
The probably arises with the level of ignorance about computers,
people don't know that Linux and Windows are different (for example),
and have completely different programs, they just think "ah, computer
guy, he'll know".

I couldn't care a shit for Linux or Windows. They're tools I use, but
I probably make no more use of them than the average secretary. I teach
programming, which is fairly much on the practical side of computing,
and I research into new programming languages, which is still more
practical than my more theoretical colleagues. But nothing in the work
I do requires me to have any specialist knowledge of Windows or Linux
apart from knowing how to run Java programs under them.

The average secretary maybe uses Word to type emails, Outlook to check
emails and a couple of other programs.

As a programmer, you probably use a lot more of the computer, plus, you
are smarter than the average secretary. Even if you don't care how it
works, you probably know how it works, or could make a pretty decent
guess at how it works.

Therefore you are more qualified to answer computing-related questions
than a secretary.

cc

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by cowboy carl

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by cowboy carl
Similarily, with computers MMH ... if someone asked you how to do
something which they *know* you have been doing for years, then isn't
that reasonable?

But I HAVEN'T spent my time all these years "fixing computers", which
means things like installing computers into networks, or loading
operating systems, or knowing the details of various office
applications.

Simply *using* a computer means that you are going to be more likely to
encounter problems with it, and would have gone on to find solutions to
these problems.
That's all I'm saying ... a dunce-brain who has never used a computer
before would be totally justified in asking you whether you know how to do
something.

But you don't have to be a computer scientist to use a computer.
These days nearly anyone with an office job uses computers in their
daily work as much as I do.

Post by cowboy carl

Post by Matthew Huntbach
I couldn't care a shit for Linux or Windows. They're tools I use, but
I probably make no more use of them than the average secretary.

The average secretary maybe uses Word to type emails, Outlook to check
emails and a couple of other programs.

Word to prepare documents and presentations, Excel to maintain tables
of information, Windows to maintain a collection of files. Which is
just the same as me, except a secretary is probably going to be doing
more of it than I do so will probably know more of the functions of
these things than I do.

Post by cowboy carl
As a programmer, you probably use a lot more of the computer, plus, you
are smarter than the average secretary. Even if you don't care how it
works, you probably know how it works, or could make a pretty decent guess
at how it works.

My actual usage of a computer beyond that of a secretary is just knowing
how to run programs written in a few different programming languages.
So I wouldn't say it is "a lot more" than anyone with a standard office
or admin job. When people ask you "how to fix computers" they generally
mean some obscure aspect of Windows or some common application they
are having trouble with - and they genuinely suppose I as a Computer
Scientist would know about that. That is, they seem to assume
"Computer Science" means knowing the more obscure aspects of Windows
and common applications. Which it doesn't.

Post by cowboy carl
Therefore you are more qualified to answer computing-related questions
than a secretary.

A secretary who spends more time working with common office applications
than I do is very likely to be more help in sorting out people's problems
with these things than I am. If someone said "I have this piece of Java
code, and it keeps crashing with this error message", then I could use
my specialist knowledge to help them out. However, this is NOT what
people mean when they ask questions about "how to fix a computer".

Matthew Huntbach

[cowboy carl]

Post by cowboy carl

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by cowboy carl
Similarily, with computers MMH ... if someone asked you how to do
something which they *know* you have been doing for years, then
isn't that reasonable?

But I HAVEN'T spent my time all these years "fixing computers", which
means things like installing computers into networks, or loading
operating systems, or knowing the details of various office
applications.

Simply *using* a computer means that you are going to be more likely
to encounter problems with it, and would have gone on to find
solutions to these problems.
That's all I'm saying ... a dunce-brain who has never used a computer
before would be totally justified in asking you whether you know how
to do something.

But you don't have to be a computer scientist to use a computer. These
days nearly anyone with an office job uses computers in their
daily work as much as I do.

Okay, but you use more advaned aspects of the computer than other people do.

You write the programs which computers run, you don't just use the
programs, but you understand how they work. Even if you don't know how
a specific program will work, you can apply your vast amount of detailed
knowledge about computer software to pretty much any program and be able
to make an educated guess.

A better educated guess than most people.

Post by cowboy carl

Post by Matthew Huntbach
I couldn't care a shit for Linux or Windows. They're tools I use, but
I probably make no more use of them than the average secretary.

The average secretary maybe uses Word to type emails, Outlook to check
emails and a couple of other programs.

Word to prepare documents and presentations, Excel to maintain tables
of information, Windows to maintain a collection of files. Which is
just the same as me, except a secretary is probably going to be doing
more of it than I do so will probably know more of the functions of
these things than I do.

She'll know more "functions", sure, but she is less likely to understand
*how they work* and thus how to deal with problems which she hasn't
encounered before.

