Jocificus wrote:
These two things are so different mathmatically that they aren't in any way comparable.
No, they aren't. You think that, but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. We give partial credit on the college level for understanding various concepts that lead to the correct answer. So let's look at the money problem. I have to recognize that I need to take my money and multiply it by a fraction, which is the same as dividing by a reciprocal. That's exactly the same as realizing you have to take a certain amount of work and divide it by a distance to get a force. That you don't seem to recognize that they
are the same is exactly the reason why so many students struggle with math-related classes in high school and college.
TheRiov wrote:
*shrug* in astrophysics if you do the problem correctly and derive your equation correctly you can be off by an order of magnitude and still be marked 100% correct.
This is the sort of thing that leads to a rover crashing on Mars, or a probe missing Jupiter. This also probably explains why all of the neat toys that astrophysicists need to do their job are not designed by astrophysicists. You definitely should not be getting a problem marked 100% correct if you're off by an order of magnitude, but 100% incorrect is not the proper response, either.
Ladas wrote:
And for those not paying attention... not arriving at the correct answer to 50% of this test, based upon this scoring scheme, could result in at least a 75. That isn't a failing grade, and this 4th grader who can't add just got promoted to the 5th grade.
If someone produces F work for a chunk of the test, guess what they have to do in order to get a 75%? Those problems are worth two points for a reason. There is another step to them besides performing the arithmetic operation. As Kaffis points out, one would expect there are purely arithmetic problems on this test. I would further go on to expect that those are one point problems.
Ladas wrote:
The only time we received partial credit for math, geometry, chemistry or physics problems was when the problem contained multiple formulas or calculations, at which point you might receive some credit up to the point you screwed up, even if it was only because you couldn't add 2+2. It is called double checking your work, and used to be a taught discipline that was critical.
With the exception of physics, and that depends heavily upon the physics class in question, the math in those courses is not remarkably higher level than 4th grade math. Most people don't like to hear that, but it's true. My point stands.
Ladas wrote:
That said, education is a continuing process, to built upon the lessons before and expanded in depth and breadth as you advance. These are 9-11 year old children (4th grade) who for the failing of their school system/parents/etc don't know that there are 12 inches in a foot... that don't know basic arithmetic taught in kindergarten. Lets get a grip on exactly what kind of lame *** crap for which you are trying to make excuses. Its not like you haven't ***** and moaned at length in the past about the abilities of the college students you tutor.... well, here you go. They didn't get to that point without being here first.
Yes, I am able to objectively claim that our standards are failing, thank you for noticing. What I have been arguing is that this article, and the cherry-picked examples from the test do not prove it. Here is the damning piece of evidence:
Quote:
What officials didn't reveal was that the number of points needed to pass proficiency levels has, in most cases, steadily dropped.
That's a footnote in an article that's basically whining and crying about partial credit. If the journalists were really worth their salt, they might have focused on that a little more, but it's easier to cause an uproar if you appeal to the adult's innate desire to gripe about how things were in their day. There are two examples given in that article. One of which I can't draw any conclusion from. Most of you think you can draw conclusions, but that's because you're not well-informed enough to realize that there isn't enough information given in the article. For the second problem, a student received half credit for understanding and demonstrating proficiency over half of the problem. He figured out how to solve half the problem, and he got half the credit for it. That's rock solid logic.
So we have a test. This test is broken up into a certain number of problems, each with a point value. Each individual problem is broken up into a number of parts. This is standard test-writing applied throughout math and science programs across the country. Presumably, each part of the problem is testing a particular skill.
I give you a charged particle with an applied voltage and ask how long it takes it to strike a plate a certain distance away. You then figure out the steps you take to solve it. So you figure out you need to use an equation to get a kinetic energy from the charge and voltage. Do we have that somewhere? Now you've figured out you need to get a kinetic energy out of a velocity. Do you have that equation? Finally you start looking for an equation to relate distance, velocity, and time. Each time, you were required to write down the equation you were going to solve, and then solve that equation. Nobody seems to think this is unreasonable. You solved three distinct problems, you expect that your score will be some amalgamation of all three.
So now we have an elementary school test. Here's a math section with a bunch of arithmetic problems. There's not much you can do with those. They're either right, or they're wrong. Now here's some word problems. Those are harder, right? They must be, because that's what people can't solve. Okay, so the harder problems are worth more. That's a reasonable assumption. Why are they worth more? They require more work. A word problem consists of an arithmetic problem and a "turn words into math" problem. That word problem is not one problem, it is two. It therefore makes perfectly good sense that a student be graded for both problems. So the student who reads the problem correctly and writes down 400/5 but does not complete the arithmetic operation, he has gotten the first problem right and the second problem wrong. The arithmetic problem that he got wrong has the same weight as all of the other arithmetic problems that preceded it.
Now, if he consistently does that, then he has a problem with arithmetic. That means he'll be missing the arithmetic problems on the test as well. In that case, he won't have a 75, he's going to fall into the 30-45 range. That's still failing, but it's better than the kids who can't do arithmetic and also can't read word problems - exactly what this kid's score should reflect, if that's the case. I don't know how some of you think a student who can't do arithmetic is going to magically come up with enough points elsewhere to get a 75%. It's a math test. A 50% on the word problem section is going to be roughly 33% of the overall test, another 33% of it he's already blown because that was the other half of the word problem section. If he aces the arithmetic section (unlikely) then he makes up the remaining 34% to get a D. In that case, he's aced the arithmetic section, and somehow managed to correctly interpret the word problems (but not solve them for some inexplicable reason), then he probably does know the material as well as any C or B student, and deserves the D on general principle for being a lazy ****.
So again, here is the problem:
Quote:
What officials didn't reveal was that the number of points needed to pass proficiency levels has, in most cases, steadily dropped.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
