4 ms·

That is an argument against allowing phone apps. But doesn't excuse requiring students to pay $100+ for antiquated technology.

by thayne 7y ago

ineedasername 7y ago
> doesn't excuse..." At least for widespread standardized tests that allow or require a calculator, the obvious solution would seem to be providing students with one at the beginning of the exam. In addition to preventing cheating with unauthorized programs when students bring their own, it ensures there's a level playing field for poorer students who might not be able to afford one. Add an extra $1 to the cost of the test if need be-- the calculators should last at least 100 tests or so, and they could probably get a volume discount anyway.
- mandevil 7y ago
  The SAT II Math exam is administered 6 times during the 2019-2020 school year. To be used 100 times, it would have to last over 15 years. For IB/AP Calc it's even worse, that is literally given on one day to the entire country (modulo a very small number of makeup exams), so would get two days of use per year (one for AP, one for IB). If you used the same set of calculators for both, we're talking about the hardware lasting at least 12 years on average, ignoring storage and transportation costs. Oh, and then you expose yourself to "the calculator was broken, that's why I failed" when right now they have the excellent defense of "well, you brought it."
  - ineedasername 7y ago
    You're neither adding all of the College Board tests that use a calculator nor accounting for the discounted wholesale price (or maybe better considering the volume) that would be paid. The SAT II Math isn't the only test. The normal SAT math component also allows calculators and is generally administered on different dates. The SAT is offered on 21 dates in 2019, so that's a total of 27 tests. Even at a full ~$100 per calculator, charging an extra $1 per test would still cover the cost in a little more than 3 years. AP Exams: Unlike the SAT which has regional test locations, AP exams are generally administered in the school you attend, and the school should provide a calculator. For that matter, the whole issue could be solved if schools issued them as standard equipment that same way they do textbooks. Finally, the whole point of these tests is to establish the level of knowledge a student has. That hasn't really been done if the test takers aren't on the same level playing field. All else being equal, the same score for a test taker with a calculator compared to one without would mean very different things. It's supposed to be a standardized test. All students should have the same equipment.
  - icebraining 7y ago
    12 years for a well treated, very lightly used TI calculator seems perfectly reasonable. My high school had a few loaners that were used throughout the year (and not always under supervision) and the only sign of their age (about 9 years old) were a few faded button labels.
  - fulldecent2 7y ago
    I have previously been on site for an SAT II reading session (this is the part following the proctoring). It was hard enough to get the logistics right for getting all the scantron sheets and papers to where they needed to go. And overnight shipping printers and other equipment on failure. Adding any more logistics into this process would increase costs and provide no headline-worthy benefit. * The teachers, not the students, use scantrons
    - ineedasername 7y ago
      Yes, the logistics would need to be worked out. However I've proctored large LSAT tests and not found the workload of reading instructions and gathering papers to be so burdensome that I wouldn't have been able to deal with calculators. This isn't rocket science, portraying it as insurmountably difficult or expensive really over estimates the problem: A nominal increase to the test fee would easily cover additional costs. Either way, the headline-worthy benefit, if I take your meaning with that phrase correctly, is that this is a standardized test. You don't get to "standardized" by not providing equal equipment to test takers. Regardless of whether it's "easy" to do, it is a necessary condition for actually being a standardized test.
vkou 7y ago
Have we considered the radical option of, you know, not allowing calculators on tests? And not writing tests that rely on the use of a calculator?
- onemoresoop 7y ago
  That would only be unfair to the calculator manufacturers:) TI makes a lot of money so do book publishers.
- thayne 7y ago
  For higher level math classes that means that the students have to spend more time doing mundane things like arithmetic and graphing rather than using the higher level skills they are being tested on.
  - jacobolus 7y ago
    “Higher-level math classes” do not need “mundane things like arithmetic” at all. If there’s any appreciable quantity of arithmetic involved, that’s a clear sign that you aren’t dealing with a “higher-level math class”.
    - filleduchaos 7y ago
      Before jumping to pedantry, consider that "higher-level" here is relative (we are talking about high school students).
      - jacobolus 7y ago
        This is not about pedantic correctness. “Lower level” math courses also should not have excessive amounts of arithmetic. What arithmetic is included should be there for the express purpose of practicing arithmetic (at which point a handheld calculator is exactly the opposite of what you want). At any point that arithmetic isn’t the point of the problem, the arithmetic used should be designed to not be a barrier or time sink. In pretty much any possible problem requiring substantial arithmetic where calculators should be handling it instead of humans, the student should be sitting down in front of a full-sized keyboard with a more capable tool (e.g. a general-purpose programming language). Math students at any level spending nontrivial amounts of time with handheld calculators is a huge waste of their time. Learning to fluently navigate a handheld calculator is not an important life skill, and has little to do with mathematics. But once you get to pure mathematics courses at the undergraduate level (i.e. beyond the service courses math departments offer to engineering and science students) there is pretty much no arithmetic.

