The History of Liberal Arts Mathematics

THE HISTORY OF LIBERAL ARTS MATHEMATICS
by
Michael George
Dissertation Committee:
Professor J. Phillip Smith, Sponsor

Professor Alexander Karp
Approved by the Committee on

the Degree of Doctor in Education
Date_______ nrT 1 5 2007_________
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education in
Teachers College, Colombia University
2007
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 3288599
Copyright 2007 by
George, Michael
All rights reserved.
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI
UMI Microform 3288599
Copyright 2008 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company

300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
ABSTRACT
THE HISTORY OF LIBERAL ARTS MATHEMATICS
Michael George
The purpose of this study is to trace the history of liberal arts mathematics
in the United States up until the end of the 20th Century, exploring the origins of
the course, describing its character throughout its evolution, and examining the
factors that caused it to evolve.
Liberal arts mathematics is defined as the content of a college
mathematics course seeking to provide an overview of mathematics to students
not bound for mathematics, science, and technology majors. The course
developed in the early 20th Century as an alternative to the traditional college
mathematics requirement, which consisted of college algebra, trigonometry,
analytic geometry, and calculus. Due to a broadening in the undergraduate
population and simultaneous challenges to the theory of mental discipline, the
traditional freshman mathematics course was no longer deemed appropriate for all
students. Beginning in the 1930's, a series of textbooks were published designed
around the objective of providing students with an introduction to general
mathematical concepts.
Some books emphasized logic’s central role in mathematics. Other books
emphasized the role of mathematics in civilization. Most books offered a survey
of different mathematical topics. This study concludes that liberal arts
mathematics represents an ongoing problem of providing the general college
student with a meaningful mathematical understanding, and that this
understanding may be framed according to “pure” and “applied” mathematics.
Copyright Michael George 2007
All Rights Reserved
A ck n o w led g em en ts
I would like to gratefully acknowledge the assistance, support, inspiration, and
kindness of my sponsor, J. Philip Smith. I would also like to thank Bruce Vogeli, for his
continued guidance in both my academic and professional life. Finally, I would like to
thank my parents, without whose support, financial and otherwise, I could never have
attained this distinction.
ii
Table o f Contents
Chapter One: Need and Background 1
Purpose of the Study 3
Procedures 4
Plan of this Report 6
Chapter Two: Sources 7
Chapter Three: Early Decades and Calls for Change 14
Stabilization and Standardization 16
The Unification of Mathematics 18
Origins of Liberal Arts Mathematics 20
Industrialization and Social Efficiency 21
General Mathematics 23
Mental Discipline 30
Mental Discipline and Mathematics Education 32
Discontent with the Tradition 36
Summary 40
Chapter Four: A New Course Develops 42
Early Textbooks 52
Whitehead’s Text (1911) 53
Logsdon’s Text (1935) 55
Dresden ’s Text (1936) 56
Hogben’s Text (1937) 58
Cooley/Gans/Kline/Walhert Text (1937) 59
Kasner/Newman Text (1940) 63
Underwood/Sparks Text (1940) 64
Richardson’s Text (1941) 65
Harkin’s Text (1941) 67
Northrop’s Text (1945-49) 68
Newsom’s Text (1946) 69
Surveys 70
General Mathematics 75
A Universal Course 80
“Real” Mathematics 84
The Human Element 85
Summary 88
Chapter Five; Liberal Arts Mathematics in the

Modem Era and Beyond 91
“New Math” 91
The Rise o f Modem Mathematics 98
The Textbooks 102
The Waning of Modem Mathematics 104
The New Liberal Arts Mathematics 112
Finite Mathematics 113
A Broad, Eclectic Vision 118
iv
The New Content 122
Computer Mathematics 122
Mathematics and Aesthetics 123
History of Mathematics 127
Voting/Apportionment 128
Quantitative Reasoning/Literacy 129
Summary 134
Chapter Six: Summary and Recommendations 136
Conclusions 139
Recommendations 143
References 146
Textbooks (Liberal Arts Mathematics) 146
Textbooks (Finite Mathematics) 154
Textbooks (Other) 155
Books and Dissertations (General) 156
Journal Articles 159
Reports 165
Appendix A: Quantitative Analysis of Textbooks 161
Discussion 174
Summary 176
.v
List o f Tables and Figures
Total Percentage of Topics 177
Topics over 2% 178
Topics under 2% 179
Traditional Topics (calculus, trigonometry, analytic geometry

Algebra, functions) 180
Sets o f Numbers 181
Numeration Systems/Number Theory 182
Probability and Statistics 183
Logic and Set Theory 184
Modem Mathematics (Abstract) 185
Algebra, Functions, and Analytic Geometry 186
Modem Mathematics (Foundations) 187
Financial and Consumer Mathematics 188
Science and Modeling 189
Computer Mathematics 190
Calculus 191
Trigonometry 192
Algebra, Functions, and Analytic Geometry 193
vi
1
Chapter One: Need and Background
Looking into the history of the mathematics curriculum will increase
understanding of the present nature and values of the curriculum (Coxford and Jones,
1970). However, rarely is a historical method employed to address the problems faced by
higher education (Butts, 1971).
One problem faced by higher education today is the mathematical education of
students not bound for mathematics, science, and technology-related careers. One facet
of that problem is the question of what mathematics should be taught to such students.
Throughout the course o f the 20th Century, mathematics educators have offered opinions
on the desirable qualities of such a course, and have presented models for the content of
such a course, in the mathematics education literature and in textbooks (Allendoerfer,
1947,1965; Dresden, 1934;Georges, 1940; Griffin, 1930; Hedrick, 1917; Jackson, 1928;
Kline, 1954, 1958,1962; Montague, 1941; Northrop, 1945; Ore, 1944; Richardson, 1945;
Wren, 1952). A contemporary term for this course is the “liberal arts mathematics
course.” In the development o f liberal arts mathematics can be seen an effort to define
the fundamental meaning and significance of mathematics for the general student.
Liberal arts mathematics has a long history in American education, is an
important course, and should continue to be taught (Smith, 1984). However, while
histories o f mathematics curricula have been published on the subjects of “New Math”
(Hayden, 1981; Grady Nee, 1990; Walmsley, 2003), word problems (Gerofsky, 1999),
algebra (McNair, 1992; Werth, 1987), calculus (Ganter, 2001), and graphing (Izzo,
1957), a history of liberal arts mathematics has yet to be created.
In order to do so, the nature of “liberal arts mathematics” must be established.
The term, “liberal arts mathematics” has been cited in the mathematics education
literature (Steger and Willging, 1976; Smith, 1984). It has also been used as the title of
two textbooks (Spector, 1970; Newmark, 1992). The phrase, “mathematics for liberal
arts” has been used in the title of a number of textbooks (Kline, 1967; Richman, Walker,
and Wisner, 1967; Olive, 1973; Billstein and Lott, 1986; Miller, Heeren, and Hornsby,
1999). None of the above-mentioned textbook authors explicitly define “liberal arts
mathematics” or “mathematics for liberal arts” in their prefaces. Spector (1970), the
author o f the first book titled, “Liberal Arts Mathematics,” describes his course as one
“intended to be both mathematical and capable o f being understood.” Karl Smith, in his
1984 article, “Liberal Arts Mathematics - Cornerstone or Dinosaur,” writes that “liberal
arts [mathematics] courses were developed to survey the underlying ideas of
mathematics, and apply them to a wide variety of mathematical settings, such as algebra,
geometry, probability, statistics, and logic” (Smith, 1984, p. 162).
With respect to content, the textbooks cited above reveal significant commonality.
All of the above books are intended for college students not majoring in mathematics,
science, and technology. None of the above books requires a prerequisite above basic
algebra. None of the above books’ content is limited to, or designed around, content
associated with developing the skills necessary to do calculus.
More generally, all o f the texts cited seek to provide some kind of “overview” of
mathematics to students not bound for mathematics, science, and technology-related
majors and careers. For the purposes of this study, “liberal arts mathematics” will be
defined as “the content o f a college mathematics course seeking to provide an overview
of mathematics to students not bound for mathematics, science, and technology majors.”
Note that this definition, in its employment o f the term “overview,” closely resembles
Karl Smith’s description of a “survey.”
Before the phrase “liberal arts mathematics” was in common use, mathematics
courses satisfying the above-described criteria were taught and discussed, and textbooks
for such courses were published. The terms describing such courses include “general
mathematics” (Brown, 1942), “orientation course” (Logsdon, 1937), “survey course”
(Cooley et al, 1937), “cultural course” (Brown, 1942), and “terminal course” (Wilson,
1960).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to investigate the origins and development of liberal
arts mathematics. In particular, the following questions will be addressed:
1. What was the content of required college mathematics in the first decades of
the twentieth century?
2. What were the chief factors leading to a change in the form of the college
mathematics requirement?
3. How was this new course envisioned?
4. What was the content of the first liberal arts mathematics textbooks?
5. What were the challenges and obstacles to implementing the new course?
6. What was the content of the liberal arts mathematics course during the era of
“new math”?
7. What has been the content of liberal arts mathematics since 1967?
Procedures
Some of the materials with which to answer the above questions were obtained
directly from New York City libraries including the Columbia University libraries, the
New York University libraries, and the Borough o f Manhattan Community College
library, and some were be obtained via interlibrary loan through the Columbia University
library system.
The materials assumed three primary forms:
1. Textbooks. Liberal arts mathematics textbooks were identified through the
“published books” listing of the American Mathematical Monthly (listed under “general
books,”), and selected according to the criteria, used in this study, for a “liberal arts
mathematics” course: “the content o f a college mathematics course seeking to provide an
overview of mathematics to students not bound for mathematics, science, and technology
majors.”
5
2. Journal Articles and Committee Reports'. Journal articles were found directly
in periodicals such as The American Mathematical Monthly, through citation in other
articles and academic scholarship, and through databases such as ERIC and Education
Full Text. Committee reports were found in journal articles and in libraries.
3. Book-length Academic Works: Book-length academic works, including
dissertations, were found through library databases, primarily those available to
Columbia University, including Digital Dissertations, CLIO, and WorldCat.
The chapter headings and body of liberal arts mathematics textbooks were used to
trace the development of liberal arts mathematics content. The prefaces of liberal arts
mathematics textbooks and journal articles were used to trace educators’ evolving
conceptions o f liberal arts mathematics and its place in the undergraduate mathematics
curriculum. Journal articles and book-length academic works were used to trace the
development of the undergraduate curriculum in conception and policy. As this study is
a history, it adopted a narrative expository format and a chronological structure.
Developments in liberal arts mathematics content, as well as developments in the
discussion of liberal arts mathematics in the literature, were described, analyzed, and
interpreted throughout the narrative.
Quantitative Analysis: Given the number of liberal arts mathematics textbooks
selected for this study, a quantitative analysis was required to assess and clarify the
development of liberal arts mathematics content. The method chosen here, used in a
similar form by McNair (1992), involves establishing general categories and
subcategories o f mathematics content and assigning, for each textbook and each category,
a value representing the approximate percentage of the textbook addressing that category
of content. A more detailed explanation of this method is given in Appendix A.
Plan of this Report
Chapter 2 addresses previous studies. Chapter 3 addresses the origins of the
liberal arts mathematics course. Chapter 4 addresses the early development of the course,
from the first textbooks in the nineteen-thirties up until the mid-nineteen-fifties. Chapter
5 addresses the later development of the course, from the era of “new math” to the end of
the Twentieth Century. Chapter 6 presents a summary, conclusions, and
recommendations. Appendix A presents the results of the quantitative analysis.
7
Chapter Two: Sources
This study relies upon three categories of sources: book-length academic works,
journal articles and committee reports, and textbooks.
Kenneth Brown’s General Mathematics in American Colleges (1942) offers a
valuable snapshot of freshmen mathematics curricula in the U.S. circa 1941. The
purposes o f Brown’s study were:
1. To trace the historical development of college general mathematics in the
United States.
2. To show the present status of general mathematics in American colleges.
3. To discover and point out certain trends in the development o f college general
mathematics.
Brown subdivides “general mathematics” into three categories: “preparatory,”
“cultural/preparatory,” and “cultural.” The “preparatory” material primarily encompasses
college algebra and trigonometry, while the “cultural” material is that which endeavors to
develop “meaningful understanding and appreciation o f the mathematical concepts and
principles that have influenced the growth of civilization.”
Brown’s study was preceded by The General Mathematics Course in Higher
Education, a Master’s thesis published by Frank Anderson in 1938. Like Brown,
Anderson endeavored to conceptualize and survey “general mathematics” at the college
level, but Anderson’s study is considerably shorter and of less clearly-defined scope.
Anderson divided his “general mathematics” course into eight categories, only one of
which would qualify as “liberal arts.” As Anderson’s work suggests, the term “general
mathematics” was used in the early 20th century to describe a number of different
courses.
Howard Wahlert’s Introductory Mathematics in Arts Colleges (1952), an Ed.D.
doctoral dissertation, examined undergraduate mathematics from the colonial period to
the time of his writing. Wahlert’s “elementary mathematics course” ranges from
arithmetic-based mathematics in the Colonial period through the many incarnations
freshman mathematics assumed in the early 20th century. Walhert’s study is notable for
placing the development o f college mathematics curricula in a broad historical context.
Marion Elmo Clark’s A Critical Analysis o f the Objectives and Content o f
Mathematics fo r Liberal Education at the College Level (1962), a doctoral dissertation
for the University of Virginia, endeavored to examine the liberal arts mathematics from
the standpoint of “liberal education.” Clark established a definition of what constitutes
liberal education (“knowledge,” “intellectual abilities and skills,” “a sense of values”)
and used this definition as a framework with which to explore what sort of mathematical
education furthers a liberal education, which Clark subdivided into “understandings” and
“abilities and skills.” Clark then analyzed ten textbooks, published from 1953 - 1962,
according to his established criteria. Clark concludes that a course for nonspecialists
should be offered, and should be designed around the criteria he has developed for
mathematics for a liberal education. Clark’s study is notable for the rigor with which he
analyzed the objectives o f liberal arts mathematics.
Karl Smith’s “Liberal Arts Mathematics - Cornerstone or Dinosaur?” (1985)
reports a recent drop in enrollment of liberal arts mathematics at two-year-colleges, and
ascribes this decline to the increased emphasis, in late 1970s community colleges, on
skill-based mathematics education. Smith argues for a reorganization o f the liberal arts
mathematics curriculum, in which the “great ideas” aspects of the course are made to
accommodate applicable mathematics skills and rigor, and presents a sample syllabus for
such a course. Smith’s article, found in New Directions in Two-Year College
Mathematics (1985), is valuable for offering an rare insider’s perspective (Smith is the
author of The Nature o f Modern Mathematics, a liberal arts textbook) on the social
context of the course in the late 1970s.
Florian Cajori’s The Teaching and History o f Mathematics in the United States
(1890) offers a detailed exploration of early American mathematics education. For an
overview of early-to-mid 20th Century developments in American mathematics
education, the NCTM’s A History o f Mathematics Education in the United States and
Canada (1970) stands as a useful resource.
Kliebard’s The Struggle fo r the American Curriculum (1987) provides an
excellent overview of the American school curriculum in the 19th and 20th century. Butts’
The College Charts its Course (1939) explores American undergraduate education
through the early 20th century. It should be noted that very little discussion pertaining
specifically to mathematics education is found in these two books.
Judd’s Psychology o f Secondary Education (1927), Kolesnik’s Mental Discipline
in Modem Education (1958), and Thorndike’s The Psychology o f Algebra (1923) present
th
early 20 Century applications of psychology to education. These works are relevant to
10
early 20th Century mathematics education in that the theoretical rationale for mathematics
education has been in some part psychology-based, in particular with respect to the
theory of mental discipline.
Robert Hayden’s A History o f the “New Math "Movement in the United States
(1981), Richard Werth’s Changes in the Content and Teaching o f Basic Algebra, 1950-
1985 (1987), Mary Margaret Grady Nee’s The Development o f Secondary Mathematics
Education in the United States, 1950-1965: Origins o f Policies in Historical Perspective
(1990), and Angela Lynn Evans Walmsley’s A History o f the “New Mathematics"
Movement and its Relationship with Current Mathematical Reform (2003) provide
varying perspectives on the history of the “New Math” movement in the United States.
Hayden’s dissertation is notable for its emphasis on the development of modem
mathematics, which he argues to be a significant factor in the development of “New
Math.”
Readings in the History o f Mathematics Education (1970), edited by Bidwell and
Classon for the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, surveys source material for
mathematics education history in the U.S., including selective reprints of important
committee reports in mathematics education, including excerpts of the Journal o f
Proceedings and Addresses o f the Thirty-Eighth Annual Meeting o f the National
Educational Association (1899), The Problem o f Mathematics in Secondary Education
(1923), The Place o f Mathematics in Secondary Education (1940), and Mathematics in
General Education (1940).
In 1911, the International Commission on the Teaching of Mathematics produced
a series of reports on the state o f mathematics education. These reports, including
Mathematics in the Technological Schools o f Collegiate Grade in the United States,
Mathematics in the Public and Private Secondary Schools in the United States, and
Undergraduate Work in Mathematics in Colleges o f Liberal Arts and Universities, offer
detailed insight into governmental efforts to reform mathematics education in the early
20th century.
The American Mathematical Monthly provides a great wealth of articles and
committee reports pertaining to college mathematics education. In its pages,
mathematics educators have offered a variety of opinion and commentary on the evolving
liberal arts mathematics course (referred, variously, to “general mathematics,” a “cultural
course,” the “freshman course,” a “terminal course,” a “course for non-specialists,” etc.).
These include G.A. Miller’s “Mathematical Troubles of the Freshman” (1913), E.R.
Hedrick’s “The Significance of Mathematics” (1917), F. L. Griffin’s “An Experiment in
Correlating Freshman Mathematics” (1915) and “The Undergraduate Mathematical
Curriculum of the Liberal Arts College” (1930), J. W. Young’s “The Organization of
College Courses in Mathematics for Freshman” (1923), Dunham Jackson’s “The Human
Significance of Mathematics” (1928), Arnold Dresden’s “A Program for Mathematics”
(1934), R.J. Hannelly’s “Mathematics in the Junior College” (1939), J. S. George’s
“Integrated vs. Traditional Mathematics” (1941), W. L. Schaaf s “Required Mathematics
in a Liberal Arts College” (1937), Harriet Montague’s “A Course on the Significance of
Mathematics” (1941), Oyestien Ore’s “Mathematics for Students of the Humanities”
(1944), E. P. Northrop’s “Mathematics in a Liberal Education” (1945) and “Mathematics
Program at the University of Chicago” (1948), C. B. Allendoerfer’s “Mathematics for
Liberal Arts Students” (1947) and “The Narrow Mathematician” (1962), E. A. Cameron’s
12
“Some Observations on Undergraduate Mathematics in American Colleges and
Universities” (1953), Morris Kline’s “Freshman Mathematics as an Integral Part of
Western Culture” (1954), D. M. Merriell’s “Second Thoughts on Modernizing the
Curriculum” (1960), Marshall Stone’s “The Revolution in Mathematics” (1961), Edward
Cogan’s “The Handmaiden Comes of Age” (1963), and James Zant’s “Effect of New
Mathematics Program in the Schools on College Mathematics Courses” (1963).
Several committee reports pertaining to the evolving college mathematics
curriculum can also be found in the pages of the Monthly, include “The Report of the
Committee on Assigned Collateral Reading in Mathematics” (1928), “Mathematics
Instruction for Purposes of General Education,” a report o f the Special Committee of the
American Association for the Advancement o f Science (1941), “Report of the Committee
on the Undergraduate Mathematical Program” (1955), and “A Report of the Special
Committee on College Mathematics for Non-Science Students, a subcommittee of the
California Committee for the Study of Education” (1956).
The American Mathematical Monthly also published reviews of textbooks, many
of which pertain to the evolving liberal arts mathematics course.
Mathematics Teacher published significant amount of commentary on the
evolving mathematics curriculum, including William Hart’s “The Need for a
Reorientation of Secondary Mathematics from the College Viewpoint” (1935), C. V.
Newsom’s “A Course in College Mathematics for a Program of General Education”
(1949), Kenneth Brown’s “What is General Mathematics?” (1946) and “The Content of a
Course in General Mathematics—Teacher’s Opinions” (1950), Houston Karnes’s “Junior
College Mathematics in View of the President’s Report” (1950), James Zant’s “Critical
Thinking as an Aim in Mathematics Courses for General Education” (1952), John
Abemethy’s “General Education Values and the Attempt of a Faculty to Teach Them”
(1953), William Betz’s “Five Decades of Mathematical Reform - Evaluation and
Challenge” (1953), W. I. Layton’s “Mathematics in General Education” (1957), H.C.
Trimble’s “Mathematics in General Education” (1957), Morris Kline’s “The Ancient vs.
the Modems: the Battle Over the Books” (1958), C. B. Allendoerfer’s “The Second
Revolution in Mathematics” (1965), Taylor and Wade’s “On the Meaning of Structure in
Mathematics” (1965), and Edward Begle’s “SMSG: The First Decade” (1968).
14
Chapter Three: Early Decades and Calls for Change
The nineteenth century witnessed dramatic transformation in the college
mathematics curriculum. In 1800, Harvard College had no mathematical entrance
requirement whatsoever; freshman mathematics principally involved the study of
arithmetic (Wahlert, 1952). Florian Cajori (1890), in his detailed study of pre-20th
Century mathematics education, found no hard evidence of algebra in the Harvard
mathematics curriculum before 1786, though he concludes that it had probably been
taught, in some degree, for at least fifty years. In 1802, Harvard College established its
first mathematics entrance requirement: incoming freshmen would have to know
arithmetic to the “Rule of Three” - the method of finding the fourth term of a
mathematical proportion (Cajori, 1890). At this time mathematics was confined to, and
represented a significant part of, the opening two years of Harvard study (Cajori, 1890).
Weber’s Mathematics, the predominant college mathematics textbook in the early years
of the 19th Century, may afford some sense of the Harvard math curriculum during these
years: arithmetic, logarithms, algebra, geometry, plane trigonometry, mensuration of
surfaces, mensuration of solids, spherical geometry, and spherical trigonometry.
While Weber’s textbook was used by many colleges, Harvard’s approach to
mathematics education in the early years of the 19th Century was by no means standard.
At Dartmouth College, mathematics were studied for the first three years, and this
15
curriculum consisted of a significant amount of Euclid. At Bowdoin College,
mathematics were studied all four years (Cajori, 1890).
As the secondary school system developed throughout the 19th century, arithmetic
became gradually phased out o f the college freshman curriculum. Algebra became an
increasingly standard component of the freshman academic experience, generally
followed, in subsequent years, by some geometry, trigonometry, and or analytic
geometry. At Princeton, by 1890, algebra was confined to the freshman year,
trigonometry the sophomore year, analytic geometry the junior year, and calculus the
senior year. At Dartmouth, algebra was required during the freshman year, analytic
geometry, spherical trigonometry, surveying, and descriptive geometry during the
sophomore year. As the century progressed, some part of algebra began to join
arithmetic as an entrance requirement. By 1887, all of Loomis’s Algebra, “up through
logarithms,” was required for entrance to Yale College (Cajori, 1890, p. 158).
Nearing the end of the century, one observes a shrinking of the required
mathematics curriculum. This trend may be attributed to the increasing pervasiveness of
the elective system, popularized at Harvard under Charles Eliot. At Harvard, all subject
requirements for seniors were abolished in 1872. All mathematics course requirements at
Harvard were abolished by 1897. At most colleges and universities, elective freedom
was not so extreme - it was at this time that distribution requirements were developed as
a means o f providing flexibility to the classical curriculum - but the 3 or 4-year required
program of mathematics was soon a thing of the past (Cajori, 1890;Wahlert,1952). By
the end of the century, the required mathematics curriculum was becoming increasingly
standardized as a ffeshman-year course.
16
Stabilization and Standardization
Near the end o f the nineteenth century, an organized effort commenced in
American education to examine, discuss, and create some uniformity in the school
curriculum. The first of these efforts, the 1892 Committee of Ten, created a
subcommittee called the Conference on Mathematics, whose recommendations included
a concurrent study of algebra and geometry (though not necessarily unified) in the 10th
and 11th grades (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1970; Walhert, 1952).
The Committee of Ten was followed by the National Education Association’s Committee
on College Entrance Requirements, in 1895, which cooperated with several regional
accrediting agencies in developing its recommendations for the appropriate secondary
school mathematical sequence. This sequence was as follows:
Ninth and tenth grades - Algebra and plane geometry
Eleventh grade - Solid geometry and plane trigonometry
Twelfth grade - Advanced algebra and mathematical reviews
Perhaps most profoundly, the Committee, led by J.A. Young, asserted that “in the
secondary school the standard course in mathematics should be sufficient to admit to
college; that this course should be required for all pupils, and that the instruction in this
course should be the same for all pupils” (Report of the Chicago Section o f the American
Mathematical Society, 1899).
17
In 1900, the Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools of the Middle States
and Maryland established the College Entrance Examination Board (CEEB), which
strove to bring uniformity to college entrance requirements, basing their
recommendations on those o f the National Education Association.
As these recommendations were gradually adopted, and the mathematical
background of college bound students became increasingly uniform, so did the required
college mathematics curriculum. While the 1911 Commission on Mathematics in
Colleges and Universities found that out of 76 undergraduate institutions, it was difficult
to find any “norm” for the college mathematics requirement, only two schools had no
mathematics requirement at all, and most of the rest required some mix of advanced
algebra, solid geometry, and plane trigonometry. “As a requirement in college, plane
analytic geometry takes precedence over spherical trigonometry, while either is more
commonly prescribed than calculus. These three subjects form a combination standing as
a distant second to the group, advanced algebra, solid geometry, and plane trigonometry,
in the frequency of its use as a college requirement. Another combination . . . is made up
of surveying, mechanics, and solid analytic geometry. There is no general recognition
whatever o f any other mathematical subjects as suitable ones fo r a requirement in
undergraduate study’'' (International Commission on the Teaching of Mathematics,
1911). These topics were generally covered in 3 to 6 hours of coursework - essentially a
“freshman” course.
18
The Unification of Mathematics
One of the recommendations of the Committee of Ten’s mathematical
subcommittee was that the mathematics topics in secondary schools be “integrated”
rather than “compartmentalized.” (NCTM, 1970). The idea that school mathematics be
in some way unified gained further notice after E. H. Moore’s 1902 speech, “On the
Foundations o f Mathematics” to the American Mathematical Society, in which Moore
decried the way mathematics had been divided into separate compartments and asked
“would it not be possible to organize the algebra, astronomy, and physics of the
secondary school into a thoroughly coherent four year’s course[?]” (Moore, 1903). The
idea of better correlating the sciences, and specifically, the various subtopics of the
secondary mathematics curriculum can be traced back to Klein in Germany, Perry in
Britain, and Coar and Seerly in the U.S. (NCTM, 1970). In 1899, The Committee for
College Entrance Requirements had advocated “that the more the subjects can be
interwoven, the better” (A Report of the Chicago Section of the American Mathematical
Society, 1899). Part of the significance of Moore’s argument was that the unifying
concept in secondary school mathematics was the function, instead of the equation
(NCTM, 1970).
Griffin, in his 1915 AMM article, “Experiment in Correlating Freshman
Mathematics,” describes a plan for blending algebra, trigonometry, and calculus together
in a unified two-year course. One of the chief rationales for this experiment is providing
a student with some understanding o f differentiation and integration that can be applied
to the student’s work in physics.
19
J.W. Young (1923) wrote in the Monthly that the movement toward unified
mathematics courses at the college freshman level reached a significant stage of
development with Slichter’s Elementary Mathematical Analysis. Slichter’s book was
particularly significant, wrote Young, for giving a unified course for the “entire freshman
year, based on the minimum of college entrance requirements.” Young conducted a
survey of 98 universities, finding that 59 of them had given some form of a unified
course to freshman over the last ten years. Young’s survey also revealed that the trend
toward the adoption of the “new” type of unified course had been gradual and mostly
consistent over the last five years.
However, Young points out that for those who believe in the new type of course,
the battle is far from won. “. . . the problem of constructing the ideal freshman course is
far from solved - and the solution presents many serious difficulties. It is still to my
mind an open question whether these difficulties can be overcome.”
The table of contents o f the Slichter text is presented below:
I. Variables and Functions of Variables.

II. Rectangular Coordinates and the Straight Line
III. The Power Function.
IV. The Circle and the Circular Functions
V. The Ellipse and Hyperbola.
VI. Single and Simultaneous Equations.
VII. Permutations, Combinations; the Binomial Theorem.
VIII. Progressions.
IX. The Logarithmic and Exponential Functions.
X. Trigonometric Equations and the Solution of Triangles.
XI. Simple Harmonic Motion and Waves
XII. Complex Numbers
XIII. Loci.
XIV. The Conic Sections.
(Slichter, 1918)
20
In the preface, Slichter (1918) writes that the purpose of the book is to give “the
fundamental truths of elementary analysis as much prominence as seems possible in a
working course for freshman.” Slichter adds that the emphasis of the book is on
functionality.
A decade later, Freshman Mathematics, by D.E. Smith and George Mullins
(1927) might be considered representative of the unified mathematics textbooks. The
table of contents is given below:
I. Elementary Algebra Applied.

