The Most Dangerous Game

I was so thrilled the other day when I found a movie called The Most Dangerous Game on the Prelinger Archives. I was thrilled because it was based on a short story that had captivated me many years ago when I had first read it. You could say that it was love at first read. I think that I had read it for the first time in eigth grade. In any case, I was thrilled, watched it eagerly and with great anticipation, and I think that it was a very good movie. In this piece I am going to lay out my feelings about the short story, the movie of the same name, and lay out a few comparisons and contrasts between the two.



It is difficult now for me to recall what it was about the short story that first caused me to fall in love. I do not recall if it was the obvious erudition of Richard Connell, or the attempt that General Zaroff undertakes to seduce Rainsford into hunting while wrapping himself in a cloak of being civilized and refined, or if it was simply a kind of desire to fall for the logical conclusion that hunting only made sense as a sport if one had an animal which could reason. While it is true that I am not a hunter, and not one to believe in killing animals except for food,much less condone murder, I am able to understand that a sport should be something that is challenging, that causes one to utilize every skill and virtue that they posess in order to be successful. A sport, like any human endeavor that is worth doing should push one beyond the limits of one's abilities, it must cause one to utilize every single morself of determination, it must take you to the furthest part of despair and beyond the limits of perseverance; then and only then is it worth telling the story of one's success. Like Zaroff, I cannot help but understand that if I were a hunter, I would have no challenge in taking any animal. I would even go so far as to say that I would, like Zaroff, utilize the most simple implements to increase the sport so to speak. I can see myself constructing wooden spears, a stone knife, a blowgun, and other such highly primitive short range weapons to interact directly with the prey. Even then however I know that there would be no fairness in the contest. My patience, my knowledge of anatomy, my perseverance, in short everything that makes me human would give me too much advantage over any prey. It is for this reason that I find myself agreeing with General Zaroff's conclusion of the need of an animal that  can "reason" in order for hunting to be interesting. Feeling these kinds of thoughts within oneself is at once chilling and unsettling, but at the same time an incredible byproduct of reading such an incredible short story. It is impossible for any thinking person not to understand and agree that General Zaroff has a point with his argument to Rainsford.



These thoughts, these chilling and terrible thoughts which are inspired by this story are also kind of allowed to exist in this island world that Zaroff inhabits. Zaroff lives in an island where there are no laws but his own, no morality but his own, no restrictions on his activity, and no protection for anyone who might come onto those lonely dangerous shores. While reading the story, we are permitted to inhabit this world without imperiling ourselves, we are able to look upon the terrible plight into which Rainsford is placed and are absorbed into this rich world with a cultured literate character attempting to seduce us with the idea that hunting humans is not only reasonable, but right and something naturally to be done. Richard Connell has created a world where an idea can be taken to its logical conclusion without it being rejected outright by our minds. In other words, one cannot imagine this kind of activity  happening in the world that we inhabit in our daily lives without there being resistance from authorities and vigilantes. But on an otherwise uninhabited island, anything goes. Psychologically we can distance ourselves from the grisly dark reality of what we are reading and agreeing to internally, we can imagine that our thoughts too are restricted to that fictional island that Zaroff has. We can choose to imagine ourselves as Zaroff or as Rainsford, or as both depending on the situation.



That being said, both the short story and movie do not indicate any training given to those individuals who Zaroff hunts. In other words, those people who Zaroff hunts come as they are from whatever background and become the unwitting victims in his game - one of the words which so aptly has two meanings here that coincide beautifully. What one could imagine is that if Zaroff were fully to follow his desires for a perfect prey, it is not sufficient that it be a person who can reason,  it must be a person who is also a hunter. Only a hunter can present the challenge, knowing the strategies of a hunter, and thereby attempt with great cunning to foil such techniques. In some sense Richard Connell got to the heart of the matter by going straight to this scenario by having Zaroff face off with Rainsford - an accomplished hunter who wrote books on hunting. However, I think intellectually speaking that had Zaroff instituted a training system for those shipwrecked individuals to train them in the techniques of hunting, evasion, and the psychology of hunting, he would have created a game that would truly be worth playing - provided that one shared his desires and interests in the hunt.



Probably the biggest proof of Zaroff's love of hunting - hunting - comes coincidentally in my favorite part of the story. It is the part of the story when on the first night Richard Connell tells masterfully how carefully Zaroff treaded along.

"Something was coming through the bush, coming  slowly, carefully, coming by the same winding way Rainsford had come. ...It was General Zaroff. He made his way along with his eyes fixed in utmost concentration on the ground before him. ... The general's eyes had left the ground and were traveling inch by inch up the tree." 