That is an argument against allowing phone apps. But doesn't excuse requiring students to pay $100+ for antiquated technology.

by thayne 7y ago

That is an argument against allowing phone apps. But doesn't excuse requiring students to pay $100+ for antiquated technology.

ineedasername 7y ago

> doesn't excuse..." At least for widespread standardized tests that allow or require a calculator, the obvious solution would seem to be providing students with one at the beginning of the exam. In addition to preventing cheating with unauthorized programs when students bring their own, it ensures there's a level playing field for poorer students who might not be able to afford one. Add an extra $1 to the cost of the test if need be-- the calculators should last at least 100 tests or so, and they could probably get a volume discount anyway.

mandevil 7y ago
The SAT II Math exam is administered 6 times during the 2019-2020 school year. To be used 100 times, it would have to last over 15 years. For IB/AP Calc it's even worse, that is literally given on one day to the entire country (modulo a very small number of makeup exams), so would get two days of use per year (one for AP, one for IB). If you used the same set of calculators for both, we're talking about the hardware lasting at least 12 years on average, ignoring storage and transportation costs. Oh, and then you expose yourself to "the calculator was broken, that's why I failed" when right now they have the excellent defense of "well, you brought it."
- ineedasername 7y ago
  You're neither adding all of the College Board tests that use a calculator nor accounting for the discounted wholesale price (or maybe better considering the volume) that would be paid. The SAT II Math isn't the only test. The normal SAT math component also allows calculators and is generally administered on different dates. The SAT is offered on 21 dates in 2019, so that's a total of 27 tests. Even at a full ~$100 per calculator, charging an extra $1 per test would still cover the cost in a little more than 3 years. AP Exams: Unlike the SAT which has regional test locations, AP exams are generally administered in the school you attend, and the school should provide a calculator. For that matter, the whole issue could be solved if schools issued them as standard equipment that same way they do textbooks. Finally, the whole point of these tests is to establish the level of knowledge a student has. That hasn't really been done if the test takers aren't on the same level playing field. All else being equal, the same score for a test taker with a calculator compared to one without would mean very different things. It's supposed to be a standardized test. All students should have the same equipment.
- icebraining 7y ago
  12 years for a well treated, very lightly used TI calculator seems perfectly reasonable. My high school had a few loaners that were used throughout the year (and not always under supervision) and the only sign of their age (about 9 years old) were a few faded button labels.
- fulldecent2 7y ago
  I have previously been on site for an SAT II reading session (this is the part following the proctoring). It was hard enough to get the logistics right for getting all the scantron sheets and papers to where they needed to go. And overnight shipping printers and other equipment on failure. Adding any more logistics into this process would increase costs and provide no headline-worthy benefit. * The teachers, not the students, use scantrons
  - ineedasername 7y ago
    Yes, the logistics would need to be worked out. However I've proctored large LSAT tests and not found the workload of reading instructions and gathering papers to be so burdensome that I wouldn't have been able to deal with calculators. This isn't rocket science, portraying it as insurmountably difficult or expensive really over estimates the problem: A nominal increase to the test fee would easily cover additional costs. Either way, the headline-worthy benefit, if I take your meaning with that phrase correctly, is that this is a standardized test. You don't get to "standardized" by not providing equal equipment to test takers. Regardless of whether it's "easy" to do, it is a necessary condition for actually being a standardized test.

vkou 7y ago

Have we considered the radical option of, you know, not allowing calculators on tests? And not writing tests that rely on the use of a calculator?

onemoresoop 7y ago
That would only be unfair to the calculator manufacturers:) TI makes a lot of money so do book publishers.
thayne 7y ago
For higher level math classes that means that the students have to spend more time doing mundane things like arithmetic and graphing rather than using the higher level skills they are being tested on.
- jacobolus 7y ago
  “Higher-level math classes” do not need “mundane things like arithmetic” at all. If there’s any appreciable quantity of arithmetic involved, that’s a clear sign that you aren’t dealing with a “higher-level math class”.
  - filleduchaos 7y ago
    Before jumping to pedantry, consider that "higher-level" here is relative (we are talking about high school students).
    - jacobolus 7y ago
      This is not about pedantic correctness. “Lower level” math courses also should not have excessive amounts of arithmetic. What arithmetic is included should be there for the express purpose of practicing arithmetic (at which point a handheld calculator is exactly the opposite of what you want). At any point that arithmetic isn’t the point of the problem, the arithmetic used should be designed to not be a barrier or time sink. In pretty much any possible problem requiring substantial arithmetic where calculators should be handling it instead of humans, the student should be sitting down in front of a full-sized keyboard with a more capable tool (e.g. a general-purpose programming language). Math students at any level spending nontrivial amounts of time with handheld calculators is a huge waste of their time. Learning to fluently navigate a handheld calculator is not an important life skill, and has little to do with mathematics. But once you get to pure mathematics courses at the undergraduate level (i.e. beyond the service courses math departments offer to engineering and science students) there is pretty much no arithmetic.