How Important is Algebra?

A professor of political science named Andrew Hacker of Queens College, New York, published a provocative op-ed piece in the New York Times titled, “Is Algebra Necessary?”

It elicited strong rebuttals, most of them, as expected, from math professors around the country. Hacker’s thesis is that there is no evidence that mastering polynomial functions or parametric equations will be of any benefit to students fearful of algebra or to those aspiring to excel in subjects that have no connection with algebra or mathematics in general. He cites statistics in which most educators blame algebra as the reason for the high drop-out rate from our schools and colleges.

The professor gives California’s two university systems as proof of the harm that algebra does to students. The universities consider “applications only from students who have taken three years of mathematics and in that way exclude many applicants who might excel in fields like art or history. Community college students face an equally prohibitive mathematics wall. A study of two-year schools found that fewer than a quarter of their entrants passed the algebra classes they were required to take.”

The article generated strong reaction among students of California’s community colleges. Is algebra an impediment to their goals, or is it a difficult subject they must master anyway to acquire analytical skills and learn the value of hard work, traits required in any profession?

David, who is taking intermediate algebra this Fall, disagrees with Hacker’s contention that the emphasis should be on applied math and algebra for specific, everyday problems. As he sees it, learning only the math we need for specific situations ignores the underlying thought process that governs how the formulas work. “If we tailor math only for certain situations, we will raise a generation of people that can quote memorized steps without any understanding of WHY they work.” As to Hacker’s contention that algebra should be cut because it is ‘too hard’ implies that chemistry, physics, Art, English should also be cut because some students find these subjects hard as well. “Many people go into college without a solid base from high school and need a refresher to prepare them for the very rigorous course of study required to graduate from college. The rigor of higher education needs to be maintained for all these degrees to mean anything, and thus the requirements must be high, and to meet those requirements students need a good general education, and to have a good general education students absolutely must have a good understanding of algebra and the logical thinking required to work out the problems even without close instruction.”

“There is also the sad fact that without being prodded, most people don't care to challenge themselves to a higher understanding of algebra and mathematics. People must be forced to do it before they realize that they like it. The people who discover a love for algebra become the future of the field. If we do not require it, we will lose these people and soon afterwards, we will decline in our ability to understand it.”

Henry struggles with algebra but still feels that it should continue to be a core subject. “Whether you are a doctor measuring medication to inject into a patient or construction worker mixing cement, it all involves math.  Algebra isn’t easy but neither is life. So struggle is good for us to prepare for life.”

Kendal knows how hard algebra is. She had to take the course three times before she was able to get a passing grade. “If you don’t understand chapter 4, you will not understand chapter 5. Algebra builds on itself. I always thought I was bad in math until I realized that I was bad because I wasn’t paying attention and not putting in the hard work. Prof. Hacker says that students who are unable to pass algebra drop out or are denied admission to colleges of their choice and are unable to get decent jobs with good pay. To that I say, who would want to hire someone who quit when the going got tough? While the formulas used in algebra are not used in everyday life, the lesson of working hard to achieve a goal will be with the student for life. I wouldn’t walk into the Google campus and expect to be hired as a lawyer and then be pissed that they didn’t hire me because I haven’t passed the bar. Algebra weeds out those who aren’t dedicated or motivated to succeed.”

Frank agrees with Hacker and believes that any math beyond pre-algebra should not be a requirement. “Once we have learned how to do simple math for everyday life, it should be enough. It just causes stress when so many other things are going on in a student’s life. I know a lot of successful people who don’t even know pre-algebra. If you want to be a rocket scientist or a chemist, go for high-level math. But math beyond pre-algebra is a waste of time for most students.”

Intesar feels that removing algebra will be detrimental to the learning process. ”If algebra is removed, what next? English? Geometry? The U.S. ranks 14^th among developed countries in Math! This is not good for a country that wields enormous power and influence in the world. We are now importing scientists from other countries instead of creating our own scientists. When I am reaching for a goal, I must struggle. Otherwise, accomplishments are worthless. We must not avoid algebra because it is hard.”

Lisa can relate to the difficulty of algebra and feels that the course should not be a requirement but an option. Algebra causes many students to drop out of school. She has taken algebra multiple times. Just when she thinks she understands a concept, there comes another that messes up her understanding of the first. She knows many students who face the same problem.

