I'm also confused why people who can be undoubtedly be classified as "brilliant" choose career paths that might negate their skills and under-emphasize their true capacity. As pi said "I don't think Monash requires any level of Maths for their MBBS (just chemistry and an English)". I admire Thushan, pi and Shenz0r (all doing med) for their talent all round. Although, I'm curious to know what made them decide to pursue their career paths. What happens to all the maths you had learnt guys? :( *sob*
Over-emphasis on mathematics? More like a severe underemphasis on what is fundamentally nature.
Mathematics in the Victorian curriculum simply isn't taught correctly to capture students interest. We are often taught about how to complete questions and even tackle challenging questions, but over the years the emphasis on building the intuition for mathematical proofs has been lost.
Although, I'm curious to know what made them decide to pursue their career paths. What happens to all the maths you had learnt guys? :( *sob*
It depends on what your profession is of course, but is the maths you use Year 12 standard, or just things that you learn by Year 10? (I suspect the majority of people only really use basic arithmetic..)
This is why, when you get an amazing maths teacher, everybody loves him/her
Medicine is far more likely to pay the bills
Well I guess we're lucky for that fact. You, having gone to Scotch, would have had a smaller bite of the national curriculum. Apparently your textbooks are written by your graduates as well...need I say more?
Going to a school specialized in maths, I can expect to be taught proofs and concepts stepping up from textbooks.
But what about the rest of the state?
Teachers in most other schools are confined to the textbook and only adhere to what is required. They don't see the need in enhancement; only confinement.
The only way to make a meaningful change is to redesign the National Curriculum. The idea is sound as it stands but simply hasn't been emphasized well enough. Even worse, people don't realize this, as evident in the title of this thread.
Abes you also mentioned this in the Methods lecture booklet. Clearly you agree with my point :D
FROM THE AUTHOR (abeybaby)
"Maths plays an integral part in much of the life we currently have. Without it, the computers, machines, buildings and economics that form the basis of our daily lives would never have developed so fully.
Maths is pure knowledge – it is not dependant on any physical truth, and does not need a grounding in observable reality. It remains infallible where other theories might fail.
Maths Methods gives its students a solid foundation to continue studying maths in the future, and to further their understanding of the principles that modern life is built upon.
I wish you all the best with Maths Methods, and hope that you continue your studies in mathematics beyond VCE."
EDIT: Fixed some formatting errors in this brilliant quote.
Interestingly enough, teaching in such a confined fashion prevents the students from getting that ability to reason through any problem thrown at them in the exam.
Myself as an example, i'd consider myself pretty ok at maths...
But English in the other hand... I don't understand why it's compulsory, I would've loved to have done another science (biology, currently doing physics and chemistry) that may actually help me with my future (pursuing science at Melbourne) instead of doing a subject VCAA has made compulsory...Communication skills, learning how to write clearly, learning how to read critically just a few examples of skills you'll learn in English that are essential for everyday life as well as required in multiple fields including the sciences. For example, Maths will become a lot wordier than the typical VCE type questions once you start dealing with proofs, which means having to write concisely. You'll start having to refer to scientific papers at some point too. As far as I'm aware, the need for those skills keep compounding as you move further into the degree too and are expected to deal with those things a lot more. I don't think it's hard at all to see why English has been made a compulsory subject.
Well I reckon maths is more important than English by far but I understand that a lot of people don't have an interest in maths hence why it is not compulsory.I'd like to see you communicate in this debate using only numbers :p
But English in the other hand... I don't understand why it's compulsory, I would've loved to have done another science (biology, currently doing physics and chemistry) that may actually help me with my future (pursuing science at Melbourne) instead of doing a subject VCAA has made compulsory...
If it wasn't compulsory, there'd be plenty more people doing another subject that they're actually interested in.
I'd like to see you communicate in this debate using only numbers :p
VCE maths is not essential in the sense that it is necessary for your life skills. VCE however is all just signalling to universities about your skills and abilities. For some courses (things requiring a portfolio of work/med/etc.) there are interviews and other considerations, however for most courses, differentiation of students is about the scores that students get in certain subjects and overall. Maths is not easy, especially methods and particularly spech. But even if you forget everything you've learnt in the classroom, what doing a maths subject shows is that you've been able to slug through a hard subject and work hard and have a certain ability in the sphere of numerical reasoning.+1 if I could, pretty much covered all I was going to say.
This is what doing the maths subject indicates, and why is it used a a pre-req. For some courses maths skills are directly used so it makes sense that it is a pre-req, but even i you aren't using the maths skills directly, the generic numerical skills can be important to succeed in that course (e.g doing science, but majoring in say biol) even if higher level math proofs aren't needed.