II. The Binomial Theorem and Series.
III. Logarithms.
IV. Trigonometry.
V. Analytic Geometry.
VI. The Calculus
VII. Numerical Equations.
VIII. Practical Mensuration.
Aspects o f the “unified” college mathematics course persist in the college
mathematics curriculum to this day, in the form o f intermediate algebra and precalculus.
Origins of Liberal Arts Mathematics
The origins o f liberal arts mathematics were many, and were complexly
intertwined, but they may be understood in terms of two concurrently developing
processes. The theoretical origins of liberal arts mathematics can be found in the
experimental psychology of Thorndike and others, which led to the re-thinking of mental
discipline as a rationale for the mathematics curriculum. The social origins of liberal arts
mathematics may be found in the demographic changes in the secondary school
21
population beginning around the turn of the century, which led to the educational
philosophies of social efficiency and general education and to the consequent rethinking
of students’ mathematical needs. The latter process will be examined first.
Industrialization and Social Efficiency
In 1900, only 11.4 percent of the appropriate age group were enrolled in
secondary schools. By 1934 that figure had grown to 64 percent (Progressive Education
Association, 1940). The PEA wrote, “the student body now includes a far wider range of
academic ability and o f types o f interest, talents, and life goals than ever before”
(Progressive Education Association, 1940, p7).
The high school population was growing faster than the pool of qualified
mathematics teachers, affecting the overall quality of mathematics instruction at
secondary schools (NCTM, 1970). The broadening of the student base and the decline of
instruction resulted in a lower overall percentage of students attaining previous college-
entrance standards o f mathematical proficiency. Brown and Osbourn found that the ratio
o f students enrolled in algebra to the number graduating from high school decreased from
48.8 percent to 35.2 percent from 1915 to 1934 (NCTM, 1970). The pattern for
enrollment in plane geometry was similar. The decline in the mathematical preparedness
was noted in the International Commission’s report of 1910: “The men’s colleges and
universities maintain in general that the preparation in mathematics shown by their
freshman is very unsatisfactory. While an occasional individual professor feels that it is
‘fair” and that ‘it has improved within the last 10 years,’ the great consensus is to the
22
effect that the students are ‘lamentably weak’ in algebra, and are ‘in general poorly
prepared to do college work in mathematics’’’(International Commission on the Teaching
of Mathematics, The American Report, 1911, p i4-15). This concern was echoed by G.A.
Miller (1913) in the American Mathematical Monthly: “The fact that there is generally a
great gap between high-school mathematics and that of the freshman courses in our
colleges and universities accounts for a considerable part of the troubles of the first year
students in the higher institutions of learning” (Miller, 1913, p.235).
In the early decades of the twentieth century, then, college mathematics
departments were straining to fulfill their role of imparting the traditional freshman
curriculum. This strain was an important backdrop to what happened at higher levels of
policy.
Another impact of the changing demographics was an increased emphasis on the
“practical” in education, manifested, in part, in the rise of the vocational curriculum. The
so-called Social Efficiency movement in education reflected both the rapid
industrialization of America and the increasingly scientific perspective of educational
theorists. Their view was that the curriculum was too weighted toward the development
of the intellect. More important was the development of skills, not only those of the
workplace, but those pertaining to life activities in general. The purpose of school was to
give children the tools they needed to function as efficiently as possible in their adult
lives, as well as in the way that maintained the greatest stability of the social order. The
defining document of the social efficiency movement was the Cardinal Principles Report
of 1918, which listed seven fundamental aims of the school curriculum (Cardinal
Principles of Secondary Education. A report of the Commission on the Reorganization of
23
Secondary Education, 1918). With the possible exception of one, all of these aims
focused on areas o f “life activity”(Kliebard, 1995). As the NCTM (1970) notes, one
effect of this perspective on the mathematics curriculum was an emphasis on utility.
In 1908, the chair of the International Commission’s subcommittee on the failures
of secondary mathematics wrote:
In the first place, modem industrialism, with its demand for tangible success,
has led to a great outcry for more practical school work. There is an
increasing contempt for “mere theory.” . . . Mathematics, as usually taught,
furnishes a welcome target to the utilitarian educator. As a result there is a
growing fear that we may drift too far from the ideal of liberal culture and
that the direct bread-winning power o f a subject may be made the sole
criterion for its usefulness.
Our large cities . . . are becoming great centers of population. Naturally the
struggle for existence is becoming keener. Many parents are now sending
their children to the high school to fit them, in the briefest possible time, for a
more comfortable life than they themselves enjoy. This has made the high
school population more diversified than ever before, and the demands
imposed upon the schools have become more numerous from year to year
(International Commission on the Teaching o f Mathematics, The American
Report, 1911, reprinted in Bidwell and Classon, p.350).
Thus for many educators of a utilitarian perspective, the traditional algebra-based
curriculum persisted on questionable grounds. Algebra, whatever its virtues, did not
appear to be a “tool” for the majority of citizens. Thorndike (1923), in The Psychology o f
Algebra, conceded that algebra was, as a contemporary “tool,” of use chiefly in the
sciences.
General Mathematics
In 1923, J. W. Young, addressing the weaknesses of incoming college students,
suggested that the problem lay in the freshman curriculum. “At the present time,” he
24
wrote, “it is the traditional selection o f material itself that is challenged. The problem
with unification is no longer the primary problem—it is a secondary problem forced on
us by a new standard for the selection of content” (Young, 1923, p.9).
“Most teachers,” he continued, “who have given serious thought to the needs of
[the] general student, are I believe convinced that the traditional courses in trigonometry,
college algebra, and analytic geometry can no longer be justified as best meeting their
needs” (Young, 1923, p.9).
Young’s concern for the “general” student here is significant to mathematics
education reform in the 1920s and 1930s. It should be noted, before this theme is
discussed, that the phrase “general mathematics” is given by some mathematics educators
to denote a college course and a others a high school course. For some, “general
mathematics” is an idea that transcends mathematics at any particular level. The inherent
vagueness of the adjective “general” makes “general mathematics” a murky subject.
What were the needs of the general student? In the NEA’s 1920 report, The
Problem o f Mathematics in Secondary Education, four categories ofpresumably
secondary-level mathematics students, with four different needs, were established. The
first category consists o f the “general readers, whose needs lie largely in the ‘interpretive’
function o f mathematics.” This group is followed by the students destined for trades
requiring “practical” mathematics, future engineers, and future mathematics specialists.
Anderson (1938), author of The General Mathematics Course in Higher
Education, wrote that the most frequently cited objectives for “general” mathematics
courses were as follows:
1. Facility in the use o f arithmetic
25
2. An introduction to algebra, trigonometry, statistics, analytic geometry, and
calculus adequate for common needs
3. Control and understanding of simple important parts of “intuitive”
mathematics
4. Training in the use of mathematics as a tool, e.g. logarithms, slide rule, tables,
formulas
5. Orientation and integration of the several fields of mathematics
6. More adequate preparation for the mathematical needs of other subjects
7. Greater interest and enjoyment in mathematics
Anderson went on to assert, “any course given by a college or university should
contribute to the general aims of that institution, and the general mathematics course is no
exception.” The aims for which the general mathematics course were considered to have
a direct impact were “knowledge of subject matter,” “a liberal education,” “education of
teachers,” “professional and pretechnical training,” “attention to individual differences in
the interests, aptitudes, and abilities of students,” “cultural development of prospective
teachers,” “training for life needs,” “conserving the accomplishments of mankind,”
“coordination and synthesis or integration o f major fields of knowledge and experience,”
and “training for wise use o f lecture.”
“General mathematics” was used to describe a number of different things. For
some educators, “general mathematics” was a term describing the unified or “integrated”
approach to the traditional curriculum. For others it described an applied arithmetic
course taught in junior high. The term was also used to describe college courses that
26
would be categorized, by the definition of this study, as precursors to the liberal arts
mathematics course.
“General mathematics” can also be seen in the context of the “general education”
movement, one that itself assumed a number of different forms. On one hand, “general
education” was an effort to provide practical, utilitarian skills for the citizen. At the level
of the college and university, however, “general education” also described an effort to
provide students with a common educational experience - an experience based in part on
the “Great Tradition” o f Western civilization. As Carl Allendoerfer noted in 1947,
“general education” possessed as many definitions as it did advocates. To this, Donald
Lentz added, in 1954, “general mathematics has one thing in common with the typical
virus—if we could identify or define it, we could do something about it” (Lentz, 1954,
p.42).
Marion Elmo Clark, in his 1962 dissertation on mathematics for a liberal
education, discussed the relationship between “general” and “liberal” education. He cites
a report by the President’s Commission on Higher Education (1948), which stated that
“general education undertakes to redefine liberal education in terms of life’s problems as
men face them, to give it human orientation and social direction, to invest it with content
that is directly relevant to the demands of a democratic society” (President’s Commission
on Higher Education, 1948, p.49). According to Clark, the relationship between general
education and liberal education has been defined in a number o f ways. General education
has been seen as “being included in liberal education, overlapping liberal education, as
part of a continuum with no distinct dividing line between it and liberal education, or as
27
differing significantly from liberal education in purposes and content” (Clark, 1962,
p.35).
Another understanding o f “general education” is seen in Kenneth Brown’s 1943
book, General Mathematics in Colleges. Brown analyzed the relevant committee reports
of the era and concluded that general education had two fundamental objectives: to
“develop the potentialities o f a student for individual achievement,” and to “condition
him for successful citizenship.” This definition led to Brown including both the
traditional unified freshman textbook (called “Preparatory” in his study) and the cultural-
based liberal arts textbook (called “Cultural” in his study) under the category of “general
mathematics textbooks.”
The Progressive Education Association (1940) defined “general education” as that
which helps the individual meet his needs in ways that are consistent with and promote
social welfare. Specifically, “the purpose of general education is to provide rich and
significant experiences in the major aspects of living, so directed as to promote the fullest
possible realization of personal potentialities, and the most effective participation in a
democratic society” (Progressive Education Association, 1940, p.43). And how does the
mathematics teacher meet their students’ “living” needs? He makes his contribution
“whenever quantitative data and relationships or the facts and relationships of space and
form are encountered.” In discussing the importance of mathematics in contemporary
culture, the authors suggest that perhaps “every worth-while activity calls for advanced
training in mathematics either directly or indirectly” and go on to cite jurors, surgeons,
and ministers as occupations in which some form of advanced mathematical thinking is
in play (Progressive Education Association, 1940, p.45-46).
28
In the term “general mathematics,” one observes many of the educational themes
discussed above, but in a wide variety of contexts. In the 1939 Monthly, R.J. Hannelly
discussed “general mathematics” in the context o f recommendations for mathematics at
junior colleges. For Hannelly, general mathematics at the junior college applied to liberal
arts or “general curriculum” students who only intended to take one year of mathematics,
or students with a modest background in high school mathematics. General mathematics,
wrote Hannelly, was characterized by two notions:
1. When the psychological and logical organizations of subject matter are
different, emphasis is on the former;
2. General mathematics implies range of materials and is not confined to a single
well-knit entity of materials.
Hannelly went on to suggest possible topics for the general mathematics college
student. These topics included “the function concept, probability, mathematics in the
physical sciences, mathematics in the life sciences, mathematics in the social sciences,
mathematics in art, mathematics in philosophy, and the like” (Hannelly, 1939, p.584).
One notes a much smaller place assigned to the traditional algebra-based mathematics.
For Raleigh Schorling (1936), general mathematics was a course given in the 8th
or 9th year, “an introductory, basic, exploratory course in which the simple and significant
principles o f arithmetic, algebra, intuitive geometry, statistics, and numerical
trigonometry are taught so as to emphasize their natural and numerous interrelations”
(Schorling, 1936, p.52). In “Mathematics in General Education,” (published in 1923 in
School Science and Mathematics) Schorling wrote that the place of mathematics in
general education could be summarized in four aims:
29
1. Providing effective skills in computation.
2. Providing the appropriate mathematical vocabulary for the general reader.
3. Providing information that will give families the maximum security for a given
income.
4. Providing the mathematical needs of civic education.
Perhaps the most problematic aspect o f the term “general mathematics” is the way
in which it described mathematics taught in junior high school and also in college. Yet
Schorling (1936), in Teaching o f Mathematics, assays that these mathematics represented
a coherent trajectory, citing a passage in The Reorganization o f Mathematics in
Secondary Education (1923) that suggested that the reforms of college needs were
“foreshadowed by the needs of the high school pupil irrespective of his possible future
college attendance” (Schorling, 1923, p. 14).
While the objectives of “general mathematics” were broad, the discourse
surrounding this movement reflects an effort to rethink mathematics education from the
ground up. The traditional freshman curriculum of algebra, trigonometry, or analytic
geometry did not seem to have much utilitarian value for the average citizen, nor did they
seem to fulfill the lofty social goals, in any obvious way, of general education. How did
a knowledge of sines and cosines help one to participate in a democratic society? How
did the ability to graph hyperbolas help to give it “human orientation and social
direction,” to life’s problems?
To a defender of the traditional curriculum, the best available rebuttal to these
criticisms was the same one that had addressed the somewhat more softly directed
30
criticisms of the past - that an education in mathematical rigor helped “train” the mind.
However, this justification had been recently challenged.
Mental Discipline
Throughout the nineteenth century, “mental discipline” was for many educators
an important rationale for aspects of the American curriculum, particularly at the
secondary and college level. The pervasiveness of this perspective owed significantly to
the Yale Report o f 1828, which stated that “the two great points to be gained in
intellectual culture are, the discipline and the furniture of the mind; expanding its powers,
and storing it with knowledge. The former of these is, perhaps, the more important of the
two.” As Kolesnik (1958) points out in Mental Discipline in Modem Education, the
notion that education can and should “train the mind” can be traced back to antiquity.
Kolesnik suggests that the term “mental discipline” should be understood in
relation to two similar educational theories - formal discipline, which posits that learning
“hard” subjects like mathematics and Latin develops one’s raw mental “powers,” and
transfer o f training, which involves the transfer o f learned skills to different contexts.
Mental discipline can be understood to represent some grouping of these two theories, the
idea that the “mind - whatever that might be - can be improved through education and
that the school should focus its attention on this objective” (Kolesnik, 1958, p. 10).
Mental discipline theory has been associated, historically, with “faculty
psychology,” which is predicated on the notion that the human organism can be
understood in terms of its capacities or “powers.” John Locke was a principle figure in
31
the development of faculty psychology as it applied to American education, asserting that
a man’s reasoning powers could be developed through exercise. Mathematics, according
to Locke, was a useful subject in this endeavor (Kolesnik, 1958).
One of the first substantial attacks on mental discipline theory focused on its
faculty psychology foundations. Johann Herbart argued that faculties did not in fact
exist; what human beings had instead were “masses of ideas.” Since what did not exist
could not be trained, mental discipline was a misconceived approach to education.
Herbart’s attacks, while important in raising doubts about the theory, relied on pure
philosophical argument. Mental discipline eventually came under attack on empirical
grounds as well. In the early years of the twentieth century, Edward Thorndike
conducted a series of experiments investigating formal discipline, and found that
improvement in any particular mental function rarely improved other functions. Other
research quickly followed that seemed to disprove the theory of formal discipline. There
were some studies, however, that reported positive results, for example Coover and
Angell’s experiment suggesting that sense-discrimination could be transferred from one
sense to another (Kolesnik, 1958).
Reactions to the research diverged widely, ranging from total rejection of mental
discipline to unwavering allegiance. For those opposing mental discipline, progressives
such as Herbart and John Dewey offered alternative views of learning that emphasized
students’ individual differences. According to Herbart, a student’s interest in a subject
was much more instrumental in that student’s achieving valuable learning than the
subject’s perceived inherent value. John Dewey attacked the distinction between learning
for “practical” purposes and learning for purely “disciplinary” purposes as a false
32
dualism. For Dewey, a “discipline” applied to real-life situations and tasks, not abstract
abilities (Butts, 1939).
Many fell in between the progressive and conservative extremes, arguing that the
theory of mental discipline was not false so much as in need of adaptation and revision.
One important distinction that arose during this debate was the difference between formal
benefits resulting from the learning of a subject matter itself, and from the way in which
it is learned. The latter was considered by Michael Demiaschkevich to be valuable, while
not the former (Kolesnik, 1958).
Charles Judd defended mental discipline as a process of developing generalized
reasoning skills. Judd argued that generalized mental habits will have, in the long run,
more applicability than specific knowledge. Mental development consists of “equipping
the individual with the power to think abstractly and form general ideas,” not “training
the nervous system to perform with readiness certain habitual acts” (Judd, 1927, p.426).
Like Demiaschkevich, Judd suggests that the way the subject matter is treated by the
teacher is crucial in achieving these generalized reasoning skills. Good teaching uses
information to make “a whole network of suggestion by which the central truth connects
with the rest of the world” (Judd, 1908, p.42).
Mental Discipline and Mathematics Education
As the mathematics education community began to organize and standardize its
curriculum in the 1890s, mental discipline was the chief rationale for the teaching of
mathematics. In the 1892 Committee of Ten Report, the opening paragraph asserts that
certain esoteric topics should be eliminated for the ways in which they frustrate the
student “without affording any valuable mental discipline.” David Eugene Smith, in his
1904 book, The Teaching o f Elementary Mathematics, writes that to extract a polynomial
root, involves “mental power, with its attendant habit of concentration . . (Smith, 1904,
reprinted in Bidwell and Classon, p.216). However, the influence of the reforms in
educational psychology gradually began to be seen on the mathematics education
literature of the period. The International Commission on Mathematics Education
American Report on Secondary Schools, in its section entitled “aims,” cites “general
culture” and college preparation as the primary purposes of secondary education
mathematics, referring to mental discipline as “discredited” under the name “general
discipline.”(Intemational Commission on the Teaching o f Mathematics, The American
Report Committee No. X, 1911). The International Commission’s Subcommittee #9 on
the Failure of Undergraduate Mathematics goes as far to declare an outright rejection of
mental discipline: “The one-sided doctrine of mental discipline must go.” In the NEA’s
1920 report, The Problem o f Mathematics in Secondary Education, the authors state, “a
growing science of education has come to place appreciably different values upon certain
psychological factors involved, chief among which is that relating to ‘mental discipline.’
With the scientific scrutiny o f the conditions under which ‘transfer’ of training takes
place, the inquiry grows continually more insistent as to whether our mathematical
courses should continue unchanged, now that so much of their older justification has been
modified. Possibly both purpose and content need to be changed” (National Education
Association, 1920, p.373).
34
In 1913, E.R. Hedrick discussed the implications of the psychological research in
the American Mathematical Monthly. Hedrick conceded that the work of Thorndike and
others had raised serious questions about the purposes and significance of mathematics
education at the college level. Disciplinary training, he wrote, “has been and is one of the
strongest motives in the minds of many for the teaching of any course in mathematics. It
was certainly the basis for the older requirement of mathematics in the early colleges. In
so far as the modem theory o f education renders uncertain the possibility of disciplinary
training, it vitally affects every discussion of any mathematical topic” (Hedrick, 1913,
p.3). While he noted that there had been shown to be no fixed faculties of the mind, he
suggested that training received in reasoning can be transferred to topics that are similar.
Hedrick noted that while elementary school and secondary school teachers would
be unlikely to easily abandon the disciplinary rationale, college professors could be
expected to address the questions the research had raised. One result of the rethinking on
mental discipline, suggested Hedrick, was that the same amount of mental training would
likely result from “any number of different topics.” He asked: “Does this make possible
the selection of topics on grounds entirely different from mental discipline and, if the
topics to be taught are selected for other reasons, will the resulting training be just as
efficient?” (Hedrick, 1913, p.4). Hedrick seems to answer in the affirmative: “Without
discarding discipline as one of the desirable results of a mathematical training, a
knowledge of other motives for the study of any one topic will serve only to enhance its
value.”
And what, according to Hedrick, besides disciplinary training, would be a
desirable quality in a college mathematics course? It should be interesting. “The
35
qualification that a study of any topic, in order to be effective, must be intensive and
earnest will be insisted upon by a l l . . . . To arouse the student to his maximum effort, to
stimulate his greatest efficiency, to gain the fullest measure of disciplinary good, there
may be many plans of merit; but it is certain that all of them will have in common the
holding of the student’s attention, without which no effective study is thinkable”
(Hedrick, 1913, p.5).
The rejection of mental discipline as a rationale for mathematics education was
not outright. The 1923 Report of the National Committee of Mathematical Requirements
adopted the “transfer of training” terminology advocated by Thorndike, arguing that such
transfer depends on certain “favorable” conditions and is difficult to measure. “It may,
therefore, be said that, with proper restrictions, general mental discipline is a valid aim in
education” (National Committee of Mathematical Requirements, 1923, p.393). The
“disciplinary” aims of mathematics education are broken down into a series of
subcategories, including “analysis of a complex situation into simpler parts,” and “the
acquisition of mental habits and attitudes.”
For some in the mathematics community, mental discipline maintained an
intuitive appeal. Dunham Jackson wrote in the American Mathematical Monthly: “I am
not abashed to say that I believe that mathematical training has a great deal to do with
thinking straight” (Jackson, 1928, p.408).
“Let us not be frightened by the old bogey of non-transfer o f training,” wrote
Arnold Dresden. “If anything can have a positive effect on young people, the force of
example and the formation of habits certainly can” (Dresden, 1934, p.204).
William Hart (1935), in his article, The Need for a Reorientation o f Secondary
Mathematics from a College Viewpoint suggested that the educational psychology of
Thorndike and others had been harnessed as anti-mathematical propaganda.
Nevertheless, many mathematics educators conceded that the mental discipline
purposes o f mathematics education had been significantly undermined by experimental
psychology. A.C. Rosander wrote in The Mathematics Teacher that “nothing convincing
had yet been brought forth to show that the worthy qualities attributed to mathematics
training transfer to situations not involving similar situations. There is nothing to show
that those who have mastered mathematics approach the problems of life with any more
social intelligence and judgment than those at the same level of general intelligence who
have not been through the same courses” (Rosander, 1936, p.61).
Discontent with the Tradition
As the traditional curriculum, challenged on its disciplinary grounds, failed to find
a place in “general education,” it came under increasing attack by the mathematics
education community. As early as 1910, the mathematics subcommittee of the
International Commission wrote, “The making of expert mathematicians is avowedly
regarded as subordinate, in some of the colleges, to the development of mathematical
power as a means of culture. Complaint is offered in some quarters on the ground that
the average student who does not find mathematics an attractive subject obtains little
advantage o f any sort in the required study of it” (International Commission on the
Teaching of Mathematics, 1911, p. 18).
37
In a memo preceding The Reorganization o f Mathematics in Secondary
Education, a committee consisting of D.E. Smith, Julius Sachs, and Raleigh Schorling
(1923) wrote, “It is urged by many friendly critics that instead of giving students an all
around idea of what mathematics means and its general range of application, our present
secondary school courses are too abstract, often uninteresting, except to the
mathematically inclined, and not as valuable as they might be as an aid to college in
general. . (Schorling, 1923, p.55).
By 1928, criticism of the traditional curriculum had persisted for some time, as
suggested in a report of the Committee on Collateral Reading for the American
Mathematical Association: “It is generally recognized that there has been a strong
tendency to decry the traditional course of instruction in mathematics for freshman and
sophomores in American Colleges. The objections urged are fam iliar:. . . that the drill
designed on for the specialists is wasted on those who do not continue mathematical
study. . . that the same disciplinary training can be acquired in any other study, while the
added gain of lively interest and ready application makes other subjects more suitable
than mathematics . . (Report of the Committee on Assigned Collateral Reading in
Mathematics, 1928, p. 222).
By 1937, W. L. Schaaf was able to write in the American Mathematical Monthly,
“it is deplorable, for example, to contemplate the prevalence even today of traditional,
hidebound “trigonometry” and “college algebra,” organized in watertight compartments,
each a collection of completely unrelated “topics,” with excessive emphasis on
mechanical manipulative processes and petty details, and almost no indication whatever
38
of their possible relation to vital problems of physical science, technology, economics,
industry, business, and finance” (Schaaf, 1937, p.446).
In remarks such as this, one observes sympathy for the student’s experience, a
concern that was becoming increasingly prevalent in the literature. The Progressive
Education Association noted students’ antipathy toward the traditional curriculum: “The
teacher has been made increasingly aware of the inappropriateness of traditional courses
by the indifference o f many students to the subject, or their outspoken dislike for it”
(Progressive Education Association, 1940, p.9), Thorndike conducted a survey in 1922
that explored 12th year New York City students’ like or dislike of algebra. The composite
ranking by male students placed algebra 13th out of 22 subjects. However, for girls,
algebra ranked 25th out of 27 subjects, ahead only of plane geometry and Latin. This
survey was repeated in a city in the Central West with largely the same results
(Thorndike, 1923).
In 1941, J.S. Georges attributed the beleaguered position of mathematics in the
college curriculum to the traditional subject matter - college algebra, trigonometry, and
analytic geometry. “These courses may manifest the spirit of mathematics, but may not
singly interpret that spirit and make it shine forth in the brilliance that it deserves”
(Georges, 1941, p. 127). The traditional curriculum, Georges asserted, was not organized
for the non-specializing student, and that student knew it.
Carl Allendoerfer asserted that the traditional material was not only useless to
students, it was unlikely to be retained. “As to utility, I have serious doubts . . . the
remainder of the standard course with its quadratic formula, theory o f equations, solution
of triangles, and analysis of curves is promptly and joyously forgotten, often before the
39
course is over” (Allendoerfer, 1947, p.574). As for the “disciplinary” potential of
mathematics, if such a potential existed, the traditional curriculum was unlikely to
develop it, argued Allendoerfer, for whom the standard textbooks amounted to nothing
more than “cookbook” exercises, training the students in “a limited number o f routine
processes,” requiring the student to follow “Step One, Step Two, and Step Three.”
Under such circumstances, asked Schaaf, “are students to be blamed if they voice
distaste, disgust, or abhorrence for mathematics? I hardly think so” (Schaaf, 1937,
p.447).
Part of the problem may have been that some students were simply not “cut out”
for algebra-based rigor. Thorndike concluded that algebra was outside the intellectual
abilities of some students. For low-ability students, a different kind of mathematics
curriculum, at least at the college level, seemed more appropriate to some educators. “It
is generally recognized t hat . . . no glimpse o f the philosophy or history of the subject is
given to the students who can really assimilate only these features; that what is needed is
a survey of what mathematics aims to accomplish, and not manipulative speed or
problem-solving ingenuity” (Report of the Committee on Assigned Collateral Reading in
Mathematics, 1928, p222).
In 1944, Oystien Ore, writing for The American Mathematical Monthly, posited
that many college students genuinely wanted to learn some mathematics for its value to a
true liberal education, but were daunted by the expectations of the courses offered, and
hence avoided “difficulties and unhappiness by turning to other subjects” (Ore, 1944,
p455).
40
The 1923 Report had asserted that mathematics education had three aims:
utilitarian, disciplinary, and cultural. By the nineteen-thirties, traditional freshman
mathematics had been questioned on both utilitarian and disciplinary grounds. The third
aim - cultural - was beginning to seem, to many, the most promising avenue for a
rehabilitation and revitalization of college mathematics.
Summary
As the high school system developed in America, so did the mathematical
sophistication of college students. Arithmetic became gradually eliminated from the
college mathematics curriculum, while algebra, geometry, analytic geometry,
trigonometry, and calculus became the core. One of the most significant factors in
shaping the college mathematics curriculum, from the beginning of the 19th century until
the development of liberal arts mathematics in the nineteen-thirties, was the elective
principle. Before Charles Eliot’s reforms, colleges required from two to four years of
mathematics study. Once students were given more choice in their own course of study,
mathematics began to assume a more modest place in the curriculum. While most
institutions still required mathematics in some form, it became a one-year requirement for
those students pursuing a liberal arts course of study. In the early decades of the 20th
century, the freshman mathematics course became “unified,” as the core topics of
algebra, analytic geometry, and trigonometry were brought into the confines of a single
“freshman mathematics” textbook and pedagogically integrated.
41
During the first few decades of the 20th century two processes were set in motion
that would create the liberal arts mathematics course. These processes can be classified
as social and theoretical, and their direct effect was to discredit the traditional freshman
mathematics course.
The social processes involved, first, a rapid rise in the high school population,
which in increased the number of students entering colleges several-fold. This led to
large numbers o f incoming college students who were poorly prepared in mathematics
and whose destinies seemed to be driven by more “general” needs than those of college
students of the past, needs that were not met by the traditional freshman mathematics
curriculum.
The theoretical processes stemmed from Thorndike’s experiments at the turn of
the century and the consequent weakening of mental discipline as a rationale for
mathematics education. Mental discipline had been the fundamental rationale for a
freshman mathematics curriculum based on symbol manipulation and drill, one that was
deemed unpopular to most non-specialist students and which many mathematics
educators felt did not afford the typical college student an understanding o f the true
nature o f mathematics and its importance to civilization.
De-legitimized from two directions, the traditional algebra-based curriculum
came under attack by mathematics educators in journals such as the American
Mathematical Monthly as well as in committee reports.
42
Chapter Four: A New Course Develops
If the history of liberal arts mathematics can be seen as an prolonged effort to
solve a curricular problem, by the third decade o f the twentieth century, that problem had
been identified and its dimension and shape had been outlined. Clearly not all college
students were in need of the same mathematical education. Clearly students who did not
have majors in mathematics, science, and technology would be better off terminating
their mathematical education with some kind of “general” mathematics course, designed
specifically for them, than from a calculus-oriented mathematics designed for future
engineers. But the problem now waited solution, and the first step was to create an
alternative course.
The 1910 International Commission Report addressed the cultural importance of
mathematics education: “It is interesting to find that many teachers of mathematics
attach great importance to the cultural value of the study of their subject. One professor
writes thus: ‘Students who go far enough in the study of mathematics and give it their
interest as well as their time gain immensely in resourcefulness, and I am inclined to
believe that the gain in general culture (especially if the teaching is done somewhat with
this aim) is far more than reasonably supposed” (International Commission on the
Teaching of Mathematics, The American Report Committee No. X, 1911, p. 18).
Here, the question of what, precisely, is meant by a “gain in general culture,” is
left ambiguous. E.R. Hedrick (1917), in his address retiring as president from the
American Mathematical Society, made a more explicit assertion of mathematics’ cultural
possibilities. In addressing the significance of mathematics, Hedrick stressed that it
should be discussed beyond the confines of narrow “utilitarianism,” but with respect to
“society as a whole, to science, engineering, to the nation.” Trigonometry and geometry
are defended in terms o f their relevance to the war effort. “We have been too often
content, and too often solely seeking, even here, the knowledge of intricate formalisms,
of formulas and rules and theorems, of operations done mechanically. To often, we have
omitted, even here, to give insight into the rather obvious significance of these rules and
formulas” (Hedrick, 1917, p.402). Hedrick goes on to assert that many topics in the
traditional algebra course, such as fractional exponents, remain a “pure formalism.” The
connections between the mathematics itself and its applications, argue Hedrick, are not
being made, a gross failure on the part of mathematics educators. “Have we denatured
each subject until insight is eliminated and only formalism and logical tricks remain? So
long as this blight remains, we must expect and we shall deserve public disdain and
sincere doubt of our value to humanity” (Hedrick, 1917, p.402).
Hedrick seems to be suggesting that part of the mathematics educator’s role is not
only teaching the mathematical material, but making clear its relevance to the outside
world. Mathematics educators, he suggested, were too caught up in the appeal of
mathematics’ formal purity, oblivious to the fact that for the general public, it was not the
subject’s beauty but its significance to life that motivated interest.
44
It should be unnecessary for me to explain my own deep interest in the