Post by cowboy carl
As a programmer, you probably use a lot more of the computer, plus,
you are smarter than the average secretary. Even if you don't care
how it works, you probably know how it works, or could make a pretty
decent guess at how it works.

My actual usage of a computer beyond that of a secretary is just knowing
how to run programs written in a few different programming languages.
So I wouldn't say it is "a lot more" than anyone with a standard office
or admin job. When people ask you "how to fix computers" they generally
mean some obscure aspect of Windows or some common application they
are having trouble with - and they genuinely suppose I as a Computer
Scientist would know about that. That is, they seem to assume
"Computer Science" means knowing the more obscure aspects of Windows
and common applications. Which it doesn't.

Post by cowboy carl
Therefore you are more qualified to answer computing-related questions
than a secretary.

A secretary who spends more time working with common office applications
than I do is very likely to be more help in sorting out people's problems
with these things than I am. If someone said "I have this piece of Java
code, and it keeps crashing with this error message", then I could use
my specialist knowledge to help them out. However, this is NOT what
people mean when they ask questions about "how to fix a computer".
Matthew Huntbach

I guess what bugs me most is you appear to be *proud* of your ignorance.
It seems that, if someone comes up to you with a general computer query
you will hold up your hands and say "oh god, don't ask me, I don't know
anything outside my tiny field of theoretical computer programming
languages" instead of sitting down and using your no-doubt formidable
analytical skills to use your existing knowledge, aquire new knowledge,
and try to find a solution.

cc

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by cowboy carl

But you don't have to be a computer scientist to use a computer. These
days nearly anyone with an office job uses computers in their
daily work as much as I do.

Okay, but you use more advaned aspects of the computer than other people do.
You write the programs which computers run, you don't just use the
programs, but you understand how they work. Even if you don't know how a
specific program will work, you can apply your vast amount of detailed
knowledge about computer software to pretty much any program and be able
to make an educated guess.

Not really, no. Generally what people mean by "fix computers" is to have
an extensive knowledge of all the various settings of common applications.
I don't think knowing about programming necessarily means knowing
that on the Oojamflick word-processing system to make documents turn upside
down you click Blibblyclook on the Wibblydood menu, than you click
Wobblydoock and type in Blobblepox.

Post by cowboy carl
I guess what bugs me most is you appear to be *proud* of your ignorance.
It seems that, if someone comes up to you with a general computer query
you will hold up your hands and say "oh god, don't ask me, I don't know
anything outside my tiny field of theoretical computer programming
languages" instead of sitting down and using your no-doubt formidable
analytical skills to use your existing knowledge, aquire new knowledge,
and try to find a solution.

No, as Andy Walker has already said, the problem is that people expect
you to know all this stuff about clicking Blibblyclook on the Wibblydood
menu, and think you're some kind of fraud when you say "I really don't
know, that's not the sort of thing my job involves doing". You're doing
it yourself when you make coments that suppose anything to do with
computing outside having an encyclopaedic knowledge of common applications
is just a "tiny field of theoretical computer programming".

Matthew Huntbach

[Matt]

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by cowboy carl

But you don't have to be a computer scientist to use a computer. These
days nearly anyone with an office job uses computers in their daily
work as much as I do.

Okay, but you use more advaned aspects of the computer than other people do.
You write the programs which computers run, you don't just use the
programs, but you understand how they work. Even if you don't know how
a specific program will work, you can apply your vast amount of detailed
knowledge about computer software to pretty much any program and be able
to make an educated guess.

Not really, no. Generally what people mean by "fix computers" is to have
an extensive knowledge of all the various settings of common applications.
I don't think knowing about programming necessarily means knowing that on
the Oojamflick word-processing system to make documents turn upside down
you click Blibblyclook on the Wibblydood menu, than you click Wobblydoock
and type in Blobblepox.

Knowing about programming means that when I'm shown a program in a
language I've never used before, with a bug, I can try to work through and
find the bug. It's clearly going to be harder than if I knew the language,
but not impossible.

Someone showing me KOffice and asking how to get right-to-left text might
as well not bother, since all I can do is guess -- generally by looking
through all the menus. I know not to bother looking in the File menu,
generally, but the user ought to know that too.

[cowboy carl]

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by cowboy carl

Post by Matthew Huntbach
But you don't have to be a computer scientist to use a computer.
These days nearly anyone with an office job uses computers in their
daily work as much as I do.

Okay, but you use more advaned aspects of the computer than other people do.
You write the programs which computers run, you don't just use the
programs, but you understand how they work. Even if you don't know
how a specific program will work, you can apply your vast amount of
detailed knowledge about computer software to pretty much any program
and be able to make an educated guess.

Not really, no. Generally what people mean by "fix computers" is to have
an extensive knowledge of all the various settings of common applications.