Richard Connell conveys to us that in spite of all the "intricate loops" and the fact that he had doubled on his trail repeatedly, Rainsford had still not managed to hide himself against Zaroff's tracking ability. Connell tells us that Rainsford even thought, "Even so zealous a hunter as General Zaroff could not trace him there..." It is at this moment, after Rainsford realized that General Zaroff had tracked him so thouroughly and well, that Rainsford realized that, "The General was saving him for another day's sport!" It is in this moment that we can  truly see how thouroughly Zaroff savors the hunt, how much he loves it.



This dramatic device of saving Rainsford for another day's sport is absent from the movie version and is one of the main differences. In the movie version, Rainsford is only given till sunrise to evade Zaroff, as opposed to three days in the short story. Another difference is the fact that in the short story Rainsford is only trying to save his own life, but in the movie he is trying to save his own life and that of a female character named Eve. The restriction to one night in the movie version does not detract from the Director and Acting communicating the rush and thrill Zaroff is experiencing at the chase, and the care that Rainsford applies at evading Zaroff. The movie allows for us to feel how Zaroff is closing in on Rainsford. The movie allows for us to feel how Zaroff is right on the tail of Rainsford, of how agressive Zaroff is in finding Rainsford. I guess what I am trying to say is that the movie gives us a feeling of the rushing that Zaroff is doing, like the feeling that he is hot on the trail that Rainsford is leaving, and there is so much at stake. In the case of the movie, he stakes are increased because of the addition of the woman who Rainsford must try to protect from this Zaroff, our cool calculating madman.



The inclusion of the woman of course is interesting on multiple levels. On the one hand, there is undoubtedly the suggestion of a relationship based on power in the sense that Rainsford, and only Rainsford, can help Eve because he is a hunter just like Zaroff. We can further  see that Eve obviously brings sexual tension and attraction to the story, perhaps also to give a more romantic motivation to Rainsford than just saving his own life as in the short story. Furthermore, the movie also gives us an alternate motive which increases the stakes viz a viz Eve: Zaroff has told Rainsford that "Only after the blood has been quickened by the kill is a man capable of enjoying the full ecstacy of love. ... Once one has known that, one has known ecstacy." It is clear that there is no question of whether or not Eve has any decision or say so with regards to the outcome if Rainsford fails, and regarding her Zaroff has even said, "one does not kill a female animal." One imagines without doubt that Zaroff intends  to rape Eve should Rainsford fail. The only way, in my opinion, that this detracts from the short story Zaroff is that we are led to believe that Zaroff could be a rapist. I know that it might be silly, but I just think that the short story Zaroff does not hint that he could have a taste for rape, and indeed we must keep him true to his own statements in the story. However, the movie Zaroff, without explicitly saying that he will rape Eve should he succeed in hunting  Rainsford, leaves little doubt in my mind that he will do so. It is hard for me to imagine him, civilized and cultured as he portrays himself to be, and which he tries to make us believe as well, trying to win over Eve's heart, especially considering that he has just killed her brother. He sees humans as just an animal like any other, and hence it suggests to me that he will just simply mate with her as if he were a tiger mating with a female tiger. Rape does not exist to someone who believes that humans are like any other animal, rape only exists for humans, only humans communicate their feelings and desires with regard to mating choices explicitly. Or perhaps this only adds to the thrill of victory for the movie Zaroff, the idea of taking advantage of this "female animal" who he even describes positively as "even such a one as this..." discussing Eve to Rainsford. Additionally we have to remember that he has already killed Eve's brother, and that Eve is helpless to stop Zaroff without Rainsford. Or at least Eve is portrayed as a woman who is weak, who although smart is inadequately prepared to put up a resistance to Zaroff. I want to state emphatically here that I believe women exist who could defeat Zaroff, but I am stating my belief that Eve is portrayed in the way she is to add tension to the story. If Rainsford fails, he loses his own life, but also condemns Eve to Zaroff's pleasures.



The differences in the weaponry between the movie Zaroff and the short story Zaroff are not that significant. The Tartar War Bow used by the movie Zaroff, and the small caliber pistol "of the shortest range" used by the short story Zaroff are both weapons that are meant to limit their effectiveness. This is of course meant for us to get a real sense of Zaroff's taste for having to get close to his target. This leads to a question which I have always wanted to know the answer to: What is so special about hunting? Why do people hunt? Obviously I know that some people must hunt to survive, and I know that my ancestors once upon a time had to hunt, but in a day like today, what about it makes it appealing? Today, people go with a high powered rifle, and can shoot a deer from a very great distance, a feat which I think is too easy to be interesting. On the other hand, a passage from the short story, demonstrating Zaroff's tracking abilities, shows to me that this must be part of the thrill and challenge of the hunt.



