Michael Keyton (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote: : On Thu, 6 Apr 1995, Linda Dodge wrote: : > Do we really need a full year of geometry, anyway?
: I ask somewhat facetiously the following: suppose we had three years of : geometry and one year of algebra in the curriculum, would not the : question "Do we really need a full year of algebra, anyway?" be appropriate. I don't see how, even facetiously, you could trun the tables this way. The topics covered in a typical 9th grade algebra course are used far more than the typical geometry course topics, speaking as one with 11 undergraduate math courses from calculus on up. Three years of geometry had better include a hell of a lot of algebra in order to be any good.
: Yes, we need a full year of geometry, but we need a full year of geometry : and not some year wasted without mathematics. Agreed.
: We need more years of : investigations using thought and fewer years of learning meaningless : algorithmic processes that are more easily forgotten than learned. Like two-column proofs ?
: We : need years of having students learn to think through a probem, to : understand, and to develop rather than to mimic. Do we need a full year : of geometry? Yes, and more.
But these kinds of problems do not occur only in geometry. I think problems arising in a probability couse would provide the same stimulation. I'd like to know why geometry has a monopoly on problems that need thinking through.
: If I had a choice of having students study 3 years of geometry and only 1 : of algebra as opposed to the present, I would have guessed heaven had : arrived on the wings of a TI-92. : Michael Keyton : St. Mark's School of Texas
That makes one of you. -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= One World One Operating System ! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-