Play-Mastermind.com

How cloying. To stoop so low as to say that girls will respond enthusiastically to mathematics only when lessons are packaged in saccharine dollops of fraction-tinged lipgloss is at best cliched and at worst incredibly insulting. Give me a break.
Rating: 2 / 5

One of the chapters in this book is devoted to astrology, a pseudo-science at best, an out right con at worst. I would not recommend this book for this reason alone. The author could have picked a better topic to illustrate math to the targeted part of the society that needs encouragement to partake in math and science; young women.
Rating: 1 / 5

This book is typical of the air-headed drivel coming out of the entertainment world these days. It’s just a re-hash of what your teacher said in “child-speak”, reinforcing all of the shallow and dopey antics you wouldn’t want your child to imitate. Astrology? Come on! None of the three kids I asked were impressed or even interested: (“No thank you”, “stupid”, and “I ain’t readin’ that”). I returned it.
Rating: 1 / 5

A couple of years ago reading in some newspaper, I became aware that Danica McKellar, whom I am familiar with through a television show called The Wonder Years with Fred Savage, earned a degree in mathematics from UCLA and had written a book titled Math Doesn’t Suck. It wasn’t until now that I happened to spot this book on a shelf at a middle school library, so I got curious and began to read (well…not exactly, I skimmed more than I read) it. The further I got through the pages, the less I liked the book. Danica McKellar should have started the book off with stating the intention of making math less painful for girls only, and most of the pages have this girlishly tone. Let’s say…I am okay with this idea, but I really don’t approve her concoction of ideas. In that, she succeeds in creating stereotypes of how a girl ought to act, behave, look, and have. There is an endless pushing of the image that a 10 to 13 year girl must have a cute boyfriend, own a cell phone, wear a makeup, look pretty to be dateable enough, have a skinny body figure, and be intelligent. At the same time, there is a feeling that I can’t help but feel sorry for others who might be hurt by the perfect Americanized ideal of how a girl should be. She reinforces the idea by inserting the seemingly condescending quotes given by middle school students through the pages. What about the girls who have an obesity problem? What about the girls who have plain or ugly facial features? What about the girls who have an array of disabilities? What about the girls who have serious cognitive problems? What about the girls who are not interested in dating? Danica McKellar seems to have succeeded in ostracizing these kinds of girls because they do not fit the mold. Why is it so important that a 9-, 10-, 11-, 12- year old girl to have a boyfriend? I ask again, why is that so important? Why is it so important that she is to look pretty as much as possible? I am very confused in the aim of the book. Now, for the mathematical portion, well…there is absolutely nothing new in Math Doesn’t Suck that I haven’t seen in any good book because Danica McKellar covers the same basic stuff: factors, multiples, fractions, decimals, percents, word problems, and algebra. In my own personal opinion of why this stuff are hard for middle school students is that they are either poorly taught or not given an explicitly clear explanation of the lessons. The third problem could be not enough of practice. Back to the negative aspects of the book, I want to add one more. I believe there are pictures of a total of three women who have a career related with mathematics, but I notice something else disturbing: none of them have concealed their skin above their chests. I find the images to be wholly inappropriate, especially for a book targeted for middle school girls. And worst of all, one of them is a middle school teacher with some cleavage showing! Another worst aspect of the book is the presentation of astrology. Come on…it is pseudoscience and has been written off as fraudulent. The science of mathematics is achieved through rigors and proofs in logical sequence of steps. And Danica McKellar throws astrology in the face of mathematics? As for the title of the book and elsewhere in the book, I don’t appreciate her usage of the word “suck.” All in all, Math Doesn’t Suck is not an appropriate reading for kids; however, if she cleaned up the content of her book and make it more kid friendly, that would be great. I doubt this will be achievable because Danica McKellar went on to pose herself through swimsuit modeling, making her a very unsuitable role model. And she offends many of the tireless female teachers who may or may not share the physical beauty as her yet struggle to universally convey the value of mathematics across to the kids.
Rating: 1 / 5

The world is full of prima donnas, divas, and Hollywood hype. Our youth goes for these instead of things that would really help them, such as a knowledge of mathematics. So what do we have now? One of these Hollywood divas attempting to lure kids into learning math. This is Danica McKellar, with her book “Math Doesn’t Suck”.

Does she succeed? It seems she is stuck in silly adolescent girl stuff. Feminists would object to this slant. There is constant talk of boyfriends and reality math. However, I have looked at the book, and she does explain some of the concepts well, some with outrageous analogies. She explains that fractions with same numerator and denominator are “copycat fractions”, such as 6/6, and that some fractions, such as 24/30, have hidden copycat fractions in them. She thinks that prime numbers ” don’t have a whole lot going on upstairs, if you know what I mean”. This is the first time I have heard of someone describing primes as stupid. She says further that primes are like monkeys because they are primates. Groan.

But the biggest drawback to this book is the astrology column she throws into it. I am surprised that a professional mathematician (I am not sure if she has the PhD) would include nonsense like this into her book. She should have instead have taught girls to use mathematics to debunk such nonsense, for example by computing the effect of Mars’ gravity on a newborn child and the effect of the gynecologist’s gravity. According to Carl Sagan, the latter has much more of an effect on the baby.

Rating: 2 / 5