a long-time peeve of mine is that people who frequently talk about the value of a 'well rounded (liberal arts) education' almost always have an implicit exclusion of math.
they think it's great to have some basic knowledge in a wide variety of subjects -- history, literature, music, etc. But when it comes to math, they'll just shrug and gleefully say "i'm not really a math person!"
I think this is from the traditional "Trivium" - grammar, logic, rhetoric - which was considered to be a well-rounded education (presumably for scions of wealthy families).
These constituted the "seven arts". But it was perfectly fine just to be educated in the trivia, if math wasn't your cup of tea.
See the "Yes Minister" clip where Sir Humphrey vehemently denies being so low-standard as to be educated in the sciences - he was good enough to study the classics.
"Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best, he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear his shoes, bathe, and not make messes in the house." -Robert Heinlein
I also found this strange since a Liberal Arts education should really have Logic - which was an integral part of Philosophy - the oldest of the liberal arts
What is the expected level of math for a well-rounded liberal arts education? I am okay at best at any type of advanced math. I'm also okay at best in most of the other advanced areas of my liberal arts education that I didn't major/minor in.
Pretty sure this is the stupidest thing I've ever read.
Edit: OP deleted it now, and I wish I saved it, but he originally posted a long spiel on how math is undemocratic because anyone can prove anyone else wrong.
they think it's great to have some basic knowledge in a wide variety of subjects -- history, literature, music, etc. But when it comes to math, they'll just shrug and gleefully say "i'm not really a math person!"