logical and cultural side of mathematics. Certainly I would be the last to
belittle its great spiritual values. But this is for the specialist rather than for
the usual student. Values to the world at large must be stated in terms of
more concrete realities. Shall we hide the fact of the immense service of
mathematics to society? To emphasize beauty and pleasure to the entire
exclusion of the more convincing argument o f benefit to mankind is as
quixotic and short-sighted as is the corresponding formalization of our
courses o f instruction. To ignore the significance of our subject is to spurn
our birthright” (Hedrick, 1917, p.404).
The 1923 Report, in discussing the “cultural” aims of mathematics education,
describes one aspect of these aims as an appreciation of the power o f mathematics, “and
the role that mathematics and abstract thinking, in general, have played in the
development of civilization” (The National Committee of Mathematical Requirements,
1923, p.394).
The same year, J. W. Young, in advocating a rethinking of unified mathematics at
the college level, listed four main purposes for the freshman mathematics course, the last
one of which involved imparting “some appreciation of the role that mathematics has
played and continues to play in the development of civilization, in its material, scientific,
intellectual, philosophical and spiritual needs” (Young, 1923, p.l 1).
In a chapter entitled, “The Development and Nature of Mathematics” the PEA
(1940) argue that secondary level mathematics students should be given a perspective on
the role of mathematics in civilization. “For all students . . . insight into the broadly
historical aspects o f mathematics serves to give the subject new light and life” (PEA,
1940, p.241).
In 1940, the NCTM asserted that “The schools must teach mathematics beyond its
elements not only to equip those who need it as a tool, but also to make people appreciate
45
in a forthright and intelligent way how basic its place is in our culture” (NCTM, 1940,
p.599).
In 1941 J.S. Georges wrote in the American Mathematical Monthly, “the proper
approach to the analysis of the educational functions of mathematics seems to be a
recognition of man’s relations to the civilization he has created, and an evaluation of the
contributions which mathematics has made to the maintenance and the advancement of
that civilization” (Georges, 1941, p. 126).
Griffin wrote, “The general educated public has as yet scarcely any conception of
the role which mathematics has played in the development of our present civilization, is
playing now in the rapid advance of many sciences, including the life sciences and some
social sciences, and is destined to play further in the creation of a more hopeful and
rational social order, the enrichment of esthetics and art, and the full liberation of the
human spirit” (Griffin, 1930, p.46-47).
These remarks emphasize the importance of teaching mathematics’ role in
civilization and culture. For some, mathematics education could be viewed as a cultural
force in its own right. It was Arnold Dresden’s firm conviction that, given its proper
place and role in the college curriculum, mathematics could “wield a powerful influence
in that reshaping of our world of which the present witnesses perhaps the first significant
stirrings” (Dresden, 1934, p.201). Dresden explains how a new mathematics education
can effect human progress: “If there is to be true progress, any fundamental betterment of
human existence, the advance must be in the direction of enlarged application of general
principles, of the discovery o f new principles of wider scope, and of a world wide
envisagement of the important problems. Thus in no small measure will the development
46
of man’s existence on this earth depend upon his ability to grasp and appreciate more
inclusive generalities, to deal intelligently with vaster ranges of human and natural
phenomena. In the cultivation of such ability, the abstract formulation o f problems
should play an increasingly important role” (Dresden, 1934, p.201).
For some, the role of mathematics in human progress was intertwined with a
preservation o f democratic ideals. The Progressive Education Association wrote,
“Adolescents not only need help in reformulating their personal, social, and economic
relationships in response to the new conditions that influence them; it is increasingly
recognized that they must also be helped to do this in ways which harmonize with
democratic ideals and conserve democratic values” (PEA, 1940, p.7).
The PEA’s discussion of the significance of mathematics education to democracy
and freedom cites the example of Nazi Germany throughout. “In far fewer instances is
the possibility o f formulating our pressing problems restricted . . . the mathematics
teacher who helps his students realize the necessity of the types of freedom discussed
above is building their allegiance to democratic ideals and at the same time fostering the
fuller realization of these ideals in the future.” The authors conclude, “It is clear that
mathematics taught as an abstract science contains little that is anti-authoritarian or pro-
democratic; the same is not true for the kind of teaching of mathematics urged in this
Report” (Bidwell and Classon, 1970, p.560).
W. L. Schaaf, writing in the American Mathematical Monthly, wrote that “liberal
education” requires attention to the following claims: 1. Cultural and disciplinary
demands; 2. The demands o f a technic civilization; 3. The demands of a socio-economic
intelligence. In addressing the first requirement, Schaaf asserts that “a man o f culture” is
47
distinguished by the manner in which he thinks and feels. Mathematical thinking, he
argues, leads to generalized thinking, “correct” thinking, and rigorous thinking (Schaaf,
1937, p.447).
In addressing the requirement of a socio-economic intelligence, Schaaf asserts
that “many events of the last few years, both national and world-wide, have dramatically
emphasized the imperative need for a citizenry that is critically intelligent concerning
matters of social and economic import” (Schaaf, 1937, p.450). Here Schaaf seems to be
alluding to the rise of the Nazis, perhaps Fascism in general, and possibly Communism as
well.
The new mathematics education was also envisioned as a form of culture in the
philosophical sense. Recall that the fourth of J.W. Young’s roles for mathematics
involved “the development o f civilization, in its material, scientific, intellectual,
philosophical, and spiritual aspects” (Young, 1923, p.l 1). With respect to the
philosophical, spiritual, and “possibly” religious needs, Young cites the concept of
infinity, the theory o f classes, non-euclidean and n-dimensional geometry.
The notion that mathematics represents a kind of “truth,” affording the individual
a strong philosophical foundation, had long been a rationale for mathematics education of
all forms, even its most traditional. Consider W. H. Hudson’s remarks to the London
Educational Society in 1886: “I maintain, therefore, that algebra is not to be taught on
account of its utility, not to be learnt on account o f any benefit which may be supposed to
be got from it, but because it is a part of a mathematical truth, and no one ought to be
48
wholly alien from that important department of human knowledge” (Hudson, 1886,
reprinted in Bidwell and Classon, 1970, p.216).
One way in which mathematical truth operated within culture was in the realm of
logic. Arthur Dresden, in his article, “a Program for Mathematics,” attributed logic to a
central role in man’s cultural experience: “For it cannot be doubted that to be able to see
or not to be able to see the logical, i.e., tautological and therefore incontrovertible
deductions to be obtained from a given proposition makes a very great difference in
man’s capacity to deal with his problems. It is not a question here whether or not logic is
to reign supreme, nor whether we shall always want to follow the logical deductions of a
principle we have adopted . . . rather we are concerned with the ability to derive and to
envisage logical consequences.” Dresden alludes to the deficiencies demonstrated in this
regard by many “public men,” and concludes that the “subject should be so presented as
to bring out prominently its deductive character, so that no matter to what stage
mathematical education is carried it will have exerted an influence toward that end”
(Dresden, 1934, p.204).
Alfred North Whitehead (1948), in his essay “Mathematics and Liberal
Education” wrote of the importance of teaching “what logic is.” This involved teaching
students “what it means to be logical,” to “know a precise idea when they see it,” and that
“logic applies to life” (Whitehead, 1948, p. 132).
E. P. Northrop, who developed an innovative freshman course at the University of
Chicago in the forties, discussed the importance of logical thinking to a liberal education
in a 1945 issue of the American Mathematical Monthly. Northrop asserted that a liberal
education is one which “liberates the student’s mind” through “intellectual disciplines of
49
various kinds.” Surely, Northrop writes, mathematics is such a discipline, one that “deals
almost exclusively with premises and conclusions, and with deductive reasoning . . . ” A
study of “logical structure” represented the first part of Northrop’s course, which was
intended to develop “an acute critical attitude on the part of the student.” Two years
later, Northrop underlined the importance of logic to a liberal education when he wrote
that college students should be “taught how to think deductively, to know what a
deductive system is, to understand the relation between an abstract deductive and its
models . . . and to have some appreciation for what rigor is and how it is achieved”
(Northrop, 1948, p.2-3).
For mathematics education reformers of the early 20th century, a regard for
imparting mathematical “truth” was often colored by the prevailing insecurities of the
field, in particular, the concern that the mathematics curriculum was no longer relevant.
What was important, it seemed to many educators, was for students to be shown the “true
nature” o f mathematics. Arthur Dresden wrote, “young people in school and also in
college, certainly if they do not go beyond the work of the freshman year, rarely have the
opportunity to learn what mathematics is really about, to become imbued with its spirit”
(Dresden, 1934, p.200).
Griffin wrote that mathematics was “basic for the inner life of speculative
philosophy: both as to the problem of knowledge and as to the nature of the universe . . .
it even touches questions o f religious attitudes and spiritual values” (Griffin, 1930, p.48).
Perhaps one of the “spiritual” values alluded to by both Griffin and Young could
be seen as the aesthetic. Mathematics “appreciation” had of course been an element of
the subject since its inception, but mental discipline’s emphasis on formal rigor had acted
50
to frame mathematics’ potential for beauty in narrow terms. This conception was
broadening in the early decades of the twentieth century. In the 1923 Report, the first
two of three categories of mathematics role in culture were “appreciation o f beauty
(geometrical forms of nature, art, and industry), and ideals of perfection (logical
structure, precision of statement and thought, logical reasoning)” (The National
Committee of Mathematical Requirements, 1923, reprinted in Bidwell and Classon,
p.394).
Part of the link between mathematics and aesthetic beauty was the way in which
the real world manifested mathematics in some appealing way. Griffin wrote, “among
the arts we note the architectural and decorative uses of geometry, the mathematical basis
for the choice o f graceful curves in drawing and painting, the physico-mathematical basis
for the communication of emotion through music, for the criticism of instruments and
technique, and for the introduction of new scales” (Griffin, 1930, p.48).
But for some, an aesthetic appreciation for abstract mathematics itself was a
valuable aspect of one’s personal development. Shaaf wrote that the essence of culture
was “style,” and the distinctive feature of mathematics,” was “a unique style of thinking,
one . . . more intimately associated with man’s aesthetic and emotional sensibilities”
(Schaaf, 1937, p.447).
One of the Progressive Education Association’s four roles of mathematics in
“developing personal characteristics essential to democratic living” was “esthetic
appreciation.” Esthetic appreciation was a valuable sensibility to be cultivated not only
because “the presence of appreciation in experience marks the difference between mere
understanding and a recognition of qualities which are appealing and enjoyable,” but
51
because appreciation it carried with it an element of appraisal; to cultivate one’s esthetic
sensibilities meant developing “personal standards, tastes, and judgments” (PEA, 1940,
p.34).
If mathematics was to be taught as a means for philosophical and aesthetic
development, the question remained: what mathematics? The traditional curriculum was
being increasingly attacked as unappealing to and overly difficult for many students. The
drill-based classroom experience was repetitive, unimaginative, and stifling to student’s
creative sensibilities. More importantly, the traditional curriculum was only one aspect
o f the larger body o f mathematics in the world. Ironically, it was in some ways the least
accessible forms of mathematics, for it was based in a language of symbolic manipulation
with which many students lacked literacy. Perhaps the best way to instill upon students
the true essence o f mathematics was to offer a kind o f smorgasbord, to present the
broadest possible view of the subject and its place in society.
And so was bom the mathematical “survey course,” reflecting not only a solution
to the crisis in freshman mathematics, but the spirit o f the general education movement in
higher education. As noted earlier, an important trend in higher education at this time
was the one toward providing a common educational experience for students. W. C. John
reported in 1939 that “at least 53 institutions were carrying a program of general
education in some form.” Many of the “survey” courses developed at this time extended
beyond the context of a particular subject, but rather surveyed the sciences or the
humanities as a whole. Butts (1939), in The College Charts its Course, describes this
trend in the context of a “New Humanist” reaction to the elective system, one that
52
repudiated the leadership of the natural and social sciences in favor of a “traditional
philosophy of idealism” - essentially advocating a return to the curriculum of the Great
Tradition. This sense o f “general education” is markedly different from the general
education predicated on providing students with life skills; indeed these philosophies, in
some ways, stand in direct conflict. And yet these two aspects of general education can
be seen to converge with respect to the development of the mathematical survey course.
On one hand, a freshman course consisting of a broad survey of topics provided the non
specialist student with an appropriately “general” mathematical foundation, one that
afforded the potential for application to the broadest sphere of that person’s future life.
On the other hand, the mathematical survey course offered the liberal arts student a more
“humanist” experience than the traditional freshman course in algebra, trigonometry, and
analytic geometry - topics which, after all, had not even been invented during
humanism’s classical and medieval eras. In framing mathematics as a cultural experience
instead of as a means o f discipline, the survey course would make mathematics a true
liberal “art” once again.
Early Textbooks
For a non-traditional freshman mathematics course to be offered on a large scale,
there needed to be an available textbook. Beginning in 1935, a number of textbooks were
published aimed at addressing the needs of the general college mathematics student.
Some of these books broke with tradition in small ways; in other cases the boldness of
53
vision was more extreme. The similarities and differences of these books reveal the
liberal arts mathematics course at its essence and in its variety.
Whitehead’s Text (1911)
Alfred North Whitehead, co-author with Bertrand Russell of Principia
Mathematica, was one of the most distinguished mathematicians and philosophers of the
era, as well as a prolific writer on theory o f education. His Introduction to Mathematics
is an important precursor to the liberal arts textbook in several respects. The table of
contents is given below:
1. The Abstract Nature of Mathematics

2. Variables
3. Methods of Application
4. Dynamics
5. The Symbolism of Mathematics
6. Generalization of a Number
7. Imaginary Numbers
8. Imaginary Numbers (continued)
9. Coordinate Geometry
10. Conic Sections
11. Functions
12. Periodicity in Nature
13. Trigonometry
14. Series
15. The Differential Calculus
16. Geometry
17. Quantity
In the first chapter, Whitehead establishes that his purpose for the book is not to
teach mathematics, but to help students to know “what the science is about.”
54
Approximately half o f the chapters represent freshman mathematics material. However,
there are no exercises in the book. In this respect this book is unlike typical freshman
mathematics textbooks of the era. In fact, Whitehead’s Introduction to Mathematics does
not promise to be a “textbook,” per se, but an introduction to the subject.
Chapters like “the Abstract Nature of Mathematics,” “the Symbolism of
Mathematics” and “the Generalization of a Number” reveal what would prove an
important feature o f the liberal arts textbook of the future - an exploration of the
subject’s “essence.” Another feature that would appear in later liberal arts textbooks is
the historical treatment o f each topic. The development of Calculus, for example, is
discussed as a “crisis” in the history of mathematics, in which such names as Fermat,
Descartes, Newton, Leibnitz, and even the poet Shelley are invoked. The chapter on
“Dynamics” calls up Galileo, Da Vinci, and Aristotle.
Whitehead’s book is an important milestone in the development of the liberal arts
course in that it set a precedent for treating mathematics as a science whose cultural
heritage was an interesting and valuable part o f a college student’s mathematical
education. R.D. Carmichael (1912), lauding the book for the American Mathematical
Monthly, noted that mathematicians rarely rendered their point-of-view to the “layman,”
and applauded the book as a means by which the distance between mathematicians and
the general populace might be narrowed. He wonders whether college mathematics gives
too much attention to “trivialities of computation” and too little on the fundamental
principle.
55
Logsdon’s Text (1935)
Logsdon’s book, A Mathematician Explains, was cited by Schaaf, in his 1937
article for the American Mathematical Monthly, as a “suggestive and readable” effort to
create a textbook for the so-called “appreciation courses.” In his preface, Logsdon writes
that his course is planned for the “student who has no native interest in the physical
sciences.” Logsdon goes on to suggest that the book’s sponsors felt it would be of use as
a text for a college “orientation” course.
On the basis o f most o f the chapter headings, A Mathematician Explains does not
appear remarkably different from the traditional unified course. However, a closer
inspection reveals that the approach to content emphasizes “general” or “cultural”
principles in nontraditional ways. For example, the section on arithmetic involves an
exploration of the number system throughout its history, including the systems of the
Babylonians, Mayas, etc. The “historical” approach to number was to prove a common
topic in later liberal arts mathematics textbooks. The section on algebra reveals itself to
be mostly a brief introduction to its importance and usefulness in society. The book
shifts, at this point, into a more standard freshman text, with traditional topics, until
chapter 9 and 10, when such topics as non-Euclidean geometry, “The Structure of a
Mathematical Science,” “Mathematics reveals the Heavens,” “Mathematics Underlies All
Study and Form,” return the focus to the relevance of mathematics to culture and the
world. The subtopic, “Mathematics Underlies the Social Sciences,” represents an early
endeavor to address a topic that would prove ubiquitous in liberal arts mathematics
textbooks of sixty years later.
56
In the review for the American Mathematical Monthly, L. R. Ford (1937) found
the treatment of algebra and geometry to be somewhat abbreviated, yet commended the
book for its ambition to make mathematics appealing. “The writing of a text which
leaves the beaten track, as this one does, is not an easy task, and one should look upon the
results with sympathy” (Ford, 1937, p.530).
Dresden’s Text (1936)
In the preface to An Invitation to Mathematics, Dresden explains that Swarthmore
College, where he taught, had recently abolished the mathematics requirement. In the
discussions preceding this event, the Mathematics Department was forced to concede that
the traditional curriculum did not seem appropriate for non-specialist students, and it was
suggested that a course be developed emphasizing the significance of mathematics to
other subjects and to human experience in general.
A second incentive behind the book, Dresden writes, was to explain why
mathematicians see their discipline as a form of philosophy and art. For a non
mathematician, it seemed to Dresden, “there should be a way of acquiring sufficient
comprehension of the nature of mathematics to enable him to understand . . . the place the
subject occupies in the world of thought. . . ” (Dresden, 1936, p.v).
Finally, Dresden notes that the mathematics requirement has been disappearing
from schools around the nation and suggests that this is because many educated people
are not familiar enough with the “essential character of mathematics.” There has been
too much emphasis, Dresden writes, on the “formal and technical” character o f the
57
subject, and not enough on its “human implications.” The resulting book aims to give the
general reader with a minimal technical background “an insight into the character of at
least some of the important questions with which mathematics is concerned, to acquaint
him with some of its methods, to lead him to recognize its intimate relation to human
experience and to bring him to an inner appreciation of its unique beauty” (Dresden,
1936, p. vi.).
Dresden’s book includes 500 exercises, because he believes that active
participation is essential to the learning of mathematics. He notes, however, that much of
the book is light reading. Dresden asserts that the indispensable background for the
course is a “good high school course in algebra and plane geometry,” and for those who
have forgotten this background, Dresden recommends finding a book on these topics and
refreshing their memory.
Typical chapter headings include “The Starting Point - A Familiar Landmark,”
“The First Excursion - New Views From an Old Trail,” “Breaking Through the Walls,”
“Fruits of Freedom,” “A Return to the Simple Life,” Etc.
In An Invitation to Mathematics, Dresden seeks to capitalize on mathematics’
potential for drama and discovery by envisioning it as a mysterious land of wonders.
Hence this book is less a “survey” than a “tour” - a paradigm that liberal arts textbook
writers would enlist sixty years hence with such books as Mathematical Excursions and
Excursions in Mathematics, though never again in such an extreme way.
In H. F. MacNeish’s (1937) review of this work for the Monthly, Dresden’s
course is deemed “infinitely superior in value and much more interesting” to liberal arts
students than the conventional one (MacNeish, 1937, p.44).
58
Hogben’s text (1937)
In the preface to Mathematics fo r the Million Hogben suggests that he wishes to
stimulate the interest and remove the “inferiority complex of some of the million or so
who have given up hope of learning through the usual channels” (Hogben, 1937, p.xi).
Typical chapter headings include, “Mathematics, the Mirror of Civilization,”
“First Steps in Measurement or Mathematics in Prehistory,” “Euclid Without Tears or
What You Can Do with Geometry.”
Ralph Beatley’s (1938) review in the Monthly begins, “despite the first appeal of
this very entertaining and instructive book, ‘the million’ will probably not find it very
easy reading” (Beatley, 1938, p.591). The discussion that follows is important for the
way it examines the complexities, challenges, and pitfalls of making mathematics
accessible to a general audience.
Beatley suggests that the historical background and “engaging explanations” will
probably appeal to the student, “just as the duller students in any class in mathematics
perk up” when such moments arise in lecture. But while the students of Hogben’s book
may be grateful for this gesture, Beatley opines that the true measure of gratitude is the
extent to which the reader eventually masters the material itself. This may not be
possible, Beatley suggests, because of the author’s willingness to “cast aside” certain
“technical details” Beatley feels are essential to understanding the subject.
Beatley’s criticisms extend to matters of scope and terminology. Whereas
Hogben envisions his book as partly a “history,” Beatley suggests it would better be
called “socialized mathematics,” noting that some of Hogben’s topics are not presented
59
according to a correct historical chronology. Beatley proves unhappy about how certain
things are explained (“highly anecdotal,” in reference to the treatment of analytic
geometry), suggesting that Hobgen has found an unhappy medium in his effort to make
mathematics digestible to the masses.
There are about 30 exercises at the end of each chapter, Beatley notes, but “these
are hardly enough to keep the student abreast of the author.” Beatley concludes, “if the
million are bewildered by the ordinary text in mathematics, they will find this book
doubly bewildering,” adding that they will feel “fascinated by the clever style, but baffled
too” (Beatley, 1937, p.591). The book will be best appreciated by teachers of
mathematics, Beatley states.
Beatley’s criticisms suggest that to make mathematics accessible to non-specialist
students, it was not enough to make the traditional material “fun” and historical - the
material itself needed to be chosen appropriately.
Cooley/Gans/Kline/W ahlert text (1937)
Introduction to Mathematics enjoys several particular distinctions as an early
liberal arts textbook. Its relative success is indicated by the fact that it was to be
published in three later editions, the last in 1968, making it the longest surviving textbook
in the history of liberal arts mathematics. It also has the distinction of Morris Kline as a
co-author. Kline proved to be an important voice in mathematics education in the
subsequent decades, and the advocate for a distinct vision of liberal arts mathematics.
Finally, Introduction to Mathematics is a work o f considerable interest in its own right
60
for the way in which such ambitiousness of thematic scope is arranged in a traditional
textbook style.
In the preface o f Introduction to Mathematics, the authors first distinguish their
book from the standard freshman mathematics texts, denouncing the implications of the
tradition: it “sours” students to mathematics by requiring only rote memorization and
symbol manipulation. The authors then proceed to touch on every one of the previously
noted objectives of a reformed course: it should teach the importance of mathematics to
civilization, past and present; it should show the interrelationships between mathematics
and other fields; it should teach math as an aesthetic entity worthy of appreciation; it
should instill a sense of mathematics as a philosophical system, one that might develop a
student’s ability to employ critical thinking skills. Also in the contemporary manner of
many similar books, Introduction to Mathematics is organized according to a historical
chronology.
In the introduction, the authors emphasize the book’s goal of making mathematics
appealing to the student. “The study of mathematics not only acquaints the student with
examples of precise reasoning; it gives him also an opportunity to appreciate the nature of
a logical structure o f which mathematics furnishes the best example.” The artistic aspects
of the book are elucidated in the following paragraph:
If in studying mathematics one keeps always in the forefront the thought

processes involved, rather than the technique, he should be able to perceive
the beauty in the various parts of mathematics and the beauty of the subject
as a whole. The mathematician is not only a logician; he is at the same time
an artist who expresses himself with mathematical materials, quite as
genuinely as does a painter with his brush and pigments. Like the painter he
is impelled by a creative impulse, he lets his reasoning lead him where it
61
may, and he expresses himself with that conciseness which is one of the
distinguishing marks o f art (Cooley et. al. 1937, p. 10).
The chapter headings are as follows:
The Elements and Axioms of Mathematics

Algebraic Expressions and Equations as a Generalization of Arithmetic
The Use of Exponents in Computation
Problems and Methods of Elementary Geometry
Indirect Measurement - An Application of Geometry
Coordinate Geometry
The Function Concept
Some Types o f Functions
Finding Equations for Useful Functions
The Use of Functions for Prediction
Functions as Quantitative Descriptions
Restrictions on the Use of Functions
The Concept of a Limit
The Rate o f Change of a Function
The Use o f Limits in Defining Concepts
Infinite Classes
Non-Euclidean Geometry
The Nature of Mathematics
The Theory o f Relativity
The Further Significance of Mathematics for Other Fields of Knowledge
The “art” aspects o f mathematics alluded to in the introduction are especially
developed in the chapter on geometry. Architectural and textile designs are analyzed in
terms of their underlying geometric patterns. Introduction to Mathematics is one of the
first college mathematics texts to explore the relationship between mathematics and
painting. The text contains a number of plates, which include images by Raphael,
Giorgione, Tintoretto, and Picasso. One of the aspects of the mathematical function
explored is “the representation of certain aspects of beauty.” The authors write that “it
may seem astonishing that functional relations, involving some of the characteristics of
objects of art, can be helpful in evaluating their aesthetic merit.” The authors go on to
62
break down aesthetic appreciation to its “formal” and “connotative” elements. The
relationship between mathematics and art had never been made so explicit (and, with the
exception of Kline’s later textbooks, it never was again).
The authors frequently attempt to place the material in an outside context. Often
this happens within a historical framework, as in the discussion of the number system.
Sometimes this framework is visual, as when graphs and their underlying shapes are
compared to analogous shapes in nature, like the parabolic orbits of planets. Applications
are discussed in detail; in Chapter Six alone there are subsections on geometric
applications o f astronomy, mechanics, and the navigation on the Earth.
W. E. Wilbur (1938), in his review of the book for the Monthly, note that the
authors have departed in significant ways from the traditional approach to the freshman
text. “Most of the subject matter having to do largely with techniques has been omitted
and other topics such as number and number systems, fundamental concepts in algebra
and geometry, types of equations in algebra, the function concept and its application,
concept of a limit, non-euclidean geometry have been stressed” (Wilbur, 1938, p.179).
Wilbur lauds the book’s style: “It is written in an interesting narrative style which
reads very smoothly and not only should it hold the interest of the student but it should
stimulate him to want to delve further into the subject matter by reading many of the
excellent references given at the end of the chapter” (Wilbur, 1938, p. 180).
63
Kasner/Newman text (1940)
Mathematics and the Imagination adopts a non-standard, “exploratory” format.
The subtopics under the chapter headings for Chance and Chanceability reads as follows:
The clue o f the billiard cue . . . a little chalk, a lot o f ta lk. . . Watson gets his leg pulled
by probable inference . . . Finds it all absurdly simple . . . Passionate oysters, waltzing
ducks, and the syllogism . . . The twilight ofprobability . . . Interesting behavior o f a
modest coin . .. Biological necessity and a pair o f dice . . . What is probability? . . . A
poll o f views: a meteorologist, a bootlegger, a bridge player. . . The subjective view-
based on insufficient reason, contains an element o f truth . .. The jackasses ofM ars . . .
(etc.)
In the preface, the authors suggest that their aim is to make mathematics a
“popular” science. They concede that their approach to mathematics is, to use the French
term, in a manner of “haute vulgarization,” but that this appropriate in showing general
audiences “something of the character of mathematics, of its bold, untrammeled spirit..
.” (Kasner and Newman, 1940, p.v.).
The chapters include such titles as “Assorted Geometries-Plane and Fancy,”
“Pastimes of Past and Present Times,” “Paradox Lost and Paradox Regained.” This book
includes several topics uncharacteristic of the other liberal arts textbooks of this era, but
of those of the future, such as logical paradoxes, fourth-dimensional geometry, topology,
and fractals.
64
Harriet Montague, in her previously discussed 1941 article, “A Course on the
Significance of Mathematics,” wrote that Mathematics and the Imagination was adopted
as the ideal textbook for her one-semester course.
In the review for the American Mathematical Monthly, T. A. Ryan (1940)
applauded the book’s success at writing about the variety of mathematics with “wit and
clarity.” “No listing of topics . . . can convey the flavor of Kasner and Newman’s
accomplishment” (Ryan, 1940, 700).
Underwood/Sparks text (1940)
Like Dresden’s and Kasner and Newman’s book, Living Mathematics adopts an
“exploratory” format. Chapter III, which covers standard algebraic equations, is titled,
“A Sentence and What Comes of It,” and leads into the following subheadings:
“Questions and answers; We take in less territory, The linear equation and how to subdue
it; The ‘quadratic’ and how to tame it; We meet a stranger”; etc.
In the preface, the authors raise the question of whether such a “light and jaunty
treatment” is suitable for a book of “serious aim,” and avow that they “see no harm in it.”
Like many authors o f the new freshman texts, Underwood and Sparks endeavor, most of
all, to “dispel the idea that mathematics is a painfully dull form of work” (Underwood
and Sparks, 1940, p.vii).
65
Richardson’s text (1941)
Richardson, author o f Fundamentals o f Mathematics (1941), was a prolific
advocate and prophet o f liberal arts mathematics, with many articles published on the
subject, and his textbook, like Introduction to Mathematics, was published in several later
editions. In his preface, Richardson states that the freshman course, with its emphasis on
“memorized and regurgitated techniques,” is inadequate for the mathematical needs of
the typical college student. The purposes of his book are states as follows:
1. An appreciation o f the natural origin and evolutionary growth of the basic
mathematical ideas from antiquity to present.
2. A critical logical attitude, and a wholesome respect for correct reasoning,
precise definitions, and clear grasp of underlying assumptions.
3. An understanding of the role of mathematics as one of the major branches of
human endeavor, and its relations with other branches of the accumulated wisdom of the
human race.
4. A discussion o f some of the simpler important problems of pure mathematics
and its applications, including some which often come to the attention of the educated
layman and cause him needless confusion.
5. An understanding of the nature and practical importance of postulational
thinking.
The chapter headings read as follows:
1. Introduction
2. Logic, Mathematics, and Science
66
3. The Simplest Numbers

