Wednesday, March 05, 2008

More Technoinvective

Fixed a typo, hyperlinks added.


> Now, think of the math curriculum from arithmetic
> to the calculus as a closed system.

Now that's pretty clear. And I tend to agree with "closed" as in "not very open to sensory input" e.g. any proverbial "writing on the wall."

My own view of the curriculum, even K-12, is of a creature much more amoeboid and morphic, able to resequence and reshape far more radically than your theory'd permit.

I'd go with energy conservation though, as in: the average individual spends x calories over y hours towards developing her or his numeracy skills, whatever those may be in some culture. We don't easily squeeze more juice from the same finite time budget (and lets not forget sports practice, also very important).

"Capable of radical overhaul" is actually a good feature, because our world is fast changing, and freezing the numeracy content to a snapshot of what it once was, would make no sense at all. Also, it's a character trait of many USAers to welcome change. Oregon, home of the Trailblazers, is imbued with such a pioneering spirit.

However, within that context, of a liberal arts space, there are, I'd agree, these relatively rigid (calcified) "dead horse" shapes, of which I think the traditional late 1900s USA pre-calc-to-calc sequence is an excellent example.