Aubrea feels strongly that algebra is important for everyone to learn. “Algebra not only has to do with everyday math, it also helps students think logically, to think outside of the box. And it is always good to know algebra especially when our kids need help doing their algebra homework in the future.”

Christina often stresses the importance of algebra to her children but wonders how necessary algebra really is. “During my twenty five year career in the dental field and a couple of years in sales, I have applied my mathematical skills that I (barely) learned in high school, but I have never had an issue come up that a calculator or Google could not solve. I know others who dropped out of high school due to their inability to grasp algebra but they have gone on to make good careers without algebraic knowledge.”

Jonathan relates a personal story. “Back when I sold women’s shoes at Nordstrom, we had a power outage that brought down our fancy registers. But even with the power out, the show must go on. So with no light and no registers, we continued to write receipts, only we did it freehand. There was a problem, however. No one in my department knew how to calculate the sales tax. Luckily for them (and me), that was one of the few things from Algebra I remembered how to do. So for the next hour, while the power was still off, I was the go-to receipt scribbler!  When I was younger, before my Nordstrom days, I used to loathe Algebra. I thought that school should play to their student’s strengths and future interests, which for me certainly wasn’t anything math-related. Many years later, however, I’ve taken a more moderate stance. I believe a class called Practical Algebra would be really beneficial in not only opening people’s eyes to the benefits of Algebra but teaching them vital mathematical skills, as well.”

For Obama, All's Well that Ends Well

President Obama won the third and final debate against challenger Mitt Romney on both style and substance. The pundits were full of wild speculations about how Libya was going to dominate the debate but nothing of the sort happened. Romney has consistently excelled as the nation's armchair-general-in-chief but the wind went out of his sail when Obama exposed his "wrong and reckless" policies on Libya, Iran and Syria.

Obama invoked John Kennedy's stand on the Cuban missile crisis 50 years ago (today is the 50th anniversary of the crisis) to remind Romney and American voters that he will keep America's military supremacy intact.

While Romney talked in general terms, Obama spoke in specifics. (Romney: During Arab Spring, people took to the streets of Egypt. Obama: Egyptians gathered in Tahrir Square.) 

It was supposed to be a debate about foreign policy but reverted to domestic policy again and again. Like a robot, Romney kept repeating his mantra about his 5-point formula to turn America into Utopia, in spite of its evisceration by economists and policy-makers. When Obama asked Romney to provide some specifics, Romney suggested that the president visit his website where apparently his plan is laid out in full. "We visited your website and it still doesn't add up," replied the President. The audience roared with laughter.

Obama spoke with ease and confidence and you could see hope draining away from Romney's face. There was none of the bravado and arrogance we saw in the first debate. "This guy has found my number," Romney's expression suggested, "and there is nothing I can do about it!"

Romney didn't endear himself to the teachers of America when he said he loved teachers as well but "you cannot solve America's problem by hiring more teachers and reducing class size." Obama responded that these steps make a fundamental difference and go a long way toward solving America's problems. While Romney tried to make the case (again) that under his leadership, Massachusetts had the best educational records in Math and English for 4th and 8th graders, Obama reminded him that the record was already in place before he became the governor.

Obama made the difference between him and Romney stark by stating that his challenger's policies will take America back to the "cold war of 1980s, social policies of the 1920s and the economic policies of the 1950s." All Romney could offer in response was ... stunned silence.

As I was watching the debate, another "momentous" event was taking place in San Francisco. The SF Giants were playing in the second round of the 2012 National League playoff series, facing the Saint Louis Cardinals in the seventh and decisive game, after being down 3 games to 1. In the first round, they were down 2-0 against the Cincinnati Reds but took the next 3 games away from home, a record comeback in a 5-game series. From being down 3-1 against the Cardinals, they took the next 2 games and were 3-3 going into the 7th game. So what happened in that final game? Giants beat the Cardinals 9-0! SF Giants have proven to be the ultimate comeback kid. Whether or not they win the World Series against the Detroit Tigers, their back-to-back stirring comebacks will inspire baseball fans and players for years to come.