4. Further Evolution o f the Number System
5. The Logic of Algebra
6. The Algebra of Logic, and Other Algebras
7. Arithmetic, Exponents, and Logarithms
8. Impossibilities and Unsolved Problems
9. Analytic Geometry
10. Functions
11. Limits
12. Trigonometric Functions
13. Probability and Statistics
14. Natural Numbers and Mathematical Induction
15. Cardinal Numbers, Finite and Transfinite
16. Euclidean and Non-Euclidean Geometry
17. Two Simple Mathematical Sciences
18. The Nature of Mathematics
Richardson states that preliminary editions of the book were used at Brooklyn
College, with about 1800 students, and that despite the seemingly advanced nature of
many of the topics, the students were able to appreciate the material quite well.
Richardson suggests that such seemingly advanced, abstract material is in some ways
more easily grasped by the typical student than the traditional material. The key element
in achieving this is simply greater time, which is obtained by “lightening the burden of
technical achievement.” This is not to say that such a course should be purely
philosophical in nature; the student should “come to grips with genuine (not necessarily
traditional) mathematics.” The book is not meant to be “an expository essay” nor a
“sugar-coated” course for “incompetents.” It is, rather, an attempt to give the student
training in the five goals listed earlier rather than in merely “routine techniques.”
A survey course, writes Richardson, should have a unifying theme, and for
Fundamentals o f Mathematics Richardson’s stated theme is the science of logical
thinking. The student, claims Richardson, “should learn that postulational thinking is not
merely a toy of the mathematician but is something which, in all honesty, cannot be
avoided in any subject in which one attempts to think logically.”
As in Introduction to Mathematics, its closest analogue in time, scope, and
format, the Richardson text includes a substantial amount of traditional material, and
unlike some o f the earlier discussed predecessors, this material is presented in a non
abbreviated manner with many exercises, which would have afforded the instructor a
more realistic chance of successfully teaching the material. Also like the authors of
Introduction to Mathematics, Richardson includes a substantial amount of non-traditional
material: unsolved problems, probability and statistics, cardinal numbers, etc.
In the review for the American Mathematical Monthly, Virgil Snyder (1941)
describes the style of the book as “brisk and breezy,” with “debatable results,” noting that
Richardson frequently denounces traditional mathematics instruction. However, Snyder
finds the book overall to be well adapted to its intended purpose. “In the hands of
competent and sympathetic teachers, the book will accomplish its lauded purpose. It is
liable to do harm when used by others.”
Harkin’s text (1941)
Harkin notes in his foreword to Fundamental Mathematics that mathematics “is
best learned by working problems worth working.” Harkin, a professor at Brooklyn
College, makes no suggestion for how his textbook may be used - for what sort of
student or what sort of course. The first 80 pages of the text are devoted to topics under
the heading, “Dealing with Counting.” Different numeration systems are discussed, as is
68
the number concept. Other subheadings include modular arithmetic, the calendar,
decimals and fractions. Harkin’s book was perhaps the most thorough to date on the
subject o f number.
The opening chapter is followed by one titled, “Marks and Their Meanings,”
which addresses logic and some applications. Approximately 100 pages of “Algebra” is
followed by a broad survey o f geometry, including discussions of finite geometry,
complex polyhedra, tesselations, similarity and more. The book concludes with a chapter
titled, “Wonder-Working Calculus.”
The history o f mathematics is invoked throughout the text, with frequent citations
and allusions to the world’s mathematicians and their works. Harkins defends his
historical approach in his foreword, writing that, “the masters should be allowed to speak
for themselves. Growth can be followed in the original sources, far more virile than
gossipy paraphrases” (Harkin, 1941, p.vii).
Northrop’s text (1945-1949)
Fundamental Mathematics represents a team effort of the University of Chicago
mathematics “staff,” and was designed specifically to address the needs of mathematics
students at the University of Chicago. It was developed from lecture notes and published,
gradually, in several editions from 1944 through 1949.
The overwhelming emphasis on sets and logic seen in Fundamentals o f
Mathematics is unique among the non-traditional texts of the era. Volume 1, which the
authors state covers between a third and a half of the course, consists mostly of set theory
69
and logic. The first eight chapter headings are as follows: Introduction, Sets, Operations
on Sets, Relations, Functions, Sentences and Quantification, Mathematical Systems, and
the Commutative Group. There is none of the attention to a historical development of
mathematics seen in the contemporary survey texts, and little appeal made to student’s
interest in the subject as an aesthetically or culturally interesting subject.
Newsom’s text (1946)
Newsom’s book, Introduction to College Mathematics, was revised and reissued
in three later editions with Howard Eves as co-author, and hence Newsom proved to be a
prolific progenitor o f the liberal arts course. In the preface, Newsom discusses the need
for a book suitable to college students destined for only a single college course in
mathematics. Newsom goes on to suggest that logical rigor is essential to such a course,
and will be a fundamental element of the book. The material itself, Newsom claims, was
chosen on the basis of its value. Newsom solicited suggestions from natural and social
scientists as well as mathematicians. Some material was discarded when it was
established that most students were unable to appreciate its significance. Achieving
student interest, Newsom asserts, was an important factor in the way the material was
presented. Newsom’s book is significant for the open-minded way it so actively
endeavors to accommodate the interests and needs of students rather than a pre-
established curricular objective.
The chapter headings read as follows:
70
1. The Nature of Mathematics

2. Number and the Operations of Arithmetic
3. The Arithmetic of Numbers in Exponential Form
4. The Arithmetic of Measurement
5. Logarithms
6. Some Topics in the Mathematics of Finance
7. Progressions of Numbers
8. Combinations and Probability
9. Functional Relationships
10. Variation
11. The Circular Function
12. The Equation
13. Some Common Curves
In Newsom’s book one observes a common distinguishing feature of the early
liberal arts text, an opening chapter on the “nature of mathematics.” Here, mathematics’
fundamental nature is discussed in terms of mathematical systems - induction and
deduction, Euclidean and non-Euclidean systems, formal structures and valid
conclusions. The second chapter - “Number and the Operations of Arithmetic” - also
represents a defining element of this era’s texts, a sense of obligation to start with the
“nuts and bolts” of mathematics. The topics of finance, combinations, and probability all
represent standard future components of the liberal arts mathematics curriculum.
Surveys
In the decade following the end of the war, several studies were conducted that
give insight into the contemporary state of the college mathematics curriculum. In the
academic year 1951-1952, E.A. Cameron {American Mathematical Monthly, 1952)
visited the mathematics departments of 33 American colleges and universities. He found
that the traditional college algebra and trigonometry were still “the usual freshman
71
courses in most institutions.” While eighteen of the thirty-three schools offered a
mathematics course of some non-traditional character, even these courses included a
significant component of the traditional material. Yet many with whom Cameron spoke
agreed that this traditional material “[could] well be replaced” with that which would be
more interesting to the student. Another notable result is that of the thirty-three schools,
only four required mathematics of all students for graduation.
Glenn Ayre, in his 1953 article for School Science and Mathematics, cited two
recent studies o f mathematics in junior college. In 1948, Ayre notes, Kenneth Kidd
found that of 154 public junior colleges under consideration, “three-fourths attempted to
realize the aims o f general education in mathematics through traditional high school
courses and courses in business mathematics, while one-fourth o f these institutions
offered courses especially designed for general education. The mathematics offerings in
the preparatory curricula were predominantly the traditional courses in college algebra,
trigonometry, analytics, and the calculus, with major emphasis on pre-engineering”
(Ayre, 1953, 108). Hammond reported in 1949 that of the mathematics offerings in 52
junior colleges in California, 45 percent were of “engineering and science nature,” 42
percent were subjects taught in high school, 8 percent related to “commerce and
business,” and 5 percent to “trade and industry” (Ayre, 1953, 108). This study suggested
to Ayre that in junior colleges, high school courses were used to answer the “general
education” needs.
In 1955, the Special Committee on College Mathematics for Non-Science
Students, a subcommittee of the California Committee for the Study of Education,
reported the results of a questionnaires to 250 colleges. O f the 110 responding, 67 were
offering special courses for the non-science majors, 16 expressed a “desire” to do so, and
27 replied that they intended to continue giving the traditional course. Among the
textbooks cited by the authors of the survey were those by Richardson, Newsome and
Eves, and Cooley et. al. “Few instructors were satisfied” with the text they were using.
For the majority, the course they offered was a one or two semester course. The nature of
the course varied, according to the authors of the survey. In the large state universities,
many of the students were reported to have very low skills in mathematics - some had no
high school mathematics whatsoever - resulting in much time being devoted to basic
computation and techniques. These teachers were described as “unhappy about their
situation.” In most colleges giving this course, a “historical, intuitive, and cultural
approach” was employed, one in which the “emphasis was on ideas rather than
manipulation or computation. Problem solving was the chief type of homework for these
courses, but essays and oral reports were frequently required.”
In 1957, W. I. Layton conducted a survey of colleges throughout the nation and
found that out o f 150 respondents, 60% replied that they had a general education
program. Approximately half of the schools offering a general education curriculum
required some mathematics as a part of it. Most of these defined their mathematics
course as “general mathematics.” Other titles included “introduction to college
mathematics, fundamentals of mathematics, elementary mathematical analysis, and
college arithmetic.” O f the schools with a general education curriculum, the average
semester hours of required mathematics was 1.97.
The schools were polled on their opinions regarding the appropriate course for
non-specialists. 73 percent felt that this course was general mathematics, followed by
73
college algebra and trigonometry. (It should be noted here that only 2 respondents were
in favor of a course called “mathematics for liberal arts students.”)
Perhaps the most comprehensive studies of the undergraduate mathematics
curriculum in these years were conducted by Kenneth Brown, author of the book General
Mathematics in American Colleges, which had explored undergraduate mathematics circa
1942. In 1947 Brown conducted a survey of 480 colleges whose catalogues had
indicated they offered a course in general mathematics. The response from this
questionnaire indicated that 40% of the colleges which had offered a course in general
mathematics for the cultural student had discontinued the course. The reasons for
dropping the course were given as follows:
1. The textbook was unsatisfactory.
2. Because of increased enrollments in college since the war, the overloaded
mathematics faculty could not offer both the cultural course and those designed for the
specialist.
3. During the war, the college enrollments dropped and the students’ interests
were turned toward traditional mathematics.
4. Students could change to a mathematics major without loss of credit if the
traditional courses were offered.
Brown conducted another survey in 1949. He wanted to discover:
1. What topics do the teachers consider important in a general mathematics
course for the cultural student?
2. Now that the teaching staffs are more readily available, is there a trend toward
general mathematics?
More than one thousand institutions responded. The results were classified
according to ten topics: Arithmetic, Mental Arithmetic, Algebra, Geometry, Statistics,
Analytic Geometry, Trigonometry, The Calculus, Topics from Advanced Math, and
Consumer Problems. Brown emphasizes that 90% of the respondents favored arithmetic
and consumer problems as “essential or appropriate material for a cultural or general
mathematics course.” 42% suggested that these topics should have the “greatest
emphasis.” A great difference of opinion could be discerned on this question, however,
since nearly an equal number of respondents indicated that arithmetic was not an
appropriate topic for the course. Algebra also received considerable support as an
appropriate topic.
It was Brown who had divided freshman college courses into three categories,
Preparatory, Cultural, and Combination; whereas the ten topics presented in the survey do
not all fall under the “preparatory” category, the possibilities of “cultural” mathematics
do not seem adequately represented either. Brown’s survey did, however, offer an
opportunity to “write-in” other topics as “very important” in the general or cultural
mathematics course. From greatest frequency to least frequency those topics were:
history o f mathematics, number system, mathematical reasoning, meaning of the
processes, the nature o f mathematics, logic, uses of mathematics, appreciation of
mathematics, field work, slide rule, empirical formulas, and recreational problems.
Concerning the existence of a trend toward general mathematics, Brown seems to
answer affirmatively, noting that forty colleges intended to introduce a course in general
mathematics the following year. This resurgence Brown attributes to a decrease in the
enrollment o f veterans and an increase in the number of qualified instructors.
75
General Mathematics
The perspectives on the undergraduate mathematics curriculum afforded by the
above studies are not entirely consistent. It seems difficult to reconcile, for example,
Cameron’s finding that college mathematics was required in only 4 out of the 33 schools
he visited, with Layton’s statistic of 1.97 average hours of required mathematics in his
“general education” schools (which comprised 60% of the total surveyed). It is also
difficult to know precisely what alternatives to the traditional course were available.
Clearly there were many colleges and universities, perhaps a slight majority, that did
offer a freshman mathematics course other than the traditional one. But what was the
nature of these courses? Some, given the textbooks cited by the Special Committee on
College Mathematics for Non-Science Students, were certainly in the developing liberal
arts mathematics mold. Yet others - many of the so-called “general mathematics” classes
- were nothing of the sort. At the junior colleges polled by Hammond in his 1949 study,
it would seem that no such classes were offered - unless he classified them under
“commerce and business.” If one is to accept Ayre’s conclusion, many of the non-
traditional courses offered in colleges at this time were comprised of high school
material.
A common motif observed in the above studies is that of “general mathematics.”
As noted earlier in this study, the term “general mathematics” is a quixotic one. On one
hand, it can be understood as a term used to describe an alternative to the traditional
freshman mathematics course. For Kenneth Brown, for example, “general mathematics”
describes a “non-compartmentalized” freshman mathematics course, one in which the
76
topics are “correlated and built around some unifying theme with the arrangement of the
content material in a psychological rather than a logical order” (Brown, 1946, p.329).
On the other hand, it can be viewed in the context of “general education.” And as
seen earlier, the clarity of this relationship is obscured by the complexity and ambiguity
of the latter term. Ayre complained of this ambiguity when he wrote, “when the
objectives of general education are mentioned one immediately wonders what is meant
by general education and what its objectives are” (Ayre, 1953, p. 107).
The war had acted to accentuate the relevance of this educational perspective.
This happened in several ways. As Kliebard (1987) notes in The Struggle fo r the
American Curriculum, the practical demands of the conflict itself returned social
efficiency to the center stage of the American educational landscape. So did the moral
issues involved. A war defending democracy made a democratization of the curriculum
seem all the more vital. Kliebard also cites the drop in high school enrollment, from 6.7
million in 1940-41 to 5.5 in 1943-44, as a factor in stimulating a reform of the high
school curriculum in a more utilitarian direction. What High Schools Ought to Teach,
published in 1940 by the Special Committee for the Secondary School Curriculum,
foreshadowed this shift in sensibility, arguing that public school did not serve the
practical interests o f most students, preparing American youth in disproportionate
numbers for “white-collar” jobs (Kliebard, 1987).
The above forces culminated in what came to be known as “life adjustment
education,” which emphasized the practical needs of the citizen - both vocational and
social. The term “general education” would clearly prove useful in this context. Yet to
make “general education” synonymous with life adjustment education would be
77
incorrect. Another important relevant publication of this period was Harvard
University’s General Education in a Free Society (1945), which placed much more
emphasis and value in a traditional humanistic curriculum than the contemporary social
efficiency theorists. This work associates “general education” with the importance of
endowing Americans with a common social orientation, through a common liberal
education. The aim o f “general education,” asserted these authors, was to impart the
“general art of the free man and citizen.”
The above debate was primarily oriented around secondary schooling. If there
was an authoritative voice on the question of “general education” in college, it may have
been the President’s Commission on Higher Education (1947). “The crucial task of
American higher education today,” wrote the authors of the report, “ . . . is to provide a
unified general education for American youth. Colleges must find the right relationship
between specialized training on the one hand, aiming at a thousand different careers, and
the transmission of a common cultural heritage toward a common citizenship of the
other” (President’s Commission on Higher Education, 1947, p.44).
The Commission’s report continued:
‘General education’ is the term that has come to be accepted for those phases
of non specialized and nonvocational learning which should be the common
experience of all educated men and women . . . general education should give
to the student the values, attitudes, knowledge, and skills that will equip him
to live rightly and well in a free society. It should enable him to identify,
interpret, select, and build into his own life those components of his cultural
heritage that contribute richly to understanding and appreciation of the world
in which he lives. It should therefore embrace ethical values, scientific
generalizations, and aesthetic conceptions, as well as an understanding of the
purposes and character of the political, economic and social institutions that
men have devised.
78
But the knowledge and understanding which general education aims to

secure, whether drawn from the past or from a living present, are not to be
regarded as ends in themselves. They are means to a more abundant personal
life and a stronger, freer social order (President’s Commission on Higher
Education, 1947, p.49).
Here, as elsewhere, “general education” was just as broadly defined as the term
“general” would suggest. But this report did specifically address the role of mathematics:
“Numbers are . . . an important means of communication. We call mathematics into
service in our daily lives much more frequently than is generally supposed. General
education must provide a functional knowledge of the elements of mathematics that
industrial society normally requires, and also the skill of quantitative thinking”
(President’s Commission on Higher Education, 1947, p.53).
This last remark reveals a utilitarian orientation of “general” mathematics
distinguishing it from other humanistic subjects. While general education in other
subjects is viewed as having significance in terms of “cultural heritage,” “appreciation of
the world,” and “aesthetic and scientific generalizations,” “general” mathematics is here
presented solely as skill and industrial knowledge. This passage reveals one important
challenge faced by advocates o f a liberal arts mathematics curriculum - that authorities in
higher education did not view mathematics education as possessing a “cultural” or
“liberal arts” potentiality. Cameron (1953), in his visits to 33 American colleges, seemed
to observe this. Is mathematics, he asked, regarded as an essential subject in a liberal
education? In the institutions establishing “general education” courses in the humanities,
social sciences, and the natural sciences, mathematics had no place in these courses.
The tensions between a “practical” education and a “liberal” education were also
observed in the junior college curriculum. Ayre noted that in the junior college level
79
there was “increasingly greater emphasis being given to the terminal student with a
concomitant de-emphasis on the college preparatory function” (Ayre, 1953, 107). Koos
pointed out that while the junior college was established to provide the first two years of
a four-year college education, only about a quarter of junior college students actually
continued to senior college. “Junior College,” stated Koos, “can no longer remain, what
too many persons still think, ‘just another place to get the first two years of college or
university work” (Koos, 1946, p.410).
Houston Karnes, in his 1950 article for The Mathematics Teacher, describes two
classes of junior college students - those terminating their formal education with their
til
14 year, and a smaller group, those going on to a senior college. The curriculum,
Karnes claimed, has always been designed for the smaller group. O f the former group, he
creates four sub-classes: those going on to vocational work, those going into office work,
those who desire more mathematics “because they like it,” and those who desire four
more years of a liberal education. The second group consists of six categories: future
scientists and engineers, mathematics majors, those going into business, those going into
fields requiring statistics, those majoring in liberal arts, future non-mathematics teachers.
According to Karnes, there were three sub-categories of students - those continuing on to
a four-year school, those majoring in liberal arts, and those intending to teach non-
mathematical subjects - which lent themselves to a non-traditional course.
The Commission on Post-War Plans of the National Council of Teacher of
Mathematics asserted that “from the point-of-view of interest in mathematics, the student
body of the junior college will divide itself into three major groups: Group I—those
students who desire some knowledge of mathematics merely as a part of their cultural
80
background; Group II—those students who need a minimum of certain mathematical
prerequisites because of their desire to follow specific vocational interests; Group III—
those students who have major mathematical needs because they plan a career in some
field such as engineering, natural science, or pure mathematics” (Commission on Post-
War Plans o f the National Council of Teacher of Mathematics, 1945, p.213). To this list
Lynnwood Wren adds one other Group: “those students who, for one reason or another,
feel that they have no interest whatsoever in mathematics” (Wren, 1952, p.597).
Glenn Ayre (1953) cited three agreed aims for the junior college program: a
terminal education, vocational education, and college preparatory training. The
Cooperative Committee on Science and Mathematics Teaching, Ayre notes, pointed out
that “the college courses are frequently pitched to the needs of future specialists to the
neglect of those chiefly interested in general education” (Ayre, 1953, p. 108). The
Committee even suggested that this failure was one of the main weaknesses of the
science and mathematics programs in the colleges. Ayre concludes: “There seems little
evidence o f a well-planned curriculum in mathematics” (Ayre, 1953, p. 107). This
sentiment was echoed by the Committee on the Undergraduate Mathematical Program,
appointed by the MAA, which reported in 1953 that there existed widespread
dissatisfaction with the existing undergraduate program in mathematics.
A Universal Course
The dichotomy between “specialists” and “non-specialists” was becoming a
trichotomy, the “non-specialists” increasingly seen as divisible into liberal arts students
81
and students whose needs were primarily vocational. Compounding the challenge of
addressing the needs of these latter two subdivisions of non-specialists was the difficulty
of distinguishing between the two. Some junior college students were only there to get
some sort of semi-vocational training, while some were destined for a four-year
education and due all the liberal edifications according such a trajectory. But how could
these two types o f students be distinguished? And even if they could be, why not impart
the “liberal” mathematics to the vocational students? For that matter, why not impart it to
the “specialists”? Were they not just as worthy of a “liberal education” in mathematics
as the English majors?
This paradox was recognized by several educators during this period. In the
pages of The Mathematics Teacher, C. V. Newsom noted the irony to the general
freshman course for nonspecialists. “The student completing the general course,”
Newsom wrote, “will actually have a type of mathematical knowledge and an
understanding of mathematical concepts that the typical major in the field does not
possess” (Newsom, 1949, p.22).
E. P. Northrop wrote in the Monthly that “a liberal education is presumably the
kind of education everyone ought to have, regardless of the career he expects to enter. If
this be true, then any mathematics course designed as an integral part of such an
education should be one that every student ought to take, whether or not he plans to take
further courses in mathematics” (Northrop, 1948, p.2).
Ayre argued in School Science and Mathematics that “there seems nothing in the
objectives or the subject matter for general education that is not just as desirable and
worthy of the specialist” (Ayre, 1953, p.l 12). He goes on to express concern that so
82
many people think “technical competence” in mathematics is possible without
understanding the nature and significance of mathematics. “Surely the future specialist
as well as the general student should learn more about the foundations of mathematics
and the structure o f the mathematics as a mode of thought.”
The Committee on the Undergraduate Mathematics Program (1955) designed a
system of college mathematics education whereby all college students, even specialists,
would take a “universal course.” In the cases of those students with a strong high school
mathematics training, this universal course could be taken concurrently with the classical
calculus course, or preceding it. Those students who were weak in mathematics, could,
after completing the universal course, take a “technical laboratory” to sharpen their skill
for calculus, or (more likely) end their mathematics training there. Finally, the design
included a possibility for some students to proceed to a “mathematics for social studies”
course after the universal course.
This universal course would be made up of two subjects. One subject would
consist of “functions, graphs, and elementary calculus, covering differentiation and
integration of polynomials, logarithms, exponential functions and general powers, with a
minimum of formulas and with emphasis on ideas,” while the other would “take off
from” set concepts, set up the fundamental language of theoretical mathematics and
proceed, via some of the simpler abstract algebraic systems to probability with emphasis
on the binomial distribution” (Committee on the Undergraduate Mathematical Program,
1955, p.513).
The Committee’s report boasts some ambitiously progressive language,
recommending “a widespread program of ‘doing’ to overcome the inertia o f the
enormously ponderous structure which carries onward the present program with all of its
deficiencies” (Committee on the Undergraduate Mathematical Program, 1955, p.514).
However, it might be seen as ironic to some that the universal course advocated by the
Committee contains largely traditional material, even consisting, it would seem, of a
significant element o f calculus. This orientation appears rooted in a concern for building
a technically-minded population. The Committee briefly notes in passing the
contemporary trend toward addressing the “liberal and cultural” aspects of mathematics,
but only as a host of many simultaneously emerging perspectives. The Committee also
chooses to “ignore” the question of remedial courses for students entering the school
without adequate preparation in traditional algebra-based mathematics. The progressive
quality of its reform plan rests largely in its desire to provide a common “liberal”
mathematics education for all students and to insure that incoming freshman students not
be restricted in their freedom of development. From the perspective of a half-century
later, we can see that in this regard, the “universal course” idea proved a dead end. Glen
Ayre had also speculated about the possibility of a “dual course,” but noted that the idea
did have practical pitfalls. First, the general student and future specialist differ widely in
mathematical aptitude and interest; second, that the two groups of students differ
markedly in the amount of mathematical training prior to college entrance; third, that the
size of the school could present programming difficulties.
But the main shortcoming of the Committee’s “universal course” from the
perspective of an advocate of liberal arts mathematics was its failure to adequately
conceive reform in the realm in which it mattered most: content. While it paid lip-service
to a focus on “ideas,” the course has virtually none of the qualities of the “cultural” or
84
“survey” course espoused by previous voices of reform, no concern for exploring the
significance of or aesthetic qualities in mathematics.
“Real” Mathematics
One common theme seen in the reformer’s statements of this period is an
insistence that despite the desired de-emphasis on purely mechanical or technical
computation, it was imperative that mathematics students be nevertheless made to do
mathematics.
Carl Allendoerfer, in a 1947 article for the Monthly, insisted, “We should agree
that the content should be mathematics and not merely about mathematics”
(Allendoerfer, 1947, p.576).
The Special Committee on College Mathematics for Non-Science Students wrote
in their 1956 report, that while “emphasis in this course will be on critical thinking and
understanding rather than technique,” since “real understanding must come through
application of principles, it must be a course in mathematics and not just about
mathematics” (Special Committee on College Mathematics for Non-Science Students,
1956, p.641).
The fourth point out of nine in Lynwood Wren’s postulates for a Freshman
mathematics course was that “the content of the course must be bona fide mathematics
and not mere descriptions and discussions of the nature of mathematics” (Wren, 1952,
p.601).
85
Ayre argued that “the freshman course should not limit students to learning about
mathematics” (Ayre, 1953, p. 109).
Finally, Cameron asserted that was “to be emphasized that it is not thought that
this can be accomplished by use of descriptive material about the subject. Serious
mathematics must be the backbone of the course” (Cameron, 1953, p. 152).
The above remarks reveal that to make a course about mathematics rather than
centering it around the doing of mathematics may have seemed to represent a significant
departure from the problem-solving format tradition o f mathematics education, and that
this departure was met with resistance.
The Human Element
While college mathematics educators called for a new freshman mathematics
curriculum, one also observes an increased emphasis on what might be considered the
“human” variables of the educational process. The fundamental criticism of the
traditional curriculum was based in an understanding that it did not serve the needs o f the
student. While there was no shortage of expert opinion on what sort of mathematics the
typical student did need, there were also those willing to be open-minded on this
question, and to even look to the students themselves for its answer.
The Special Committee on College Mathematics for Non-Science Students (1955)
polled college mathematics instructors on their students’ likes and dislikes with respect to
mathematics. It was clear, based on these responses, that “a large proportion of the
students who took these courses had some unfortunate mathematical experience which
86
frequently left them with a negative attitude toward mathematics,” and that there was
some agreement on which topics “inspire enthusiasm,” and which ones “antagonize.”
The following were mentioned as causing “enthusiasm”: “applications; bizarre,
new or unusual results; modem implications; problems which can be visualized;
problems which the students can solve; challenging situations; discovery on one’s own
terms; reasoning; elementary logic; number scales; problems involving rates; learning
how to read stated problems; variation problems; percentage; applications in the field of
business; annuities; graphs; statistics and probability; starting at the student’s level of
understanding and enabling him to achieve success” (Special Committee on College
Mathematics for Non-Science Students, 1955, p.640).
The following experiences seemed to “antagonize” students: “new definitions;
difficult ideas with no applications; not obviously useful or necessary abstractions; logic;
topology; proofs; especially detailed tricky proofs; abstract geometry; formal algebra;
word problems; lengthy computations; having to give reasons; careful reasoning;
thinking; routine” (Special Committee on College Mathematics for Non-Science
Students, 1955, p.640).
The authors drew the following general conclusions from their survey:
1. There is not a single course that meets the needs of all students and all
instructors. Successful courses are taught at different levels of mathematical difficulty
and maturity.
2. It is just as important to consider the instructor as it is the students in preparing
a course.
87
3. The choice of topics is not as important for the success of the course as are the
attitudes and interest of the teacher, the attitudes and emotions of the student.
The Committee adds: “Beyond such essential topics as the number system,
operations with numbers, arithmetic of measurement, functions, graphs, equations and
formulas, logical reasoning, the selection of topics should be influenced by the desires
and abilities o f the students, the interests of the teacher, and the amount of available
time” (Special Committee on College Mathematics for Non-Science Students, 1955,
p.641).
One notes here the acknowledgments that the particular desires, abilities, and
interests of the teacher are deemed important in the success of the course. The
Committee has more to say on this matter.
Students who take mathematics for general education are frequently those
who have emotional blocks toward the study of mathematics. It will then be
not so much the content as the attitude and teaching approach that must
distinguish this course from other courses in mathematics. We must meet
students where they are and lead them along the path of mathematics as a
meaningful and precise thinking. This course requires a teacher who is
interested in helping students to overcome their blocks and to acquire a liking
for mathematics and a feeling of confidence in their ability to do
mathematics. The teacher should have a thorough knowledge of
mathematical theory and a wide acquaintance with applications to the arts
and sciences. He should be well versed in the history of mathematics and its
cultural significance. Further qualifications of the successful teacher are
patience and an understanding of the learning process (Special Committee on
College Mathematics for Non-Science Students, 1955, p.640).
Kenneth Brown, in presenting the results of his 1949 survey, quoted some of his
respondents as emphasizing the importance of the teacher. “The topics are not as
important as the way they are done.” “Our ideas are that such a course should not
emphasize mathematical techniques.” “It isn’t so much the matter of emphasis as the
viewpoint.”
Houston Karnes argued that the course’s effectiveness depended “upon the
personality and ideas of those doing the teaching” (Karnes, 1950, p. 151). Karnes
acknowledges the concern about who might teach such a course - in particular, that the
training of capable teachers would require special funding. However, he is optimistic
that the money to train such teachers is forthcoming, and encourages the increased
cultivation and recruitment of future teachers as far back as high school. Karnes stresses
that the sort of teachers needed at the junior college are not pure or research
mathematicians. In the first place, Karnes suggests, there wouldn’t enough to go around.
Secondly, such a person would not make a good teacher for such courses.
Summary
The traditional freshman curriculum of college algebra, trigonometry, and
analytic geometry, now attacked from two directions, seemed in need of significant
reform, and mathematics educators began to discuss, mostly through committee reports
and the American Mathematical Monthly, what sort of curriculum was most appropriate
to the non-specialist student. Most reformers advocated a curriculum that stressed the
cultural importance of mathematics. Some argued for teaching the significance of
mathematics to civilization and daily life. Some argued for grounding students in the arts
of logical thinking. Some argued for a mathematics education that would help to instill
89
the sorts of qualities conducive to a democratic society. Some advocated teaching
mathematics in a way that showed students its fundamental nature as a discipline and its
history as a science. Some advocated teaching mathematics as an aesthetic entity, to be
appreciated for its beauty. Some suggested that mathematics education could be a
spiritual, even religious experience. The consequence of these perspectives was the
mathematical “survey” course.
The early liberal arts textbooks ranged widely in style, content, and format. All,
with the arguable exception of Northrop’s book, attempted to make mathematics less dry,
more appealing to students. Some authors went to greater lengths, in their manner of
presentation, to achieve this goal. On the basis of the future trajectory of the liberal arts
textbook, one concludes that the more extravagantly conceived texts proved less
influential than those predicated on a more traditional structure. Liberal arts textbooks of
the future, the ones to be used in college classrooms by multitudes of students, were
characterized not only by nontraditional content but by a format conducive to college
instruction. There needed to be clear organization, there needed to be content with which
the typical instructor would feel confident, have familiarity, and be able to recognize.
The efforts of mathematics education reformers to bring liberal arts mathematics
to students on a wide scale met with slow success and a variety of obstacles. In the early
post-war period, no more than half of all colleges and universities can be sure to have
been offering any kind of alternative course at all, and many of those that did were not
offering a true “liberal arts mathematics” course, nor even a predecessor to its current
manifestation. The chief educational trend of the time was one of imparting practical,
“life” skills. In higher education, these ideas found chief realization in the term “general
90
education” and the utilitarian perspectives that accompanied it acted to impart a
“consumer,” “industrial,” and “basic skills” quality to many of the freshman mathematics
courses offered as alternatives to the traditional one, which acted to dilute the influence
o f reformers calling for a “cultural course.”
Some college mathematics educators supported the idea of a “universal course,”
which would insure that college students were provided with a common mathematics
experience, and in particular, that the mathematics specialist students were not ironically
deprived of the “liberal” treatment of their subject, yet this course, as developed by
committee, did not embody the ideals envisioned by the original reformers. One focus of
concern was that the course should be about “doing” mathematics rather than “about”
mathematics itself. This represented a potential obstacle to the adoption of new content
since much of the original vision for liberal arts mathematics was that it teach “what
mathematics is all about.”
Yet the forces of reform were aided by an increasing concern for the “human”
elements o f mathematics education, in particular, a sensitivity to the experience of the
student and the sensibilities of the instructor.
91
Chapter Five: Liberal Arts Mathematics in the Modern Era and

