Plan B Forum

-"BB"-
*** incidentally, I am unable to correctly calculate the first answer since I cannot read the given radius of the curve in the upper left/lower right corners of the figure.

And you know this because you actually have children in school, and are reviewing their homework. Right?

I got the 2015 one wrong

I would have gotten them al wrong (except the last one) as no units are provided for any numbers. Area needs units to make any sense (and the first is especially problematic as no values for R5 and R10 are provided (I guess they could be 5 and 10, but then calling both "R" would suggest they are the same; and even if those are correct, are we to assume that the area removed is half the area of the circles with the recited radii?). Sure it's a joke, but I can confirm that my kids were taught with math skills pretty similar to the ones I was taught all those many years ago--probably a little better as they did not spend as much time on arithmetic skills as I recall doing).

My daughter, having recently practiced for and taken the SAT, was asked to solve math problems at a much higher level than anything I had ever learned in high school. And I scored very well on the SAT 45 years ago -- having never taken calculus or trigonometry. (Her science classes -- especially biology -- were more rigorous than anything I ever had in high school.) So even though the OP is supposed to be an "Amazing Joke," it is the self-congratulatory bullshit of old people attempting to dismiss the younger generations as ignorant, despite the fact that they probably know significantly more about almost everything (at least academically) than we did at their age. Ha ha, how hilarious.

Sue U wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 18, 2020 3:57 pm

My daughter, having recently practiced for and taken the SAT, was asked to solve math problems at a much higher level than anything I had ever learned in high school. And I scored very well on the SAT 45 years ago -- having never taken calculus or trigonometry. (Her science classes -- especially biology -- were more rigorous than anything I ever had in high school.) So even though the OP is supposed to be an "Amazing Joke," it is the self-congratulatory bullshit of old people attempting to dismiss the younger generations as ignorant, despite the fact that they probably know significantly more about almost everything (at least academically) than we did at their age. Ha ha, how hilarious.

Yes. Exactly my point. My boys are doing incredible work in middle and high school and getting an incredible education. So are most of the kids I know. BB has not a fucking clue.

Having struggled with high school math with disadvantaged kids here, I could only wish they had something as easy as the 2010 "funny". Most still wouldn't get it right but some would manage. They (in poverty, formerly (!) abused and poorly educated) are expected to use computers they do not have access to (and never will), logarithmic calculators (ditto), and master complex concepts in a language in which they are are also failing (English), as are some of their teachers.

I know the work is harder than I faced in school - although at least we had all those log tables, sines, cosines and crap at the back of the book to consult. Which I never understood. Didn't pass mathematics O-level - didn't take it.

Just out of curiosity Meade, what is a logarithmic calculator? Is it something like a slide rule that uses logarithms to calculate mathematical problems, or a calculator which can calculate the logarithm (likely a base 10 algorithm) of a number. If the latter and if they do not have access to those calculators, those tables would be fine and could/should be taught.

It's a shame that the education they get has no relevance to what they are likely to be doing, or even encounter.

As for math skills, when I was in high school, I was always a pretty good student, especially in math, but I remember a friend in the Industrial Arts programs (to which the less academically inclined students were pushed) had a class called Shop Math and asked me to help tutor him. It dealt with practical things like calculations areas and volumes of irregular surfaces/bodies and how to calculated the sufficiency of starting materials needed to achieve a certain result. I can attest that it wasn't easy to grasp (it took me quite a while with the book), but the students learned it. I'd bet a number of the people in my classes who looked down on courses like that couldn't have passed an exam without significant work. Based on the work my daughters did, I am pretty sure it hasn't gotten any easier to master.

And just to be clear and at the risk of being called a pedantic old fart, there is no answer possible for the 1970 one because the NW and SE corners are rounded off. Without knowing the radius of the rounding you cannot do the calculation.

Having said that, I think it's true that educational standards in maths have dropped. I've probably conducted 500 interviews and hired 200 people (wild-assed slightly informed guesses) for technical positions over the past 35 years, and of course I am comparing my 1960s era English private education to (mostly) late C20 US public school. I was doing calculus when I was 13 and that was not unusual for the time. Although the positions I was hiring for rarely required calculus, it was unusual to find anyone outside a maths, chemistry, physics or engineering graduate who had any.

My grandfather showed me the 11-plus exam (the English test which decided whether you would go to the grammar schools from which you might go to the professions or the church or if you were destined to a trade such as plumbing or farming or mechanic) he had taken, and I would have had no chance in 1904. So it's a complaint of long-standing.

And I've never used a logarithmic calculator. Google tells me it's a calculator which can tell you the logarithm of any number to any base. We used to just look those in a book of tables.

Those corners are both r4. It’s blurry but it’s there

not so blurry. for me it is clearly R5 and R10 As for the numbers with no units, that means the answer has no units. If one can assume no data means all the same units (the letter 'n' is frequently used in a similar fashion) the answer has the same (nothing or anything) units. However the center of the circle in each corner is not indicated. if the radius may begin inside or outside the rectangle, not possible to calculate the area any more that if the radius is not given.

snailgate

The rounded NW and SE corners are R4; the portion removed from the NE is R10; from the SW it's R5. You're right about the centers of the arcs, though.

I graduated from HS 50 years ago.

I forgot everything I learned.

De-evolution of education for me.

I don't see it as "the evolution of education". I see it as the restructuring of the test for people who were in school in 1970.

I had a lot of trouble with basic Algiberish and barely slid by so anyone who does advanced mathematics is a God to me.

Big RR wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 18, 2020 5:23 pm

Just out of curiosity Meade, what is a logarithmic calculator? Is it something like a slide rule that uses logarithms to calculate mathematical problems, or a calculator which can calculate the logarithm (likely a base 10 algorithm) of a number. If the latter and if they do not have access to those calculators, those tables would be fine and could/should be taught.

The calculator. They don't have tables either and I have no doubt that the teachers would be unable to use them.

That is indeed sad if a teacher cannot use a simple table.

ex-khobar Andy wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 18, 2020 7:20 pm

"...
Having said that, I think it's true that educational standards in maths have dropped. I've probably conducted 500 interviews and hired 200 people (wild-assed slightly informed guesses) for technical positions over the past 35 years, and of course I am comparing my 1960s era English private education to (mostly) late C20 US public school. I was doing calculus when I was 13 and that was not unusual for the time. Although the positions I was hiring for rarely required calculus, it was unusual to find anyone outside a maths, chemistry, physics or engineering graduate who had any.
… "

I have interviewed, hired, and worked with a number of people in the sciences and for me the main differentiator was less the narrow technical skills and more the ability to self-teach and aggressively attack new problems. A large swathe of both pHDs and BSs are accustomed to being spoon-fed information and will wait passively for someone else to come along and tell them what to do.



yrs,
rubato