[geebee]

This is an important topic, and I'm glad that it gets a lot of attention on HN. I hope this spreads.

I've participated in a few of these discussions so far (apologies if you're tired of hearing me repeat myself), and I truly believe that almost all these issues are downstream of a single and very fundamental problem: math teachers are rarely drawn from top math students.

Here in the US, we love a plan, and we have a potentially harmful concept of a career ladder. A classroom teacher is on the bottom run, and it's considered career progress to set the curriculum for all teachers.

My take on it is this - if the US drew it's math teachers from the top 10% of math graduates, the "plan" wouldn't be nearly as important. Yes, it's a good idea to have a general standard for where students should be, it's a good idea to have some kind of training for math teachers, and it's a good idea to check in every now and then. But think about the relative importance of "a great curriculum" vs "teachers drawn form the top 10% of math graduates".

We could change up the curriculum to reflect the problems Mr Kun has identified, but without an armada of top math teachers, it would make absolutely no difference. If we drew our math teachers from the top ranks of math students and allowed considerably autonomy (along with general guidelines), I suspect many of the improvements Mr Kun talks about (along with so many other complaints about math instruction) would happen on their own.

So... how do we get very strong math majors who are inclined to teach into the profession, and how do we keep them there? To me, this is the upstream bug fix that will be referenced (perhaps in one line) when all these other bugs are closed.

[BenoitP]

I see what you mean. In my country (France) we have the same system; except for preparatory schools, which are rigth after high school.

And let me tell you those are two different worlds. My first year professor actually began the year by saying "What you have been doing so far is not math. I'll show you math". At the first test, he said: "I like you guys, you make a nice gaussian curve. Ahem, well, the curve is centered around 20%". The class was full of people who had been in the top 3 all years so far. It was not pretty. It was not surprising either, as his tests were designed so that when a student gets 90% or more, he makes it more difficult for the next year.

My second professor was a huge control freak. He had been in the same class as someone who is now a Fields medallist. He knew where you were in the understanding of his course. And he would be relentless in pushing you, in a gentle but unforgiving manner. Oh the self-guilt when you were not studying. I had nightmares/dreams about him or his tests up to three years later.

All in all, it was worth it. I met people I know I will respect and be respected by for the next 40 years.

[misingnoglic]

Definitely what needs to be done is that teachers need to be given more respect for the work that they do. This includes not paying them below anything else a mathematician could make elsewhere, and in general making it a better environment (who cares if your math teacher is the best at math if s/he has a bunch of bullshit standards to get through). I'm a college student who would love to be a math/cs teacher but I don't see it as anything sustainable or worth it.

[geebee]

Yeah, I see the same two issues: money and autonomy.

I don't think that teaching necessarily needs to pay as much as what strong math majors can earn elsewhere, but it does need to clear the "comfortable middle class" barrier. Here's the thing - the comfortable middle class barrier includes owning a pleasant house in a safe neighborhood, travel, the ability to afford child care, and so forth... in SF, that probably takes $200k or more a year. Honestly, I'm not sure $200k even covers it. So this is a tall order in some places. And while SF is insanely expensive, this is still true of a lot of urban areas (los angeles, boston, certainly new york...)

Autonomy is also critical. Strong math students will not be willing to engage in this profession if they are excessively constrained by a bureaucratic curriculum that prevents them from applying their knowledge, skill, and passion for teaching. They'll leave.

Now, combine the two - low pay and low autonomy, and there's no way.

I'm not sure people understand just how much money and autonomy it would take to get really strong math and related students to go into teaching. Incremental changes are welcome, but not close. This is an order of magnitude difference.