Beyond
The most important effort to reform school mathematics in the 20th century came
to be known as the “new math” movement, which was primarily encompassed by the
nineteen fifties and sixties. Given that the chief focus of the “new math” reform
movement was secondary school mathematics, it might be surprising if some of its
shockwaves were not felt in the undergraduate curriculum. Indeed, the liberal arts
mathematics textbooks of the late fifties and early sixties reveal a trend toward what was
then being called (by many of the authors), “modem mathematics.” To understand this
complex period in the history o f the liberal arts mathematics course, one faces a central
question. Was the trend toward “modem mathematics” seen in the freshman textbooks a
secondary response to “new math”? Or are these trends to be seen as simultaneous
outgrowths of a mutually shared genesis?
“New Math”
As discussed in the introduction to this study, “new math” has received some
attention by historians of mathematics curricula. These historians do not share a
consensus on the origins, excepting a mutual discrediting of Sputnik as the principle
precipitating force. The Russians’ startling entry into the space race (and the attendant
92
political and foreign policy issues) contributed to the policy support of the “new math,”
but by 1957, the curricular reforms characterizing this movement were already well
underway (Hayden, 1981; Nee, 1990; Walmsley, 2003). The origins of these reforms can
be understood in terms of two essentially unrelated kinds of innovations, those pertaining,
on one hand, to the academic/intellectual realms of mathematics and education theory,
and on the other hand to the “external” world of science, industry, and global events.
A long-developing impetus of the new mathematics was purely “mathematical” in
character. The latter half of the nineteenth and the first decades of the twentieth century
had witnessed profound efforts to establish the “foundations” of mathematics. Logicians
such as Russell, Whitehead, and Peano had grappled with the problem of setting
mathematics within a formally logical system. The work of Godel (whose
Incompleteness Theorem showed the theoretical impossibility of a complete system of
mathematical rules) notwithstanding, mathematics was increasingly seen as inextricably
connected to, and perhaps defined by, logical rigor (Hayden, 1981). These trends in the
field of theoretical mathematics began, in the nineteen fifties, to percolate into the science
of mathematics education. The operative word connecting theory to pedagogy was
“structure.” By emphasizing the logical and foundational character of mathematics, by
teaching its “structure,” reformers believed that they could facilitate a better
understanding of mathematics (Hayden, 1981; Nee, 1990; Walmsley, 2003).
The emphasis on better “understanding” can itself be understood in the context of
trends in the theory of education. Mary Margaret Grady Nee (1990) grounds her
historical perspective on “new math” in the progressive education movement. These
educators, led by John Dewey, advocated for a turn away from rote drill toward an
emphasis on critical thinking and understanding. New pedagogical techniques were
coming into vogue, such as experiential and discovery learning. Bruner and Piaget’s
work in psychology, meanwhile, had fostered the idea that students were capable of
learning more at a younger age. Mathematics education reformers of the fifties, thus, had
a theoretical justification for introducing more conceptually-oriented approaches to
teaching mathematics.
While these trends were unfolding in the “interior” realms of theory and
psychology, external events were reshaping the social, political, and economic landscape.
The greatest of these, o f course, was World War II. The war had been won in part due to
the technological and strategic superiority of the Allies’ efforts, and this helped to put
mathematics and science education into a new position of importance in American
education. Robert Hayden (1981), in A History o f the “New Math ” Movement in the
United States, discusses at some length the importance of mathematics to World War II,
suggesting that the war shaped a generation of mathematical thought, placing a greater
emphasis on mathematical applications. Yet while Hayden suggests that the concern for
better developing the training of engineers and scientists, it was primarily the influences
of mathematics outside o f the traditional areas of science and technology that influenced
the “new math” programs - psychology, sociology, and industrial management. Angela
Evans Walmsley also puts the external impetus of new math in general terms: “The
revolution in mathematics . . . was seen as necessary because of three things: computers,
automation, and increased mathematical research.” But the Cold War, Walmsley
suggests, played an important role in inspiring a greater interest, on the part o f American
society as a whole, in developing mathematics and science education, and that the launch
94
of Sputnik helped to spur funding for the implementation of “new math” (Walmsley,
2003, p.21).
The above discussion reveals both a theoretical (“interior”) and a social
(“exterior”) impetus for a change in mathematics education. How did these two
coinciding contexts come together? To address this question, the phenomenon of
“progressive education” must be examined, as well as the broader context of curricular
debate at mid-century. The progressive education movement encompassed not only those
educators like Dewey who advocated for greater understanding and meaning, but those
concerned more with the utility of education, and who emphasized an education that
extended beyond traditional academics to broader life concerns (Walmsley, 2003;
Kliebard, 1987). This decreasing emphasis on academic subjects spurred a counter
movement toward a more traditional “intellectually-oriented” curriculum. “New math”
may be seen as offering something to all of these factions. To this latter, conservative
group, “new math” promised a return to intellectual rigor. To traditional progressives, it
offered an increased “understanding.” To “utilitarian” progressives, it seemed relevant to
the automated age (Hayden, 1981; Nee, 1990; Walmsley, 2003).
The “new math” curriculum evolved largely through the efforts of committees
funded by the Carnegie Foundation. The earliest such work occurred in the early fifties
in Illinois. The University o f Illinois had restructured their mathematical program in
engineering in such a way that more mathematics knowledge was required of the
incoming student, and a series of committees were formed in the early fifties with the
purpose of revising the high school mathematics curriculum to meet these ends (Hayden,
1981; Nee, 1990; Walmsley, 2003). The work on these committees led to a more
95
rigorous approach to the basic concepts of high school mathematics, which the members
felt were not being adequately addressed by the conventional textbooks. Hayden writes
that while these concerns were initially pedagogical, the reformed approach to pedagogy
led to a reformed content. For help with issues of pedagogical rigor, the committee
turned to research mathematicians. It was in this way, Hayden (1981) suggests, that the
first “new math” program began. While the Illinois committee’s work did not itself
blossom into a widespread reform, Hayden notes that it provided the inspiration for future
“new math” programs. Maryland also was the site of an effort to reform school
mathematics, the University of Maryland Mathematics Project (UMMaP).
The College Entrance Examination Board (CEEB) had been formed in 1900 in
order that some degree of uniformity might be achieved with regard to college
admissions standards. In 1955 a commission was formed with the purpose of
“modernizing” the high school mathematics curriculum. The commission’s report argued
that changes in mathematics required changes in the mathematics curriculum (Hayden,
1981; Walmsley, 2003). It called not so much for specific changes in content as teaching
mathematics from a new, or “modem” point of view. In the case o f algebra, it called for
a greater emphasis on understanding over manipulative skills, in particular, a greater
emphasis on “sets, inequalities, and functions, and of the commutative, associative, and
distributive laws” (Hayden, 1981).
The most significant engine for the dissemination of “new math” was the School
Math Study Group (SMSG). Funded by the National Science Foundation, the SMSG was
the widest-scaled effort to reform school mathematics curricula to date. It produced a
series o f textbooks for the grades of 7 to 12, and orchestrated hundreds of school
96
“consultations” by which teachers could be trained on the new content and pedagogical
theory. By the late 1960s, largely as the consequence of SMSG’s work, sales of “new
math” texts had reached four million (Begle, 1968).
What was the “new math”? The essential content - algebra - was the same. But
the “new math” treated this content in a more rigorously mathematical way. There was
increased emphasis on basic axioms such as the commutative and associative laws.
Hayden (1981) observes that set theory became nearly synonymous with the “new math”
- not in the sense of the theory o f sets, but rather its language. “New math” emphasized
the deductive process, and employed proofs in an algebraic context. Hayden describes
the new textbooks as utilizing a new “vocabulary and symbolism,” one influenced by the
previous century’s work in the foundations of mathematics. The “new math” emphasized
the difference between a number and a numeral. Most generally, “new math”
emphasized understanding over drill. Or, in the words of Walmsley, “the main goal of
the New Math was to present mathematics as a logical structure to children who could
then develop an understanding and appreciation for mathematical reasoning and
mathematical principles” (Walmsley, 2003, p.l).
To address the relationship between “new math” and the trend toward “modem
mathematics” in the liberal arts textbooks of this period, it is first noted that “new math”
was a more significant curricular movement than the corresponding trend in freshmen
mathematics texts, primarily because it impacted many more students. Because of this,
and because secondary school mathematics precedes college mathematics, it may seem
most reasonable to conclude that the new liberal arts texts were influenced by “new
97
math.” However, there is reason to suggest that the influence ran, at least initially, in the
opposite direction.
In discussing the sources of “new math” content, Hayden presents a simple
analysis o f about ten college textbooks, noting which topics of modem mathematics were
included for each one. Hayden pays particular attention to E. P. Northrop’s Fundamental
Mathematics series. Hayden suggests that the leaders of the “new math” movement
would have been familiar with the undergraduate mathematics program at the University
of Chicago and its endeavor to instill the freshman course a new level of logical rigor.
Hayden cites Richardson’s Fundamentals o f Mathematics (1941) as an even earlier
manifestation of “new math” principles. His explanation for the new trend in freshman
textbooks is quoted in full:
Although it may seem ironic that “new math” ideas were first presented at the
freshman level to students in the arts and social sciences, the reason is not
hard to find. The central mathematics course for science and engineering
students has always been Calculus, and courses for these students at lower
levels have always been aimed at preparing students for calculus. In these
courses, the student must gain a substantial amount of technical proficiency.
This need places considerable restrictions on the content of a first year
college mathematics course that has as on o f its goals the preparation of
students for calculus. A course such as Richardson’s, on the other hand, may
contain virtually anything the students who take the course are capable of
absorbing. So, rather than develop in the students the technical proficiency
needed for a calculus course they would never take, Richardson tried to
introduce his students to some of the basic ideas of modem mathematics.
Sensible as it sounds, that was a new idea in 1941 . . . (Hayden, 1981, p.92-
93).
Carl Allendoerfer (1964), in an address given to the NCTM, states that the “new
math revolution” began in the colleges, partly in response to World War II. According to
Allendoerfer, a small number of mathematicians had been exposed, during the war, to
“exciting new” mathematical developments such as game theory, linear programming,
new methods in statistics, and applications of these to operations analysis (what came to
be known as operations theory). When they returned to their classrooms, the traditional
curriculum seemed “dull and sterile.” Allendoerfer describes reform-minded college
mathematicians trying to develop new teaching materials that embodied this fresh
approach to mathematics education, stating that, eventually, “word began leaking out to
the schools that something was happening in some of the colleges.”
It was Allendoerfer and his co-author Oakley who inspired the formation of the
CEEB committee mentioned earlier. The above evidence suggests that the trend toward
“modem” mathematics seen in the freshman texts of the late fifties and sixties cannot be
understood simply as a reaction to or consequence of the reforms taking place at the
secondary level. Nor would it be accurate to suggest, conversely, that “new math” grew
out of the reforms o f freshman texts. Rather, these two trends in curricular reform
shared, in at least some aspects of their evolution, a common source. On one hand that
source can be seen as purely mathematical, a percolation downward of a century’s
development in mathematical foundations. On the other hand that source can be seen as
practical and social, a consequence of World War II, the Cold War, automation, and the
urgency that developed around the urgency to meet these challenges in an effective way.
The Rise of Modem Mathematics
Whereas “new math” employed abstract mathematical language and concepts in
the service o f teaching algebra, “modem mathematics” explored these concepts directly.
99
E. P. Northrop’s (1944-1948) book, Fundamental Mathematics, is in a sense “about”
logical rigor, and in this way represents one of the ultimate manifestations of “modem”
mathematics in a freshman course.
Northrop’s University of Chicago course goes back to the mid-forties, and we
have seen in this study how the development of “logic” was one of the original objectives
of early liberal arts mathematics pioneers. Northrop’s and these others’ efforts to frame
the freshman mathematics curriculum around the development of logical sensibility may
be seen as early, prophetic voices in a movement that built gradually and peaked in the
1960s. To understand the rationale and sensibility of those behind the movement toward
“logical structure” during this era, a 1961 article by Marshall Stone called “The
Revolution in Mathematics” published in The American Mathematical Monthly may be
examined.
Like some reformers in the “new math” movement, Stone saw the contemporary
state of education as one of both crisis and opportunity:
We are in the midst of an intellectual crisis which has profound implications for
education everywhere in the world. This crisis has arisen in conjunction with the
development of science, and is the direct consequence of man’s adoption o f scientific
ways of thinking and acting. We shall not resolve its tensions until we accept
science as an integral and all-pervasive part of our culture, not only at the material
level but also in the tangent spheres of the intellectual life and education. So
suddenly has this crisis developed and so far do its effects extend that we are forced
to recognize in it the symptoms characteristic of a major mutation in human culture .
.. everything - his relation to his physical environment, to time and space . . . even
his relationship to the spiritual realm will be radically altered (Stone, 1961, p.715).
For Stone, the entire system of education needed to be re-conceived. With respect
to mathematics, in particular, it was important that society reconceptualize the very
100
“nature” of mathematics, to vastly enlarge its “technical” knowledge of the subject, and
vastly increase its dependence upon mathematics for “scientific and technological
progress.” “We can see a time in the not so very distant future when a complete
identification of science, logic, and mathematics will be achieved” (Stone, 1961, p.716).
The essential mathematical advance of the 20th century, suggests Stone, is the
realization that mathematics is based not on the physical world but in the human mind, a
realization Stone considers as revolutionary as the Greeks’ discovery of the axiomatic
method. The implications of this discovery include a unified understanding of
mathematics, and most particularly, an understanding of the way modem advancements
have relied on abstraction and a concern with “broad mathematical patterns.” The
implications for mathematics education, Stone continues, involve an understanding of the
“antithesis” that exists between manipulative mathematics and mathematical structure.
Stone notes that the challenge facing mathematics educators involves resolving this
antithesis.
Stone outlines the development of 19th century foundational mathematics, citing
the work of Russell and Whitehead in stressing the centrality of logic. “The fusion
thereby achieved between mathematics and logic reinforces the conclusion that
mathematics is a completely abstract formal discipline, and raises interesting questions as
to how much can be accomplished by the mechanical manipulation of symbolic systems
and how much must depend upon direct or intuitive insights into their structural patterns.
Mathematics can be likened to a game - or, rather, an infinite series of games - in which
the pieces and moves are intrinsically meaningless and the absorbing interest lies in
101
perceiving and utilizing the patterns of play allowed under the rules” (Stone, 1961,
p.719).
A year later, Carl Allendoerfer (1962) used his retiring address as president of the
American Mathematical Society to speak of the “crisis” facing mathematics education.
Like Stone, Allendoerfer argues that mathematics education must delve deeper into the
“essence” of mathematics, building a model linking “axioms,” “organization,”
“applications,” “logic,” “theorems,” and “nature.” Also like Stone, Allendoerfer is
critical of the traditional, manipulation-based mathematics. Contemporary mathematics
textbooks, according to Allendoerfer, are “far too oriented toward routine aspects of
mathematics.” Theorems are presented with little or no motivation. In reforming
mathematics education, Allendoerfer points to the importance of intuition. Allendoerfer
asserts that the mathematics education reform has, as one of its principle tenets, that
“intuition be developed before rules of operation are formalized” (Allendoerfer, 1962,
p.464).
While “new math” employed abstract concepts as a tool with which to better
impart a traditional subject, the above visionaries of “modem” mathematical reform
perceive abstraction as an end in its own right. However, these authors do not explicitly
delineate the educational results arising from the teaching of abstraction. Both
Allendoerfer and Stone make reference to the technological and scientific challenges
facing the contemporary citizen, but they do not make clear how a modem approach to
mathematics will help impart the appropriate skill and talent.
102
The Textbooks
In the prefaces of the era’s liberal art textbooks, many authors allude to the
curricular trend of the time. “In keeping with the modem trend,” writes Israel Rose,
author of A Modern Introduction to College Mathematics (1959), “I devote attention also
to the logical structure o f mathematics” (Rose, 1959, p.viii). John Fujii, in his preface to
An Introduction to the Elements o f Mathematics (1961), notes that mathematics have
been undergoing reform, referring to The Committee on Undergraduate Reform as well
as SMSG. His textbook, he writes, “puts into effect some of the results of these reform
movements” (Fujii, 1961, p.v.). Fujii’s book is approximately 80% set theory and logic,
with some space devoted to counting and probability.
In his preface to An Introduction to Modern Mathematics (1962), Nathan Fine
notes that “modem mathematics” is a misnomer - the referred-to material had actually
been in existence for at least fifty years, but it was only recently that college mathematics
instructors had endeavored to present these topics at the lower undergraduate levels. Fine
notes that through various “curriculum development groups,” the “‘new’ mathematics has
filtered down to the secondary schools and even the elementary schools, and a generation
of ‘new’ students is rising” (Fine, 1962, p.vii). Fine was a teacher, consultant, and writer
for SMSG, and contends that these experiences have convinced him of the importance of
this material. Either William Smith or Stanley Dice, authors of Modern College
Mathematics (1963), was also a member of the SMSG, for in the preface the authors note
that one of the chief impetuses of their book was the experience of participating in “an
103
institute, sponsored by the NSF, for secondary mathematics teachers, one of the purposes
of which was to describe the logical structure of algebra” (Smith; Dice, 1963, p.v).
In the preface to Elementary Concepts o f Mathematics (1963), Burton Jones notes
the “extensive” revisions that have been made since the 1947 edition, an increased
emphasis on sets and new terminology designed to “conform to that which seems to be
evolving in the new curricula” (Jones, 1963, p.vii). Adele Leonhardy’s 1963 second
edition of Introductory College Mathematics notes several minor changes made with the
purpose of “keeping with the current emphasis on mathematical structure, or pattern”
(Leonhardy, 1963, p.v).
John Moore, in his preface to Fundamental Principles o f Mathematics (1960),
notes that “the basic notion o f a set plays a role in almost every chapter,” (Moore, 1960,
p.viii). Donald Western (1962), in his preface to An Introduction to Mathematics, writes
“The experience of the authors in teaching college freshman has convinced them that for
an adequate understanding of the introductory ideas of mathematics a student should first
master a few basic concepts of formal logic” (Western, 1962, p.v)
As shown in the quantitative analysis (Appendix A), sets and logic represent a
significant component o f the “modem” approach to liberal arts mathematics. Many of
these texts begin with chapters on these topics. Other topics that might be understood to
characterize the “modem” trend include Boolean algebra, groups and fields, number
theory, non-Euclidean geometry, “the axiomatic method,” mathematical systems.
Yet, as with “new math,” the “modem” trend in freshman mathematics texts did
not represent a radical revision of content, but rather a nuanced shift. Most of the books
discussed from this era paid at least as much attention to the traditional material as the
104
new. Linear equations, polynomials, logarithms, trigonometry and calculus are widely
featured in these texts.
The Waning of Modem Mathematics
Hayden writes that “new math” movement “ended with the era in which it was a
part,” (Hayden, 1981, p.245). On one hand, “new math” ran up against logistical
challenges in dissemination, in particular, the difficulty of implementing a nation-wide
retraining of teachers. On the other hand, Hayden suggests that the Vietnam War and
social trends of the sixties proved significant distractions. Hayden suggests that “new
math” ran out of steam not so much because of external obstacles, but because its
pedagogical and mathematical principles did not themselves prove attractive or self-
evident enough to achieve staying power. This may also be said of said for the “modem”
approach to liberal arts mathematics. The prefaces discussed above suggest that many
authors of the liberal arts mathematics textbooks of this era emphasized “modem”
content in deference to education trends rather than personal enthusiasm.
The educational philosophy represented by the “modem” canon also met with
direct resistance. In a 1960 article for the AMM, D. M. Merriell sounded a warning over
the new material. Merriell notes that the emphasis on sets, symbolic logic, and
mathematical foundations explored by Northrop and his colleagues at the University of
Chicago in the 1940s were innovations at the time, but in 1960 threatened to become a
“new orthodoxy, shaken down to a teachable form as dry and dusty as the present day
material it would replace” (Merriell, 1960, p.76-77).
What would be the real “effects” of this curricular trend, Merriell asked. There is
an assumption that the old curriculum is obsolete, he says, and “in a consumer society in
which built-in obsolescence is accepted as normal and the new is valued as the best, this
has great appeal” (Merriell, 1960, p.77). Merriell asks: if the “obsolescence” of the
current curriculum is the reason America is falling behind in mathematics, how to explain
the conservative quality o f the curriculum in the Soviet Union and Europe? The real
roots of the problem, Merriell suggests, are social; but attitudes and values are much
more difficult to change than a curriculum.
Merriell argues that the plane geometry material considered expendable at least
contained some interesting theorems, and required students to exercise “ingenuity and
inventive power.” but what theorems of interest are to be found in Northrop’s material?
Merriell questions axiomatization as an “end product, a result of an urge for orderliness
and organization rather than o f the disorderly creative impulse.” “If a result of a course
based on foundation material is to convey the impression that structure and axiomatics
are the principle contributions of mathematics, this is almost as one-sided and biased a
presentation as the impression now conveyed by an over-emphasis on formal
manipulation. It is also likely to be as sterile in developing the inventiveness which is the
essence o f good mathematical training” (Merriell, 1960, p. 78). If one of the principle
objectives of the contemporary developers of the mathematical curriculum was to attract
more students to mathematics, the foundation material hardly satisfied this goal, argued
Merriell. The true work of the mathematician involved solving problems, an endeavor
not well facilitated by the new material.
The same year, Jon Wheatley, also writing in the Monthly, singled out the recent
emphasis on logic as pedagogically problematic, if not fraudulent. Wheatley, in
discussing the element of symbolic logic in freshman mathematics texts, argues that the
symbolic connectors “and,” “or,” and “not” are employed, uncritically, to represent the
same meanings in spoken and written language. But the inclusive “or,” Wheatley notes,
is relatively rare in spoken and written language and that the connector “and” carries a far
“heavier” load of meaning. Wheatley goes on to give several other examples of the ways
in which the relationship between symbolic language and spoken language is muddled by
the typical textbook treatment. But mathematics instructors, Wheatley argues, should at
no time present “muddled” mathematics - that mathematics should “parade as a triumph
of clear thinking.”
Louis De Noya (1961), in “Freshman Logic: Revisited,” responds to Wheatley’s
critique by arguing, first, that symbolic logic fails in so many modem freshman texts
because of overambitiousness, an attempt to provide a far greater “insight to
mathematical thinking” than there is space to cover. Truth tables, De Noya suggests, act
to obscure and derail the educational possibilities of symbolic logic by introducing
“mechanization” into its study, one which “muddles the primary function of logical
expression.” This mechanical analysis of logic is as pointless, De Noya implies, as
“teaching a third-grader how to differentiate polynomial functions” (De Noya, 1961,
p.307).
One critic of “new math” and its corresponding trend in liberal arts mathematics
was Morris Kline, the author of Why the Professor Can’t Teach. Kline’s first notable
challenge to the curricular movement he would fight over the next decade is seen in his
107
1958 article for The Mathematics Teacher, “The ancients versus the modems, a new
battle of the books.” Kline’s article constitutes a rebuttal of sorts to Albert Meder’s 1957
article for the same publication, called, “Modem Mathematics and its Place in the
Secondary School.” In his article, Kline voices resentment about the term “modem”
being used to describe the new mathematics, calling it a form of propaganda. After all,
notes Kline, contemporary mathematics is concerned with a wide variety of other topics,
including partial differential equations, integral equations, and so forth. While the topics
Kline cites would not lend themselves very gracefully to secondary level or college
freshman mathematics instruction, his skepticism concerning the rhetorical value and
significance of the term “modem” is important to the debate. In what way is the new
mathematics really “modem?” Kline asks. Is the term “modem” being employed (and
understood) in the fashionable sense of the word? If so, is this a good rationale for
curricular reform?
Topics such as symbolic logic, Boolean algebra, set theory, abstract algebra,
groups and fields, topology, and postulational systems Kline impugns as “peripheral” to
mathematics. Symbolic logic, Kline argues, is rarely employed by the mathematician,
and “cannot encompass any significant portion of mathematics.” Boolean algebra and set
theory are also “limited” in their mathematical significance. As for topology, such
“examples” as the Konigsberg bridge problem, the four color problem, and the Mobius
band are “curiosities,” not, in fact, topology at all.
When it comes to applications, these “modem” topics are, according to Kline,
“practically useless.” Rather, these are inherently abstract topics, and as such,
inappropriate mathematical content for “young people.” It took thousands of years to
108
develop the concepts that form the basis of “modem mathematics,” and for Kline, it is
absurd to think that such the typical student can have any comprehension of these
concepts.
Kline also attacks the importance of “rigor” as a justification for the new
curriculum. This capacity must be developed in students, Kline argues; the typical
student does not possess the mathematical maturity to appreciate it. According to Kline,
mathematics must be understood “intuitively in physical or objective terms.” Kline
quotes Galileo: “Logic, it appears to me, teaches us how to test the conclusiveness of any
argument or demonstration already discovered and completed; but I do not believe that it
teaches us to discover correct arguments and demonstrations.” Kline quotes Pascal:
“Reason is the slow and tortuous method by which those who do not know the truth
discover it.”
For Kline, “modem” mathematics fails because it neglects the primary purpose of
mathematics - the investigation of nature. Because the axioms and deductive systems
espoused by modem mathematics bear no connection to the real world, they will be
perceived as meaningless by students. The traditional curriculum, insists Kline, is
already meaningless; the modernists are taking mathematics education only “farther and
farther from reality.”
Finally, and perhaps most damningly from the standpoint of a history of liberal
arts mathematics, the modernist program fails because it fails to present the “life and
spirit of mathematics.” Kline argues that the inherently creative, intuitive aspects of
mathematical problem solving are stultified by a system defined by rigor and abstraction.
What makes Kline a particularly important figure in this debate, and ultimately to
liberal arts mathematics, is that he offered not just a critique, but an alternative. Kline’s
Mathematics, A Cultural Approach, from 1962, revised five years later as Liberal Arts
Mathematics, manifests a vision of the liberal arts mathematics course very different
from that expressed in the textbooks of the time. In the preface, Kline states that his book
shows mathematics to be “intimately related to physical science, philosophy, logic,
religion, literature, the social sciences, music, painting, and other arts” (Kline, 1962, p.v).
Kline sets his course in contrast to both the abstraction-based philosophy underlying the
“new” and “modem” math, but to the traditional algebra-based mathematics these
approaches sought to supplant: “This objective is in direct opposition to the present
practice not only of presenting mathematics as an abstract science isolated from all other
branches o f knowledge, but o f teaching distinct subjects - algebra, geometry,
trigonometry, and so forth - in the futile hope that students will see the interrelationships
of the various branches and the importance of mathematics for all other domains” (Kline,
1962, p.vi).
Several other statements within Kline’s preface are quoted here:
“Let us cease teaching scales to students who do not intend to play mathematical
sonatas.”
“In general, mathematical literacy, by which I mean understanding, is worth far more
than technical proficiency.”
“To help students see the interrelationships of the various branches of knowledge is the
greater wisdom.”
110
“To separate mathematics from other human interests and endeavors is to present a
hollow shell and leads to a perversion of the subject.”
“Abstractions taught independently o f the totality from which they are abstracted are
useless and meaningless. O f course the ideal of a deductive structure is to be found in
mathematics and is presented here. But this concept is one of method rather than content.
It is also true that there is beauty in mathematics proper, but this is hardly to be found in
most of the material that one must teach at the elementary level” (Kline, 1962, p.iv-vi).
The chapter headings are listed below:
The Course of Mathematics: An Historical Orientation

The Ways of Mathematics
The Fundamental Concept
Algebra, the Higher Arithmetic
The Nature and Use of Euclidean Geometry
Charting the Earth and the Heavens
The Mathematical Order of Nature
The Awakening of Europe
Mathematics and Painting in the Renaissance
Projective Geometry
The Revolution in Astronomy
Coordinate Geometry
The Mathematization of Science
The Simplest Formulas in Action
Parametric Equations and Curvillinear Motion
The Application of Formulas to Gravitation
The Differential Calculus
The Integral Calculus
The Age of Reason
Religion in the Age of Reason
Reason in Literature and Aesthetics
Trigonometric Functions and Oscillatory Motion
The Trigonometric Analysis of Musical Sounds
Trigonometric Functions and Electromagnetism
Non-Euclidean Geometries and their Significance
Arithmetics and their Algebras
Ill
The Deductive Approach to the Social Sciences