Barack Obama, too, made a stirring comeback after his first defeat, so his parallel with the SF Giants is impossible to overlook. But the President needs to beat Mitt Romney on November 6. We cannot return to another George Bush presidency. While I will be rooting for SF Giants to win the 2012 World Series, the world will not fall apart if the team doesn't. I will be rooting  for President Obama to get elected for a second term because I know the world will indeed fall apart if Mitt Romney becomes the next president of the United States.

I am confident of Obama's victory on November 6, even if by the narrowest of margins. I am confident that American voters will choose restraint over brinkmanship, reason over recklessness, coherence over crass pandering, and Obama over Romney.

"Argo": A Thriller with a Perspective

“Argo” is a thriller worthy of the best of John le Carre. The only difference is that this movie is based not on fiction but on facts, with some liberties taken here and there to keep the story taut.

On November 4, 1979, six Americans escaped from the U.S. embassy in Tehran through a back door when loyalists of Ayatollah Khomeini overran it. Iranians were angry at the American government for refusing to hand over the Shah, who had been allowed into the country by the Carter administration for medical treatment.

The Americans found shelter in the residence of Ken Taylor, Canada’s Ambassador to Iran. While the U.S. and world attention was focused on the 52 hostages from the embassy, the CIA and the State Department began working on a plan to fly the six diplomats out of Iran. The plan they hatched was as improbable as any Hollywood production.

In fact, the plan, proposed by CIA’s disguise and exfiltration expert Tony Mendes, did involve a fake movie-production company in Hollywood called “Studio Six Productions.”
Mendez came up with a cover story for the six Americans: They were actors scouting locations in the Middle East for filming a science-fiction flick called “Argo,” (a Middle-Eastern “Star Wars” in which the fearless and flying locals try to free their homeland from foreign tyrants), with Iran as one of the potential sites.

When Mendez explained his plan to the top brass at the State Department and the CIA, they weren’t sure whether to laugh or cry at its utter absurdity. But Mendez, played superbly and with understated sensibility by actor-director Ben Affleck, convinced them that “this is the best bad idea we have.”

The Operation was a go.

Once “producer” Mendez lands at the Mehrabad International Airport in Tehran, things become unpredictable even by Hollywood standards. One of the six Americans rejects his plan outright. Revolutionary guards track his every move. In an ancient bazaar the day before the escape, he and his group of six almost get beaten up.

But the real zinger comes when, at the last moment, the CIA informs Mendez that he must abort his plan. A military operation to rescue all the 58 hostages is in the works by the Carter administration. The Hollywood caper must cease immediately.

I will not spoil the movie by telling you what ensues, other than to say that the truth turns out to be not only stranger than fiction but a good deal more exciting. The movie draws you in as it alternates between street scenes in Tehran where young revolutionaries denounce the United States and kill Iranians suspected of treachery, the claustrophobic confinement of the Americans and the tension at the State Department and the CIA. The final chase scene sets the pulse racing and the heart pounding. Two aging Hollywood honchos, played brilliantly by Alan Arkin and John Goodman, oversee the logistics from the Hollywood end and provide comic relief. (Lamenting the seeming futility of American efforts, one remarks to the other, “John Wayne has been in the ground six months and this is what’s left of America!”)

“Argo” impresses because of the way Affleck handles the explosive hostage issue in the context of history. In 1950, Iranians democratically elected Mohammed Mosaddeq as their Prime Minister. One of the first things Mosaddeq did was to nationalize Iran’s oil companies to benefit ordinary Iranians. In 1953, however, he was overthrown in a CIA-engineered coup, followed by the installation of the Reza Shah Pahlavi as Iran’s absolute monarch.

Until his fall in 1979, the Shah ruled Iran with an iron hand. Savak, the secret organization he built to enforce his will, became synonymous with murderous savagery. In 23 years, SAVAK summarily executed thousands of Iranian men and women to keep any insurgency under control. Meanwhile, the Shah continued to enjoy unconditional support from successive U.S. governments.

When Ayatollah Khomeini assumed supreme power in 1979, he unleashed his own brand of terror. Vengeance, in the form of beheadings, hanging and torture, became the order of the day. A severe austerity descended on the nation and Iranians were left wondering if a middle path would ever be in their destiny.

Director Affleck does not ignore the historical context for the intense animosity Iranians felt toward America. As Argo’s screenwriter Chris Terrio aptly put it, “What I hope people come away with is the complexity of what happened, the fact that there is no antagonist here. On all sides of this, there were people trying to do the right thing.”