Zaroff is also an example of a refined killer. Refined killers as fictional characters have always captured my attention. In real life, they are truly the most chilling and frightening criminals. By refined, I mean that they are intelligent, educated, articulate, and except for that flaw are otherwise fascinating people. That is what makes them so interesting. For example, people are interested in Hannibal Lecter from Silence of the Lambs because of the mystique around his intellect, because of his ability to use his psychological powers to aid law enforcement in solving ongoing crimes, and in spite of his incredible intellect he is capable of committing horrible murders and cannabalism. Like the short story and movie Zaroff, Hannibal knows about wine, Hannibal  knows about food, and is in all ways but one civilized. Unlike the movie Zaroff, we can see in Hannibal Lecter a criminal who will commit horrible murders and cannibalism, but not the rape of a woman. In Hannibal, we see Lecter treat Agent Starling very respectfully and very tenderly. We even witness Hannibal Lecter cut off his own hand when he is cornered by the FBI, and after which Starling has handcuffed herself to him, he could have cut off her hand so easily, but it is this consideration for her that elevates him in my view. I certainly confess that in a broader sense I am fascinated by brilliant antagonists, I think that they make fiction interesting and allow us to ask troubling questions in a way that is safe, in a manner that does not have real immediate consequences.

Who are you Following?

Just last night while talking with a friend of mine who we will name S(S is one of my friends who is a Superstar), I noticed that S said, "My classmates are only writing about three or four sentences for their response." I did not notice anything out of the ordinary immediately. Nothing about that conversation immediately caught my attention until the next morning upon waking.  I woke up and made a startling realization: it occurred to me that my friend S was comparing herself to others. Now while there is nothing inherently wrong with comparing oneself to others, I  do want to point out that students who only write three or four sentences might not be adequate models. This led me to call S early the next day to ask her a few questions and to share with her the insight that I had gained:

Me: Hi "S"! (Spoken enthusiastically in a manner all my friends are familiar with.) I am sorry for calling you so early but I needed to let you know something very important about our conversation last night.

S: What is it? Was it something related to the assignment that I submitted? 

Me: No, no.... ( a brief pause and silence). No, it is much more important and had to do with something you said. 

S: What did I say? 

Me: You said.... ( pause), you said, "My classmates were only writing three or four sentences each..." 

S: Yeah, well I just wanted to write a response .... 

Me: (Interrupting S slightly.) I know S, I know, but that is not what I wanted to  point out.... What I wanted to point out was that you were comparing yourself to others. You were comparing yourself to people who might not have the same goals, dreams, aspirations, motivations, and things to move forward to as you do. 

S: Oh....(spoken in a manner that communicated understanding)

See, S is one of the people who I know who is successful, aggressive, driven, exciting to be around, fun, and just all around awesome: in short, she is a Star. But at this moment I realized that she had casually and without thinking about it compared herself to other people. I realized that this is a habit we have to be conscious of, we have to make a decision to choose to realize when we are comparing ourselves to others and ask ourselves if they are the people who we want to compare ourselves against.

This led me to some insights that I would like to not only share with S, but also with my readers her on my blog.  I have thought of three questions that we all can benefit from asking ourselves.

"Who am I comparing myself to?"  

"Why am I comparing myself to them?" 

"Who are my models?" 

"Who or what am I aspiring to be?" 

One of the first things that I realized is that if you are not aspiring high enough, you are going to limit your own potential. If you are comparing yourself to someone who is unsuccessful, your comparison is not going to give you any useful information on how to be successful. If your goal is to be a better archer, for example, are you going to imitate an archer who is poor or a championship archer? If you want  to become rich, are you going to imitate, listen to, or give credence to one who is poor, or are you going to seek out the stories of those who became rich and ask: "How did you/they become rich?" In other words, if you want effect A, you need to seek out those people who have manifested effect A, and find out how they did it, and then you just do as they did. 

Furthermore, while we are aspiring to something, we might as well aspire to greatness. We only have one life to live and for the most part have every skill necessary to achieve the dreams that we want out of life. We only need to be willing to do those activities that will cause those dreams to be realized. Oftentimes, however, we allow people who are not on a similar path as us to lead us astray from those goals, dreams, and desires that we want. So thinking further, I realized that we need to ask ourselves the following question: 

"What could I improve about myself right now could have the biggest positive impact on my life?" 

