Would begrudgingly recommend his book

I did not recognize the name at first, but after reading the first few paragraphs, I realized I actually own a copy of this guy’s book. He writes in this very recognizable way as to have me rolling my eyes while simultaneously agreeing with most of his thoughts. So Mr. Lockhart can be a little hyperbolic, I think. But again, he raises many good points, and I especially enjoy the bits of dialogue between Simplicio and Salvati, which I think does a better job of winning me over.

So I don’t know if it counts, but I largely disagree with what I see as exaggerations on his part. It’s his analogies in particular which rub me the wrong way. Right out of the gates, he describes a musician’s nightmare and then a painter’s nightmare, which honestly to me do not sound so far fetched. I think it's actually a very common experience for young musicians to have their love of music diminished by their experiences with music education. In general, I agree with the comparisons made between math and fine arts, but I think it more so says something about society’s take on education in general, rather than a problem which is unique to math. With these comparisons to music and art, he’s also maybe a little dismissive of the utilitarian aspect of math which has played such a critical role in scientific and technological developments. I don’t think it’s “wrong” to promote those aspects of mathematics, and I think there’s a lot about the modern curriculum which generates interest in the subject for a lot of people (including myself). Again though, I must acknowledge that he walks back a lot of his more radical ideas in those little play scenes between Simplicio and Salvati, where they at least come off as more sensible.

Despite my finding his tone annoying at times, it’s much easier for me to find things I agree with in Lockhart’s writing. For instance, I strongly agree with the idea that the creative, self-expression aspect of math is totally minimized in the current system. I personally always enjoyed math class, but I can’t help but wonder if I would have enjoyed it even more had it been more like Lockhart’s vision. And even as someone who has always enjoyed the subject, I often think the material doesn’t actually get very interesting until the university level. There’s such an emphasis on technique and method, rather than mathematical thinking. It’s as if “they” want us to become engineers (lame, jk). It’s all about productivity, after all. This is getting back to an earlier point which is that the state of math education is a symptom of not just government policy, but also sociocultural values. Something Lockhart hints at here, but I think states more explicitly elsewhere in his book, is that he believes math should be optional in school. I’m not sure how I feel about that, I sometimes agree and sometimes don’t. But I do think about that point quite a bit, so again I must respect Lockhart’s ability to open my mind to the possibilities.