Iran is again in the news now, 33 years after the hostage crisis. As the saying goes, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Citing the “mortal danger” posed by a nuclear-armed Iran, Israel under Bibi Netanyahu has been hell-bent on launching a unilateral, preemptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Only the stern opposition by the Obama administration and top U.S. military leaders have kept the intransigent Israeli leader under control.

The middle path for Iran and its leaders seem as elusive as ever, in spite of what history has taught the nation in the past three decades. The Republican Party, particularly in light of the bellicose statements from Mitt Romney vis-à-vis Iran, appears equally impervious to history’s lessons.

President Obama has said that “the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.” But what he has also said is that sanctions are already taking a terrible toll on Iran and that its leaders cannot ignore its effects for long. Nuclear experts have confirmed that Iran is nowhere near building a nuclear arsenal, despite the bluster of its leaders, and that diplomacy, backed by sanctions, remains the best option for containing Iran’s nuclear ambition.

America cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of its past in Iran, no matter how much goading it has to withstand from Israel. If “Argo” can communicate this message, however subliminally, it will have served a far more ambitious goal than keeping viewers entertained and enthralled.

Obama Finds His Stride

The turning point in the second debate tonight came when Mitt Romney suggested that President Obama did not characterize the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi as a terror attack until 14 days after the extremists had infiltrated the compound and killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

This was after Obama had asserted that he had gone to the Rose Garden the day after attack to say “this was an act of terror.”

“Get the transcript,” the President said. In fact, moderator Candy Crowley of CNN had to interject, “He did in fact, sir,” addressing Romney.

“Can you say that a little louder, Candy?” requested the President.

(Here's what the President said in the Rose Garden on September 12: "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.")

As the Nassau audience applaued, the wind went out of Romney’s sail. A stern Obama also scored huge points when he came down hard on Romney’s insinuations that the President had used the Benghazi attack for political advantage.  “The suggestion that anybody in my team, whether the secretary of state, our U.N. ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we’ve lost four of our own, Governor, is offensive.  That’s not what we do. That’s not what I do as president, that’s not what I do as commander-in-chief.”

Finally we got to see the Obama we wanted to see in the first debate. He was assertive without being overbearing. He looked directly at his challenger and dissected Romney's arguments with the precision of a surgeon. While Romney tried to distance himself from former president Bush, Obama also scored points by portraying a humane and competent Bush.

President Obama regained his stride after his inexplicably poor performance in the first debate. If all’s well that ends well, then a similar feisty and passionate performance in the third and final debate this coming Monday should boost Obama’s chances.

In California’s liberal Silicon Valley today, I saw two cars sporting the same bumper sticker: “I was anti-Obama before it was cool.”

The anti-Obama crowd will never be placated but the main question is: Was Obama able to  regain some of the undecided voters who were beginning to lean toward Romney after the President's debacle in Denver? Most certainly.

If the Benghazi moment was the highlight of the debate, a close second was Obama's closing statement in which he was able to nail Romney's cruel "47%" comment. The President said: "I believe Governor Romney is a good man. Loves his family, cares about his faith. But I also believe that when he said behind closed doors that 47 percent of the country considered themselves victims who refuse personal responsibility, think about who he was talking about. Folks on Social Security who’ve worked all their lives. Veterans who’ve sacrificed for this country. Students who are out there trying to hopefully advance their own dreams, but also this country’s dreams. Soldiers who are overseas fighting for us right now. People who are working hard every day, paying payroll tax, gas taxes, but don’t make enough income.And I want to fight for them. That’s what I’ve been doing for the last four years. Because if they succeed, I believe the country succeeds."
 

An intriguing Presidential election is coming our way on November 6. It will be a fight to the finish and it will be close. But good sense will ultimately prevail and it is likely that Americans will reward President Obama with a second term. Only one request, Mr. President: Make the third and final debate with Mitt Romney as interesting and feisty and passionate as this one!

Biden Nails Ryan and Republicans with One Word: Malarkey

Joe Biden regained the momentum for his boss and the Democrats with his energetic performance against Paul Ryan tonight. The one word that can now be used to describe Republicans is "malarkey." These R guys are full of hot air; worse, their talk is foolish. In other words, every time a Republican opens his or her mouth, all you can expect is malarkey.

