go(1/4)+X

If you’re new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

(If you use a little imagination you can guess the title of this article.)

This article concerns M.J. McDermott’s youTube video about the sad state of basic math education in America. You can visit the video here, or you can simply scroll down to the next entry here in the Math Mojo Chronicles, where it is embedded.

It seems like M.J. McDermott has unleashed a firestorm that need to be unleashed. She’s gotten almost 60,000 hits in one week on youTube for a video about math! Imagine that! Good work, M.J.!

I’ve commented on that video several times, mentioning that there is at least one much better algorithm than what is called the “standard.”

Not one of the hundreds of other people who commented on the video seems to be aware of this, which is strange, because most of the comments to M.J.s video were posted by obviously thoughtful people. And one man who is obviously a lot better at mathematics than I am even made a video-reply to M.J.s video - but still stuck in standard mode.

Here is a synopsis of my part of the discussion so far:

I’ve just waded through 180 comments and was floored to see that NOT ONE PERSON mentioned that the “standard (for whom?) algorithm” - though better then that other ones presented - is NOT the most efficient, nor the easiest to learn, nor the one that teaches place value the best. There is at least one much better one.

(What? You want the method handed to you? - Go investigate!)

That is also what’s wrong with the system - everyone has the “one best method.”

Happy calculating!

Someone posted later:

One thing that occurs to me, and that I have not seen anyone else mention is that the standard forms are easily expanded from double digit to any larger size number ( 3, 4, 10or even 20 digit numbers are easily multiplied) once the standard form is known. These other methods will become unreasonable cumbersome very soon. Algorithms like the lattice method belong in a subcatagory like “having fun with numbers” , fun to play with once you master the traditional method.

And I replied to it:

Actually, the algorithm I alluded to is infinitely expandable and much more practicable in every way. It constantly amazes me that people want to cling to the unsupportable idea that the “standard” algorithm must be the best, just because it’s better than the crap in some feel-good, know-nothing books. It’s time to look higher for better things instead of patting ourselves on the backs for being “standard.”

’nuff said!

brandon8888 then commented:

I looked at many algorithms for over an hour, but found none that fit your description. Time to put up!

My next post was :

I’ll put up good explanation for the “mystery algorithm” soon. In the meantime:

Doing something as simple as 26 x 31 only requires that you multiply 26 by 3 in your head and stick a 0 at the end. That’s 780. Mentally add 26 to that and you’ve got 806. Why on earth would you want to do it any other way?
It’s fine to learn the “standard algorithm,” but if you don’t explore other (better) ways, you’re stuck with it. An algorithm is a recipe, not a law.

Someone posited the Idea that, “…you’d better learn the traditional system …” because algebraic division can only be done with that method. Au contraire:

My comment to this was:

Your comment is certainly well meant, but for the fourth or so time, it is not true that the “standard” is the only way. “Traditional” is usually a euphemism for “closed-minded.” There are other algorithms that can be even more helpful for algebraic division than what has been called the “standard” algorithm.

I’m sure you will realize that to understand anything it helps to come to it from more than one direction. Keep an open mind, but, as M.J. points out, not open to just any b.s. that comes along!

Then I posted this to a conservative blog:

I know we are all so brilliant, and we all know what’s “wrong” with the state of education, blah, blah, blah…
I’m not happy about it either, but I doubt that anyone reading this, and who has watched the youTube video in question, knows a really good algorithm for multiplication. No, it is not the “standard” one.

It is amazing that everyone wants to hoist their flag and complain, but no one really wants to admit that their way isn’t “the best.”

I’m sure I don’t know the best way, either. But one I do know is faster, easier, and more fun that the “standard” one. (Jeez, since when does “standard” mean “best”?)
And you do it in your head. No paper and pencil, and sure as hell no calculator.

Please go investigate.

Happy calculating!

---

What I wanted to write (but youTube only allows comments of a maximum of 500 characters:

You seem like a nice woman and your heart is definitely in the right place. The problem is certainly as you describe it, and it is heartbreaking to see the absolutely absurd methods people use to accomplish simple operations.

But may I say that your solution to the problem has several discrepancies. “Standard” algorithm is a more subjective term than you’d like to believe. Standard for whom? Certainly not to the people who can do basic operations quickly, accurately, and enjoyably.

You may find it hard to believe, but many mental math methods can be much easier than your “standard” algorithm. And there are countries and some schools who teach it. And kids who learn it enjoy math, and blow the doors off your “standard” students.

It is ludicrous for anyone past fourth grade to need pencil and paper to do a simple two-digit by two-digit multiplication problem.

If you like, I can teach you how to do 21 x 36 in your head, without paper or pencil. If you want I can teach it to you over the phone in less than two minutes.

I don’t try to make “little math geniuses” out of kids, but I’ve yet to meet the child who’s curiosity about math I can’t awaken. (And I’ve met a lot of kids!)

I’ll give you this: Calculators are the bane of any math class. They were invented by vampires to suck kids’ brains out.

This has been a very long post. There’s more, but I think I’ll save it for tomorrow.

Do you ever dream of numbers?

Hoskeebo!

Tags: