The first problem with this piece is the assumption that maths courses in schools are provided to prepare future engineers. What are the grounds for this assumption? There are many reasons for teaching maths beyond this. Why shouldn't university engineering courses be responsible for the kind of maths engineers need?

The second problem is the unwarranted shift in the argument from Johnson's statement that demand in schools has plummeted to the author's pet topic about standards. The more important question is why students are choosing not to take higher level maths. (No doubt the author would want to conscript them.)

I recall one university where the engineering course required the inclusion of maths because it was argued to be a requirement for success in engineering. Year in and year out the engineering students failed the maths course in large numbers, while passing all of their engineering subjects. Clearly the claimed link between maths and engineering was false or at least greatly exaggerated.

The claim that success or failure in engineering has something to do with students' secondary school maths studies may well be a passing off of responsibility by university engineers and needs much more evidence than is provided here.

Firstly Godo there are plenty of math courses in high school for those who want a low [business] level.

Secondly in the school my kids went to the main problem was teachers. There were 60 kids wanting maths B, & 45 wanting C, but only one teacher who could actually do math at that level, let alone teach it. Unfortunately for the kids, he was a union delegate/official, who was missing from action at least 15% of the few hours he was supposed to be teaching. One of the others used to ask my daughter how to do things, knowing she spent each Saturday at a coaching class at QUT.

The only kids who succeeded were either very brilliant, or had a considerable amount of outside coaching.

John your universities are far from blameless in all this. A case study.

When my eldest daughter found the time table at her preferred uni would often involve a lecture at 8.30AM, followed by one at 5.00PM, she decided this institution, 90 minutes from home, & obviously run for the staff, did not suit her requirements.

The more local one she found after enrolling, was however even worse. She found they started the math for a BsC at mid year 10 level. It was going to take two & a half years to get to the level she was all ready at. I suppose this is realistic, given the poor high school teaching, but a little wasteful.

She transferred to the first student unfriendly institution at the end of the first semester. It may not user friendly, but may teach something. New horror, they really had been teaching some math, & she found herself in trouble, because she had missed it.

Continued

Continued

So she was told, contact a math tutor, that should fix things for her. Great, only one new problem with this user unfriendly institution, it took 7 weeks to make contact with a math tutor. He/she/it/they were never in the office, & did not ever return calls, or respond to messages.

Fortunately I did still have enough math left from 35 years ago to help her out, but it was very rusty, & mad things much harder for her than it should have been.

All are at fault, & I can see the loss of any decent education for most kids today. I got a better education at a small country NSW high school, with just 12 kids in 5Th year, sitting in with junior classes, than my kids received at a 1700 kid Queensland high school today.

The basic premise of this argument, that deficiences of maths and science in all levels of our education system are leading to a lack suitably qualified engineers and that will impact negatively on our future development, is a very narrow view that brings to light the actual deficiency across both public and private education systems.

Gogo comes close to asking the appropriate question but he/she also exhibits the same narrow view.

The appropriate question is why is our education system so narrowly focused on producing people who are able to function as practitioners within a particular field without due emphasis on producing, at all levels, thinkers.

The traditional English Liberal Education comprised English, Maths B, Maths C, Physics, Chemistry and Latin.

Such a course was once designed for young men and taught them to think rather than to complete tasks, in an apprentice like approach.

THe apprenticeship Tertiary Educated Engineers complete is approximately three years practical work experience with the option of completing the Engineering Professional Qualification. Most don't take that option...now. There is simply nolonger great need.

My personal experience is from my son's engineering cohort from QUT.
In the final year there were five completing the 5 year engineering component of their education. Four were also completing an associated Applied Science(Maths) Degree. All four graduated with Distinctions in the 3 Yesr Science degree and with Honours in their Electrical Engineering Degrees. One of the four went on to furthur study and completed an Honours Degree in Science.

Of the five, two had undertaken the Traditional English Liberal Education at college, two had completed similar with the exception of Latin. German was substituted. One did not learn a language.

The results were 2 first class honours, two second class honours and one pass. The results mirrored the relative adherence to their college educations.

My son today after a few years in the workplace is now starting to exercise his intellect in the field of history and phisolophy. He is reading and discussing the great ideas of the West, in a structured but informal manner.

His intellect is astonishing.

Of his cohort from college, with who we are still in irregular contact, and particularly those who now follow careers in other professional fields, none possesss anywhere near his intellectual ability, nor match his ability to become as involved in interesting and successful interpersonal relationships, travel, sport and adventure.

I think while in the past the traditional courses favoured young men I think the same doesn't apply today as the only girl in his QUT cohort was the graduate who went on to complete the Honours in Applied Science (Maths).

Only one of the five in the cohort attended a private school. He passed but did not achieve honours.

Change the emphasis in all levels of our education systems for our future professionals from learning how to do things to learning how to think.

Can't be all that difficult in a clever country.

Nutter, there are always those annoying people, like your son, who could be thrown in to a library age 10, & come out 3 years later, better educated than most of us can ever be. Unfortunately most of us need help, by knowledge people, if we are to get there. Most of us need those flashes of enlightenment that come from a good teacher, for us to progress.

I was one of 4 kids, in a country town high school, with a total of 12 kids in 5Th year, doing Math 2 & Physics honors. The girl was slightly annoying. She just picked it all up so effortlessly, & knew how to do everything, but it was one of the boys who really used to upset me.

He would be reading a book on Greek mythology, or similar interest, hidden in his math/physics text book, while the other kid & I, two thirds of the front row of the schools senior football team, required every bit of help our long suffering master could give. The whole course was done out of hours, & the 6 or 7 hours he gave us every week was all needed.

Still, in our defense, she became a house wife after a couple of years teaching, the brilliant one earned a precarious living playing the Sydney Town Hall organ part time. & selling self published records, then Cd's of obscure organ music.

It was the other footballer, & I who went on to build your bridges & jetties, power houses & factories, & fly your aircraft.

Those of us less gifted do require a good well structured system to be able to get what we need to be constructive. Quite often the truly brilliant are too busy in their mind to do much. It is usually those of us, a few rungs below the top of the ladder, that get on & do the work, but only if we have received the help we need when young.