The answer to this question allows for us to identify  activity that will get us closer to our goal, whatever that goal is. We must pursue that activity fully and with passion so that we may realize the positive benefits that this improvement will cause. 

This very directed act of consciously looking at one's weaknesses with the goal of improving oneself is one that has been followed throughout history. Newton, one of the most brilliant persons to ever walk this planet is often quoted as having said: 

If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. 

It strikes me as stating what I am hinting at strongly in this piece. If you want to do something, then you probably want to do it well. At that point, why not imitate those who are the very very best. Why not imitate the masters? Furthermore, if Newton stood on the shoulders of giants, why should we feel too cool to do the same? Another example of an individual engaging in this kind of activity, of seeking out those who have achieved success and then trying to find out the root cause, is Napoleon Hill. Napoleon Hill wrote a book Think and Grow Rich By Hill, Napoleon (Google Affiliate Ad) in which he lays down the  principles of success that he learned by interviewing many people who were the absolute pinnacles of success in his day. People like Andrew Carnegie who was undoubtedly one of the richest men ever were among those he interviewed. This book went on to become a classic because it provides one with a road map for thinking the way that those successful people thought, and in so doing allow oneself to prepare oneself psychologically for success. 

Therefore, if I am going to compare myself to someone, I want to compare myself with someone which it will benefit me to compare myself to. I want to imitate those people who are having success, whatever success means to me. For me, I want to learn how to acquire those habits that lead to  the goals and dreams that I have in my mind.  In so acquiring those habits, I will be able to get the results that I want. As stated once in a Disney commercial I became very fond of: 

Great minds think for themselves. 

I want to think for myself. I want to be that person who is able to see without the lenses of interpretation and preconceived notions obstructing the view. I want to look at my own internal model of who it is that I want to be, of who it is that I was born to be, of what my innermost dreams are, and it is to that ideal, it is to that Form which I want to compare my external self. I want to see the living breathing people who have achieved those aspects and I want to take them on as my personal role models.  I refuse to allow anyone else's activities to capture my attention, unless that attention that I invest in them will allow me to get closer to my goals and dreams, my inner vision! In short, rather than be a mirror for those around me, I should be a mirror for my inner vision, my inner model of myself, the ideal Form that captures all my aspirations, dreams, desires, and hopes.

In conclusion, I am so grateful for the conversation that S and I had that allowed me to realize the need to consciously be aware of the desire to compare myself with others. This allowed me to remember and appreciate that I have to compare my goals and desires with those who are around me before I attach value to the  comparisons that might be made between us. I need to realize that this way I can focus only on those comparisons that lead to my improvement, and treat all other comparisons as insignificant.

A Refutation of an Article claiming Algebra training Unecessary

I have been reading  article after article arguing against algebra and for algebra over the past month or so. I felt compelled to dispute the original New York Times piece until someone did it rather competently the next day. But then yesterday I read this piece on the Washington Post that I would not accept as an argument from any person. It is poorly thought out, poorly supported, and just in general reflects a poor grasp of careful logical reasoning. While I agree with some of the author's points, I seek to refute each and every argument which he points out discredit algebra's position in the curriculum.

"Why this religious zeal over algebra? It helps students learn how to think, people claim. Really? Are mathematicians the best thinkers you know? I know plenty of them who can’t handle their own lives very well." 

First of all, this is an ad hominem attack on those mathematicians who are referred to by the author. But more importantly, the claim that mathematicians are good thinkers implies that they would handle their lives well is a logical fallacy. This is an example of "hasty generalization". There are so many possible missing assumptions. For example, one possible underlying assumption is that if a person can think well, then they will always act in such a way as to "handle their lives well" - whatever that means.  I mean this is analogous to the idea that all investors are rational and will act in ways that are rational; a claim that is hotly disputed by behavioral finance. Additionally, the author apparently fails to realize that mathematicians are human beings, and human beings are not perfect. This is also an example of an emotional fallacy called flattery. When the author says: "Are mathematicians the best thinkers you know?" he is really asking people who for the most part might not be mathematically inclined to agree with him. He is flattering them.

"Reasoning mathematically is a nice skill but one that is not relevant to most of life. We reason about many things: parenting, marriage, careers, finances, business, politics. Do we learn how to reason about these things by learning algebra? The idea is absurd."

