Wednesday, May 22, 2013

One of the fastest growing professions

Academia seems like this giant uprooted tree


What is one of the fastest growing professions in US?
Let us see what Google search comes up with.

Here is a list of 50 fastest growing occupations.
I did some counting there. For the first two fastest growing (= finding job) required education level is less than high school. 16 requires high school diploma, 2 some kind of post-secondary and 6 Associate degree ( I do not know what the difference is). 10 on this list asks for Bachelors, 5 for Masters, and 5 for professional or Doctoral degree...

Another list - 30 fastest growing jobs by 2016.
May be because this list was done in Boston, average education requirements are a little bit higher but still 2 of the fastest growing jobs does not require high school diploma, 5 out of 30 does require high school diploma, high school plus 2 more years will be useful for 7 out of 30, this list predicts that bachelors will be needed for 9, masters for 5 and only one job - veterinarian will require post graduate education.

The list of fastest growing jobs by U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts that the fastest growing need will be
1. Personal care aides
2010 employment:
861,000
2020 projection: 1,468,000
Percent growth: 70.5
Median annual wage (2010): $19,640

Education requirement is less than high school diploma.

U.S. News 100 best jobs in 2013 does not mention on the list neither mathematician or college professor. But those two do appear on a list WSJ 2013  best and worst jobs : university professor as #14 and mathematician as #18. On a list of the worst jobs janitor is three steps higher than author (#153 and #156 out of 200).

However in none of these lists I found Adjunct Professor. If you are not familiar with academia closely then you would say - why bother looking through all these lists, it's under the general term - University Professor.

According Concord Monitor adjunct professor is one of the fastest growing and most poorly-paid occupations in America. According to the American Association of University Professors, while a full professor at a public university with a doctorate earns $120,000 per year plus benefits, an adjunct, even one with a doctorate and a full course load, makes $20,000 with no benefits. (Janitor's median salary is slightly over 22K). Few earn what could be considered a living wage, yet adjuncts now teach more than 70 percent of all college courses.

I wanted to write about the life of an adjunct in university for quite some time. It felt to me that people should know how it is. In my talks I have met many people and only those who are adjuncts themselves or have a family member or a friend who is an adjunct, really understand the situation.

Recently a very good article went viral on Internet - Academias indentured servants by Sarah Kendzior where she wrote:
Is academia a cult? That is debatable, but it is certainly a caste system. Outspoken academics  are rare: most tenured faculty have stayed silent about the adjunct crisis. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it," wrote Upton Sinclair, the American author famous for his essays on labour exploitation. Somewhere in America, a tenured professor may be teaching his work, as a nearby adjunct holds office hours out of her car.
 What stuck with me most from this article was:
"It is easy to make people work for less than they are worth when they are conditioned to feel worthless."It is easy to make people work for less than they are worth when they are conditioned to feel worthless"
Worthless - it is familiar feeling. You may be surprised hearing it from me. I am not working for less, I am often expected to work for free - because people think that I am well paid university professor.  I am officially retired but I am too young for Social Security. I am lucky - I do have a husband who supports me and hyperbolic crochet. But it does not help in fighting off a feeling of being worthless. My job is unpaid and therefore - worthless, which makes me feel a failure. Writing Crocheting Adventures with the Hyperbolic Planes was possible because of the support of my husband and some of my own money earned when I was lucky to get some calculus courses to teach. ( I am not joking when I say that I have to teach calculus to have money to buy yarn for my crocheted hyperbolic planes.) I was very proud when learned about the Euler Prize for my book. I decided to use an opportunity to speak about adjuncts in my response. There were several people who later came up to me to say "Thank you for talking about adjuncts."  At that point I did not know that later in the same year there will be more talks in media about adjuncts. I missed them because I was in Latvia to take care of my mother for a long period.
Now I looked up some of them.