What people mean by being "good with computers" is not a big 'knowledge
base' in their head of how to solve every possible computer problem.
What it means is an understanding of the "computer world", importantly,
how to find information to solve a problem.

It might seem obvious to you, but if you try explaining even simple
computer terms like "default" to someone who has never used a computer
before, you will realise you know a lot more about 'general computing
issues' which apply universally to all computer systems, makes and
models, than you realise.

Post by Matthew Huntbach
I don't think knowing about programming necessarily means knowing
that on the Oojamflick word-processing system to make documents turn upside
down you click Blibblyclook on the Wibblydood menu, than you click
Wobblydoock and type in Blobblepox.

Post by cowboy carl
I guess what bugs me most is you appear to be *proud* of your
ignorance. It seems that, if someone comes up to you with a general
computer query you will hold up your hands and say "oh god, don't ask
me, I don't know anything outside my tiny field of theoretical
computer programming languages" instead of sitting down and using your
no-doubt formidable analytical skills to use your existing knowledge,
aquire new knowledge, and try to find a solution.

No, as Andy Walker has already said, the problem is that people expect
you to know all this stuff about clicking Blibblyclook on the Wibblydood
menu, and think you're some kind of fraud when you say "I really don't
know, that's not the sort of thing my job involves doing". You're doing
it yourself when you make coments that suppose anything to do with
computing outside having an encyclopaedic knowledge of common applications
is just a "tiny field of theoretical computer programming".

When my friend asked me the excel question, I said almost exactly "I
really don't know, that's not the sort of thing my job involves doing"
but then I added "but try searching the help for conditional sums".

cc

[jess]

Post by cowboy carl
The average secretary maybe uses Word to type emails,

you'd make a startlingly inefficient secretary :p

[Samsonknight]

Post by cowboy carl
The average secretary maybe uses Word to type emails,

What else would they use? A typewritter?

[Matt]

Post by Samsonknight

Post by cowboy carl
The average secretary maybe uses Word to type emails,

What else would they use? A typewritter?

Emacs! :-D

[Dr A. N. Walker]

Post by cowboy carl

Post by Alun Harford
Mind you, if I had a problem with my telescope I'd ask an astronomer.

Well that would make sense, seeing as an astronomer would probably have
lots of experience using telescopes and might recognise the problem.

What makes you think that? I *saw* a few telescopes in my
time as an astronomer, but never ever looked through one until about
20 years later. If I *had* used one of them, I wouldn't have known
anything about any problems -- we had technicians for that. If I
had been "that sort" of astronomer, my PhD would have consisted of
taking and looking at lots of photographs of stars [or whatever] and
getting measurements out of them. Not my idea of fun ....

Post by cowboy carl
Similarily, with computers MMH ... if someone asked you how to do
something which they *know* you have been doing for years, then isn't
that reasonable?

But what would "someone" think MMH [and I] have been doing
with computers? If you want to know about algorithms for playing
combinatorial games, just ask. If you want to know about how Unix
works, or for that matter how it worked several decades ago, just ask.
If you want to know about Atlas, KDF9, PDP 11, just ask. If you want
to know about Algol, just ask. If you want to know about what key to
press to get M$ Word to do something exotic, or what it means if the
PC makes little clunking noises, sorry ....

[cowboy carl]

Post by Dr A. N. Walker

Post by cowboy carl

Post by Alun Harford
Mind you, if I had a problem with my telescope I'd ask an astronomer.

Well that would make sense, seeing as an astronomer would probably have
lots of experience using telescopes and might recognise the problem.

What makes you think that? I *saw* a few telescopes in my
time as an astronomer, but never ever looked through one until about
20 years later. If I *had* used one of them, I wouldn't have known
anything about any problems -- we had technicians for that. If I
had been "that sort" of astronomer, my PhD would have consisted of
taking and looking at lots of photographs of stars [or whatever] and
getting measurements out of them. Not my idea of fun ....

I'm not talking about big huge telescope type thing, I'm talking about
the small ones amature astronomers use.

And I'm saying a professional astronomer is *MUCH* more likely to have
used one in the past, perhaps as a kid, or even as an adult to gaze at
the wonderous things which fly by.

So it would be reasonable for someone, if they had a problem with one of
these telescopes (although I don't really know what problems could arise
... maybe a misty lens which appears to be misty on the inside?) then
it'd be reasonable to ask someone who you think might have experienced
the same or a similar problem.

Post by Dr A. N. Walker

Post by cowboy carl
Similarily, with computers MMH ... if someone asked you how to do
something which they *know* you have been doing for years, then isn't
that reasonable?