I definitely agree that maths is not the only way that analytical skills can be developed and proven, but written analytical skills are very different to numeral ones and are useful in different contexts. It's definitely possible to be good at one and not good at the other, even though both require you to 'analyse'. Myself as an example, i'd consider myself pretty ok at maths, but shocking at written analysis. If i were doing an arts degree i would be failing, and that's just because my written analysis skills are shoddy to say the least.
Having said that, they don't just put maths pre-reqs onto courses for lols. They do for a reason (you need those skills) and if you haven't done maths there are lots and lots and *lots* of courses that are still open to you! and tbh, they're courses that you would probably enjoy far more, and do significantly better in if you don't like/aren't good at maths!
Communication skills, learning how to write clearly, learning how to read critically just a few examples of skills you'll learn in English that are essential for everyday life as well as required in multiple fields including the sciences. For example, Maths will become a lot wordier than the typical VCE type questions once you start dealing with proofs, which means having to write concisely. You'll start having to refer to scientific papers at some point too. As far as I'm aware, the need for those skills keep compounding as you move further into the degree too and are expected to deal with those things a lot more. I don't think it's hard at all to see why English has been made a compulsory subject.
Well I reckon maths is more important than English by far...
I wouldn't even go as far as saying maths is more important than English. It may have been, but not anymore. It shouldn't be that general.
Medicine is far more likely to pay the bills
I've heard that mathematicians and actuaries) are actually really well paid, and in very high demand. Job prospects and pay are also set to get better in the future too.
You have to be pretty good to get to that level though, a lot of natural talent and/or some serious hard work.
Wouldn't careers in Medicine, Engineering, Science (particular post doc studies) all require serious hard work as well? Correct me if I'm wrong :P
Wouldn't careers in Medicine, Engineering, Science (particular post doc studies) all require serious hard work as well? Correct me if I'm wrong :P
I've heard that mathematicians and actuaries) are actually really well paid, and in very high demand. Job prospects and pay are also set to get better in the future too.
Yes, absolutely, but look at the job market as a whole, not solely in terms of income. There are ~4000 members of the professional body for actuaries but 90,000 working doctors in Aus. Mathematics is a niche market, healthcare isn't.
I admire Thushan, pi and Shenz0r (all doing med) for their talent all round.
Still not a medical student heheheheh
Well if I graduate in science with maths major, at least I'd like to become a lecturer at uni or something...not a high school teacher (no underestimation) the thing I'm wondering is that what really takes to become a lecturer? I've seen some guys with no titles such as Dr or prof...so do you really need to go into PhD, obtain a title, then start lecturing?Not sure what it's like for other degrees, but with mine (Biomed @ Melbourne), the lecturers aren't really dedicated lecturers. They're researchers or clinicians or hospital doctors who just happen to come in and give us some lectures, but none of them are ONLY lecturers
Well if I graduate in science with maths major, at least I'd like to become a lecturer at uni or something...not a high school teacher (no underestimation) the thing I'm wondering is that what really takes to become a lecturer? I've seen some guys with no titles such as Dr or prof...so do you really need to go into PhD, obtain a title, then start lecturing?There are two different type of lecturers.
Well if I graduate in science with maths major, at least I'd like to become a lecturer at uni or something...not a high school teacher (no underestimation) the thing I'm wondering is that what really takes to become a lecturer? I've seen some guys with no titles such as Dr or prof...so do you really need to go into PhD, obtain a title, then start lecturing?Doesn't take much to become a lecturer, I'm lecturing a few PhD coursework units next year and I'm not even close to getting a "Dr" title.
Doesn't take much to become a lecturer, I'm lecturing a few PhD coursework units next year and I'm not even close to getting a "Dr" title.
Thanks for the replies :) also I did a little bit of research back in the day after watching Spartacus...so apparently the title dr originates from doctore which means a teacher. Just a side note :) sorry if my question has diverted the purpose of this thread
On a different note, I would highly suggest taking a programming course as breadth or as an elective at university. I think programming is one of the most important skills to learn and I think that a lot of processes that are done by people today will be automated in 20 years time. Once you learn one programming language, it's easy to learn others. Be the person who can automate things instead of being left behind. And this goes for arts students too - one of my friends did a pretty important history internship over the summer, and despite being a history major, had to code to deal with the database.
This. While I believe mathematics is taught poorly in schools, information technology/CS is completely neglected. Last time I checked, unless you took a year 12 IT unit, the only thing you learn about computing in high school is how to touch type and make PowerPoint's.
While I think that humanities definitely don't have their time in the spotlight, I think the most important thing is to emphasize the important skills that people need to gain in post-compulsory education (high school and university) to have the greatest possible flexibility in the workforce.
You need to be able to write well. You need to be strong quantitatively irrespective of what you do. You should be able to code. And you should also have decent proficiency in a language other than English.