Last year Sarah Kendzior already published an article The closing of American Academia. At the end of it she wrote:
 I struggle with the limited opportunities in academia for Americans like me, people for whom education was once a path out of poverty, and not a way into it.
My father, the first person in his family to go to college, tries to tell me my degree has value. "Our family came here with nothing," he says of my great-grandparents, who fled Poland a century ago. "Do you know how incredible it is that you did this, how proud they would be?"And my heart broke a little when he said that, because his illusion is so touching - so revealing of the values of his generation, and so alien to the experience of mine.

Here are some more attempts to raise awareness about adjuncts and the situation in higher education:

The PhD now comes with food stamps

A number of PhD on public aide has tripled

Why so many PhD's are on food stamps from NPR

The Crisis in Higher Education

The Caste System in Higher Education

It is late already, enough for tonight. One day I may be brave enough to write my own story how it feels to be adjunct...















Friday, April 12, 2013

Math Babe on the Weapons of Math Destruction

Feels strange that now I will be writing a blog entry about a blogger. Yesterday Cathy O'Neill or MathBabe gave a talk in Oliver Club at Cornell. In a picture - Tara Holm is introducing Cathy.
When you are not in academics one can give talks with sexy titles and become a public face of mathematics. What Cathy does is best to learn from her own blog Math Babe. What she was talking about yesterday was more like recruiting new math PhD's to her boot camp to learn more about conscious modelling.
Mathematical models are all around us and while mathematicians recognize them, general public does not always see how math is used against them. Starting already in school people are trained that "this is math - you will not understand". This phrase is fashionable to use instead " I don't care to explain it to you even if I understand it." It is so often that a number becomes your characteristic - google search results, your credit score, GPA, SAT score, Predictive models are used based on sometimes questionable data and data interpretations. Those are not oracles but non-mathematicians trust them because - if it math it must be true. Mathematician is always questioning these results. mathematicians are mostly honest people, they easily admit if they are wrong. I proved a theorem! No, you have a flaw here. Oh, really? OK, I should work harder, no hard feelings. This is not routine in other sciences.
Banks are underestimating risks. They are making us to believe that they are following a normal distribution. Investment banker will show you something like this:

In the meantime "banks too big to fail" actually have this:
Quite a different picture! 95th percentile makes everything look good. So what the PhD's on Wall street do? Push the risk in last 5%.
Data are screwed in many places. Let's take teacher evaluation. When Bloomberg wanted to be elected as mayor of NYC, tests were easier and test scores went up. Teachers are often evaluated for things which are out of their control, for example, student attendance. Standard teacher evaluation punishes teachers in tough schools. The value of standardized test scores are so much overvalued because it is a huge business, so those who are in control of preparing tests, push importance of those tests.
Example of data for some teacher evaluation:

Any mathematician will tell you that there is no correlation among these data, but nevertheless administration will pull out "valuable" evaluation data.
So what Math Babe proposed mathematicians should do not to let math be abused and not letting people to be abused by math?
Defend math
Educate ourselves
Sign up to referee public models!
Require transparent evaluation methods
And request to new math PhD's - let's not become economists....

Cathy raised many interesting questions, was open to questions from  the audience, but also was good not really answering some of them. Afterwards though anybody could go and talk to her in more details.
But of course - read her blog to learn more and as mathematicians we should be responsible for educating general public and stop using math as abusive tool in hands of those in power.

Friday, March 22, 2013

Allowing Unexpected: Creativity in Your Classroom




These are some excerpts from my talk today in Western Illinois University annual Teachers conference and also links to some aditional material.
In an ordinary mathematics class, the program is fairly clear cut. We have problems to solve, or a method of calculation to explain, or a theorem to prove. The main work to be done will be in writing, usually on the blackboard. If the problems are solved, the theorems proved, or the calculations completed, then teacher and class know that they have completed daily task. Is this teaching how to think mathematically? Getting to know new mathematical facts and there applications - it is creating new knowledge in students heads - but is it creative thinking?

Everybody at least once has had an experience when you have to talk in a language which is not native for you and it is hard to find correct words to express what are you thinking. Mathematics also has its own language (may be languages?) and we have to listen to another person carefully to understand what he/she wants to say. Are we patient enough with our students? How do we help students to express their ideas in a "foreign" language? We can understand a person talking even with mistakes if we understand the ideas the person is talking about. And no damage is done to these ideas because of some grammar mistakes. Why do we want mathematics to be an exception? Why is formal language so sacred? 