The Statistical Approach to the Social and Biological Sciences
The Theory of Probability
The Nature and Values of Mathematics
In his preface, Kline makes explicit that Mathematics - A Cultural Approach is
intended for a one-year terminal course in mathematics. Yet the publication of his 1967
revision, Mathematics fo r Liberal Arts, suggests that the former text may not have been
considered, by some, as a suitable textbook. In his preface to the latter book, Kline notes
that changes have been made to suit “special groups.” A principle adaptation is an effort
to accommodate the need for review and drill.
Kline’s contribution is crucial to the history of liberal arts mathematics not only
as model of what the course could be, but for the way he elucidated the fundamental
questions surrounding liberal arts mathematics, and, by extension, those surrounding the
subject as a whole. For decades, the course’s prophets and architects had been evolving
an amorphously dichotomous vision of liberal arts mathematics. On one hand, the course
was meant to teach the essential, abstract “nature” of mathematics, that which formal
manipulation acted only to obscure. On the other hand, mathematics was to be seen for
its “cultural” significance, which, too, benefited none from repetitious algebraic drill.
Morris Kline brought this dichotomy in liberal arts mathematics to sharper definition than
it had ever been, and, arguably, than it has been since.
112
The New Liberal Arts Mathematics
In the foreword of Harold Jacob’s 1994 edition of Mathematics: a Human
Endeavor, Martin Gardner wonders aloud why the 1970 edition quickly became the most
widely adopted “college introductory textbook.” For this he attributes four causes: “the
author’s choice of exciting topics, with emphasis on their recreational aspects; the
author’s clear, friendly style; his inclusion of amusing cartoons and comic strips along
with other art; and above all, his enthusiasm for mathematics.” Gardner observes that
other textbooks have echoed these approaches to format, and by “stressing play features.”
And yet “despite all the fun, [Jacobs] never loses sight o f his main objective: to teach
students what mathematics is all about.”
Gardner’s characterization provides insight into liberal arts mathematics in the
last three decades o f the twentieth century. These years witnessed a flourishing of liberal
arts mathematics, an unfolding of content as well of what might be called “attitude” - one
that had been germinating for fifty years. Liberal arts mathematics had finally become an
established fixture of the curriculum, a fact that can be seen not only in the explosion of
textbooks, but in the standardization of the term, “liberal arts mathematics,” which can be
found in many o f the prefaces of these books and in many of the titles, as well.
During the sixties and seventies, however, another alternative to the traditional
algebra-calcuius trajectory had developed.
113
Finite Mathematics
John Kemeny’s Introduction to Finite Mathematics, from 1957, is the first
textbook to be published with under the name “finite mathematics.” In the preface,
Kemeny states that his course was to be “primarily a mathematics course,” but would
have applications to the biological and social sciences, thus providing a “point of view,
other than that given by physics, concerning the possible uses of mathematics.” The
choice of topics was determined, in part, by interviews with behavioral scientists. Why
“finite” mathematics? Kemeny writes that the purpose of the book was to develop these
topics from a “central point of view,” noting that by eliminating problems concerning
infinite processes it became possible to “go further into the subject matter,” and that the
“basic ideas o f finite mathematics” were “easier to state” (Kemeny, 1957, p.v).
If we are to understand the origins of “finite mathematics” in the context of
Kemeny’s vision, we can identify, here, two primary motivating factors, both of which to
some degree align with those for liberal arts mathematics: the desire to make a more
accessible college mathematics course, and the desire to explore mathematics untethered
to a physics-based (hence calculus-based) trajectory. These two objectives went hand-in-
hand in the sense that a study of non-continuous mathematical processes demanded less
(and in some cases no) algebra background. Many of the visionaries and architects of
liberal arts mathematics had recognized this, yet few had chosen to frame their vision of
the non-traditional course around the concept o f the “finite.” Why?
Two reasons might be offered. First, the architects of the liberal arts course were
not only motivated by an effort to make mathematics more accessible, but to show the
114
student what mathematics was “really about.” Even for many of those who saw
mathematics from a much broader perspective than that contained in the traditional
algebra-based curriculum, such mathematical concepts as continuous functions, the
infinite, and calculus itself did deserve their own places in that vision. Secondly, as we
have seen, the actual elimination of the traditional material came much more slowly than
as envisioned by many reformers; it was seen as simply too radical a maneuver. If the
prevalence of Kemeny’s book in the country’s libraries is any indication, the time was
ripe in 1957 for a mathematics course that made this step.
Yet an important distinction must be made between Kemeny’s “finite
mathematics” and the liberal arts mathematics course. Kemeny’s target student was one
seeking or requiring instruction in certain specific kinds of application. “Finite
mathematics,” as it was to manifest in college textbooks throughout the nineteen-
seventies and nineteen-eighties, maintained and for the most part developed Kemeny’s
focus on applications in the non-physical sciences. Indeed, Kemeny’s own course
developed in connection with this concern. Recall the Committee on the Undergraduate
Mathematics Program’s report of 1955, which envisioned a “universal” course, to be
followed, by students o f the social sciences, by a mathematics course designed
specifically for their purposes. Kemeny writes in his preface that he was invited to join
this committee after his own textbook vision had been made known to the chairman, and
his book seen as a possible model for a Part II volume to Universal Mathematics.
Kemeny’s discussion here does not make clear whether he envisioned his course as a
replacement for or a supplement to a traditional calculus-based “unified” course as seen
in Universal Mathematics. Kemeny cites the report of the Committee on Mathematical
115
Training of Social Scientists o f the Social Science Research Council, contemporary with
the publication of his book, observing that he and the committee “reached the same
conclusions” on many questions. The Committee recommended two years of
mathematics training, part of which could be accomplished by Kemeny’s course. Here,
Kemeny is placing his own book in service of a mathematics program encompassing both
the traditional material and the finite material. Yet he also states that the book was
designed for a freshman course requiring only “the mathematical maturity obtained from
two and a half or more years o f high school mathematics.”
To what extent did programs in the non-physical sciences perceive finite
mathematics to be a supplement to a calculus-based mathematics education? The answer
to this question varies with the discipline itself, as well as with the institution. One of the
things distinguishing the social/management/life science application textbooks arriving in
the seventies, eighties, and nineties is the inclusion or non-inclusion of calculus. On one
matter these books are consistent: none require mathematics beyond intermediate
algebra.
If they include calculus they are obviously not “finite mathematics” textbooks,
and indeed, here we note that the trend in college mathematics education initiated by
Kemeny’s Introduction to Finite Mathematics did not remain limited to discrete
mathematical processes. Consider the following textbooks, all of which, for the purpose
of this study, have been grouped under the category of “Finite Mathematics textbooks”:
Foundations o f Mathematics: with Applications in the Social and Management
Sciences (1968, Bush, and Young)
116
Finite Mathematics: a Liberal Arts Approach (1970, Dodes).
Mathematics: with Application in the Management, Natural, and Social Sciences
(1974, Lial and Miller)
Finite Mathematics (1977, Hardy)
College Mathematics with Applications to the Business and Social Sciences
(1978, Gulati)
Finite Mathematics (1978, Maki and Thompson)
Mathematics - A Practical Approach (1978, Kalmanson, Kenschaft)
Finite Mathematics and its Applications (1994, Farlow)
Finite Mathematics - Solving Problems in Business, Economics, and the Social
and Behavioral Sciences (2003, Armstrong and Davis)
Only some of these titles refer directly to “finite” or “discrete” mathematical
content. Only some o f them note the focus on applications. In fact, some o f these “finite
mathematics” textbooks do not make a point of addressing applications in the non
physical sciences, just as some of the applications-oriented books do not confine
themselves to finite mathematics. Nevertheless, there is a core commonality to these
books that defines a distinct sub-genre of the college mathematics course. All explore
probability. Nearly all address linear systems, linear programming, and matrices. Many
address the former in the context of the latter via Markov chains. Many explore game
theory. Nearly all address statistics. Most explore the mathematics of finance.
Yet, uncharacteristic o f books categorized in this study as “liberal arts
mathematics,” logic and set theory are not addressed in most of these books. Rigor and
117
structure for its own sake is clearly not of special - if any - concern here. There is no
geometry, no topology, no abstract algebra, no mathematics of aesthetics, no mathematics
history, nothing on the “nature” of mathematics.
Thus in the content o f these textbooks, if not always in the title, one observes a
coherent mathematics course, one defined mostly by finite mathematics, and mostly by
an applied mathematics. Clearly there is some overlap between the content and
objectives of this course and those of liberal arts mathematics. But from the standpoint of
this study, the distinctions are significant, enough so, this author wishes to argue, to
exclude these textbooks from the category of “liberal arts mathematics” in the
quantitative analysis.
To conclude, neither the mathematical nor the applied aspects of the “finite
mathematics” movement seem inherent to “liberal arts mathematics,” as it has been
defined in this study. While these two categories of mathematics course have much in
common, the distinction between the two is crucial to an understanding of either. While
finite mathematics is not liberal arts mathematics, it is nevertheless an important aspect of
its history, a sort of sister course, predicated, as was liberal arts mathematics, on serving
the mathematical needs o f students ill-equipped for, in training or sensibility, for the
traditional calculus trajectory. One might see it as an outgrowth from a developing
liberal arts mathematics curriculum, the most important branch in the great flowering that
began in the late nineteen-sixties.
118
A Broad, Eclectic Vision
The prefaces o f liberal arts textbooks since 1967 reveal varying concern for
providing mathematical “usefulness” and “appreciation.” Representing the former end
of the spectrum is Homer’s (1967) A Survey o f College Mathematics, in which the author
states that he has chosen his topics for “functional reasons rather than esthetic ones.”
Another example o f the applications-oriented textbook might be Wheeler and Wheeler’s
(1979) Mathematics: An Everyday Language, in which the authors assert, with some
persuasiveness, that mathematics education is more enjoyable and rewarding when
“mathematics is seen to be useful and applicable to the student’s daily experience.”
Representing the appreciation end of the liberal arts mathematics spectmm would
be a book such as Richman’s, Walker’s, Wisner’s, and Brewer’s (2000) Mathematics fo r
the Liberal Arts Student, in which the authors state that their text is a course in
mathematics appreciations, and promise to communicate the spirit of mathematics
without doing “harm” - in particular, scaring or boring the students.
Most authors o f the texts from this era fall place their book somewhere in the
middle of the spectrum between applicability and appreciation. In the preface to
Mathematical Ideas - An Introduction, Miller and Heeren (1997) state their desire to
“come away from this course with the feeling that mathematics is useful and practical.
However, it is equally important that he realize that much of modem mathematics is
abstract, with practical applications not yet evident.” Holt and McIntosh (1966), authors
of The Scope o f Mathematics, profess their aim to show “a link between the scientific
119
method on one hand, and the creative spirit o f the humanities on the other.” Eulenberg
and Sunko (1969), authors o f Inquiry into College Mathematics, acknowledge the
dualistic aspect of this paradigm, attesting to the challenge of balancing the “modem”
with the practical or “working” knowledge of mathematics. Gross and Miller (1971), the
authors of Mathematics / A Chronicle o f Human Endeavor marry the two objectives in
their promise to teach the reader mathematics’ role in “in the development of man and his
society, and its practical and esthetic aspects” (Gross and Miller, 1971, p.v).
One of the principle defining themes of the developing liberal arts mathematics
course is the notion of the “survey.” Many prefaces of the books of this era reveal the
authors’ concern for exploring mathematics in its breadth. Zwier and Nyhoff (1969), in
their preface to Essentials o f College Mathematics, attest to their goal to “paint a picture
of mathematics that will be wide in scope, and that portrays as many of the various areas
in mathematics as possible; one that will be a unified whole and not merely a hodgepodge
of random brush-strokes” (Zwier and Nyhoff, 1969, p.v). Cooley and Wahlert (now
without Morris Kline), promise in their 1968 edition of Introduction to Mathematics to
present mathematics “as a way of thinking, as a science in its own right, and, indeed, as
an art” (Cooley and Walhert, 1968, preface). Karl Smith (2001), author of The Nature o f
Modern Mathematics, states in his preface that “the main goal of the course is to create a
positive attitude toward mathematics . . . not to present technical details . . . but to give
insight into what mathematics is, what it attempts to accomplish, and how it is pursued as
a human enterprise” (Smith, 2001, p.vii).
Like textbooks from all disciplines, the liberal arts mathematics text became
larger, increasingly colorful, and aesthetically richer in the late sixties and seventies.
This trend in publishing might be seen as particularly significant in the instance of liberal
arts mathematics, for the way in which the course endeavored to make mathematics
appealing. Similarly significant to liberal arts mathematics in particular was the textbook
trend of “capsules” or “link” sections, providing the interested student with an
opportunity to venture outside the standard mathematical context to see, as in the case of
A Mathematics Sampler fo r Liberal Arts (2001) the interrelationships between
mathematics and “art, chemistry, music, philosophy, politics, psychology, and social
planning.” While the ideal of emphasizing the relationships between mathematics and
culture had been a significant theoretical component of the liberal arts mathematics
enterprise from the beginning, this objective had, with the significant exception o f Morris
Kline’s texts, remained more of an ideal than a practiced reality. One o f the chief
obstacles to exploring this relationship within the context of a mathematics course was, as
noted earlier, the tradition of the “problem set,” and the way in which the “cultural”
material did not lend itself to this tradition. Here was a way to “infuse” some cultural
content into the course without having to assign any problems, or even for the instructor
to talk about it at all.
The concern for creating a friendlier image o f mathematics education is also seen
in the titles o f the new liberal arts mathematics texts: Patterns in the Sand - an
Exploration in Mathematics (1971); Excursions into Mathematics (1969); Mathematics
An Appreciation (1975); Faces o f Mathematics (1978); Mathematics: An Everyday
Language (1979); Living Mathematics'. A Survey (1982); Such evidence can also be
found in the preface, wherein several authors downplay difficulty of their course.
Spector (1970), in Liberal Arts Mathematics, describes his course as “a course intended
121
to be both mathematical and capable o f being understood,” (Spector, 1970, p.v). Gloria
Olive (1973), in her preface to Mathematics fo r Liberal Arts Students, states that her
topics were “chosen on the basis of affirmative answers to the following questions: (1) Is
it mathematically significant? (2) Is it easy to understand? (3) Is it interesting?” (Olive,
1973, p.v). Maxfield and Maxfield (1973), authors of Keys to Mathematics, discuss the
fears o f mathematics students as follows:
Perhaps the most crippling learning problem in mathematics is the lack of

confidence. Many students, if they can be freed from the fear that they will get the
wrong answer, can cope well with mathematics problems from their own sense and
general knowledge, and in fact do so in everyday life outside the classroom. In this
book the student is encouraged to rely on his own judgment and to trust his own
observation. Some problems specifically invite the student to discuss his own
experiences and opinions (Maxfield; Maxfield, 1973, p.iv).
As discussed in Chapter Four, the mid-century voices for reform in the freshman
mathematics curriculum were unanimous in perhaps only one concern - that the new
mathematics course involve “doing” mathematics rather than merely being “about”
mathematics. Michael Bemkopf in his 1975 text, Mathematics - An Appreciation,
promises the opposite: “This course is meant to be about mathematics rather than how to
do mathematics. Techniques have been deemphasized and the focus has been placed,
instead, upon the ideas of mathematics” (Bemkopf, 1975, p.ix).
Some liberal arts mathematics textbooks of this era endeavor to accommodate
collaborative learning, such as Lial and Miller’s Mathematical Ideas (1997) which
includes a feature entitled “cooperative investigation” in each chapter, and A Survey o f
Mathematics with Applications (1977) by Angel and Porter, which introduces “New
Group Project” sections and “Solving/Group Activity” exercises. Collaborative learning
122
received much of its authoritative heft from the standards promoted by such organizations
as the NCTM and AMATYC, and in several liberal arts textbooks cited in this study, the
authors’ make note o f their efforts to accommodate these standards.
Liberal arts mathematics had finally become an institution and perhaps even, in a
sense, “corporate.” The days o f solitary mavericks like Hogben, Dresden, Northrop, and
Kline seemed to be coming to an end, replaced by committees hewing closely to
contemporary standards and trends.
The New Content
As liberal arts mathematics moved away from an emphasis on formalist rigor into
an era that privileged the “spirit” or “flavor” of mathematics over its foundations, new
ground was broken in several areas of content, as well as in new ways of conceptualizing
or framing mathematics for the liberal arts student. In order to make room for the new
content, some of the old content was jettisoned. As the quantitative analysis (Appendix
A) demonstrates, the liberal arts mathematics textbooks of the late sixties and early
seventies reveal a sharp decrease in calculus material.
In the last decades of the twentieth century, several new topics and avenues were
explored.
Computer Mathematics
The first discussion of “computing machines” appears briefly in the first liberal
123
arts textbook so designated in this study, Logsdon’s A Mathematician Explains, from
1935. Another brief discussion on “computing machines” can be found in Brixey’s and
Andree’s (1954) Fundamentals o f College Mathematics, but the most important early
appearance o f computer mathematics in liberal arts mathematics is seen in the
“Arithmetic Computation” section of Richardson’s 1966 edition of Fundamentals o f
Mathematics. Crowdis and Wheeler’s Introduction to Mathematical Ideas (1968)
devotes fifty pages to computers, including solution by program, the “search” problem,
and “algorithmic approach.”
As demonstrated in the quantitative analysis, computer mathematics peaked as a
topic of liberal arts mathematics in the seventies and then began to decline. This trend
may be attributed to the development of computer science as a separate academic
discipline.
Mathematics and Aesthetics
During this era of liberal arts mathematics, increasing attention was being paid to
the aesthetic properties and manifestations of mathematics. “Aesthetics” is difficult to
define when describing mathematics; for some mathematicians, the formalist, axiomatic
content in a book such as Northrop’s (1944-49) Fundamentals o f Mathematics would be
considered aesthetically appealing, if not beautiful. Many mathematicians would attest
that their discipline’s sole true raison d ’etre is the search for, and discovery of, “beauty.”
Yet many would also argue that all mathematics are not equally (or equivalently)
“beautiful.” On one hand there is the notion o f elegance, the poetry achieved by
124
relationships that are both simply stated and yet, nevertheless, mathematically profound.
Similar to this paradigm is that of mathematical “purity.” Conversely, to the extent
mathematics involves an element of application, it is seen, by many, as less beautiful. In
this sense, “pure” mathematics embodies a kind o f deep universal, perhaps even spiritual
or religious harmony, analogous, in some ways to music.
“Modem” liberal arts mathematics textbooks of the sixties, in their embrace of
“pure math” subject matter such as group theory and topology, had already assayed an
ambitious attempt to expose the liberal arts student to both these forms of mathematically
aesthetic beauty. In the seventies and eighties, this component of the liberal arts
mathematics curriculum persisted in many textbooks, and did not appear in others. At the
same time, a new mathematics of aesthetics developed, one concerned with the
relationship between mathematics and visual beauty.
To some extent, this visual element could be seen as related to or growing out of
topology. The topology chapters of “modem” liberal arts mathematics textbooks
sometimes included a discussion o f “map coloring.” The four-color problem might be
seen as a fairly superficial manifestation of “aesthetic” mathematics, for there is arguably
nothing inherently beautiful about maps, nor even, perhaps, of colors. It is when the
plane is broken up into specific shapes that the potential for aesthetic discussion and
exploration is enjoyed. Polis and Beard’s (1977) Fundamental Mathematics - A Cultural
Approach offers a chapter on “recreational” geometry. In addition to the four color
problem, we see paper folding, tile patterns, and tesselations. In a chapter entitled
“Transformational Geometry,” the authors present sections on symmetry and rigid
125
motion, rotations, reflections and translations, and a capsule on “M.C. Escher and the Art
of Tesselations.”
The topics o f tiling and tesselations represents another fusion of mathematics and
arts of two-dimensional design. At the Fashion Institute o f Design in New York City
(F.I.T.) a course is offered catering specifically to design students, in which tesselations,
polygons, stars, symmetry, and proportion is explored (Course Catalogue, Fashion
Institute of Technology, 2007). Visual aesthetics can be divided into the human-made
and nature-made. O f the human-made kind, one example from this period might be
Stanley Grudder’s (1994) A Mathematical Journey, which considers, in addition to
symmetry and proportion, the subtopics of surrealism, “Art and Gestalt Psychology,” and
“Art in Mathematics.” Perhaps the best (and virtually only) discussion o f the
mathematical component of Western art remains that appearing in the books authored or
co-authored by Kline from 1937 to 1967.
On the nature-based aesthetics side, one looks to the Fibonacci sequence, the
patterns of which are found in pineapples, pine cones, flowers, etc. Bridging the human-
made and nature-made sides of math’s visually aesthetic properties is the relationship
between the Fibonacci sequence and the Golden Mean. These topics appear in the
“Geometry and Art” chapter of Stazkow and Bradshaw’s The Mathematical Palette
(1994), the title itself is clearly meant as a metaphor for the aesthetic potentialities for
mathematics.
Also discussed in this chapter are fractals, which achieve discussion, too, in
Patterns in Mathematics (McCown and Sequiera, 1994).
126
Two books during this era adopted a nearly exclusively visual approach to
mathematics education for the liberal arts students. In the preface to Kinsey and Moore’s
Symmetry, Shape, and Space - An Introduction to Mathematics Through Geometry
(2002), the authors include in their potential audience not only liberal arts majors
“required by the Higher Powers to take a mathematics course,” but “students in the visual
arts who would like to strengthen their visualization skills and learn mathematical
methods of recognizing and classifying geometric patterns,” (Kinsey and Moore, 2002,
viii). The authors note that in addition to aesthetic beauty, geometry finds applications in
a wide variety o f disciplines - similarity and questions of scale by biologists, polyhedra
by chemists and crystallographers, mechanical linkages in robotics and back-hoe
operators, and more. The authors note that students of architecture, design, and the arts
are of course the most likely beneficiaries of this material, which begins with grids and
moves on to constructions, tesselations, two-dimensional symmetry, “other dimensions,
other worlds,” polyhedra, three-dimensional symmetry, spiral growth, perspective, shape,
graph theory and topology.
Excursions into Mathematics (1969) by Anatole Beck et. al, represents a more
purely mathematical, but no less ambitious, foray into the realm o f shape and space. The
authors move from simple geometries (motivated by the chapter title, “What is area?”),
and proceed to what is titled, “more exotic geometries.” Beginning with a historical
background centered on Euclid, this chapter addresses, in turn, spherical geometry,
absolute geometry, hyperbolic geometry, finite geometries, finite projective planes, and
much more.
127
History of Mathematics
Two books published during the seventies adopted a historical approach to
teaching liberal arts students about mathematics. A Survey o f Mathematics - Elementary
Concepts and their Historical Development, by Vivian Shaw Groza (1968), promises to
“acquaint the student with the various branches of mathematics and to develop an
appreciation and understanding of the relationship of mathematics to the modem world”
(Groza, 1968, p.v). Groza breaks mathematics history down to four fundamental eras:
the prehistorical period, the ancient Oriental period, the Greek period, and the Hindu-
Arabic-European period. In the prehistorical period the author discusses tallying, finger
counting, vocal sounds for “concrete” numbers, proceeding into set theory and
counting/ordinal numbers. The chapter on ancient Oriental mathematics contains a long
section on “arbitrary bases,” another example of contextualizing an arguably modem
topic (number theory, computers) in mathematics history. The Greek period chapter
deals extensively with logic and mathematical systems. Groza’s book arguably achieves
two central goals o f the liberal arts mathematics course in introducing the student to both
the fundamental “nature” of mathematics, and its relationship with human society and
culture.
Resnikoff and Wells’ Mathematics in Civilization (1972) represents another
approach to teaching mathematics through its history. The book breaks down to three
parts: “Mathematics in antiquity,” “The adolescence of computation,” and “The rise of
geometrical analysis.” While Groza’s text focuses on the broad development of
mathematics throughout its history, Resnikoff and Wells adopt a more “survey”-like
128
approach, discussing fewer topics in greater depth. For example, Part One, “Mathematics
in Antiquity,” consists of four chapters: Number Systems and the Invention of Positional
Notation, Egyptian Arithmetic, Babylonian Algebra, and Greek Trigonometry. Part Two
concerns Navigation, Cartography, and the Invention o f Logarithms. In a sense,
Mathematics in Civilization adheres more to the Morris Kline model of liberal arts
mathematics than does Groza’s, and its example helps to better elucidate the range of
possibilities with respect to liberal arts approaches to mathematics history. A historical
approach to mathematics education may be seen as having two possible (and possibly
overlapping) purposes: to provide a context in which to explore the foundational (and
abstract) aspects of mathematics as a discipline, and to explore the ways in which
mathematics has played a role in human society and culture. Groza’s text emphasizes the
first objective, Kline and Resnikoff/Wells the second.
V oting/Apportionment
To understand the significance of the “voting/apportionment” topic to liberal arts
mathematics, one might recall the war-time discussion of mathematics’ relationship to
democracy and the social good. Some advocates of the “cultural” mathematics course
understood this relationship as more than one of appreciation, arguing that the
mathematically educated citizen, trained in the arts of reason and critical thinking, would
be better-equipped to perpetuate the democratic system, and less gullible to the evils of
totalitarianism. Fifty years later, mathematics educators had discovered a way to make
the relationship between mathematics and democracy explicit.
The most extensive treatment o f voting/apportionment found in the liberal arts
text explored in this study is observed in COMAP’s (1988) For All Practical Purposes
and Tannenbaum and Arnold’s (2001) Excursion in Modern Mathematics. Both books
devote over 100 pages to the mathematics of “social choice.” In the former book, this
part consists o f four chapters: The Mathematics of Voting, Weighted Voting Systems,
Fair Division, and The Mathematics of Apportionment.
Quantitative Reasoning/Literacy
Wheeler’s (1976) Mathematics - An Everyday Language opens with a promise to
explore the way mathematics can be used to understand “patterns” in the real world.
Several other liberal arts textbooks during these years broach the challenge of finding
patterns, or order, through mathematics. The search for mathematical pattern can be an
“appreciation”-oriented endeavor, as in the case, for example, of finding Fibbonaci
sequences in nature. But mathematical pattern can also be found in the world in ways
that help citizens, consumers, and workers navigate the world around them and make
intelligent decisions. In the last decade of the 20th century and the first decade o f the 21st,
a movement has gained momentum in mathematics departments across the country to
develop “quantitative reasoning” and/or “quantitative literacy.” The terms are often used
interchangeably. Because o f the comparability, they are often abbreviated together as
QR/QL in the literature.
Lynn Steen, in Mathematics and Democracy, the Case fo r Quantitative Literacy
(National Council on Education and the Disciplines, 2001), decomposes QR/QL into the
130
following categories: confidence in mathematics, cultural appreciation, interpreting data,
logical thinking, making decisions, mathematics in context, number sense, practical
skills, prerequisite knowledge, and symbol sense.
John Dossey (2002), a mathematics educator and author of a text of finite
mathematics, defines quantitative literacy as “the level of all mathematics knowledge and
skills required of all citizens. It includes the ability to apply aspects of mathematics
(including measurement, data representation, number sense, variables and geometric
shapes, spacial visualization, and chance) to understand, predict, and control routine
events in people’s lives,” (Dossey, 2002, p.v).
QR/QL is not confined to any particular level of mathematics education. While
much concern exists for developing quantitative reasoning skills among high school
students, it has found a foothold in the college curriculum as well, as demonstrated by its
prominent treatment in AMATYC’s Beyond Crossroads, the preeminent mathematics
standards document for 2-year colleges. Yet here, QR/QL is not presented as material to
be contained in a specific course, but rather as a general objective for the mathematics
curriculum as a whole. While it is certainly conceivable that the traditional mathematics
curriculum might be in some way nuanced to incorporate the QR/QL’s broadly-defined
array o f skills, one might be skeptical about the ambition with which this is implemented
in practice. Usually such objectives are superimposed on top of the already-defined
curriculum. One is expected to somehow teach “more.” It is easier, often, to stick with
the traditional, “abstract” material.
Yet QR/QL is also being implemented as its own college course. As suggested
earlier, Ruric and Wheeler’s Mathematics - an Everyday Language (1979) might serve as
131
a precursor book to QR/QL. With chapters titled, “A Language for Computers,” “The
Language of the Consumer,” “A Language of Uncertainty,” this text is the first one to
present mathematics to the student as a language to be deciphered. Furthermore, the
book eschews abstract or aesthetic mathematics in favor of the mathematics engaged in
“everyday” life. The chapter headings are as follows:
1. A Language Built on Patterns

2. Tools for the Language
3. The Language of Numeration and Computation
4. The Language of the Marketplace
5. A Language for Computers
6. The Language o f the Consumer
7. The Language of Equations and Inequalities
8. A Language of Uncertainty.
9. A Language o f Summary and Inference
10. The Language of Size and Shape
Ruric and Wheeler do not try to package their book as specifically a course in
“quantitative reasoning,” but promise to present the student with a “small but essential
collection of mathematical concepts and tools.” These tools and problems are
“interwoven, using the theme that first and foremost, mathematics is a language.”
In the early nineteen nineties, New York University initiated a three-course
Integrated Math/Science Curriculum. The first portion of this series was to be a course in
“Quantitative Reasoning.” Fredrick Greenleaf (1995), author of Mathematical Patterns
in Nature, discusses in the preface o f that book the rationale for this course. “A large
majority o f American students,” he writes, “arrive at college programmed for either flight
from or disaster with science; a substantial number fear or loathe the mathematical
132
aspects that must be addressed.” Greenleaf remarks that most university science courses
tend to focus on “accumulated knowledge,” rather than “how science is done.”
His committee identified the following problems with math science distribution
requirements as they currently stood at NYU:
- The Problem of “Skimming”: Students tended to take the path of least resistance
through the math/science options.
- No Prerequisites: Because all distribution electives are introductory, the
material is generally elementary.
- Nonsequential: Because they could be taken in any order, the courses could not
build on each other.
- Math Anxiety
- Hands-on Experience: No labs, so no hands on sense.
- Class Size, Instruction: The classes are large, and taught by those ill-prepared to
deal with undergraduate non-science majors.
The above-described system, writes Greenleaf, fails to give liberal arts students a
broad view of science, nor of quantitative reasoning and its role in scientific inquiry. In
response to these problems Greenleaf s committee developed a three-part sequence
required o f all NYU undergraduates, beginning Fall 1995. The first course was to be
Quantitative Reasoning, followed by courses in called “The Physical Universe” and “Our
Place in the Biological Realm” respectively.
133
Greenleaf s book begins with a chapter titled, “Measuring Things in the Real
World.” Following this is “Growth and Decay Phenomena,” then “How Big the Sun,
How Far the Stars?” and finally “Probability and Statistics.”
While the title and stated purpose for the text are both based around the
employment o f math in service of “science,” Greenleaf addresses utilitarian, everyday
topics such as compound interest and lotteries (in the chapter on growth), as well as
gambling and birthdays (in the probability section.) Still, Patterns o f Mathematics in
Nature might be seen as a very different kind of Quantitative Reasoning course than the
kind envisioned by Ruric and Wheeler, representing the “scientific” end of the
quantitative reasoning spectrum.
Using and Understanding Mathematics: A Quantitative Reasoning Approach
(2002), by Bennett and Briggs, serves as a contemporary example of a broadly-defined
QR text. The chapter headings are as follows:
1. Principles of Reasoning
2. Statistical Reasoning
3. Problem-Solving Tools
4. Numbers in the Real World
5. Financial Management
6. Modeling our World
7. Exponential Growth and Decay
8. Probability: Living with the Odds
9. Putting Statistics to Work.
10. Mathematics and the Arts
11. Discrete Mathematics in Business and Society
12. The Power of Numbers: A Few More Topics.
In addition to the ostensibly “practical” sections - financial management,
probability - the text also includes sections on what would traditionally be considered
“appreciation” topics; the “mathematics and the arts” section, for example, explores
134
music, symmetry, and fractal geometry. Clearly Bennett and Briggs define QR to
encompass a wide range of liberal arts mathematics. Absent from the authors’ syllabus
are historical mathematics and “modem” mathematics - perhaps the two “poles” of the
nontraditional curriculum, as represented mid-century by Morris Kline and his multi
headed opposition. Logic is represented here, but it is a prophetically new kind of logic,
one seen through the context of human rhetoric: standard fallacies, strategies of argument
. . . a far cry from the “rigorous” foundations approach emphasized in the textbooks of
the modem era.
Summary
“New math” arose from the confluence o f two distinct developments. On one
hand, a century o f advanced mathematical progress had finally begun to percolate down
into the realm of school mathematics education in the form of an attention to logical rigor
and mathematical foundations. The object of these emphases in content and pedagogy
was increased “understanding,” an objective that dovetailed with related concerns in
progressive education. On the other hand, the legacy of World War II, advances in
technology, and increased automation had made mathematics education seem a more
urgent social need. The “new” approach was welcomed both on the basis of its apparent
potential and on the appeal o f its rhetoric. The “new math” trend in secondary school
mathematics education helped to fuel, and was to some extent was fueled by, a related
trend in the undergraduate freshman mathematics curriculum commonly associated with
“modem mathematics.” The chief manifestation of this trend in the liberal arts
135
mathematics textbooks of the late fifties and early sixties was the attention to set theory,
logic, and axiomatic method.
By the end o f the decade, the “new math” movement had lost momentum, and so
had the concern for a “modem” approach to liberal arts mathematics. One of the chief
opponents of these twin movements was Morris Kline, who argued that abstract, rigorous
mathematics was too sophisticated for the general student, and a misguided trajectory for
mathematics education. As an alternative, Kline authored a textbook that explored
mathematics in the context of science, history, the arts, and human cultural in general.
The “modem” approach and Kline’s “cultural” approach represented the mutual
culmination of two opposing theories about the purposes of liberal arts mathematics.
The late 1960s witnessed the beginning o f an unprecedentedly dense flood of
nontraditional undergraduate mathematics textbooks, one that continues, without
interruption, to the end o f the century and beyond. In these books can be observed a
rejection or transcendence of the “modem” paradigm that emerged in the fifties. While
logic and sets remained standard topics, the new books traded the remaining vestiges of
the traditional calculus-trajectory curriculum for the opportunity to examine a wider
scope of mathematical contexts, including computers, aesthetic mathematics, discrete
mathematics, historical mathematics, and the mathematics of apportionment. The close
of the century observed the stirrings of what may prove to be a new trend, era, or
philosophy of liberal arts mathematics - quantitative reasoning/literacy. This trend
suggests a turn away from mathematics education as a study of intellectual/cultural
jewels to a mathematics education that seeks to equip students with “tools” for
understanding and participating in the contemporary world.
136
Chapter Six: Summary and Recommendations
Undergraduate mathematics education in this country has been in a perpetual state
of development. However, over the 19th century algebra assumed an increasingly
prominent role in the college curriculum. By the first part of the 20th century, the
mathematics requirement had fairly stabilized into a one-year course comprising mostly
college algebra and trigonometry.

