You are here:   Education > Ditch the New Maths for Good Old Euclid
 

Do schools still teach Euclid? Yes, indeed they do, and my son did an excellent course on Euclidean geometry at high school in America. But sadly many British undergraduates in mathematics have never taken such a course, and are very unsteady on what exactly constitutes a proof. When they take an undergraduate degree, they have to get to grips with proofs in which the material is far more abstract than in Euclidean geometry. With the "new maths" they were supposed to be better at abstraction, but it doesn't seem to work that way. The "new maths" was a failure, but before you say the answer is obvious, that we should get back to teaching the basics, be warned that this is easier said than done.

The problem with teaching any subject is that the teachers themselves have to understand it. When you throw something out of the usual curriculum, the teachers of the future don't learn it, so it's not easy for them to teach it. In a subject like English it's not such a problem. A teacher who is unfamiliar with Shakespeare can always read a play and then do it in class, learning it better each time it is taught.

History, too, lends itself to this. But science and mathematics can be tough to learn well on your own, unless you're specially talented. In fact, mathematics is the worst of all in this respect. Ideally, a teacher should understand what he or she is teaching and a lot more besides. Most mathematics teachers, grappling on the very edge of their knowledge, are not in a good position to take on things they were never taught themselves. This was the problem with the "new maths", because most teachers didn't understand it well or see the point.

Perhaps in the 1970s it didn't seem to matter. If our children babbled about sets rather than numbers, why should we care? Who could overtake us? The Soviet Union? They had problems of their own, and even though their bright students got a fine education, they didn't look as if they were about to overtake the commercial and industrial might of the West. But today, China and India have no qualms about teaching the basics, and making sure that teachers understand them.

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
John Ibberson
April 9th, 2010
2:04 AM
Rene Thom's ariticle '"Modern Mathematics": An Educational and Philosophic Error?' appeared in AMERICAN SCIENTIST vol. 59, Nov./Dec. 1971 pp.695-99. Jean Dieudonne's reply 'Should We Teach "Modern" Mathematics?' appeared in AM. SC. vol.61, Jan./Feb. 1973 pp. 16-19.

Rob
November 19th, 2008
4:11 PM
Just 3 points... (1) Years ago that finest of teachers George Pólya (in "How to Solve it", I think it was, can't find my old copy) stated simply that anyone who has been through school, without experiencing some moderately serious, systematic and rigorous Euclidean geometry and theorem proving, could justifiably accuse his educators of selling him short. But then the exhilarating mathematical explorations that Pólya brought to teaching are impossible to imagine in any but the most exceptional schools today. (2) Back in the early 1970's none less than René Thom issued an impassioned plea to schools to ditch the empty, barren abstractions of set theory that were meaningless to most pupils, trivial to the best, and utterly stifling the development of real mathematical insight and imagination - in favour of a return to the inexhaustible intuitive riches of Euclidean geometry. ( I wish I could find the original essay.) (3) In the late 1980’s, before I made a career change out of teaching, I recall my head of a school mathematics department asking Oxbridge don’s what were the most noticeable changes they had seen in recent undergraduate intake. Answer 1: a marked falling-off in ability to think spatially at all, let alone in three dimensions. (A rather dire impediment to work in virtually any branch of science or engineering, one would have thought, let alone to any work in higher mathematics.) Answer 2: A woeful lack of any conception of systematic proof from clearly identified assumptions or axioms leading to an ever growing structure of theorems and results. Speaks for itself, doesn’t it? The fads and fashions and easy options of the semi-educated will always win out with the politicians, bureaucrats and ideologues of the “new”. Very sad.

Anonymous
October 31st, 2008
3:10 AM
I couldn't agree more. In fact, it perplexes me that what seems to have been substituted in many universities for the training in logical argument (however philosophically inadequate) that Euclid used to provide in schools is an elementary course in abstract logic (some propositional calculus and a little predicate calculus) that is presented without any motivation at all. I bore my students occasionally with John Aubrey's anecdote about Hobbes from the Brief Lives -- a perfect illustration of the power of Euclid's exposition, and of the appeal his theorems can have for people willing to read them carefully.

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.