But what would "someone" think MMH [and I] have been doing
with computers? If you want to know about algorithms for playing
combinatorial games, just ask. If you want to know about how Unix
works, or for that matter how it worked several decades ago, just ask.
If you want to know about Atlas, KDF9, PDP 11, just ask. If you want
to know about Algol, just ask. If you want to know about what key to
press to get M$ Word to do something exotic, or what it means if the
PC makes little clunking noises, sorry ....

Same thing ... you see someone using a computer a lot, you deduce that
they are much more likely to know the answer to your problem than a
professional footballer.

And even if they don't, they are more likely to know how computers work,
and thus how to find the solution to the problem.

Example: I know only how to do *very* basic things in Excel, like, I can
add two cells together, and draw pretty graphs. A friend of mine asked
me, if you had the following data:

Red 5
Blue 3
Yellow 2
Red 9
Purple 10

How to work out the sum of all the 'red' things. I had no idea, since
I've never used Excel for anything like that, but I told her to search
the help for "conditional sums" and she found a thing called "SUMIF"
which did what she wanted.

I was able to help her because I "know about computers". I know about
"conditionals" and I know about "sums". It's the language of computers.
(Help files are not very good at natural language processing yet).

And I'm sure even MMH, who no doubt has even less experience with Excel
than I do, if he had been asked that question, given a few minutes
thought, could have figured out searching for "conditional sums" in the
help file might be useful.

cc

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by cowboy carl
Example: I know only how to do *very* basic things in Excel, like, I can
add two cells together, and draw pretty graphs. A friend of mine asked
Red 5
Blue 3
Yellow 2
Red 9
Purple 10
How to work out the sum of all the 'red' things. I had no idea, since
I've never used Excel for anything like that, but I told her to search the
help for "conditional sums" and she found a thing called "SUMIF" which did
what she wanted.
I was able to help her because I "know about computers". I know about
"conditionals" and I know about "sums". It's the language of computers.
(Help files are not very good at natural language processing yet).
And I'm sure even MMH, who no doubt has even less experience with Excel
than I do, if he had been asked that question, given a few minutes
thought, could have figured out searching for "conditional sums" in the
help file might be useful.

Correct that I know less about Excel than you do. I know there are
functions to it that you can use to draw pretty graphs, but I've never
used them. Secretaries in the department office who might produce
pretty graphs for various admin reason *do* know how to use them. It
may very well be the case that they've had to do something like the
problem you mention above, and thus would be of more help to your friend
than I would.

Being a Computer Scientist doesn't mean knowing the more obscure aspects
of Excel. This seems to be a difficult message to get across to people.
Also difficult to get across is the message that knowing the more obscure
aspects of Excel does not mean one is ideally suited to become a
Computer Scientist. Hence in the past few weeks I've been handling
dozens of UCAS forms from applicants who have a grade D or worse in GCSE
Maths and a reference which says "Johnny really enjoys using Excel, and
has produced some nice pretty graphs, so he's ideally suited to your
degree". Grrrrr.

Matthew Huntbach

[Samsonknight]

<snip>

Post by Matthew Huntbach
. Hence in the past few weeks I've been handling
dozens of UCAS forms from applicants who have a grade D or worse in GCSE
Maths and a reference which says "Johnny really enjoys using Excel, and
has produced some nice pretty graphs, so he's ideally suited to your
degree". Grrrrr.
Matthew Huntbach

I find it bizarre that people think that computer science involves the
skills of Excel in there. Especially considering that you are not allowed to
program in VB on the A-level ICT course. Recoridng macros is the most
advanced thing you will ever get to.

It is really making me wonder if some applicants know what computer science
is really about from that reference you quoted above. I feel your
frustration.

[Alun Harford]

Post by Matthew Huntbach
Hence in the past few weeks I've been handling
dozens of UCAS forms from applicants who have a grade D or worse in GCSE
Maths and a reference which says "Johnny really enjoys using Excel, and
has produced some nice pretty graphs, so he's ideally suited to your
degree". Grrrrr.

Probably the worst part is that Johnny might have designed, and implemented
a compiler for, his own programming language - but his school would never
know this because all 'Computing' courses in schools are about how to use MS
products.

Alun Harford

[Samsonknight]

Post by Alun Harford

Post by Matthew Huntbach
Hence in the past few weeks I've been handling
dozens of UCAS forms from applicants who have a grade D or worse in GCSE
Maths and a reference which says "Johnny really enjoys using Excel, and
has produced some nice pretty graphs, so he's ideally suited to your
degree". Grrrrr.

Probably the worst part is that Johnny might have designed, and implemented
a compiler for, his own programming language - but his school would never
know this because all 'Computing' courses in schools are about how to use MS
products.
Alun Harford

That is true, I got peanalised for using VB in my AL ICT coursework.

