Math and Makeup?

"Math Doesn't Suck". Yes, that is the title of Danica McKellar's new book that tries to get girls interested in math. "I thought it (math) was just for nerdy white guys, but it's not...I want to tell girls that cute and dumb isn't as good as cute and smart," said Danica. Oh, boy. While I think the book is getting at something important, does it really need to have "cutesy graphics and teenmagazine staples...syrupy dollops of just-between-us-girls encouragement" (Peg Tyre author of the Newsweek article) to get girls engaged? Girls today are taking as many high-level math courses as boys do. So why do we need to encourage them? Most girls take math because they need as a supplement their career choice. Hardly any girls pursue a "pure math" job, like a mathematician or engineer. "We've gotten girls to take math. We've gotten girls to use math. But we haven't gotten them to love it," explained Patricia Campbell who reviews math and science programs for the National Science Foundation. I can really understand that people want girls to learn to love math, but is this approach really going to reach girls today? Here's a sample problem from the book: "Say you have $50, and you want to buy a fabulous blue sundress that costs $62. Bummer! Not enough money. But wait, there's a sale tag that says it's 1/5 off. Do you have enough money now?". Reality problems are useful and I understand that many girls might like this angle. If it helps them get interested in math, great. However, is it necessary to have inserts like "three miniprofiles of drop-dead-gorgeous mathematicians" (Peg Tyre)? Oh, well. I really hope that this book does help girls get involved with math and see that it's a career worth pursuing.

Peace, friends.