tVi
As early as the first decade of the 20 century, this tradition fell under attack.
One source of discontent can be described as “social.” Increasing numbers of students
were going to college, and this new population was less skilled in the largely algebraic
techniques applicable to the traditional freshman course. The prevailing curricular
emphasis at this time was utility, and to many college mathematics educators, there
seemed little utility, in the traditional material, for the non-specialist. Part of the rational
for this curriculum had been the understanding that it provided “mental discipline.” But
Thorndike’s psychological experiments in the early 20th Century had disputed this
premise. This “theoretical” source of discontent represented a further weakening of the
rationale for the traditional curriculum, in the case of the general student.
Attacked from two sides, mathematics seemed in danger of losing its place in the
college curriculum for the general student. In the first decades of the 20th century,
mathematics educators sounded off, in the pages of the American Mathematical Monthly
and other journals, on possible solutions to the problem of finding a mathematics that was
appropriate for the general college student. Many argued that the course ought to teach
what mathematics was “all about.” Many argued that what was needed was a
mathematics course of a more culturally relevant nature. Some wanted to teach the
importance of mathematics to the development of Western culture. Some felt that the
essence o f mathematics was logical thought, and that by developing students’
understanding of logic, we could create better-thinking citizens. Some felt that by
making better-thinking citizens, we would be better able to preserve our democratic
ideals, and less likely to fall prey to fascism, communism and totalitarianism. Some saw
mathematics as a fundamentally aesthetic ideal to be preached and appreciated for its
beauty. Some even argued that mathematics could be seen as means of spiritual
development. The diverse quality of these ideals led to what was called the “survey
course.”
In order for such a course to be implemented, it was of important practical
concern that there be a textbook. In the decade from 1935 to 1945, a dozen or so
textbooks attempting to address the needs of the non-specialist were published. Several
efforts were made in the forties and fifties to establish the condition and character of what
was called, at the time, “general” college mathematics, and the results suggest that the
efforts by reform-minded mathematics educators to establish a new kind of course were
meeting with slow success. The chief obstacle can be understood as inertia and the force
of tradition. Another can be understood in terms of the developing social aspects of the
American curriculum. One of the pervasive educational concepts of the time was
“general education,” which meant different things to different people. Some used the
138
term to describe a broad, democratic approach to education; others understood it as an
emphasis on social utility. The developing liberal arts course was mired in the ambiguity
of the term, “general mathematics.” Another ambiguity was presented by the
development of community colleges, and the different subdivisions that could be made of
their populations. Some were going on to four-year colleges, and some were not.
“New math” was the most significant reform movement in school mathematics
education in American history. This movement became so pervasive that many authors
o f liberal arts mathematics textbooks felt obligated to “echo” the themes of this reform.
On the other hand, it can be shown that some of the content and pedagogical themes seen
in “new math” found an earlier expression in the precursor liberal arts textbooks of the
late thirties, and forties. In general, the overall trend can be understood in terms of an
increased emphasis on logical rigor, and can be traced to the same essential origins -
progressive educational reform and the increased emphasis on understanding, the
increasingly technological society, and the development of the field of mathematics itself.
In the late sixties, liberal arts textbooks made a decisive transition into a model of
liberal arts mathematics that prevails to this day. This transition involved shedding the
traditional content, which up until this point had remained a significant part o f most
textbooks. This rejection enabled new content to develop and become part o f the liberal
arts mathematics curriculum.
139
Conclusions
The history o f liberal arts mathematics is, appropriately, a tale of problem
solving. The first problem that faced the visionaries of liberal arts mathematics was that
of raising awareness about the need for a change. This problem was eventually solved,
for by the end o f the twentieth century, most colleges and universities offer an alternative
course to the general student other than the one taken by math, science, and technology
majors on their way to calculus.
The second problem was the forging of the alternative course itself. This problem
persists to the present day, for liberal arts mathematics is still in a state of transition, and
perhaps will always be. The overarching goal of this study is to better understand this
problem by examining the history of its development. What we find is that there was no
consensus, at the conception of the liberal arts course, for what the course should achieve,
and there is no such consensus now. Yet the history of the liberal arts course reveals
patterns and themes that help to clarify the nature of the problem and some general
possibilities for how to approach it. I suggest the following model for understanding the
purposes o f liberal arts mathematics throughout its history:
140
PAST PRESENT
logic/rigor-based mathematics
mathematics survey/appreciation
mathematics quantitative
in civilization reasoning
One model for a logic and rigor-based mathematics would be Fundamental
Mathematics (1945-49) authored by E.P. Northrop and his colleagues at the University of
Chicago. This paradigm for a general college mathematics course, which persisted to a
lesser extent during the era of “modem mathematics” in the fifties and sixties, viewed
mathematics education as an opportunity to develop the student’s ability for logical
thought. I speculate that this paradigm failed for the following reasons. First, one of the
reasons liberal arts mathematics was conceived was to provide an alternative to a
mathematics predicated on algebraic manipulation; a mathematically rigorous approach
to logic relies on a similarly abstract system o f symbols. Second, this approach to liberal
arts mathematics fails to make mathematics seem “useful” in a concrete sense, to the
general student, also a failure o f the traditional curriculum. Finally, a logic and rigor-
based mathematics course fails to make mathematics appealing to the general student.
Models for a course based on teaching the relationship between mathematics and
civilization would include Morris Kline’s Mathematics - A Cultural Approach and
Mathematics fo r Liberal Arts (1962, 1967). This course was based on Kline’s contention
that the general student did not grasp mathematics that was not made relevant to the “real
world,” and that as a result, the most effective and meaningful mathematical learning
experience for the general student was one in which mathematics was introduced in its
original context as a tool. I speculate that this paradigm failed for several reasons. First,
and most importantly, such a course was exceptionally challenging to teach. It required
that the instructor learn material with which he may not have been familiar. It required
that the instructor orate on this material. In general, it required that the instructor to
venture much further outside the standard problem-solving format than he was
accustomed. Secondly, the historical and cultural elements of the course would have
necessarily resulted in less class time devoted to purely mathematical activity. For some
mathematics educators, the sacrifice of problem-solving, of “doing” of mathematics, may
have seemed too costly. For some mathematics educators, the mathematics itself, besides
being easier to teach, was the real object of study. If the student was to truly learn it, the
student needed to master it, and class time was more appropriately focused on facilitating
this mastery.
The relative success o f “mathematics appreciation” as a paradigm for liberal arts
mathematics may be attributed to its popularity for the instructor and its perceived
popularity for the student. Mathematics instructors are generally predisposed to “like”
math, and enjoy sharing their enthusiasm with students. The fact that mathematics
appreciation topics in a liberal arts survey course generally lack a rigorous algebraic
element affords the instructor an opportunity to “make math fun,” to show its beauty,
without intensive drill. A mathematics educator may be inherently inclined to believe his
students will appreciate the beauty of mathematics if given the chance.
142
The survey element of the course presents a smorgasbord of curricular possibility
to the instructor. Most current liberal arts textbooks contain enough material for a year’s
course. The mathematics department or individual instructor can pick and choose which
topics will be covered. This approach to liberal arts mathematics, thus, further caters to
the strengths of mathematics instructors.
Quantitative reasoning-based courses tend to adopt a survey format as well, and
over a range of topics that parallels much of the mathematics appreciation content,
including probability, statistics, and logic. But the quantitative reasoning approach is
understood to place less emphasis on the purely mathematical aspects of these topics, and
more emphasis on the way the mathematics “relates” to the real world. It is this latter
emphasis that the non-specialist will generally prefer, and thus one could argue that the
quantitative reasoning approach to liberal arts mathematics - in opposition to
“mathematics appreciation” - favors the student’s interests at the expense of the
instructor’s. Such a suggestion poses a question fundamental to this study. The
mathematics reformers discussed in this study rarely acknowledged the possibility that
their approaches to teaching students what mathematics “is all about,” might have been
shaped by their own biases as members of a mathematics culture - that what one
professor thinks mathematics is “all about” could simply be what that professor prefers to
teach. The original motivation for creating liberal arts mathematics relied largely on the
conclusion that the traditional freshman course did not serve the needs of the general
student. Quantitative reasoning, in its emphasis on relating mathematics to general
human experience, is the paradigm of liberal arts mathematics that endeavors most
explicitly to meet those needs.
143
Recommendations
This study is meant to foster an increased awareness and sophisticated
understanding of one of the most fundamental problems in mathematics education: how
to create a more meaningful educational experience for students of mathematics. Much
mathematics education research addresses the question of how to better teach
mathematics. This study seeks to address the question o f what mathematics should be
taught. In the opinion of this author, it is a matter of professional integrity to consider the
value of what one teaches. Such consideration can only be enriched by exploring how
our predecessors grappled with this question. Contemporary instructors of liberal arts
mathematics may benefit from knowing the origins of the course and how the course has
evolved.
These benefits would assume several forms. First, the history of liberal arts
mathematics reveals an important dualism within the essential conceptual structure of the
course, in particular, the tension between concrete (applied) and abstract (pure)
conceptions o f what mathematics “is all about.” How could this dualism be employed?
For one, an increased understanding of this dualism may help to clarify the instructor’s
own objectives for the course. Instead of the course simply being a “grab bag” of
unrelated topics, the instructor will be inclined to understand the material within the
context of an overarching meaning. Some may decide to approach the course from the
standpoint of teaching students how mathematics plays an important (i.e. “useful”) role in
society. Others may wish to explore mathematics as a “pure” philosophical system
144
relating number, space, and logic. Topics from the text may be selected accordingly, in
order to strengthen the thematic approach.
Or the “pure/applied” dualism itself may be employed as the unifying theme of
the course. At the beginning of the course, the question of mathematics’ meaning may be
interrogated by the instructor. The class is asked, “What is mathematics all about?”
Students might be asked to write a paragraph or even a short essay. Then, throughout the
course, this dualism will be revisited. The students may be challenged to consider what a
particular topic “says” about the essential nature of mathematics.
In short, the history o f liberal arts mathematics helps to clarify the purposes of
mathematics by revealing the struggle between those with different viewpoints. It may
be said that no consensus on the “meaning” of mathematics will ever be reached. But a
better understanding o f the debate can enrichen classroom mathematics instruction in
myriad ways. A course developed to explore the “meaning” of a discipline can only be
enrichened by an increased consciousness of that endeavor.
This study also serves the needs of mathematics education research for the way it
opens up a vast terrain of future study. This study is of broad focus, necessarily so,
because its subject, a particular mathematics course, was predicated on the broadly-
defined goal o f creating a “meaningful” mathematics. Future studies could attempt to
focus individually on the four paradigms for liberal arts mathematics postulated above.
Each paradigm could be analyzed in greater detail. For example, little attempt was made
in this study to address the style of problem-posing. It is conceivable that even within the
context of a particular liberal arts mathematics topic, important developments have taken
145
place, throughout the history of the textbook, in the way problems are posed. A future
study might focus on this particular aspect of liberal arts mathematics history.
In general, this author concedes that his approach to the analysis of content may
have neglected elements that others will deem more essential, and this study is inevitably
shaped by his own sensibilities as researcher and mathematics educator. Future studies,
shaped by the sensibilities o f different researchers, will only enrichen this research topic,
and enliven a debate which has existed for a hundred years and which remains just as
urgent and important today.
References
Textbooks (Liberal Arts Mathematics)
Allendoerfer, C. B.; Oakley, C. O. Principles o f Mathematics. New York: McGraw-Hill,

1955.
Allendoerfer, C. B; Oakley, C. O. Fundamentals o f Freshman Mathematics. New York:

McGraw-Hill, 1965.
Altwerger, Samuel I. Modem Mathematics - an Introduction. New York: MacMillan,

1960.
Angel, Allen R.; Porter, Stuart R. A Survey o f Mathematics with Applications.

Reading, Massachussets: Addison-Wesley, 1997.
Apostle, H. G. A Survey o f Basic Mathematics. Boston: Little, Brown and Company,

1960.
Armstrong, James W. Elements o f Mathematics. New York: Macmillan, 1976.
Aufmann, Richard N.; Lockwood, Joanne S.; Nation, Richard D.; Clegg, Daniel K.
Mathematical Excursions. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2004.
Ayres, W. L.; Fry, Cleota G; Jonah, H. F. S. General College Mathematics. 2d ed. New
York: McGraw-Hill, 1960.
Banks, J. Houston. Elements o f Mathematics. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1954.
Banks, J. Houston. Elements o f Mathematics. 3d ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1969.
147
Barr, Donald R.; Willmore, Floyd. College and University Mathematics: A Functional
Approach. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1968.
Beck, Anatole; Bleicher, Michael N.; Crowe, Donald W. Excursions into Mathematics.
New York: Worth, 1969.
Bennett, Albert; Nelson, Leonard T. Mathematics —An Informal Approach. Boston:

Allyn and Bacon, 1979.
Benice, Daniel D. Mathematics: Ideas and Applications. New York: Academic Press,
1978.
Bemkopf, Michael. Mathematics - An Appreciation. New York: Houghton Mifflin,

1975.
Berlinghoff, William P.; Grant, Kerry E.; Skrien, Dale. A Mathematics Sampler. 5th
ed. New York: Ardsley House, 2001.
Billstein, Rick; Lott, Johnny W. Mathematics fo r Liberal Arts. Reading, Mass.:

Benjamin/Cummings, 1986.
Blitzer, Robert. Thinking Mathematically. 2ded. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall, 2000.
Bosstick, Maurice; Cable, John L. Patterns in the Sand —an Exploration in Mathematics.
Beverly Hills: Glencoe Press, 1971.
Britton, Jack R.; Bello, Ignatio. Topics in Contemporary Mathematics. San Francisco:
Dellen, 1989.
Brixey, John; Andree, Richard. Fundamentals o f College Mathematics. New York:

Henry Holt, 1954.
Buckeye, Donald; Ginther, John L. Creative Mathematics. San Francisco: Canfield

Press, 1971.
148
Burleson, Donald R. Topics in Mathematics. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall,

1977.
Bush, Grace A.; Young, John E. Foundations o f Mathematics. (Second Edition) New
Carter, Hobart. Modern Basic Mathematics. New York: Appleton, 1968.
COMAP. For All Practical Purposes. New York: W. H. Freeman, 1988.
COMAP. For All Practical Purposes. New York: W. H. Freeman, 2003.
Cooley, Hollis R.; Gans, David; Kline, Morris; Wahlert, Howard E. Mathematics
From a Cultural Viewpoint. New York: New York University Bookstore, 1935.
Cooley, Hollis R.; Gans, David; Kline, Morris; Wahlert, Howard E. Introduction to
Mathematics. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1937.
Cooley, Hollis R.; Gans, David; Kline, Morris; Wahlert, Howard E. Introduction to
Mathematics. 2d ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1947.
Cooley, Hollis R.; Wahlert, Howard E. Introduction to Mathematics. Boston: Houghton

Mifflin Company, 1968.
Coughlin, Raymond; Zitarelli, David E. The Ascent o f Mathematics. New York:

McGraw-Hill, 1984.
Crowdis, David G.; Wheeler, Brandon W. Introduction to Mathematical Ideas. New

Denbow, Carl H.; Goedicke, Victor. Foundations o f Mathematics. New York: Harpers
& Brothers, 1959.
149
Dresden, Arnold. Invitation to Mathematics. New York: Holt, 1936.
Durbin, John R. Mathematics - I t ’s Spirit and Evolution. Boston: Allyn and Bacon,
1973.
Fine, Nathan. An Introduction to Modem Mathematics. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1962.
Eulenberg, Milton D.; Sunko, Theodore S. Inquiry into College Mathematics. New
York: Wiley, 1969.
Eves, Howard; Newsom, Carroll V. An Introduction to the Foundations and

Fundamental Concepts o f Mathematics. New York: Rinehart, 1957.
Fine, Nathan J. An Introduction to Modern Mathematics. Chicago: Rand McNally &

Company, 1962.
Freund, John E. A Modern Introduction to Mathematics. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:

Prentice Hall, 1956.
Fujii, John. An Introduction to the Elements o f Mathematics. New York: John Wiley &
Sons, 1961.
Greenleaf, Fredrick P. Mathematical Patterns in Nature. New York: McGraw-Hill,

1995.
Goodstein, R. L. Fundamental Concepts o f Mathematics. 2d ed. Oxford: Pergamon

Press, 1979.
Gowar, Norman. An Invitation to Mathematics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979.
Graham, Malcolm. Mathematics: A Liberal Arts Approach. New York: Harcourt, 1973.
Gross, Herbert I.; Miller, Frank L. Mathematics - a Chronicle o f Human Endeavor.
New York: Holt, 1971.
Groza, Vivian Shaw. A Survey o f Mathematics. New York: Holt, 1968.
Gudder, Stanley. A Mathematical Journey. 2ded. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994.
Hall, Richard S. About Mathematics. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1973.
Harkin, Duncan. Fundamental Mathematics. New York: Prentice-Hall, 1941.
Herstein, I. N.; Kaplansky, I. Matters Mathematical. New York: Chelsea, 1974.
Holt, M. J.; McIntosh, A. J. The Scope o f Mathematics. London, Oxford University

Press, 1966.
Homer, Donald. A Survey o f College Mathematics. New York: Holt, 1967.
Jacobs, Harold R. Mathematics —A Human Endeavor. 3d ed. New York: W.H.

Freeman and Company, 1994.
Jacobs, Konrad. Invitation to Mathematics. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992.
Jones, Burton W. Elementary Concepts o f Mathematics. New York: Macmillan, 1963.
Kinsey, L. Christine; Moore, Teresa E. Symmetry, Shape, and Space. New York: Key
College Publishing, 2002.
Kline, Morris. Mathematics - a Cultural Approach. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-

Wesley, 1962.
Kline, Morris. Mathematics fo r Liberal Arts. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley,

1967.
151
Leonhardy, Adele. Introductory College Mathematics. New York: Wiley, 1952.
Leonhardy, Adele. Introductory College Mathematics. 2d ed. New York: Wiley, 1963.
Logsdon, Mayme. A Mathematician Explains. Chicago: The University o f Chicago,

1935.
Maxfield, John E.; Maxfield, Margaret W. Keys to Mathematics. Philadelphia: W. B.

Saunders, 1973.
McCown, Jack R; Sequiera, Michael A. Patterns in Mathematics. Boston: PWS, 1994.
Merkes, Edward P. Topics in Mathematics. New York: Intext Educational Publishers,

1975.
Meserve, Bruce E.; Sobel, Max A. Introduction to Mathematics. Englewood Cliffs, N.

J.: Prentice-Hall, 1978.
Miller, Charles; Heeren, Vem. Mathematical Ideas —An Introduction. Illinois: Scott-
Foresman, 1968.
Miller, Charles; Heeren, Vem; Homsby, E. John. Mathematical Ideas. 8th ed. Reading,
Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1997.
Miller, Charles; Heeren, Vem. Mathematics - An Everyday Experience. Glenview,

Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Co., 1976.
Misner, Fredric N. Mathematics - A Survey o f Its Foundations. San Francisco: Canfield

Press, 1975.
Moore, John T. Fundamental Principles o f Mathematics. New York: Rinehart &

Company, 1959.
152
Newmark, Joseph; Lake, Frances. Mathematics as a Second Language. Reading,

Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1979.
Newsom, Carroll. Introduction to College Mathematics. New York: Prentice-Hall, 1946.
Northrop, E.P. (with University of Chicago College Mathematics Staff). Fundamental

Mathematics. 3d ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1948
Olive, Gloria. Mathematics fo r Liberal Arts Students. New York: Macmillan, 1973.
Parks, Harold; Musser, Gary; Burton, Robert; Siebler, William. Mathematics in Life,
Society, & the World. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2000.
Polis, A. Richard; Beard, Earl M. L. Fundamental Mathematics - A Cultural Approach.

New York: Harpers & Row, 1977.
Pulsinelli, Linda. Living Mathematics: A Survey. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall,

1982.
Resnikoff, H. L.; Wells, R. O. Mathematics in Civilization. New York: Dover, 1972.
Richardson, Moses. Fundamentals o f Mathematics. New York: Macmillan, 1941.
Richardson, Moses. Fundamentals o f Mathematics. 3d. ed. New York: Macmillan,

1958.
Richman, Fred; Walker, Carol; Wisner, Robert J. Mathematics fo r the Liberal Arts
Student. Belmont, California: Brooks/Cole, 1967.
Richman, Fred; Walker, Carol; Wisner, Robert J.; Brewer, James W. Mathematics fo r
the Liberal Arts Student. Belmont, California: Brooks/Cole, 2000.
Roberts, A. Wayne; Varberg, Dale E. Faces o f Mathematics. New York: Harper & Row,
1978.
153
Rose, Israel H. A Modern Introduction to College Mathematics. New York: Wiley,

1959.
Russell, David. Mathematics: Ideas and Uses. New York: D. Van Nostrand, 1979.
Setek, William M Jr.; Gallow, Michael A. Fundamentals o f Mathematics. (Ninth

Edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2002.
Smith, Karl J. The Nature o f Modem Mathematics. Monterey: Brooks/Cole, 1973.
Smith, Karl J. The Nature o f Modern Mathematics. 9th ed. Monterey: Brooks/Cole,
2001 .
Smith, Roland. Mathematics: An Integrated View. Columbus, Charles Merrill, 1974.
Smith, William; Dice, Stanley. Modern College Mathematics. Boston: Allyn and Bacon,
Inc., 1963.
Spector, Lawrence. Liberal Arts Mathematics. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-

Wesley, 1970.
Staszkow, Ronald; Bradshaw, Robert. The Mathematical Palette. (Second Edition).

Fort Worth: Saunders College Publishing, 1995.
Stein, Sherman K. Mathematics - the Man-made Universe. San Francisco: W. H.

Freeman and Co., 1963.
Stein, Sherman K. Mathematics - the Man-made Universe. 3d ed. San Francisco: W. H.

Freeman and Co., 1976.
Tannenbaum, Peter; Arnold, Robert. Excursions in Modern Mathematics. 4th ed. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2001.
154
Triola, Mario F. Mathematics and the Modern World. 2d ed. Menlo Park:
Benjamin/Cummings, 1968.
Underwood, R. S.; Sparks, Fred. Living Mathematics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1940.
Wade, Thomas L.; Taylor, Howard E. Fundamental Mathematics. New York: McGraw-
Hill, 1956.
Western, Donald W.; Haag, Vincent H. An Introduction to Mathematics. New York:

Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1959.
Wheeler, Ruric. Fundamental College Mathematics. 2ded. Monterey: Brooks/Cole,

1976.
Wheeler, Ruric. E.; Wheeler, Ed R. Mathematics: An Everyday Language. New York:

Wiley, 1979.
Zwier, Paul; Nyhoff, Larry. Essentials o f College Mathematics. New York: Holt,
Rinehart, and Winston, 1969.
Textbooks (Finite Mathematics)
Anton, Howard; Kolman, Bernard; Averback, Bonnie; Denlinger, Charles. Mathematics

with Applications fo r the Management, Life, and Social Sciences. 3d ed.
San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1988.
Armstrong, Bill; Davis, Don. Finite Mathematics - Solving Problems in Business,

Economics, and the Social and Behavioral Science. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Barnett, Raymond; Ziegler, Michael; Byleen, Karl. College Mathematics fo r Business,

Economics, Life Sciences, and Social Sciences. 9th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
155
Bush, Grace A.; Young, John E. Foundations o f Mathematics - With Applications to

Social and Management Sciences. 2d ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1968.
Dodes, Irving Allen. Finite Mathematics: A Liberal Arts Approach. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1970.
Dossy, John; Otto, Albert; Spence, Lawrence; Eynden, Charles Vanden. Discrete
Mathematics. 4th ed. Boston: Addison Wesley, 2002.
Farlow, Stanley J. Finite Mathematics and its Applications. 2d ed. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1994.
Gulati, Bodh R. College Mathematics with Applications to the Business and Social
Sciences. New York: Harper’s & Row, 1978.
Hardy, F. Lane. Finite Mathematics. New York: Harpers & Row, 1977.
Lial, Margaret L.; Miller, Charles D. Mathematics: with Applications in the

Management, Natural, and Social Sciences. Glenview, 111: Scott, Foresman, 1974.
Kalmanson, Kenneth; Kenschaft, Patricia. Mathematics - A Practical Approach.

Montclair State College: Worth, 1978.
Kemeny, John G.; Snell, J. Laurie; Thompson, Gerald L. Introduction to Finite

Mathematics. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1957.
Maki, Daniel P.; Thompson, Maynard. Finite Mathematics. New York: McGraw-Hill,
1978.
Textbooks (Other)
Kasner, Edward; Newman, James. Mathematics and the Imagination. New York: Simon
156
and Schuster, 1940.
Mullins, George Walker; Smith, David Eugene. Freshman Mathematics. Boston: Ginn
and Company, 1927.
Slichter, Charles. Elementary Mathematical Analysis. 2ded. New York: McGraw-Hill,

1918.
Whitehead, Alfred North. Introduction to Mathematics. New York: Holt, 1911.
Books and Dissertations (General)
Anderson, Frank. The General Mathematics Course in Higher Institutions. Master’s

thesis, University of Arizona, 1938.
Bidwell, James; Classon, Robert, ed. Readings in the History o f Mathematics Education.
Washington D.C.: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1970.
Brown, Kenneth. General Mathematics in American Colleges. New York: Teachers

College Press, 1943.
Butts, R. The College Charts its Course. New York and London: McGraw-Hill, 1939.
Cajori, Florian. The Teaching and History o f Mathematics in the United States.
Washington: Government Printing Office, 1890.
Clark, Marion Elmo. A Critical Analysis o f the Objectives and Content o f Mathematics
fo r Liberal Education at the College Level. Ed.D. dissertation, University of
Virginia, 1962.
Coxford, Arthur; Jones, Phillip, eds. A History o f Mathematics Education in the

United States and Canada. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Thirty-
157
second Yearbook, 1970.
Duren, William; Askey, Richard. A Century o f Mathematics in America, Part II.

Providence, R.I.: American Mathematical Society, 1988.
Establishing the Goals. (Vol, 1 o f Higher Education fo r American Democracy. 6 vol.s);

New York: Harper and Brothers, Publishers, 1948.
Ganter, Susan. Changing Calculus: A Report on Evaluation Efforts and National Impact
From 1988 to 1998. Washington D.C.: Mathematical Association o f America, 2001.
Gerofsky, Susan Gail. The Word Problem as a Genre in Mathematics Education. PhD
dissertation, Simon Fraser University, Canada. 1999.
Harvard University, Committee on the General Objectives for Education in a Free

Society. General Education in a Free Society: Report o f the Harvard Committee.
Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1945.
Hayden, Robert. A History o f the “New Math ” Movement in the United States. Ph.D.
dissertation, University o f Iowa, 1981.
Izzo, Joseph. A History o f the Use o f Certain Types o f Graphical Representation in

Mathematics Education in the Secondary Schools in the United States. Ph.D.
dissertation, Columbia University, 1957.
Judd, Charles. Psychology o f Secondary Education. Boston, New York [etc.]: Ginn and
Company, 1927.
Kliebard, Herbert. The Struggle fo r the American Curriculum. New York: Routledge,
1987.
Kolesnik, Walter. Mental Discipline in Modem Education. Madison: University of

Wisconsin Press, 1958.
158
McNair, Donna Kay. An Investigation o f the Integrated Approach to Teaching Algebra

as Seen in the Major Committee Reports and Textbooks from 1887 to 1985. PhD
dissertation, University of Oregon, 1992.
National Council on Teachers of Mathematics. The Place o f Mathematics in Secondary

Education (1940), reprinted in Readings in the History o f Mathematics Education,
eds. James Bidwell and Robert Classon.
National Education Association. The Problem o f Mathematics in Secondary

Education. U.S. Bureau of Education Bulletin No. 1. Washington: Government
Printing Office, 1923
Nee, Mary Margaret Grady. The Development o f Secondary School Mathematics in the
United States 1950-1965. (PhD dissertation, Loyola University) 1990.
Progressive Education Association. Mathematics in General Education. New York: D.

Appleton-Century Company, 1940.
Schorling, Raleigh. The Teaching o f Mathematics. Ann Arbor: Ann Arbor Press, 1936.
Smith, D. E. The Teaching o f Elementary Mathematics. New York: MacMillan, 1904.
Thorndike, Edward. The Psychology o f Algebra. New York: Macmillan, 1923.
Wahlert, Howard. Elementary Mathematics in Arts Colleges. PhD dissertation,

Columbia University, 1952.
Walmsley, Angela. A History o f the “New Mathematics ” Movement and its Relationship
with Current Mathematical Reform. University Press of America: Lanham, 2003.
Werth, Richard. Changes in the Content and Teaching o f Basic Algebra, 1950-1985.
Ed.D. dissertation, The George Washington University, 1986.
Whitehead, Alfred North. Essays in Science and Philosophy. New York: Rider and
Company, 1948.
159
Journal Articles
Abemethy, John R. “General Education Values and the Attempt o f a Faculty to Teach
Them.” The Mathematics Teacher 46 (April, 1953) 241-245.
Allendoerfer, C. B. “Mathematics for Liberal Arts Students.” The American

Mathematical Monthly 54 (December, 1947) 573-578.
Allendoerfer, C. B. “The Second Revolution in Mathematics.” The Mathematics

Teacher. 58 (April, 1965) 690-695.
Allendoerfer, C. B. “The Narrow Mathematician.” The American Mathematical Monthly

69 (June-July, 1962) 461-468.
Ayre, H. Glenn. “Can a Single Course in Mathematics or the Sciences Fill the Dual
Objectives of General Education and Training o f Future Specialists?” School Science
and Mathematics 53 (February, 953) 107-113.
Beatley, Ralph. Review in The American Mathematical Monthly 44 (November, 1937)

591.
Begle, Edward. “SMSG: The First Decade.” The Mathematics Teacher 61 (June, 1968).
239-245.
Betz, William. “Five Decades of Mathematical Reform - Evaluation and Challenge.”

