This is an interesting indictment of our current system of mathematics education, a subject that I almost always enjoy reading about (I very nearly became a mathematics teacher myself not long ago). Lockhart makes his point clearly, eloquently, and succintly--this is a very quick read at only 140 pages of fairly large type.

I agree with much of what he says, though I do think that his claims sometimes go a bit too far: he doesn't seem to see much point in learning to add in an age of calculators, for example.

The main problem I had with this book is that, as far as I'm concerned, Lockhart doesn't offer up a viable alternative to the status quo. It's always easy to criticize, but it's a lot harder to come up with a better way of doing things. Lockhart does offer some ideas about how the ideal mathematics education should function: a mathematics teacher should be a practicing mathematician himself, and should be so engaged in the subject that he has no need for lesson plans or curricula, but can rely solely on his passion for mathematics. Teacher training should be abolished, since someone either is a good teacher or isn't, and nothing can change that. While this sounds nice in theory, it just doesn't seem feasible. I'm not convinced that all these perfect mathematics teachers will suddenly appear, and if they don't, we're left with nothing (which I suppose Lockhart would say is better than the current state of affairs). To me, this doesn't seem like a solution. After reading about how terrible the current system is, I'd like to have seen some real suggestions for how it could be reformed.

Still, this is a worthwhile read, and one that should generate a lot of interesting discussion; despite the fact that I wasn't entirely satisfied with it, I plan to encourage my family to read it so that I can see what they think. And there were parts of it that I loved, particularly the initial description of a musician's nightmare that provided a powerful insight into how ridiculous mathematics education can be. So, even with its shortcomings, this is a book that I would recommend. ( )

I teach statistics for decision-making to business students. Paul Lockhart's brilliant little book, "A Mathematcians's Lament", has had a profound effect on my whole approach to teaching. But the travesty of modern mathematics education is just the tip of the iceberg of Lockhart's indictment of intellectual modernity.

After more than a half-century of observation, this little book finally showed me why educated people tend to be liberals - and, more importantly, why liberals prefer to remember the thoughts of others instead of thinking for themselves.

It's as simple as this: Learning the thoughts of others - however wise and important these thoughts may be - is not the same as learning to think.

Goethe said: "That which thy fathers have bequeathed to thee, earn it anew if thou wouldst truly possess it." (Faust)

Bravo, Mr. Lockhart - schoolteacher and practicing mathematician. Thank you. ( )

Easy, fun, devastatingly on target in terms of the math curriculum. My only criticism: what to do next if you're a parent and want to know how to engage your child in the art of math? ( )

Paul Lockhart seems like he'd be an amazing math teacher. His book The A Mathematician's Lament shows him to be an incredibly motivated teacher of the subject. The book is a prolonged critique of contemporary mathematics education and as such, Lockhart lands a number of serious blows.

Math education, he argues, is currently designed to kill students' love of the subject. It is devoid of the aesthetic beauty that is the essence of math and is instead a pointless series tasks to be memorized. His goal is to elevate mathematical pursuits to the level of an art. Rid the topic of all its pseudo "usefulness" and teach as something to be appreciated on its own terms.

On the whole, I found the book convincing. One point that stuck out especially for me was his call to include the history of math in math courses. He'd also like to see the philosophy of the subject discussed so that students can see the passion that mathematicians have. Doing so would certainly have given someone like me more to work with rather than the memorization and pattern recognition that dominates so much of math education today.

Where he loses me is in his dismissal of all attempts to develop curriculum. He dismisses it and every attempt to do so as "bunk". Education schools are absurd. The only thing that matters to Lockhart is the individual teacher and his efforts to do what's best for students. One part of me wants to believe that this is in fact the case, but this seems misguided at best. This Randian view of the heroic individual standing up against all the world's fools sounds good (I guess), but does not conform to the reality I've encountered in my years of teaching and as an administrator.

Can teachers learn from others? I don't have a sense that Lockhart feels he's learned much from anyone but himself. How is a teacher to ensure that students have some consistent and meaningful expeience over the years? Are they to wander from master to master with no direction? Is there really no responsibility to give students some semblance of a coherent experience?

The heart of the problem seems, to me, at least, to be Lockhart's overweening self-confidence. From his text, Lockhart apparently has all the answers and those who don't agree with him are fools. So while I am sure he's a great teacher, I do wonder if his students come to possess what appears to be his elitist dismissal of "lesser intellects". That has nothing to do, I guess, with math, but it does have everything to do with character. ( )