            Here is a quote from George Orwell:

 It is instructive sight to see a waiter going into a hotel dining room. As he passes the door a sudden change comes over him. The set of his shoulders alters; all the dirt and hurry and irritation have dropped off in an instant. He glides over the carpet, with a solemn, priest-like air... he entered the dining room and sailed across it, dish in hand, graceful as a swan.


  What does this quote tell us about the teaching mathematics? What is the purpose of separating front from back, kitchen from dining hall? It is not only to keep customers from interfering with the cooking. It is also to keep them from knowing too much about cooking.
The front and the back of mathematics are not physical locations like dining room and the kitchen. The front is mathematics in its finished form - lectures, textbooks, journals. The back is mathematics among working mathematicians. Which mathematics we are teaching to our students? Of course, the front one. Why? Because we feel safe there. We are teaching facts which are a priori acknowledged and if that happened more than 100 years ago then it is even safer. Looking over mathematics curriculum you are teaching have you pondered about the question which is the newest mathematics we are teaching? Are we telling our students that mathematics is changing all the time even that it is one of the oldest human activities?

Keith Devlin in American Scientist compares learning mathematics to learning how to play piano:
Just as music is created and enjoyed within the mind, so too is mathematics created and carried out (and by many of us enjoyed) in the mind. At its heart, mathematics is a mental activity—a way of thinking—one that over several millennia of human history has proved to be highly beneficial to life and society. In both music and mathematics, the symbols are merely static representations on a flat surface of dynamic mental processes. Just as the trained musician can look at a musical score and hear the music come alive in her or his head, so too the trained mathematician can look at a page of symbolic mathematics and have that mathematics come alive in the mind. So why is it that many people believe mathematics itself is symbolic manipulation? And if the answer is that it results from our classroom experiences, why is mathematics taught that way? I can answer that second question. We teach mathematics symbolically because, for many centuries, symbolic representation has been the most effective way to record mathematics and pass on mathematical knowledge to others.



 A necessary (though certainly not sufficient) condition for significant teaching is the provision of emphases; if everything is important then nothing is important. - Abe Schenitzer



1964 book The Act of Creation ArthurKoestler attempted to develop the general theory of human creativity. His concept of bisociation has been adopted, generalized and formalized by cognitive linguists Gilles Fauconnier and Mark Turner, who developed it into conceptual blending. Koestler defined  bisociation as “the creative leap [or insight], which connects previously unconnected frames of reference and makes us experience reality on several planes at once.” How to realize it? Koestler offered a suggestion in the form of a triptych, which consists of three panels…indicating 3 domains of creativity which shade into each other without sharp boundaries: Humor, Discovery, and Art.

The first is intended to make us laugh, the second make us understand, the third make us marvel Or for short: Ha-ha-ha! – Aha! – Ah!

But there is another word – Oh! – when things go wrong. If math is to be a creative subject then we have to regard it as a subject where it is ok to get things WRONG. If you have never made mistakes, you are never discovering anything new.
As Tomass Edison once said – I made a lot of mistakes. Later I patented most of them.




Mathematics is not about numbers, equations, computations, or algorithms: it is about understanding. - William Thurston
If you haven't seen yet then do join almost 10 million viewers of  Sir Ken Robīnson's talk
 Changing Education Paradigms. Another one of his talks is The World We Explore.

Some more interesting talks
Fun to Imagine: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQai9QikTBI

Are Mathematicians Creative? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1z1ct7Ru0GE

What Mathematicians Actually Do? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaUvPYPARf8

I Want to Be a Mathematician: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONvYPldXoZs

Andrey Cherkasov Math Jokes collection

Feynman and Computing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9miKIWIYi4w

Mysteries of Mathematical Universe - talk from World Science Festival

Mathmagic with Arthur Benjamin

Sangaku