The Mathematics Teacher 43 (September, 1953) 377-387.
Brown, Kenneth. “The Content of a Course in General Mathematics—Teacher’s

Opinions.” The Mathematics Teacher 43 (January, 1950) 25-30.
Brown, Kenneth. “What is General Mathematics?” The Mathematics Teacher 39

(November, 1946) 329-331.
Cameron, E. A. “Some Observations on Undergraduate Mathematics in American

Colleges and Universities.” The American Mathematical Monthly 60 (March, 1953)
160
151-155.
Carmichael, R. D. Review in The American Mathematical Monthly 19 (1912) 282-283.
Commission on Post-War Plans, Second Report of; The Mathematics Teacher 38 (May
1945)213.
Committee for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, “Mathematics
Instruction for Purposes o f General Education,” The American Mathematical
Monthly 48 (March, 1941) 193.
Cogan, Edward. “The Handmaiden Comes of Age.” The American Mathematical

Monthly 70 (May, 1963) 554-560.
Cohen, Leon. “What Should be the Shape of Things to Come in the Mathematics
Curriculum?” Current Issues in Higher Education (1959) 126-137.
Dresden, Arnold. “A Program for Mathematics.” American Mathematical Monthly 41

(April 1934) 198-207.
Ford, L. R. Review in The American Mathematical Monthly 44 (October, 1937) 530.
Georges, J. S. “Integrated vs. Traditional Mathematics.” The American Mathematical

Monthly 48 (February, 1941): 126-130.
Georges, J. S. “Humanizing the Curriculum of the Natural Sciences and Mathematics.”

School Science and Mathematics 40 (1940) 449-456.
Grant, Hardy. “Mathematics and the Liberal Arts II.” The College Mathematics Journal
30 (May, 1999): 197-204.
Griffin, F. L. “An Experiment in Correlating Freshman Mathematics.” The American

Mathematical Monthly 22:10 (1915) 325-328.
161
Griffin, F. L. “The Undergraduate Mathematical Curriculum of the Liberal Arts

College.” The American Mathematical Monthly 37 (February, 1930) 46-52.
Hammond, C. D. “An Analysis of the Mathematics Courses Offered in the Public Junior
Colleges of California,” Junior College Journal, 20 (Dec. 1949) 218-220.
Hannelly, R. J. “Mathematics in the Junior College,” American Mathematical Monthly

47 (November, 1939): 581-585.
Hart, William. “The Need for a Reorientation of Secondary Mathematics from the
College Viewpoint.” The Mathematics Teacher 28:2 (1935) 69-79.
Hedrick, E. R. “Foreword on Behalf of the Editors.” The American Mathematical

Monthly 20(1913) 1-5.
Hedrick, E. R. “The Significance of Mathematics.” American Mathematical Monthly

24:9 (1917) 402-404.
Holroyd, Ina E. “Weaknesses of High School Students Who Enter College Mathematics
and a Suggested Remedy.” The Mathematics Teacher 27 (1934) 128-131.
Hudson, W. H. “On the Teaching of Elementary Algebra,” paper before the Educational
Society (London), Nov. 29, 1886, cited in Smith, D.E., The Teaching o f Elementary
Mathematics, reprinted in Readings in the History o f Mathematics Education, eds.
James Bidwell and Robert Classon.
Jackson, Dunham. “The Human Significance of Mathematics.” The American

Mathematical Monthly 35 (October, 1928) 406-411.
John, W. C. “Higher Education 1936-1940,” Chapter III of Vol I of The Biennial Survey
o f Education in the United States: 1938-1940. Office of Education, Washington
D.C., Government Printing Office (1941). ■
Judd, Charles. “The Relation of Special Training to General Intelligence.” Educational

Review 36 (1908) 42.
162
Karnes, Houston. “Junior College Mathematics in View of the President’s Report.” The
Mathematics Teacher A3 (April, 1950) 149-152.
Kidd, Kenneth. “Objectives o f Mathematical Training in the Public Junior Colleges.”

Contribution to Education No 394 (Nashville, Tennessee, George Peabody College
for Teachers, 1948).
Kline, Morris. “Freshman Mathematics as an Integral Part of Western Culture.” The

American Mathematical Monthly 61 (May, 1954) 295-306.
Kline, Morris. “The Ancient vs. the Modems: the Battle Over the Books.” The
Mathematics Teacher 51 (1958) 418-427.
Koos, Leonard. “Points of Needed Curriculum Development,” Junior College Journal,

16 (May 1946) 401-410.
Layton, W. I. “Mathematics in General Education.” The Mathematics Teacher 50

(November, 1957)493-497.
Lentz, Donald. “The High School Principal Looks at the Mathematics Program.” The
Bulletin o f the National Association o f Secondary School Principals 38 (May, 1954):
40-47.
MacNeish, H. F. Review in The American Mathematical Monthly 44 (May, 1937) 44.
McClure, James. “Failures in Freshman Mathematics.” Vanderbilt University Quarterly

3:4 (October, 1903) 242-254.
Merriell, D. M. “Second Thoughts on Modernizing the Curriculum.” American

Mathematical Monthly 61 (January, 1960) 76-77.
Miller, G. A. “Mathematical Troubles of the Freshman.” The American Mathematical

Monthly 20 (October, 1913) 235-243.
163
Montague, Harriet. “A Course on the Significance of Mathematics.” The American

Mathematical Monthly 48 (December, 1941) 681-684.
Newsom, C, V. “A Course in College Mathematics for a Program of General

Education.” The Mathematics Teacher 42 (Jan 1949) 19-24.
Northrop, E. P. “Mathematics in a Liberal Education.” The American Mathematical

Monthly 54 (March, 1945) 132-137.
Northrop, E. P. “Mathematics Program at the University of Chicago.” The American

Mathematical Monthly 55 (January, 1948) 1-7.
Ore, Oystein. “Mathematics for Students of the Humanities.” The American

Mathematical Monthly 51 (October, 1944) 453-458.
Richardson, M. “The Place of Mathematics in a Liberal Education.” National

Mathematics Magazine 19:7 (April, 1945) 349-358.
Rosander, A. C. “Quantitative Thinking on the Secondary School Level.” The

Mathematics Teacher 29 (1936) 58-63.
Ryan, T. A. Review in The American Mathematical Monthly 47 (December, 1940) 700.
Schaaf, W. L. “Required Mathematics in a Liberal Arts College.” American

Mathematical Monthly 44 (Aug.-Sept., 1937): 445-453.
Schorling, Raleigh. “The Place of Mathematics in General Education.” School Science

and Mathematics 23 (1923) 14-26.
Smith, Karl. “Liberal Arts Mathematics —Cornerstone or Dinosaur.” New Directions in

Two-Year College Mathematics (1984) 160-173.
Snyder, Virgil. Review for the American Mathematical Monthly 48 (Aug.-Sept., 1941)
472.
164
Steger, William F.; Willging, Gretchen. “Modularizing Liberal Arts Mathematics: an

Experiment. Two-Year College Mathematics Journal. 7,3,33-37,1976
Stone, Marshall. “The Revolution in Mathematics.” The American Mathematical

Monthly 68 (October, 1961) 715-734.
Summerer, Kenneth. “College Mathematics for the Non-Science Non-Mathematics

Major.” School Science and Mathematics. 56 (1956) 39-42.
Taylor, Howard E.; Wade, Thomas L. “On the Meaning of Structure in Mathematics.”
The Mathematics Teacher 58 (March, 1965) 226-231.
Tracey, J. I. “Undergraduate Instruction in Mathematics.” The American Mathematical

Monthly 44 (May, 1937) 284-288.
Trimble, H.C. “Mathematics in General Education.” The Mathematics Teacher 50

(January, 1957) 2-5.
Wilber, W. E. Review in The American Mathematical Monthly 47 (March, 1938) 179.
Wheatley, Jon. “Logic: Game or Tool?” The American Mathematical Monthly 67

(November, 1960) 916-917.
Wren, F. Lynwood. “The Merits and Content of a Freshman Mathematics Course.”

School Science and Mathematics 52 (November, 1952) 595-603.
Young, J. W. “The Organization of College Courses in Mathematics for Freshman.” The

American Mathematical Monthly 30 (January, 1923). 6-14.
Zant, James. “Critical Thinking as an Aim in Mathematics Courses for General

Education.” The Mathematics Teacher 45 (1952) 249-56.
Zant, James. “Effect of New Mathematics Program in the Schools on College

Mathematics Courses.” The American Mathematical Monthly 70 (February, 1963)
165
200-202.
Reports
A Report of the Chicago Section of the American Mathematical Society, Journal o f

Proceedings and Addresses o f the Thirty-Eighth Annual Meeting o f the National
Educational Association (1899; reprinted in Readings in the History o f
Mathematics Education, eds. James Bidwell and Robert Clason) 96.
A Report of the Special Committee of the American Association for the Advancement of
Science. The American Mathematical Monthly 48 (March, 1941) 189-198.
A Report of the Special Committee on College Mathematics for Non-Science Students, a

subcommittee of the California Committee for the Study of Education. The
American Mathematical Monthly 63 (November, 1956) 639-642.
Cardinal Principles o f Secondary Education. A report of the Commission on the

reorganization o f secondary education. National Education Association (Washington
Government Printing Office, 1918).
Committee on the Liberal Arts Colleges, Report of Tilley and Zurcher, Washington
Square College, 1933. (New York University Archives).
Committee on the Liberal Arts Colleges, Proposals for Discussion (December 7,1933),
Washington Square College.
Committee on the Undergraduate Mathematical Program, “Report of the Committee on

the Undergraduate Mathematical Program.” The American Mathematical Monthly
62 (September, 1955) 511-520.
International Commission on the Teaching of Mathematics, The American Report

Committee No. IX, Mathematics in the Technological Schools o f Collegiate Grade in
the United States. Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1911.
166
Committee No. X, Mathematics in the Public and Private Secondary Schools in the
United States. Washington D.C.: U.S. Bureau of Education, 1911. 8.

Committee No. X, Undergraduate Work in Mathematics in Colleges o f Liberal Arts
and Universities. Washington D.C.: U.S. Bureau of Education, 1911.
National Committee of Mathematical Requirements under the auspices of The

Mathematical Association of America. The Reorganization o f Mathematics in
Secondary Education. (1923). reprinted in Readings in the History o f Mathematics
Education, eds. James Bidwell and Robert Clason, 393.
The First Report of the Commission on Post-War Plans. The Mathematics Teacher 37
(1944) 226-237.
Report of the Committee on Assigned Collateral Reading in Mathematics. American

Mathematical Monthly 35 (May, 1928): 221-225.
Report of Committee on College Entrance Requirements. Journal o f Proceedings and

Addresses. National Education Association, 1899.
Reports on the Course of Instruction at Yale College (New Haven: Yale College, 1828)
The President’s Commission on Higher Education, Report of; Vol I, Establishing the
Goals. Washington D.C. Government Printing Office, 1947.
167
Appendix A: Quantitative Analysis of Textbooks
The purpose o f this section is to describe the development in content o f liberal
arts mathematics textbooks over time. It was assumed that such an understanding might
be particularly enriched by the visual aid of a graph. The author of this study has
discovered no graphical approach to textbook content analysis in any published academic
work. Such an approach faces a multitude o f questions and challenges, and has required
subjective judgments o f this author throughout. These questions, challenges, and
judgments shall be discussed presently.
The first question is one that has already been posed throughout this work: what
precisely constitutes a liberal arts mathematics textbook? The term “liberal arts
mathematics” did not come into standard use until as recently as the late nineteen-sixties.
Yet to restrict the quantitative analysis to the most recent era o f the course would defeat
much o f the purpose of the analysis itself, which is to see how this course changed. The
liberal arts mathematics course originated as an alternative to the traditional algebra-
based freshman mathematics course, and the books included in this analysis have been
selected on primarily this basis. To be included, the author of the textbook must (1) in
some way designate the book, in the preface, as a terminal college course for “non
specialists,” or (2) the content of the book itself must make this purpose explicit. All but
a very small handful o f these textbooks satisfy requirement (1). One primary reason for
168
excluding a text from the “liberal arts mathematics” category is that it constitutes a “finite
mathematics” textbook. Such distinctions represented the most difficult judgment. The
distinction between the liberal arts mathematics textbook and the precalculus textbook
was easily made, except in the early years, when much of the content remained
“traditional.” In such cases, the inclusion of other topics, as well as the author’s
comments in the preface, proved crucial factors in the decision to include or exclude the
book.
A related issue involves those books which have been excluded unintentionally,
due to the failure, on the part o f this author, to find them. The 99 books included here are
by no means the only published liberal arts mathematics textbooks. These books were
obtained in the following ways. Many were simply found on the shelves of several local
university libraries (they are classified under a small range of call numbers, along with
finite mathematics textbooks, etc.). Most of the others were identified with the help of
the American Mathematical M onthly’s section on published and reviewed books. Some
of the earlier books were identified in the previous studies such as Brown’s and Wahlert’s
(alongside other texts excluded from this analysis). It is believed by this author that the
Monthly identified the vast majority of published textbooks, and, with the help of
interlibrary loan, this author was able to obtain nearly all of these. Hence there is much
reason to believe that the books considered for this study constitute the vast majority of
liberal arts mathematics textbooks published in the United States.
The second question to be addressed involves “categorizing” the content. To
view the development of the liberal arts mathematics textbook, one must decide what, in
particular, at which to look. In this regard, some aspects of content proved to be much
169
easier to identify than others. Calculus proved a fairly distinct topic area, as did
trigonometry. Functions, analytic geometry, and “algebra” proved somewhat more
difficult to disentangle from one another. For this reason they will be grouped together in
addition to being combined with calculus and trigonometry, under the category,
“traditional mathematics,” in the time analysis.
Geometry might certainly be seen as a “traditional” mathematics subject, but it is
something of its own kind, too. In particular, an understanding of geometry is not
necessary in order to do most calculus problems. Hence it will be categorized by itself in
the time analysis.
Logic and set theory proved relatively easy to identify and distinguish, and
because o f their “foundational” and “modem” associations, will be grouped together in
the time analysis. Probability and statistics also proved easy to distinguish, and because
of their obvious relationship (along with such “counting” topics as permutations and
combinations), will be grouped together in the time analysis.
The most difficult categorization issues stemmed from the material dealing with
the concept of “number.” Many, perhaps most of the textbooks, addressed number in
different contexts and different sections. The most common treatment o f number
explored the different sets of numbers seen in contemporary mathematics: integers,
rational and irrational numbers, real and complex numbers. Such a treatment of numbers
is categorized under “sets of numbers.” Another approach to number involved an often
historical discussion of numeration systems, such as the Babylonian and Greek systems,
as well as the development o f the Hindu-Arab system. Adjunct to this discussion was
often a discussion of the different kinds of bases used in a number system. “Numeration
170
systems,” hence, seemed to deserve its own category. Finally, many books included a
chapter or sections specifically referring as “number theory.” Under this category could
be found such subtopics as divisibility rules, the fundamental theorem o f arithmetic,
prime numbers, and modular arithmetic. “Number theory” seemed, thus, to deserve its
own category. Yet these three distinctions between the treatment of number was not
always clear, as they were not always presented in distinct sections. To make these
distinctions required a significant element o f subjective judgment on the part o f this
author.
Another area o f ambiguity and overlap was seen in the realm of what might be
summarized here as “axiomatics.” The commutative and associative laws, for example,
were most often discussed in the context of sets of numbers, but in other books one found
such discussions in the context of “algebra.” Not only that, but different categories of
algebra itself exist in the liberal arts textbook - in particular, the distinction between what
is known as “high-school” or “college algebra” and what is commonly referred to as
“abstract algebra.” Some textbooks included a chapter on “mathematical systems,”
which sometimes included discussions of groups, as well as numeration systems. Once
again, disentangling these areas required judgments on the part of the author of a more
subjective nature.
Another realm of subjective judgment is seen in the broader and more generally-
defined categories. “Aesthetic mathematics” refers to mathematics in which the “look”
of shape or space was considered important, as well as the mathematics of art and music.
The term “modem mathematics,” given that it assumes such an important character in the
middle period of the liberal arts mathematics course, seemed to deserve graphical
attention, but this endeavor is complicated by the ambiguity of the term itself. If
“modem mathematics” is ultimately defined by “rigor and foundations,” then it should
include the subcategories of logic, sets, and perhaps sets of numbers. Yet another view of
“modem mathematics” defines it by its focus on theoretical “structures,” e.g., abstract
algebra and topology. Yet another view - that of Allendoerfer, for example - understood
“modem math” as an applied math employed by mathematicians during World War II,
such as linear programming and networks. All three conceptualizations - the “pure,”
“applied,” and “rigor”-based modem mathematics have been grouped together here.
The last questions facing this analysis are more logistical and measurement-based
in nature. First: how to “quantify” these categories? It has been done, in this case, purely
on the basis of the table of contents. Such an approach undoubtedly involves a
substantial element o f error and approximation, and hence must be seen as a significant
limitation on the study. It is justified on the basis of two considerations. First, access to
the textbooks selected here was limited, and in some cases, the textbook itself was not
obtained by this author, only the table o f contents. Secondly and more importantly, the
complexity and inherent subjectivity of the above-discussed categorization itself renders
any “exact” quantification impossible. After all, on any page, even one dealing with a
seemingly clearly-defined topic as a linear equation, can conceivably be subdivided into a
vast array o f subcategories. To what extent should it be considered “algebra” and a
related but distinct category o f “linear algebra”? If part of the solution process involves
the concept of commutativity, then some of that page might be categorized under the
properties of numbers, and so on. Hence some approximation is inevitable. To break the
categorization down according to the table of contents rather than a rigorous page-by-
172
page analysis is not only more practicable, but one might argue that “trusting” the
textbook authors’ definitions o f the material results in a less “subjective” quantification
on the part of this author.
The number o f pages judged to address each topic were totaled and put on a
spreadsheet. It was decided that the percentage o f the total book, rather than total
number of pages, would be the operative figure for the purpose of the graphs. Again, this
is a subjective decision, and there might be a good argument for doing it the other way.
By looking at the percentages, rather than the total number of pages, the analysis
arguably privileges the smaller books with respect to the larger ones. In part, this
approach was favored for the way that it minimizes the impact of statistical anomaly.
One could argue, too, that all books, regardless of their length, deserve to be “counted”
equally, since the liberal arts course, at least in its latter era, was usually a single
semester’s course. An argument could certainly be made for favoring the more popular
books in the analysis somehow. Their relative significance might be determined, for
example, by the number of libraries currently stocking the book. Yet, as stated several
times, this study is not only a history of liberal arts mathematics in practice, but as an
idea. In this perspective, even the books not so widely adopted deserve to be considered
on equal terms because it was their failure as much as their success that are significant to
the history o f liberal arts mathematics.
That said, some texts in this study are arguably privileged, in that two (or in one
significant case, three) editions of the book are included in the analysis. The decision to
include two editions of the same text was an extremely subjective one; after all, some
recent textbooks have been published in as many as eight or more editions. The reason
for including two editions is primarily that to exclude one of the editions would be to
exclude a book that was being used in a significant number of classrooms at that time.
Furthermore, the inclusion of the same book, published in different forms at different
times, offers another angle with which to view temporal development o f liberal arts
mathematics content. If the author has changed the content of the book, that change will
be reflected in the quantitative analysis. Finally, some books were used more often than
others, and it is these books that were printed over a period of years in different editions.
Including two editions, separated by time (in all cases, by at least 12 years), is a means of
accommodating the element of popularity and prevalence.
Exactly eight textbooks out of the 99 included in the study are later editions of
earlier textbooks. One - Introduction to Mathematics - is included in three separate
editions.
The last decision pertaining to the quantitative analysis involves the display of the
data and construction of the graphs. It seemed natural to put the percentages of each
category, in decimal form, on the y-axis. The x-axis must in some way represent time.
But here the idiosyncratic nature of the data presents complications. One method this
author employed to structure the x-axis involved constructing a bar graph, where each
section of the x-axis represented a five year period. However, there was a great deal of
variability in the number of books published for each five year period; hence this method
gave undue weight to certain books. The method employed here was to arrange the
books in a continuous fashion, according to publication date, so that each textbook is
given equal weight. This approach requires another approximation, for the publication
174
dates on many o f these texts do not specify the month o f publication. The books
published in the same year, hence, have been arranged randomly.
The distortion created by this method of arrangement is mitigated to some extent
by a “smoothing” of the data itself. The purpose of the graphs is to enhance the
understanding of content development by rendering it in visual terms. Just as any written
history must clarify by some inevitable effort of simplification and exclusion, the graphs
will communicate more by emphasizing the most general aspects of the trend. Instead of
being left as “spiky” graphs, then, these graphs have been “de-noised” in order to
facilitate understanding. The smoothing algorithm used here involves replacing each data
value with a weighted average: ten percent each of the four previous values and the four
subsequent values, plus twenty percent of the original value. At either end of the chart,
the four “hanging” values have been created by taking an average of the first (or last) five
values. This smoothing algorithm is applied twice.
Discussion
The first result of note pertains to the percentage rank of each topic. Here, it is
noted that the topic “number sets” has earned a considerably greater amount of discussion
in liberal arts mathematics than any single other topic. It makes sense that an approach to
mathematics education emphasizing the “meaning” or “nature” of mathematics would
devote a significant amount of attention to numbers. And yet the significance of “number
sets” to liberal arts mathematics raises some questions. In particular, how successful of a
topic is “number sets” in terms of problem posing? While the categorization issues
175
pertaining to the various number systems employed in contemporary mathematics may
make for good theoretical discourse, this is not a topic that lends to many interesting and
complex problems. Perhaps this is one explanation for the precipitous decline in this
topic beginning in the late 1970s.
The content-over-time graphs reveal a variety of patterns, but three in particular
might be noted and discussed. First, we see clear evidence of a gradual decline in the
“traditional” freshman mathematics topics. Calculus, trigonometry, algebra, analytic
geometry, and functions - those topics most crucial to the learning of calculus -
comprised 45% of liberal arts mathematics material as late as 1960, but by the early
seventies, this figure was in the low teens. One theory might posit that the key player
here was calculus - in ridding calculus from the liberal arts mathematics curriculum,
there no longer seemed any need for its prerequisite topics. And yet the evidence here
suggests that the relationship was not so simple. Calculus, seen by itself, enjoys a brief
resurgence in the early seventies, before retreating back to minor status. Yet the other
topics do not share in this resurgence. Perhaps the calculus featured during this period
was of the non-rigorous kind. In any case, the fact that the decline in the most traditional
topics from the liberal arts mathematics course coincided with the Sixties has been noted
in the conclusions; here we see that relationship in stark visual terms.
Another pervasive pattern seen in the content-over-time graphs is a rise-and-fall,
in which the peak occurs in the late Sixties. We see this trend most profoundly in
“modem mathematics (foundations),” which comprised three of the most significant
topics: logic, set theory, and number sets. We also see it in “modem mathematics
(abstract),” which comprised number theory, abstract algebra, and topology. These
176
results describe the rise and fall of “modem” mathematics discussed in chapter 5, “The
Modem Era.” One notes that the peak, in the case of logic and set theory, does not arrive
until the early Seventies, a decade after the forces driving “new math” began to peter out.
The third pattern seen here is an overall rise in the significance of some topics,
which manifests in three particular areas. The increase is most precipitous in the case of
financial and consumer mathematics, followed by “modem mathematics (applied),” and
finally, probability and statistics. Note that all three of these topic areas concern a more
applied, practical mathematics. This trend may be seen as aligned, in a general sense,
with the rise of Quantitative Reasoning/Quantitative Literacy.
Summary
The quantitative analysis of liberal arts mathematics reveals three distinct trends
in the change in topic content over time. Traditional algebra-based, calculus-trajectory
mathematics declined from a 45% percent share of liberal arts mathematics textbooks to a
10% share, and most of this decline occurred during the Sixties. “Modem mathematics,”
abstract and foundations-based, increased its share of the liberal arts mathematics
textbook during the first part of the Sixties, peaked in the early Seventies, and then
declined, reflecting (in a delayed sense) the trajectory o f “new” and “modem” math in the
educational discourse. Finally, the applied and “practical” end of the liberal arts
mathematics spectrum has gradually increased in significance throughout the history of
liberal arts mathematics. This trend fits squarely in with the recent rise of quantitative
literacy.
Total Percentage of Topics (All Percentages in Decimal Form)
178
Topics over 2%
0.1
■
0.09
B
w i i s s s
v--& r.:'~'Vv •
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05 m
■ • .'=•: ' r- i.v- h*' •<,>': - .
0.04
■
0.03 ■
■ BIBj
0.02
» ■ lillM
Sal
0.01
1. ii
< — ■
179
Topics under 2%
0.025
"-s'K.v'4*'k,£V'S5& .»*■
0.02
HHi
0.015 -
0.01
0.005 : m
viij
0 -M-
/
</■
* /
^
/
xcf ^
- ,<? *f <$?° <^6 v / «s? c^®
/ /
r°
o 0O
°^
*
‘c' <<&
^
/V
(#
^ <yr
<r
180
Traditional Topics
(calculus, trigonometry, analytic geometry, algebra, functions)
0.5 -jr
0.45 \
0.4 -
0.35 -
0.3
0.25 -
0.2 -
0.15
0.1
0.05 -
o
rvt?3kQP
y \OT do"5kop
r$y* .o<o^ Or*.oA
<cP .dp
p .dP .dp .dp 4 ^ .oP
4 ^ .od
4 ^ .oP
4 ^ .cv
A^5.oS
A1^*.<&
o$* <£>
o$* c&
oS cn^ rP
> <$> c\5
181
Sets of Numbers
0.18 1
0.16
0.14 -
0.12 1
0.08 -
0.06
0.04
0.02
£ ^t?3 JrP JrP -A*^3 _A^ .A*® -A^3 _A^ c4* oS cv^ cv>
182
Numeration System s/Num ber Theory
0.12 t ----
0.1
0.08 A
0.06 -
v.
0.04 J
0.02 -
Probability and Statistics
0.25
0.15 A
0.05 A
& -h ? 3 ..G ?3 _G?* _ A ^ -A ^3 _A^* -A ^3 .A ^3 - A ^ -0 $ * oS .CV3
184
Logic and Set Theory
0.18
0.16 -
0.14 -
0.12
0.08 -
0.06 -
0.04
0.02 -
185
Modern Mathematics (Abstract)
0.14
0.12
0.08 -
0.06
0.04 -
0.02 -
o£> *S> <$> <%> qCI/ (&> q°> /vN /( b /v<0 /A oV o \ ^ CV>
& kPT k<S? .<>? fdp S P S F S?P K<V N^V ^ n<£ «<£>
186
Algebra, Functions, and Analytic Geometry
tseseKematuhlili M
ini;
t?5 <rp <rp oCW Cr^ (& <rP Cv* A*^5 A^* A*° A^3 A^ Q$* oJ* Pv'' rC3
^ ^ & ^P ^P ^P ^ # & & & ^ ^ ^
187
Modern Mathematics (Foundations)
0.35 -
0.25 -
0.15 -
<cP Qv* A *'' A ^1 9^ C ^“ CV5

n # Np r ^ f P >op ^ ^ 4 .& ^ 4 ^ <$>
188
Financial and Consum er Mathematics
0.06
0.05
0.04
.103 -
0.02 -
0.01
/
/
0 'r " r i N i l ' l l I I 1 1 I I 1 1 I P i I I I T ' 1 '1 i ir 'i ' ' r i T T T r T 7 , ; T T T T l ‘V f i T T T r T T T T T T T 7 T T r r T T T T 7 T T lT T T T T T n r n '
r$P t&> <?Q <S> cCt' G-J* o?3 A*'' a '-1 A^* A1*-3 A^3 A^> o]* o S cn'' cy3
^ # # # # $ & & & & & $ j r <v
189
Science and Modeling
0.045
0.04 A
0.035 A
0.03 A
0.025 A
0.015
0.01 A
0.005 -
^ A* _o> aS oN
Com puter Mathematics
0.06
0.02 -
0.01
T. 1111 ........ 'i 11 1111 111 n i m 111111111ci n 't m t i t t t 1, rTTrmTTTml

°>°^ No>* rfy* rSy3
Nrv Nc^p (o' ^ ^ ^ y{->^ A^ ^ a'®^ A^5^ oS ^ oN
^ 0$*^ oJ*^o>
Calculus
0.14
0.12
0.1
B M W — i
■
0.08
0.06
S /
IM
\
0.04
0.02 \
0 ^ ' ■ ' 1
n in rn in 11rrn iTTri1fT,n ivrirrTrmnTfTTT?TTWTTr1Tf?TtTfT^^fffft
^ _<£> _a n a ^> a * A<o
192
Trigonom etry
0.09
0.08 -
0.07 -
0.06 -
0.05 -
0.04 -
0.03 -
0.02 -
0.01 -
^ ^ ^ ^C3 ^ ^ r> A _C^ &

The History of Liberal Arts Mathematics - George (2010)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The History of Liberal Arts Mathematics - George (2010)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Professor J. Phillip Smith, Sponsor

Approved by the Committee on

Date_______ nrT 1 5 2007_________

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the

All rights reserved.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company

THE HISTORY OF LIBERAL ARTS MATHEMATICS

factors that caused it to evolve.

Liberal arts mathematics is defined as the content of a college

mathematics course seeking to provide an overview of mathematics to students

developed in the early 20th Century as an alternative to the traditional college

mathematics requirement, which consisted of college algebra, trigonometry,

analytic geometry, and calculus. Due to a broadening in the undergraduate

population and simultaneous challenges to the theory of mental discipline, the

students. Beginning in the 1930's, a series of textbooks were published designed

around the objective of providing students with an introduction to general

Some books emphasized logic’s central role in mathematics. Other books

emphasized the role of mathematics in civilization. Most books offered a survey

of different mathematical topics. This study concludes that liberal arts

student with a meaningful mathematical understanding, and that this

understanding may be framed according to “pure” and “applied” mathematics.

All Rights Reserved

I would like to gratefully acknowledge the assistance, support, inspiration, and

attained this distinction.

Chapter One: Need and Background 1

Purpose of the Study 3

Plan of this Report 6

Chapter Two: Sources 7

Chapter Three: Early Decades and Calls for Change 14

Stabilization and Standardization 16

The Unification of Mathematics 18

Origins of Liberal Arts Mathematics 20

Industrialization and Social Efficiency 21

Mental Discipline and Mathematics Education 32

Discontent with the Tradition 36

Chapter Four: A New Course Develops 42

Whitehead’s Text (1911) 53

Logsdon’s Text (1935) 55

Hogben’s Text (1937) 58

Cooley/Gans/Kline/Walhert Text (1937) 59

Kasner/Newman Text (1940) 63

Underwood/Sparks Text (1940) 64

Richardson’s Text (1941) 65

Harkin’s Text (1941) 67

Northrop’s Text (1945-49) 68

Newsom’s Text (1946) 69

The Human Element 85

Chapter Five; Liberal Arts Mathematics in the

The Rise o f Modem Mathematics 98

The Textbooks 102

The Waning of Modem Mathematics 104

The New Liberal Arts Mathematics 112

Finite Mathematics 113

A Broad, Eclectic Vision 118

Computer Mathematics 122

Mathematics and Aesthetics 123

History of Mathematics 127

Quantitative Reasoning/Literacy 129

Chapter Six: Summary and Recommendations 136

Textbooks (Liberal Arts Mathematics) 146

Textbooks (Finite Mathematics) 154

Textbooks (Other) 155

Books and Dissertations (General) 156

Date_ nrT 1 5 2007___