You need to be able to write well. You need to be strong quantitatively irrespective of what you do. You should be able to code. And you should also have decent proficiency in a language other than English.I think one or two of the above would be more than sufficient for most purposes. If you want to, then absolutely go ahead and learn all that and more. But I don't think they are all necessary.
There are plenty of jobs and pathways in which you will never need to code or be bilingual. They're nice things to have, but they're not on the level of communication skills and analytical ability as key to your character
The jobs I'm talking about aren't low level jobs - they're the type of globalized, high flying jobs that many people here aspire to have. The jobs I'm thinking of are mostly in research, finance, tech, politics and policy and business. I can imagine that medicine and law might depend more on what you do.
Languages are important. I've worked/interned/whatever in Australia, the US, Germany and Switzerland. Sure, in Europe I could get by with knowledge in only French (and I was lucky I spoke French in Geneva because it helped me meet a lot of people). But if you're working in an international setting, you want to speak more than one language, even if it's not exactly in your professional setting. Networking is important (cannot emphasize this enough), and it's a lot easier to make a connection if you speak someone else's language. Sure, you won't be able to speak everyone's language, but if you only speak English you're missing out on a lot. The connections I made in Switzerland socially were far stronger than the ones I made in Germany - I spoke French and no German.
Being able to communicate effectively is essential. Writing might be different across fields but it's still important to be clear. That's how people get clients, that's how people get grants... seriously, it's absolutely absolutely paramount.
Coding is super important. Not all jobs will need code. But code will be used increasingly in the future (and it's already really important), and if you can code, your options are much broader.
A lot of what I'm saying is about making sure you have maximum job flexibility and are well prepared. Sure, if you're a suburban GP, maybe you won't need to code or to learn another language. But maybe you'll need to work on streamlining some software or who knows what else, or maybe you'll have a competitive advantage if you can speak the language of some immigrants in the area. I don't know. No one knows. But these are important skills that are often thrust aside.
Aren't you agreeing with me then, that these extra skills are niche and are not necessary for a large amount of the jobs that the majority of people will fill? I mean, I'm happy that you're set on your, ah, globalised, high flying job, but being realistic; they're not factors that are going to be relevant to most people.
i can program a text box to say "helllo world" when i click a button, i sometimes learn french on duolingo and i have the grammatical skills of an infant. am i ready for this world?
Great, people making futuristic predictions without having any actual idea of what it's going to be like. Using current trends to predict the long-term future is silly. To use a mathematical analogy, I guess you could compare it to using the current rate of change of a function to predict a very different value. The further you go, the less accurate.
Technological literacy is a completely different matter and will obviously be significant as most industries adapt to the new developments. But if you think that being able to write code and speak multiple languages is going to be a requirement for the majority of jobs in the majority of industries in the near future (or will be more important than generalised communication skills/analytical ability)...well...I have a bridge to sell you.
In the future, I think it will be less of a preference but more of a required essence for most jobs.
Once again, I repeat: "more of a preference, not exactly a requirement"
Okay, which one is it.
I wouldn't say so; but at least you've made a start ;)Oh boy, okay. You completely missed a troll, and then completely missed the point of my post. And then you expect me to take you seriously as an authority on what the job market demands.
You must understand, in some way or another, that these skills have some importance; thus your reason for learning them.
Remember, at the moment it is not essential, but preferable. In the future, I think it will be less of a preference but more of a required essence for most jobs.
No, in fact we are not "making futuristic predictions without knowing what it's going to be like." Ask yourself: at the birth of technology, all those many years ago, did we assume that it was going to have as much pertinence as it does now? At the time, we under assumed it, but now the result is unlike what anyone would have expected. You're functionally doing the same (under-assuming) by saying these things aren't going to have some sort of increase in importance. It's fair enough to predict based on current trends if we aren't looking too far ahead in the future. That even adheres to what you mentioned: "The further you go, the less accurate". We aren't predicting what's going to happen in 50 years time or even 30 years time. This is no huge change either. We are simply talking about "preferences" in the job market, in perhaps within the next decade, for people who can code, are bilingual, proficient punctually and decent arithmetically.
^ Totally agree with coding, I'd say in some circumstances, having a good set of coding skills is more important than mathematical skills.
Those refer to different time frames.
If you don't have these skills, you're at a competitive disadvantage. There's a reason why you're supposed to list languages and programming languages on a resume for almost every entry-level white collar job. Why give yourself that disadvantage when a little bit of work now could fix it?
One explicitly mentions "in the future" and one is in direct response to me commenting on the future.Yeah I should have not directly replied to the latter, since we were both referring to different time frames. It was only meant to add on to the conversation.
I would add superior spreadsheet skills to superior numeracy and coding skills.
Oh boy, okay. You completely missed a troll, and then completely missed the point of my post. And then you expect me to take you seriously as an authority on what the job market demands.
What exactly do you mean by superior spreadsheet skills?