[Alun Harford]

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Alun Harford

Post by Matthew Huntbach
Hence in the past few weeks I've been handling
dozens of UCAS forms from applicants who have a grade D or worse in GCSE
Maths and a reference which says "Johnny really enjoys using Excel, and
has produced some nice pretty graphs, so he's ideally suited to your
degree". Grrrrr.

Probably the worst part is that Johnny might have designed, and implemented
a compiler for, his own programming language - but his school would never
know this because all 'Computing' courses in schools are about how to

use

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Alun Harford
MS
products.

That is true, I got peanalised for using VB in my AL ICT coursework.

I think everybody who uses VB should be penalised! :-)

Alun Harford

[Matt]

Post by Alun Harford

Post by Samsonknight
That is true, I got peanalised for using VB in my AL ICT coursework.

I think everybody who uses VB should be penalised! :-)

What did they want you to use?

[s***@gmail.com]

Most Advanced thing ever : Recording Macros, Pivot Tables and that's
it.

My teacher at the time told me not to do anything 'complicated' for my
project because it would in her words "make life harder for her". She
wanted me to be at the same level as the rest of the class, and hated
it if I tried to be flash by wanting to use VB/VBA or something in my
ICT coursework.

Till this day I find it so bizarre that I was told to "dumb down" in
ICT, whereas in other subjects the more you know about that subject,
the better it is, whereas in ICT it is the reverse.

I hated ICT so much, hence my C grade. I am sure Andy and Matt would
love it though - theres nothing better then recording macros and using
pivot tables!!!! :)

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by Alun Harford

Post by Matthew Huntbach
Hence in the past few weeks I've been handling
dozens of UCAS forms from applicants who have a grade D or worse in GCSE
Maths and a reference which says "Johnny really enjoys using Excel, and
has produced some nice pretty graphs, so he's ideally suited to your
degree". Grrrrr.

Probably the worst part is that Johnny might have designed, and implemented
a compiler for, his own programming language - but his school would never
know this because all 'Computing' courses in schools are about how to use
MS products.

If Johnny mentions in his UCAS personal statement that he's designed a
programming language and built a compiler for it, he'll earn an interview
with me regardless of his qualifications. However, of course in the
interview he'd have to show that he really had done it. In my experience
applicants to our CS degree who claim to have programming experience very
rarely turn out to have done anything beyond the trivial. But if Johnny
really was smart enough to have written a semi-serious compiler in his
spare time, I rather think he'd get better than D in GCSE Maths.

The prospect of a student who is actually interested in doing things
like writing compilers would be delightful. These days CS students don't
seem to be interested in doing anything which isn't centred round web
pages and graphics.

Matthew Huntbach

[cowboy carl]

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Alun Harford

Post by Matthew Huntbach
Hence in the past few weeks I've been handling
dozens of UCAS forms from applicants who have a grade D or worse in GCSE
Maths and a reference which says "Johnny really enjoys using Excel, and
has produced some nice pretty graphs, so he's ideally suited to your
degree". Grrrrr.

Probably the worst part is that Johnny might have designed, and implemented
a compiler for, his own programming language - but his school would never
know this because all 'Computing' courses in schools are about how to
use MS products.

If Johnny mentions in his UCAS personal statement that he's designed a
programming language and built a compiler for it, he'll earn an interview
with me regardless of his qualifications. However, of course in the
interview he'd have to show that he really had done it. In my experience
applicants to our CS degree who claim to have programming experience very
rarely turn out to have done anything beyond the trivial. But if Johnny
really was smart enough to have written a semi-serious compiler in his
spare time, I rather think he'd get better than D in GCSE Maths.
The prospect of a student who is actually interested in doing things
like writing compilers would be delightful. These days CS students don't
seem to be interested in doing anything which isn't centred round web
pages and graphics.

I like writing compilers :)

Am I the perfect CS student? :) :)

cc

[Matt]

Post by cowboy carl

Post by Matthew Huntbach
The prospect of a student who is actually interested in doing things
like writing compilers would be delightful. These days CS students don't
seem to be interested in doing anything which isn't centred round web
pages and graphics.

I like writing compilers :)
Am I the perfect CS student? :) :)

I liked the assembly language course I completed a couple of weeks ago
here, and apparently I'm in the minority. I didn't apply to QMUL though.

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by Matt

Post by cowboy carl

Post by Matthew Huntbach
The prospect of a student who is actually interested in doing things
like writing compilers would be delightful. These days CS students don't
seem to be interested in doing anything which isn't centred round web
pages and graphics.

I like writing compilers :)
Am I the perfect CS student? :) :)

I liked the assembly language course I completed a couple of weeks ago
here, and apparently I'm in the minority. I didn't apply to QMUL though.

Assembly language is something a Computer Scientist needs to know a
bit about, but it's really more Electrical Engineering than Computer
Science.

Matthew Huntbach

[cowboy carl]

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by cowboy carl
Example: I know only how to do *very* basic things in Excel, like, I
can add two cells together, and draw pretty graphs. A friend of mine
Red 5
Blue 3
Yellow 2
Red 9
Purple 10
How to work out the sum of all the 'red' things. I had no idea, since
I've never used Excel for anything like that, but I told her to search
the help for "conditional sums" and she found a thing called "SUMIF"
which did what she wanted.
I was able to help her because I "know about computers". I know about
"conditionals" and I know about "sums". It's the language of
computers. (Help files are not very good at natural language
processing yet).
And I'm sure even MMH, who no doubt has even less experience with
Excel than I do, if he had been asked that question, given a few
minutes thought, could have figured out searching for "conditional
sums" in the help file might be useful.

Correct that I know less about Excel than you do. I know there are
functions to it that you can use to draw pretty graphs, but I've never
used them. Secretaries in the department office who might produce
pretty graphs for various admin reason *do* know how to use them. It
may very well be the case that they've had to do something like the
problem you mention above, and thus would be of more help to your friend
than I would.

No, because if they haven't used such a function, they wouldn't know how
to get at it.

Whereas someone with experience *programming* computers will have a
better understanding of how to make computers do what they want *in
general*, and this 'general knowledge' can be applied to specific
situations, such as excel.

You will know, for instance, that trying to get something to match a
list of things is related to the term "conditional", this is something
you know because of your work with computers.

Sure, someone who has been using excel for years might have come across
this problem and could come up with the answer quicker ... but, if they
haven't come across it before, who do you think is more likely to be
able to figure it out?

The computer scentist with minimal Excel experience, or the secretary
who has never written a program in her life, and has only used Excel to
enter numbers and perform very simple calculations?

Post by Matthew Huntbach
Being a Computer Scientist doesn't mean knowing the more obscure aspects
of Excel.

No, but it means being able to work them out if you need to.

That is what learning is all about. Being a Java expert doesn't mean
you know every function for every library ever written for Java. It
means understanding how Java works abstractly, and knowing where to look
up the information for function specifications etc.

cc

[Dr A. N. Walker]

Post by cowboy carl
And I'm saying a professional astronomer is *MUCH* more likely to have
used one in the past, perhaps as a kid, or even as an adult to gaze at
the wonderous things which fly by.

It is true that, *on average*, a professional astronomer is
more likely to have used a telescope than Joe Public. But it is not
JP who asks the questions. Almost by definition, someone with a
question either already has used a telescope or is thinking of using
one; such people are *more* likely than the professional astronomer
to be telescope users.

Oh, and the other people with questions are the ones who
think, absurdly, that I might be interested in astrology.

Similarly, ...

Post by cowboy carl
Same thing ... you see someone using a computer a lot, you deduce that
they are much more likely to know the answer to your problem than a
professional footballer.

..., yes, if JP comes up to me or to MMH, and asks "So what
are these computer thinggies, then?", we are perfectly capable of
answering that sort of question. But it isn't JP who expects me to
know things, it's usually a hobbyist, and if not then a colleague.
And when I don't know, there's a stated or unstated sneer -- "call
yourself a professional, and you don't even know what sort of cable
you should be using for XXXX". Well, no, I know much less about
that sort of thing than the average hobbyist, less than my children,
and less than the nice people down at PC World.

Post by cowboy carl
Example: I know only how to do *very* basic things in Excel, like, I can
add two cells together, and draw pretty graphs.

Aren't you the lucky one? I have *never* used Excel, cannot
imagine the circumstances in which I would want to, and know nothing
at all about how to add cells or draw things with it. I do sometimes
*receive* Excel spreadsheets, to my considerable annoyance [for they,
and the much more common Word documents, are *always* being used in
situations where plain text would be just as useful and would be 2K
rather than the best part of a megabyte]. [I *do* have utilities
around that will draw things, and that will typeset documents, and
that will convert all manner of proprietary grot to plain text, or
even to spreadsheet formats, in case you were wondering.]

Post by cowboy carl
And I'm sure even MMH, who no doubt has even less experience with Excel
than I do, if he had been asked that question, given a few minutes
thought, could have figured out searching for "conditional sums" in the
help file might be useful.

Possibly he might. I have no idea whether I could. And it
would be no use at all looking in the help files on *this* machine.

[Samsonknight]

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight

Post by cowboy carl
again, most would say yes, then use that opportunty to show them how
normal you are :)
But yeah, it's annoying. Bloody annoying. Part of the reason I'm not

going

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight

Post by cowboy carl
into a computer job :)

Or better still just lie about your occupation, say that your a lawyer

or

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
something? and just make up some lame excuse that you fix computers on a
part time bases. I actually wonder if computer scientists do that, a

mate

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
told me that his mate who does computer science goes around telling

women at

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
parties that hes studying sports science...hmmmm sneaky bugger!

