I’m Not Good at Math. Who Cares?

What does it mean to be valued in society for your mathematical ability? Why do we associate math skills with a higher probability of success? 

And what happens to students like me, an education doctoral student, who wouldn’t consider themselves naturally gifted in math? Who cares if I'm not good at math? Well, what if the answer is everybody? Everybody cares about the value we place on academic success in math.

In the social sciences, we utilize the theory of social capital, the idea that society assigns a label of wealth—monetarily or socially—to an individual on the basis of collective ideologies, principles, and stereotypes. In education, mathematical ability is too often seen as a form of capital in the economy of academic achievement. This places unnecessary pressure on students to achieve specific goals and skill sets solely for the sake of gaining academic capital. 

Throughout my academic journey, I have been under the impression that I am not good at math. Ironically, as I continue on this pathway, I still use math in many applied ways as a student  outside the field of STEM. It took me years to understand that, regardless of my skill level, I still deserve to explore my wonder for math while being valued for the other academic abilities I also possess.

Although my work is outside of the realm of mathematics, I utilize math all the time. I love to learn new ways to incorporate statistics and quantitative reasoning into the research I produce. I also believe myself to be rigorous, capable, and brilliant, regardless of my career choice. 

Even though I work outside of STEM, I still get insecure about my math ability. I also have lived experience as a female student of color that has shaped my educational trajectory. The intersection of these two truths has led me to question the way we view academic achievement. 

More importantly, I have begun to question the pressure we place on students to conform to comparative benchmarks of brilliance. For certain demographics of students, striving for excellence is consistently more difficult when combined with systemic barriers to opportunity.

Mathematical ability and other forms of academic capital are associated with high performance and generational accessibility in rigorous scholastic environments. Yet the opportunities for expanding academic capital in STEM are scarce for diverse groups of students who are subjected to educational inequities and the pressure to compete for high-quality programs.

The problem is so pervasive that researchers encourage us to adopt a growth mindset to alleviate mental health concerns for students under a massive amount of pressure to perform. As a collective, we must remain mindful of the limiting beliefs we project on students. This is key in redefining the benchmark of brilliance, as the current benchmark acts as a barrier to academic exploration.

Current research sheds light on the association of brilliance with specific career fields, such as STEM pathways, which also has implications for the individuals we associate with these fields and the idea of academic achievement at large. The research finds that perceived mathematical brilliance was largely assigned to White students over students of color, while also preferencing male students over females, even at an early age. 

This phenomenon has led researchers to point to a link between the fight for academic achievement and mental health struggles across STEM majors—particularly in marginalized communities affected deeply by the equity of access and the outcome of opportunity. The residual impact of competition for academic capital is felt not just by STEM students, but by all students. 

To let brilliant scholarship be defined by one aspect of academic achievement is extremely limiting to the potential we all truly have in math and education as a whole. I believe that math is brilliant, but I also believe that I am brilliant regardless of my relationship to math.