Math = The Practical and the Beautiful

---

September 1, 2011,  The New York Times

To the Editor:

Re “How to Fix Our Math Education” (Op-Ed, Aug. 25):

Sol Garfunkel and David Mumford are right to observe that the everyday usefulness of our high school math curriculum leaves much to be desired. But since when did practicality become the only goal of our educational system?

Should English classes dispense with classic literature in favor of company annual reports? Should music and art be jettisoned to make way for classes in accounting and tax?

Schools exist not only to prepare children to be productive adults but also to expose them to new ideas, to challenge and inspire. Surely our schools could perform better on that front as well.

DANIEL ALTERBAUM
New Haven, Aug. 25, 2011

To the Editor:

One of the most common phrases I hear among my high school classmates is also one of the most ignorant: “When will I ever need to know this?”

While an optimum knowledge-based curriculum would be one guided toward specific interests and abilities, it would undermine our overall capacity to adapt, leave our comfort zone and ultimately choose our own path.

In fact, those processes are just as essential to our development and ability to perform as the knowledge itself.

Having completed algebra 1, geometry, algebra 2 and precalculus, I have found myself in a position to apply mathematics in a variety of ways, like doing a study on population growth or graphing statistics in baseball.

Examples of applied mathematics are critical, but to gear education toward any outcome is coercive and damaging. Instead, teachers should aim to give children all the tools they need to apply mathematics, and knowledge in general, in the way they choose.

JESS COLEMAN
New York, Aug. 25, 2011

To the Editor:

Sol Garfunkel and David Mumford argue that high school math curriculums should include more real-life applications so that students will be better prepared for 21st-century careers. I disagree.

Mathematics, like literature, music, science and any other subject worth studying, should be taught and learned for its own sake. Just as we teach students the beauty of poetry, we should teach students the beauty of mathematics — a beauty that does not depend on calculating a gear ratio or estimating a marginal profit.

If we try to make math curriculums “relevant” to daily life, we will end up teaching students a series of disconnected formulas. Another generation will grow up thinking of mathematics as a mess of scary symbols, something with no inherent logic, best learned by memorization.

ANDREW M. H. ALEXANDER
Oakland, Calif., Aug. 25, 2011

To the Editor:

You do not study mathematics because it helps you build a bridge. You study mathematics because it is the poetry of the universe. Its beauty transcends mere things.

JONATHAN DAVID FARLEY
Orono, Me., Aug. 25, 2011

The writer is an associate professor of computer science at the University of Maine.