|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jens 'n' Frens
Idle thoughts of a relatively libertarian Republican in Cambridge, MA, and whomever he invites. Mostly political.
"A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures."
-- Daniel Webster
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, March 09, 2005 :::
I'm told tonight was Dan Rather's last go as an evening news anchor. Since I am not in the mood to make fun of mental illness — which is unusual for me — I'm going to keep my comments on the occasion oblique.
A week or two back, I read this piece by Harvey C. Mansfield providing thoughts on what should be in a core curriculum. I have had two main thoughts on the matter since then. One relates to mathematics. Mansfield is unsure how much math ought to be foisted on those not excited about the subject. He figures it ought to be enough to understand basic science, but fears this may be too much for some students to handle. My thought on the matter is that people need more probability and statistics. I don't expect them to be able to test the significance of a multi-variable regression three years after graduation, but people should have seen hypothesis testing, have some notion of what makes a normal distribution special, and understand the law of large numbers. They should understand conditional probability, even if they don't retain the ability to do calculations, well enough to understand, for example, that if one in a million people have a disease, and a test for this disease is 99% accurate, most people who test positive will not have the disease. Citizens should be expected to understand what a margin of error in a poll is, and that statistical errors in a reasonably-sized poll are less significant than problems with the sample selection or the way the questions are asked.
If I'm required to give up some math in order to get more probability, I am willing to say that trigonomotry is, for the mathematically disinclined, more pain than it's worth.
The second thought I've had — the one that relates to Dan Rather — is this: everyone should be required to attend a non-sporting event and then read or watch a reporter's account of it. Preferably several times. Very few reporters tell outright lies, but they all simplify and dramatize and focus on aspects of a story that other witnesses will consider unimportant. People should experience this for themselves, to learn what parts of a report to trust and what parts not to trust.Labels: media distortion
::: posted by Steven at 8:04 PM
|
|
|
|
