3 ms·

We're probably better off doing away with calculators for standardized tests. There's a nice profit margin on those calculators, but there's also a floor price

We're probably better off doing away with calculators for standardized tests. There's a nice profit margin on those calculators, but there's also a floor price for electronics at play because at some point, making outdated chips, LCDs, PCBs, etc. doesn't actually get cheaper. So graphing calculators will always cost $30-$100. While they're wildly outdated, it doesn't make sense to arm kids going into standardized tests with Chat GPT, or even Wolfram Alpha. Standardized test math is pretty simple. Either design the test so a scientific calculator is enough, or better, keep the numbers small enough that it doesn't matter and have answers as simplified expressions, e.g. 6*sqrt(2).

koolala 3y ago
VR Slide Rulers
User23 3y ago
> have answers as simplified expressions, e.g. 6*sqrt(2) This is obviously the right way to do applied math. Then whatever engineer is building whatever the thing is that depends on the math can compute to whatever precision is necessary to keep the bridge from falling down or whatever.
mlyle 3y ago
A lot of tests do a little of both-- no calculators and questions that are simple numerically... and then functions that are pretty intractable and require effective use of the calculator for a little bit (but a good understanding of what you're manipulating/trying to find).
saghm 3y ago
In my freshman E&M physics course, there was no calculus prerequisite, so when we had to answer a question on a quiz or test that would be solved with an integral, the professor said we could just put the integral without needing to evaluate it and he'd mark it as correct. I think this approach makes a lot of sense; understanding the concept of "summing" the value of an expression across a range by using an integral is much more important than being able to do the actual calculation.
- corethree 3y ago
  I think in Asia though it's expected of highschool students to evaluate the integral without a calculator. Education in the US should at least match what they do in Asia to stay competitive.
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    There is a lot of rote in Asia, and an over emphasis on classic geometric proofs that have little relevance in today’s world. Yes, we should try as hard as Asia in math, but blindly copying Indian or Chinese education practices isn’t the right way forward.
    - corethree 3y ago
      Well, with the current state of mathematics in the US education system... blindly following Asia is a step up. I do agree with you that in theory we can do better than asia, but that is too high of a milestone given that we are basically currently significantly worse than Asia on all fronts.
      - sacnoradhq 3y ago
        NCLB was as disastrous as throwing away phonics. Adopting elements of the Finnish model would probably be an improvement.
    - sacnoradhq 3y ago
      The goal of learning should be mastery, not memorization of specific cases. With geometry, the style I was taught emphasized explanation of complex problems using proofs but building from first principles.
      - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
        You are almost guaranteed never to have to another Euclidean geometric proof again after you take the gaokao. It’s like the LeetCode for chinese college admissions.
sacnoradhq 3y ago
Throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Calculators with CAS are extremely useful.

koolala 3y ago

VR Slide Rulers

User23 3y ago

> have answers as simplified expressions, e.g. 6*sqrt(2) This is obviously the right way to do applied math. Then whatever engineer is building whatever the thing is that depends on the math can compute to whatever precision is necessary to keep the bridge from falling down or whatever.

mlyle 3y ago

A lot of tests do a little of both-- no calculators and questions that are simple numerically... and then functions that are pretty intractable and require effective use of the calculator for a little bit (but a good understanding of what you're manipulating/trying to find).

saghm 3y ago

In my freshman E&M physics course, there was no calculus prerequisite, so when we had to answer a question on a quiz or test that would be solved with an integral, the professor said we could just put the integral without needing to evaluate it and he'd mark it as correct. I think this approach makes a lot of sense; understanding the concept of "summing" the value of an expression across a range by using an integral is much more important than being able to do the actual calculation.

corethree 3y ago
I think in Asia though it's expected of highschool students to evaluate the integral without a calculator. Education in the US should at least match what they do in Asia to stay competitive.
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  There is a lot of rote in Asia, and an over emphasis on classic geometric proofs that have little relevance in today’s world. Yes, we should try as hard as Asia in math, but blindly copying Indian or Chinese education practices isn’t the right way forward.
  - corethree 3y ago
    Well, with the current state of mathematics in the US education system... blindly following Asia is a step up. I do agree with you that in theory we can do better than asia, but that is too high of a milestone given that we are basically currently significantly worse than Asia on all fronts.
    - sacnoradhq 3y ago
      NCLB was as disastrous as throwing away phonics. Adopting elements of the Finnish model would probably be an improvement.
  - sacnoradhq 3y ago
    The goal of learning should be mastery, not memorization of specific cases. With geometry, the style I was taught emphasized explanation of complex problems using proofs but building from first principles.
    - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
      You are almost guaranteed never to have to another Euclidean geometric proof again after you take the gaokao. It’s like the LeetCode for chinese college admissions.

sacnoradhq 3y ago

Throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Calculators with CAS are extremely useful.