Guardian columnist Simon Jenkins recently claimed that what education (needs is less maths and more lessons in English grammar. Jenkins has form in this area complaining about our fixation on maths. I am sure you have heard others saying “Who needs to solve quadratic equations?” or “When will I ever use trigonometry?”.
I have nothing against the teaching of English: it should be taught and taught well, but civilisation would not, in fact, grind to a halt if schools produced students who were unable to comply with rules defined by long-dead grammarians, who thought that the rules of English should be more like those in Latin. Furthermore, as psycholinguists such as Stephen Pinker have convincingly demonstrated, the grammar rules one sees in textbooks often have little to do with the way real people construct and interpret the language - and no one has ever prevented the language evolving. Grammatically correct English is undeniably useful, as all communications conventions are useful, but not by any means essential: I am rarely in doubt about the intended meaning of those who choose to speak in a different way. It is, however, all too true that, as Bernard Shaw said, "It is impossible for an Englishman to open his mouth without making some other Englishman hate or despise him."
Our civilisation would, however, be in serious trouble if we failed to deliver sufficient students with an adequate knowledge of mathematics.
Simon Jenkins no doubt typed his articles using a computer and a word processor programme; he also probably submitted his material to the editor via a computer network. After which it had further electronic handling ultimately becoming part of an electronic download to the printing machinery. If he purchases groceries in a supermarket, passing through the tills automatically generates restocking orders, which pass back through just-in-time supply networks, dependent on sophisticated mathematical algorithms that optimise the process to move the maximum amount of goods with the minimum of effort.
If he buys goods from Amazon, the orders were passed to robotic warehouses operated by artificial intelligence which then handed his order to delivery drivers following optimally efficient routes calculated by mathematical algorithms. He may very well have used his mobile phone which itself is a virtuoso exercise in modern physics (relying on mathematics) while the process by which one phone is connected to another depends on sophisticated routing algorithms providing seamless communication even while both parties may be in motion, being passed from one 4G base station to another.
None of this would be possible without computer science - a branch of applied mathematics and physics. Without our mathematical infrastructure the shops would empty and we would quickly starve.
The planes you fly in, the cars you drive, the bridges you cross were designed by engineers who use mathematics as an everyday tool, and apply physical science knowledge that itself could not be acquired and applied without sophisticated use of high-level mathematics. Even the genetic sequencing and RNA synthesis that has figured so prominently in the fight against COVID are only feasible because we can now use complex robots supported by mathematical algorithms.
Our civilisation runs on mathematics, and usually it runs so well that most of us are hardly aware of the complex machinery ticking away under the surface.
That, you may well argue, is all very well for those will make and maintain this infrastructure. Why do the rest need to treat it as other than incomprehensible magic?
All this would, indeed, start to fall apart unless schools produce significant number of students who are are equipped to make further progress in science and engineering. You absolutely cannot do without the few thousand students who graduate each year in STEM subjects, a number already too few to meet the employment demand. We certainly cannot afford to further restrict the potential population from which these professionals will eventually emerge.
What about those who have ambitions to become leaders in industry or politics? Can they be trusted to make well informed decisions if they have little insight into the way the world actually functions? Do they really appreciate the potential for massive disruption if the seamless operation of our highly interconnected society suddenly has to cope with additional frictions? Recent events should give us pause for thought.
We all need some mathematical insight in order to make well-informed decisions. Where do we invest our money? Should we get vaccinated? Is an amniocentesis test during pregnancy likely to inform or mislead? Is that politician asking for our vote simply fabricating his statistical claims? (Do they get away with it so often because so few political commentators have the mathematical confidence to challenge them? Do we have too many politicians and commentators who have no feel for numbers?)
The World is now facing a Climate Crisis that will have profound implications for our children. Crossed fingers and delayed decisions are no longer a sufficiently responsible approach. The numbers told us what was happening and what actions were needed several decades ago: you and I preferred not to look at those numbers and allowed our political leaders to prevaricate. Those numbers now need to finally add up and we need to understand enough to hold the leaders to account for any deficits.
It bothers me that so many are blind to the cultural importance of mathematics. The Greek’s invention of logic and proof was a truly momentous departure in human thought, with profound influence on everything that followed, and in truth it was of far greater moment than their undoubted achievements in literature and art. (My website, however, is of course predicated on an assumption that art and maths are connected.) Those early mathematical discoveries are still as valid today as they were two and half thousand years ago, and the calculus of Leibniz and Newton will still be taught two thousand years from now, and probably long after other aspects of our culture have faded to obscurity. Those who do not have some appreciation of mathematical thinking are as culturally impoverished as those who have never read great literature or seen great art.
Finally, Mr Jenkins, when applying the rules of a language grammar, you are in fact exercising a mathematical algorithm.