It is hard to understand how the author can simultaneously claim to understand how to reason mathematically and at the same time be able to say that it is not relevant to most of life. Let me clarify, in order to be able to make this claim as an objective fact that we would be able to take seriously, then we would have to be convinced beyond doubt that the author is capable of reasoning mathematically with as much fluency as anybody: including mathematicians. Then, and only then, would we then be able to agree that such a person would be capable of analysing "parenting, marriage, careers, finances, business, politics" from both a mathematical point of view as well as from a non-mathematical point of view. Only after making such a comparison would such a person then be able to tell us that the mathematical perspective did not assist them in making sharper decisions. However, the author is not a mathematician and is therefore probably not one of the persons who is capable of making such a statement credibly.

On the other hand, mathematical reasoning is certainly central to business and finance today, and I can think of no business professional today who would dispute this. Whether that business person posesses mathematical fluency or not. Insurance, for example, is probably the most mundane application of mathematics that there is. There are people called actuaries who design mathematical models which permit each and every one of us to protect ourselves from risk. Questions that arise in business can  overwhelmingly be attacked better in a mathematical way, otherwise companies would not be willing to pay these individuals as much as they are paid. Inventory planning, investment management, risk management, portfolio management, budgeting, and many aspects of business are best dealt with using the tools that mathematics provides. Politics can also benefit from such tools. For example, statistical analysis(which falls under the umbrella of mathematical reasoning by the way) can be used to identify those geographic areas that are the best candidates for advertisement by a politician to convert them one way or the other. The statisticians will have already determined those geographic areas that are winnable and those that are unwinnable. By targeting in this manner, the politician will be able to make their dollars work harder, thus allowing for a smaller budget to lead to a stronger campaign against an opponent who might not be willing to use such a strategy. The same kind of technique could be used in any marketing of course. How many of which kind of crop to be planted on a field of a certain size and given certain other constraints in order to generate the greatest profit or to minimize costs can best be solved with mathematical reasoning than without(such a problem is a typical textbook example of linear programming by the way).

The other two situations marriage and parenting might not have problems that are amenable to mathematical reasoning, but that does not disqualify any of the value that mathematical reasoning has brought to this world. Every convenience that we have today was concieved by a human, and some of those ideas have been aided by a liberal application of mathematical reasoning.

"Yet, we hear argument after argument about the need for more STEM education (pretending we don’t have lots of unemployed science PhDs). Everyone must study chemistry, memorize plant phylla and do lots of trigonometry."

This can be refuted in many ways. At the most basic level, the same argument that the author is making could be used about the necessity of high school. In other words, if people who have high school diplomas are unemployed, then we do not need high school. On the other hand, in any fruitful endeavor that people are going to do in life, it is difficult to know ahead of time what their ultimate achievements are going to be. No one knows whether a PhD student is going to simply become a PhD or is going to become someone who is going to utilize their knowledge for some incredible feat. PhD committees cannot know this ahead of time, and it is for this reason that they pick the most promising candidates for their PhD program. They want to make sure that they maximize the potential positive effect that their program will provide to the planet. Some of those PhDs go out and make things happen, and some don't. That's just reality and it does not discredit any of the arguments in support of STEM.

"The argument for algebra rests on the transfer from math to other areas of life, something that has never been proven despite the claims of people such as University of Virginia cognitive scientist Daniel Willingham."

Who cares if the intellectual benefits of algebra do or do not transfer to other areas of life? Algebra has fascinated human beings for thousands of years. Common algebra problems as well as a rudimentary form of the quadratic formula has been found on Babylonian cuneiform tablets that were used essentially as textbooks  for students of that time. Algebra has been taught therefore for far longer than just a few centuries. Algebra is also intrinsically beautiful, with its own way of assigning meaning to the world around us, and as a problem solving language that has proven so useful to humanity. Algebra and mathematics generally, like other highly developed human pursuits including Art and Literature and Music, are what make us human and separate us from all other living things on this planet. I think that I can speak for most of humanity when I say that Algebra, and math generally, is something that we are very proud of having.

--------------

On the other hand, one of the most important points that the author does make, a point that I fully agree with and support with every fiber of my being is "to begin teaching people to reason well enough to make sensible political and life choices." We need people to learn how to think clearly, to ask probing questions, to think critically, and we need them to be able to communicate those thoughts in a clear systematic fashion so as to engender dialogue with their neighbors for the advancement of whatever cause that humans collaborate on(preferably a good activity). For example, people need to understand what it is that they want politicians to do and have the capacity to research the relevant facts of the competing politicians in order to pick the politician that will best serve their own needs and desires. People need to be able to evaluate their own lives and their own goals fully so as to determine how to go from where they are to where they want to be.