But as a Computer Scientist, I ****DON'T**** fix computers, and I am FED

UP

Post by Matthew Huntbach
with people who assume I do. I neither know nor care about how to "fix"
computers.

They should change "Computer Science" to "Computer Software Science" (CSS ha
ha! lame joke - was referring to "cascading style sheets") - that way no one
will ever assume otherwise

Post by Samsonknight
Mind you, if I had a problem with my telescope I'd ask an astronomer.
Alun Harford

Wouldn't we all Alun :)...

[Alun Harford]

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight

Post by cowboy carl
again, most would say yes, then use that opportunty to show them how
normal you are :)
But yeah, it's annoying. Bloody annoying. Part of the reason I'm not

going

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight

Post by cowboy carl
into a computer job :)

Or better still just lie about your occupation, say that your a lawyer

or

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
something? and just make up some lame excuse that you fix computers

on

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
a
part time bases. I actually wonder if computer scientists do that, a

mate

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
told me that his mate who does computer science goes around telling

women at

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
parties that hes studying sports science...hmmmm sneaky bugger!

But as a Computer Scientist, I ****DON'T**** fix computers, and I am FED

UP

Post by Matthew Huntbach
with people who assume I do. I neither know nor care about how to "fix"
computers.

They should change "Computer Science" to "Computer Software Science" (CSS ha
ha! lame joke - was referring to "cascading style sheets") - that way no one
will ever assume otherwise

Are you saying that the hardware stuff doesn't need any computer science?
Are you saying that no computer scientists work on hardware?

Alun Harford

[Samsonknight]

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight

Post by cowboy carl
again, most would say yes, then use that opportunty to show them how
normal you are :)
But yeah, it's annoying. Bloody annoying. Part of the reason I'm not

going

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight

Post by cowboy carl
into a computer job :)

Or better still just lie about your occupation, say that your a

lawyer

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Samsonknight
or

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
something? and just make up some lame excuse that you fix computers

on

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
a
part time bases. I actually wonder if computer scientists do that, a

mate

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
told me that his mate who does computer science goes around telling

women at

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
parties that hes studying sports science...hmmmm sneaky bugger!

But as a Computer Scientist, I ****DON'T**** fix computers, and I am

FED

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Samsonknight
UP

Post by Matthew Huntbach
with people who assume I do. I neither know nor care about how to "fix"
computers.

They should change "Computer Science" to "Computer Software Science" (CSS

ha

Post by Samsonknight
ha! lame joke - was referring to "cascading style sheets") - that way no

one

Post by Samsonknight
will ever assume otherwise

Are you saying that the hardware stuff doesn't need any computer science?
Are you saying that no computer scientists work on hardware?
Alun Harford

Ask Matthew, he shall have the answer to your questions, as it was his
comment that provoked my response :)

[Samsonknight]

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
[...]

Post by Samsonknight
Yeah I agree, many of my friends chose sports science et al because they
thought it was an easier AL to get an A in. I guess that is what it comes
down to, but never the less there is still that *stigma* attached to
mathematics and those that do it.

The stigma [which is real, I agree] applies almost entirely
at school/college. At univ, it goes away when people discover that
mathematicians are the highest-paid graduates .... It re-appears
in the general public at the level of "Oh, I could never do maths
at school", but that's envy/ignorance rather than stigma.

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Matthew Huntbach
Logarithms are such a basic mathematical concept that they crop up in
all sorts of places. I would have thought it's something that anyone
doing a decent business or economic degree would need to know about.

Sounds interesting, I am yet to explore p3/4 so I look forward to seeing how
it will be used at the more higher ends of maths. Out of interest how would
a concepts such as logs be implemented into a business degree?

Note that logs in the sense of "to multiply two numbers, take
the antilog of the sum of the logs" have, as JP says, been rendered
totally obsolete, like the slide rule, by calculators. But the
*concept* is still useful. Even business people ought to be able
to make sense of logarithmic or exponential growth/decay, as they
often apply to the way companies expand, make profits, etc., etc.
CS types definitely need the concept, else they will find concepts
of information, complexity, etc beyond them.
[...]

Post by Samsonknight
What I don't get, is if comp scientists do get the subject based
stereotyping that I'd imagine them to get, why should they?As if it wasn't
for them and their achievements, the rest of the non comp-scientist
population would not be using the internet at this present moment of time.

Umm. Bear in mind that there was no "comp sci" population
at all until 1970-ish, and precious few until the '80s. Almost all
the pioneers and "big names" in CS were mathematicians or electrical
engineers.

True. Very informative post, thank you.

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.

[John Porcella]

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
[...]

