WALK into any university engineering workshop or computer science lab, and you may hear a familiar confession from students: “I love building things, but the math terrifies me.” That fear is not a failure of character. It is often a failure of how mathematics is taught.
The idea that mathematics is the foundation of STEM education has become a cliché, repeated at education conferences and printed in school brochures. Yet, like many clichés, it contains an important truth.
A weak grounding in mathematics limits a student’s ability to fully understand science, technology, engineering and even parts of modern biology.
Despite this, mathematics is still too often taught as an abstract hurdle rather than the conceptual framework that helps explain the world around us.
Critics may point out that many successful programmers, technicians and IT professionals get by with basic arithmetic and a search engine. But there is a difference between working in a STEM field and excelling in one.
To understand why a bridge remains standing, why a communications signal remains stable, why an algorithm scales efficiently, or why a statistical model may be misleading, students need more than formulas.
They need mathematical thinking: logic, abstraction, problem decomposition and the ability to connect specific examples to broader principles.
When students struggle with calculus-based physics, the problem is often not physics itself but weaknesses in algebra and trigonometry.
When computer science students cannot analyse the performance of a recursive function, the issue is frequently a gap in discrete mathematics. When aspiring biologists misinterpret the results of a clinical study, the culprit is often poor statistical reasoning.
Mathematics is not merely one subject among many. It is the language in which STEM problems are expressed and solved.
The uncomfortable reality is that students do not develop weak foundations simply because mathematics is difficult. Too often, they develop weak foundations because mathematics is taught as a collection of disconnected procedures.
Memorise the quadratic formula. Perform long division. Draw a sine wave. Rarely are students shown why these tools exist or how they help explain motion, growth, risk and uncertainty.
As a result, many students progress through the education system with passing grades but only a superficial understanding of concepts. A student may complete algebra yet struggle to explain how variables represent changing quantities in the real world.
The same student then enters calculus and is expected to understand rates of change without fully grasping the functions beneath them. The result is a curriculum that often resembles a house built on sand, where memorisation substitutes for understanding.
The question, therefore, is not whether mathematics matters, but how it should be taught.
First, mathematics should be integrated rather than isolated. Students learn more effectively when mathematical concepts are connected to real applications.
Geometry becomes more meaningful when linked to computer graphics. Algebra gains relevance when explored through coding. Science experiments should not end with observation alone; students should measure, model, predict and refine using mathematical tools.
Second, schools must prioritise mastery of fundamentals before acceleration. Many education systems rush students towards advanced topics because calculus looks impressive on a transcript.
Yet students who are not confident with fractions, ratios, equations and data interpretation are unlikely to thrive in higher-level mathematics. Ensuring deep fluency in foundational concepts is not remedial. It is strategic.
Third, we need to change the story surrounding mathematics itself. Too many students conclude they are “not math people”. This is a cultural belief, not a biological reality.
Classrooms should place greater emphasis on reasoning, discussion and problem-solving rather than speed and memorisation.
Mathematics is not about producing answers in seconds. It is about understanding relationships, analysing mistakes and approaching problems from different perspectives.
The cost of getting this wrong is significant. Every year, capable and curious students abandon STEM pathways not because they lack intelligence or determination, but because they encounter levels of mathematical abstraction they were never adequately prepared for.
Many conclude they are not smart enough. In reality, they were not given the foundation they needed. The result is a loss of talent and a narrowing of opportunities, particularly for students who lacked access to strong mathematics teaching from an early age.
So yes, mathematics is the foundation of STEM success. But foundations alone do not create great structures. Students also need relevance, encouragement and opportunities to connect concepts with the real world.
If schools continue to treat mathematics as little more than a test of speed and memorisation, too many learners will be left behind. If they instead teach it as a living, connected and accessible discipline, they will strengthen the entire STEM ecosystem.
The goal should not be to use mathematics to guard the gate. It should be to use mathematics to build the path. ‒ July 6, 2026
The author is affiliated with the Tan Sri Omar Centre for STI Policy Studies at UCSI University and is an Adjunct Professor at the Ungku Aziz Centre for Development Studies, Universiti Malaya.
The views expressed are solely of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Focus Malaysia.
Main image: Pexels/Gabby K
