| >what are their theoretical or practical applications of the knowledge gained from solving such problems. I think most students wouldn't appreciate theoretical applications of some math problems. Saying "hey, you know what, a slight variation of this problem leads to a famous problem in non-commutative topology" or whatever only makes people even more confused. Also, math is by far not the only thing you study that may have no "applications". Does anyone in "the real world" care about Shakespeare, or Emily Dickinson? It's certainly not part of most jobs. What about biology? Sure, knowing what a plant is and what animals are can be useful (for example, if you're a vegan), but do most jobs require knowing that "mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell"? Nope. Or, think history. Yes, knowing something about 20th century history can be useful (though not necessary), but do you really need to know about Mesopotamia for most practical jobs? Again, no. School doesn't just teach stuff that everyone really needs in their everyday life. It also teaches 1) stuff that could be useful for some careers, and 2) stuff that becomes part of your background and subtly teaches other useful lessons. If school were to be focused on the most common jobs (in the US: salespeople, cashiers, waiters, office clerks), you would see a syllabus made of: - basic math, up to percentages and maybe powers. That's it - a lot of Excel (for salespeople and office clerks) - enough English to be able to write a few emails and confidently talk to customers. No literature, no 1,000 word essays. - how to carry at least two, if not three plates at a time, as well as basic knowledge about hamburgers, meat and cocktails (for waiters) Would this syllabus prove useful? Certainly. Would this system teach people something more than what they need to live their daily life and get a paycheck (no history, no geography, no literature, no trigonometry or biology or chemistry, and so on)? No, it probably wouldn't. |