With regard to algebra my personal feeling is that it is absolutely necessary to teach high school students algebra. I agree when the author talks about having people pursue their own interests, but I disagree with regard to timing. High school is meant to provide a general foundation for future academic studies. Therefore it must prepare future artists and engineers equally well. How many of us can honestly say that we knew when we were freshmen in high school -when most students take algebra - that we knew what we were going to be when we grew up, or even what we would study in college. Danica McKellar, author of Math Doesn't Suck and other mathematics books, even talks about how her love of mathematics came late. Therefore, I think that young people who probably are unsure of what they are going to become deserve the best foundation possible for whatever choice that they are going to make. Therefore, algebra is absolutely a necessity. And for those who are talented, Calculus as well. I think that this will help those students who are going to become engineers and scientists start off with a solid mathematical foundation. For those who are not talented, tough.  The reality is that like the PhD committee above, none of the administrators or any of us can predict what the future of individual students will be: therefore we have to prepare them as strongly as possible with the basic general foundation necessary for success in any endeavor. Since I think we can agree that high school students, do not know where they are headed academically, we must  choose a curriculum that provides the foundation for any endeavor, in particular engineering, math, and science.

The author also claims that "the average person never does abstract reasoning." That is perfectly ok, not everyone has to engage in abstract reasoning. However, I can personally say that abstract reasoning is second nature for me now after studying mathematics for a long time, and it has enriched my life. Abstract reasoning allows one to extrapolate and allows for something that occurred once to take on meaning that can have applications to other situations. I think that the ability to make connections among different things is an  important skill. To see how two seemingly different things or situations are fundamentally the same is something that has value. It allows an individual to make stronger, more richly argued arguments. It also makes life more interesting. Abstract reasoning also has very strong applications to the real world, most computer programming requires that you understand what the program is going to do in individual cases and write it in the abstract so that it can handle case after case after case but get written only once. It takes abstract reasoning to understand that different symptoms of an ailment can be caused by a single cause.

A huge point that I also want to bring up is that Algebra has intrinsic value and could quite justifiably be taught for its own sake irrespective of its applicability or any other argument that may be put forward in its support. Algebra is part of our heritage as human beings and is a tapestry that has been handed down for millenia, tracing its roots back to Babylon and taking turn after winding turn throughout history through to the present. It has been used to solve practical problems throughout history, but has also flourished theoretically often without any question in that development as to whether those theoretical advances would have applications also. As we have come into the twentieth century, those theoretical advances have found utility in computer science and cryptography but emerged from purely theoretical considerations. Algebra, I am arguing, can be taught just for its own sake just like art and literature. It is simply one of the most beautiful creations that man has created.

Deviating slightly, I also believe it deserves mention that would the author's ideas as laid out in this short article be taken seriously, then they could as easily apply to literature, history courses, and chemistry courses, and most other subject matter courses. He says:

"It isn’t just mathematics that is the problem, of course. Why do we all learn to balance chemical equations or memorize homilies about U.S. history? Because back in 1892, the president of Harvard University designed curriculum and said that those subjects should be the basis for high school classes."

In other words, if we take the author's quotation to its logical conclusion, we would be creating a high school curriculum that would be devoid of chemistry which would hurt potential chemists and medical doctors, devoid of history and letters which would impact our future politicians and the character developing stories that are discussed, devoid of biology, etc. Would literature courses also be stricken? Art courses? Is education only about cognitive abilities and not about passing on our culture? Again, as adults, we have to be the ones that are going ultimately to decide the curriculum that our children are going to be educated by. If it were up to me, I would recommend a curriculum that is going to prepare our children for any endeavor that they are going to ultimately end up choosing. Additionally, each of these courses when properly taught fosters the critical thinking skills that each of us needs as adults to make sound decisions and live well.

In conclusion, I firmly agree with the author that we have to have a curriculum that engenders critical thinking skills and that grows cognitive abilities in every single student, but I believe that a good high school curriculum has to lay a solid foundation for every student regardless of their future academic endeavors. We have also seen that algebra, and more generally mathematical reasoning, is very important to the development of so many of the things we take for granted. We have also discussed the fact that Algebra needs no excuse to be taught other than that it is part of our human heritage. In short, Algebra should definitely be taught in high school as part of the curriculum.