It's probably for the best that high school teachers don't attempt to teach students anything that pertains to the meaning behind math. They'd most likely fuck it up

>>135
This is a pervasive mindset that follows most of the teaching profession. Imagine if for any other subject the teacher just threw their hands up and said, "that's just the way it is." How many civil engineers would be completely lost if they were only taught "the triangle is the strongest shape, it just is." The fact that the applications of things are hardly ever taught makes education itself a borderline sham.

>>136
Fair point, laying down and accepting the abhorrent state of modern public schooling doesn't solve anything. But how many high school teachers themselves would even understand the applications of some of the math concepts they teach? I feel like you'd need to rework what makes a teacher qualified to teach a subject, but then the question becomes if a prospective teacher is capable of understanding and teaching higher levels of math why would they then settle for teaching at public schools instead of advancing their own education to the point they are qualified to be a professor.

>>137
It's already the case that some teachers at the more highly ranked public schools are qualified and knowledgeable about their subject. At my own high school there were quite a few teachers who attended prestigious universities and some who held multiple degrees. It's more than possible to make the teaching profession genuinely professional and respected, but such change would likely have to come either through teachers unions raising the median salary enough to attract more educated teachers or be born out of some political movement towards improving education to match or exceed other first-world countries.

I think you're being unfair to teachers. I'm sure there's plenty of bad apples but I can't fault teachers for being unmotivated when their working conditions suck most of the time. Public schools are full of kids who don't give a shit, so why should they?

>>139
>It's already the case that some teachers at the more highly ranked public schools are qualified and knowledgeable about their subject. At my own high school there were quite a few teachers who attended prestigious universities and some who held multiple degrees.

I got into a similar high school in a period of transition where they were loosening their admission criteria to allow students from less privileged backgrounds a chance for a better standard of education (ironic, considering I was from a less privileged background and would have managed to get in regardless). Garbage bins were set on fire, the school got filled with graffiti, there were a couple of cases of violent robbery within school premises and on a couple of occasions crowds composed of people who had no affiliation with the school would gather outside waiting for a student to get out to settle scores. The student council ceased to exist and afterschool activities ceased to function one after the other as equipment was broken. Teaching standards took a nose dive but the teaching staff was virtually the same. For the record, Mr. racial realist lurker, the school's ethnic makeup didn't change.

>>142
Surely your own experience is a bit of an extreme example... I'm well aware that such delinquent schools exist, but I doubt they're anywhere near being the majority. Admittedly, I suppose my own experience was fairly different than most people's on account of being "gifted."

>>134
prolly cuz teens aren't ready for the fucked up world out there yet lol

>>674
Fucked up? The only thing fucked up is people going out into the world with little to no understanding of the tools they use in their jobs everyday.

If a whole bunch of stuff in computer science basically relates back to matrices and linear algebra how come it isn't a course all students have to take an introduction to in high school? We really should be teaching kids this stuff early so they can get it in their heads easier.

>>750
In burgerstan it's sometimes taught in "precalculus" but it's usually poorly motivated. As in it's presented mainly as a tool for solving systems of linear equations, and they don't relate it to linear transformations on vector spaces. They teach rules for computing determinants but don't explain what they represent. Eigenvalues don't get mentioned.

>>776
The most I learned how to use matrices for in Precalc was for solving for triangle measurements, but it confused everyone and no one understood how it worked aside from one or two kids (the type who always know everything) in a class of around 30.

precalc where I am was things that were literally precursors to calculus, mostly advanced trigonometry. Linear algebra is something different. Mind you, I'm a grade A tensai so I didn't do it.