I was a math / physics major in college. Two useless subjects. ;-) But I still love both of them, and use them in my job. Any work site with enough people will hand all of the math related work to the "math person," and that person will be forgiven of other kinds of drudgery. It's a fair trade.
Still, that's survivor bias, and I'd be the first person to support reforming math education. I would divide K-12 math into 4 quadrants:
1. Arithmetic, which is the manipulation of symbols, up through algebra and calculus.
2. Computation, which is the use of computers to solve problems.
3. Dealing with data.
4. Theory, which includes things like sets, proofs, and so forth.
If any 1 of those 4 things makes math come alive for a larger number of students, it's preferable to focusing exclusively on arithmetic. (Theory is gone, my kids did virtually no proofs in school, and never learned about sets).
Note that I didn't mention statistics. Memorizing statistical formulas made sense when computation was expensive, but I think learning about data by playing with random numbers would make a lot more sense, would reinforce computation, and lead to students being able to try things on their own. To this day, despite taking a year of statistics and doing a PhD in physics, I still don't trust myself with statistical formulas unless I check if they make sense by throwing random data sets through them.
Still, that's survivor bias, and I'd be the first person to support reforming math education. I would divide K-12 math into 4 quadrants:
1. Arithmetic, which is the manipulation of symbols, up through algebra and calculus.
2. Computation, which is the use of computers to solve problems.
3. Dealing with data.
4. Theory, which includes things like sets, proofs, and so forth.
If any 1 of those 4 things makes math come alive for a larger number of students, it's preferable to focusing exclusively on arithmetic. (Theory is gone, my kids did virtually no proofs in school, and never learned about sets).
Note that I didn't mention statistics. Memorizing statistical formulas made sense when computation was expensive, but I think learning about data by playing with random numbers would make a lot more sense, would reinforce computation, and lead to students being able to try things on their own. To this day, despite taking a year of statistics and doing a PhD in physics, I still don't trust myself with statistical formulas unless I check if they make sense by throwing random data sets through them.