Besides expanding the vocabulary of Americans, Biden scored on all fronts against the smooth-talking, empty-vessel Ryan. The bluster on Syria, Libya and Iran, the shameless spin on taxes and medicare, the disdain for the 47%, the vagueness about pulling out of Afghanistan - the more Ryan tried to make his "points", the more desperate he looked.

It has become common for Romney and Ryan to try to "humanize" their views with touching personal stories. Biden would not fall for it. To be compassionate at a personal level does not mean its author is compassionate when it comes to defining policies that affect millions of Americans. Biden took the wind out of Ryan's sails when the Congressman tried to elicit sympathy from viewers with his personal stories. "Stop talking about how you care about people," Biden said. "Show me something. Show me a policy. Show me a policy where you take responsibility."

As I have observed before, these debates are not about substance but style. He who radiates more confidence, more wit and more authority wins. Ryan started out strong but halfway through the debate was reduced to a schoolboy being reprimanded by the school principal for, well, malarkey. When he suggested that American troops should not be withdrawn from the most dangerous regions of Afghanistan, an incredulous Biden asked (I am paraphrasing here): "So you would want to put American troops in danger so directly?" A single query unmasked the bluster of the armchair-general from Wisconsin.

When Ryan tried to ridicule Obama's stimulus plan, Biden revealed that the Congressman had personally written two letters asking for stimulus money for his district, available for viewing on the government's website. Talk about the height of hypocrisy!

The million-dollar question is: Can president Obama run with this? Can he emulate Biden's performance tonight and rejuvenate Democrats and his supporters with solid performances in the remaining two debates after his demoralizing and inexplicable meltdown in the first?

He better, if he wants to be reelected.

My guess is that he can and he will.

Romney Wins First Round

President Obama let Mitt Romney run away with the trophy in the first debate tonight. The challenger was fluent and forceful. He looked directly at the president as he made his points. He came across as the one who cared more about America. For most of the debate, Obama looked down as the split screen showed Romney in a posture that suggested he was talking down to a timid student. At one point when Obama was speaking, Romney interrupted and amazingly, Obama conceded the floor to him. Instead of looking at Romney, Obama (when he looked up at all) seemed to plead with moderator Jim Lehrer to bring the debate to an end. Romney, in contrast, controlled Lehrer, directing the flow of questions.

Forget the facts. Fact checkers will tell you that Romney was wrong on this and that, as was the President. In these debates, style trumps substance. When Obama was running for president four years ago, he electrified the electorate with his newness, his near-mythical striving for the highest position in the land. That he was running against a party led by the reviled George Bush no doubt helped his candidacy.

But as incumbent, the magic seems to have left Obama. He was hesitant  and tentative with Romney. He seemed ill at ease. There was hardly any passion behind his words. He combined his sentences with a drawn out “a..and” that became a distracting mannerism as the debate progressed. His rebuttals (again, we are not talking facts here but style) were weaker compared to Romney’s. In summing up the debate with his perspective on leadership, Romney said, “America is hurting today!” and then said that he would set America right. A visitor from Mars would have believed Romney. Obama, in contrast, asked us to simply believe that what he did in the last four years should convince us to vote for him. Unconvincing, to say the least.

Only toward the end did the President briefly come alive when he said that part of being a leader was to have a plan and that a leader had to sometimes say “no” to the extreme fringes of his party. He exposed Romney’s shortcomings in two sentences but that was about it. Obama’s relief was almost palpable when the debate finally ended.

As an Obama supporter, I am hoping that we have seen the best of Romney and the worst of Obama tonight. Certainly with his performance, Romney has repaired the damage of his “47%” remark. He has accomplished his mission for now and put the President on the defensive. Obama needs to practice an hour everyday looking directly at someone while locking horns with him on contentious issues. (Joe Biden, perhaps?) It’s okay to be polite, laid back and cool in private but in a debate that can change voter perceptions instantly, passion and conviction have to radiate from the candiate's whole being.

The verdict: Obama did not hurt himself but Romney elevated himself and was the clear winner. Please, Mr. President, shed your complacency, if that's what it is. Replace ice with fire. In the next two debates, don’t let the Governor take charge. You must. Four years ago, an "outsider" seized the momentum in his debates with a Republican challenger. We want that candidate back.