Post by Samsonknight
Yeah I agree, many of my friends chose sports science et al because they
thought it was an easier AL to get an A in. I guess that is what it comes
down to, but never the less there is still that *stigma* attached to
mathematics and those that do it.

The stigma [which is real, I agree] applies almost entirely
at school/college. At univ, it goes away when people discover that
mathematicians are the highest-paid graduates .... It re-appears
in the general public at the level of "Oh, I could never do maths
at school", but that's envy/ignorance rather than stigma.

It could well be ignorance, I agree, possibly due to uninspired teaching and
a general culture which, in popular culture, places little value on
knowledge of mathematics.

[cowboy carl]

Post by Matthew Huntbach
Er, no, I don't know any who look like that. And to be honest there probably
is a bit of subject-based stereoyping in university. There is also the
problem that because of the stereotyping, people who fit that stereotype
tend to apply. E.g. a lot of people apply to do a CS degree because
they like playing computer games. I try to recruit people who don't fit
into the stereotype when I can, but it isn't always easy.

a bit?

a BIT?

geez

imperial is where you find the *definitions* where stereotypes come from!

computing is full of nerds, maths is full of geeks, biology is full of
babes, medicine is full of dickhead guys and rich girls.

cc

[Serenity]

Post by Samsonknight
The most obvious answer to my above question, is probably because "it is too
hard of an AL..." which is fair enough, yet however I personally believe
that if you are taught well and the individual is determined/well motivated
enough he/she can with sheer hardwork pass this subject .

There is also a flaw in the GCSE system for maths.
As the GCSE gets watered down, the jump to AL is so much bigger.

It used to be that the brighter mathematicians took O level maths a year
early, then took Additional Maths O level, which provided a good foothold
into AL.

S

[John Porcella]

Post by Samsonknight
The most obvious answer to my above question, is probably because "it is too
hard of an AL..."

A better answer might be that it was too hard an 'A' level. With schools
naturally keen to look good in the league tables, no weak students would be
encouraged to attempt mathematics at that level. Since AS and A2
mathematics were harder than the equivalent for other subjects (now
rectified), then it is not difficult to see why people were avoiding them
like mad. Things may change if the standards have been equalised.

which is fair enough, yet however I personally believe

Post by Samsonknight
that if you are taught well and the individual is determined/well motivated
enough he/she can with sheer hardwork pass this subject .

But there is the rub! Many mathematics teachers are not graduates in the
subject, since if they made this compulsory then there would be an even
bigger mathematics teacher shortage than there is already.

Post by Samsonknight
Another argument I have heard is that the reasons why students refuse to do
AL Maths because *they don't see the point of using algebra as it will never
be used in real life*. Which again I just find very bizarre, because from
being in the progress of exploring AL Maths this year I have found that
absolutely everything in the AL course is actually practical - statistics
can be used as part of a business/psychology degree, aspects of mechanics
can be used as part of a product design degree or a computer animation
degree (which is very popular) and other degrees which may not necessary be
related directly to mathematics. Yeah, sure you don't use concepts such as
logarithms in non science degrees, but isn't it interesting to know the
practicality behind logs? - as once upon a time before calculators they were
used.

Relevance might be an issue. I wonder if students think that any
mathematical knowledge needed in other subjects would be taught in those
subjects, hence no need to specialise?

Post by Samsonknight
I am wondering weather the *true* reason why people shy away from
mathematics is not any of the above two reasons but because of the social
stigma attached to the subject. Since doing AL Maths I have for the first
time in my life been subjected to much ignorant abuse, the word *geek* and
*sad* comes to mind from some of my ignorant mates who feel that time is
much more wisely spent going out and binge drinking every night/weekend
instead of sitting down for x amount of hours doing static's of a particle.

I have had the opposite, with people giving their appreciation for
attempting to learn the subject at my time of life (41 years of age).

Post by Samsonknight
Which yeah is a great thing to do in moderation, as I enjoy my pint now and
again, but I just find it very sad that as a subject mathematics is given
such a reputation, especially after knowing that without mathematics many of
the things that we take for granted may not have been invented. It should
deserve a lot more respect by my age group.

My Romanian mathematics tutor is still surprised at the very English
reaction to mathematics, which is mainly hostile and negative.

[cowboy carl]

Post by Samsonknight
I am wondering weather the *true* reason why people shy away from
mathematics is not any of the above two reasons but because of the social
stigma attached to the subject. Since doing AL Maths I have for the first
time in my life been subjected to much ignorant abuse, the word *geek* and
*sad* comes to mind from some of my ignorant mates who feel that time is
much more wisely spent going out and binge drinking every night/weekend
instead of sitting down for x amount of hours doing static's of a particle.
Which yeah is a great thing to do in moderation, as I enjoy my pint now and
again, ...

don't drink and derive

<chuckle>

cc