8 ms·

This is an 18 minute video about an SAT problem from 1982. If you're not sure you want to commit to it, here's a contemporaneous NYT article: https://www.nytim

by js2 3y ago

This is an 18 minute video about an SAT problem from 1982. If you're not sure you want to commit to it, here's a contemporaneous NYT article: https://www.nytimes.com/1982/05/25/us/error-found-in-sat-question.html?unlocked_article_code=1.JE0.bxTM._IG_RekctyzU&smid=url-share https://www.nytimes.com/1982/05/25/us/error-found-in-sat-que... (Gift link.) And a recent Scientific American article: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-sat-problem-that-everybody-got-wrong/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-sat-problem-t... (Both of these are linked from the video description itself.) I'll bet Marilyn vos Savant wouldn't have got this one wrong[1]. :-) [1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20130121183432/http://marilynvossavant.com/game-show-problem/ https://web.archive.org/web/20130121183432/http://marilynvos...

hightrix 3y ago
Thank you so very much. Reading this article was so much more valuable to me as I would have never watched an 18 min video to show a single question that needed 1 paragraph to discuss.
- jjnoakes 3y ago
  The video does go further - it contains some interesting content around how this concept relates to the earth's orbit around the sun, the discrepancy between the duration of an earth day and a 360 degree rotation about the earth's axis, and why astronomy days are not the same length as earth days.
  - jraph 3y ago
    Yeah, the SAT question is almost an excuse to speak about this things, and you also get to see an interview with one of the concerned candidates. Very enjoyable video.
    - 2muchcoffeeman 3y ago
      There’s also an interesting note about when the specified answers in the question would have been right, the point of view of the centre circle.
      - jjnoakes 3y ago
        I actually didn't think that part belonged in there. Considering a rotating point of view seemed contrived to me.
        2muchcoffeeman 3y ago
        Surely the intended meaning of the question belongs in the discussion? You’re right, it’s contrived. But I automatically tried to compare lengths too. So it’s a good lesson in making sure that your simplification of the question still does what the question asks.
        jjnoakes 3y ago
        I'm not convinced that the intended meaning was to consider a rotating reference frame. I think it was simply an oversight that the straight-line answer and the around-a-circle answer aren't the same. A rotating reference frame is one way to explain that oversight, but it isn't the only one.
        wlonkly 3y ago
        The rotating point of view was the "aha" for me. It's even clearer to me when you look at the 1:1 ratio with two identical coins, where when the rotating coin is upright at the bottom of the rotation, and the coin is right-side-up to the observer but is "top edge to middle coin" instead of "bottom edge to middle coin". (Specifically, my "aha" was that one rotation of the moving coin in place was not the same as one rotation of the moving coin around the middle coin.)
        jjnoakes 3y ago
        I should have been more specific. I didn't mind that part as a teaching aid in general, but I thought it was contrived as a possible explanation for what the question authors expected students to visualize when they made the correct answer 3.
- fnordpiglet 3y ago
  Also note you can speed it up. I usually watch YouTube on 1.5 speed, so this is a 12 minute video for me ;-)
alister 3y ago
The New York Times says: The choice was given among these answers: (a) 3 over 2. (b) 3. (c) 6. (d) 9 over 2. (e) 9. ''The answer to this question should have been 4, not 3. Daniel B. Taylor, the College Board's executive vice president for operations, said as a result of the flawed question, he anticipated score adjustments of 10 points, up or down. I'm wondering how they corrected the scores since the correct answer was not in the list of choices. I'm assuming that they simply excluded the question -- so if there were 154 questions in total, they recalculated as if there were only 153 questions. I'd like to imagine that the three students who reported the error got an extra boost to their scores, but probably not.
- chatmasta 3y ago
  According to the video, they rescored all 300,000 affected tests after excluding the question.
  - sverhagen 3y ago
    I found the notion pretty shocking how deeply the rescoring affected people. If the test writers couldn't even get it right, why fault the test takers. I get it... rules... but it still feels unfair at some angle.
    - perryizgr8 3y ago
      They should have done max(old_score, re_score) for all test takers. That's the only fair way. Although I don't know if SAT grades on a curve, which wouldn't play well with this method (I think?).
      - SkeuomorphicBee 3y ago
        That is not a fair way, for two reasons: 1. You can't award a bonus question to a subset of people, that is not a fair way of running a standardized test. You can't score some people as x/154 and some at x/153. 2. The old score was just plain wrong, so using it in any way is unfair. The truth is no one got that question right because there was no right answer available. None of those available answers is "righter" than the other so it is not fair to assign a higher score to one of them like you proposed. Those people that got a higher old_score also got that question wrong, so their old_score is as wrong as any, and awarding them this unearned extra point would be unfair. The only two fair options would be: to annul the whole test and make everyone retake; or the one taken where they annul that one question pretending it never existed and score based on the remaining questions (with each remaining question now being worth a fraction more). And this later option is in fact very fair, I don't think there is any real argument against this being fair. It does suck that people were initially informed a wrong score and then later were disappointed with their real score. On this line I find it absurd that the SATs don't have the recourse period before they release the scores, and instead just releases the tentative scores as if they were real. This would all have been avoided if they heard the recourse and annulled the question before publishing results (as pretty much any serious exam around the world does it).
esafak 3y ago
[flagged]
ramraj07 3y ago
While I share your disdain for unnecessarily long YouTube videos, Veritasium often (not always) gets a pass from me. I have been instant clicking pretty much every video he’s released in the past few months and always came out having learned a lot and satisfied. The only other channel I would give the same pass is neo.
- jraph 3y ago
  > The only other channel I would give the same pass is neo. Nice, thanks for the mention, I'll check this out. At first sight, typically looks like stuff I would enjoy.
  - ramraj07 3y ago
    I would start with their Thai Cave rescue video. I scratch my head how this guy is not on tv.
    - drdrey 3y ago
      his Kowloon Walled City is incredibly well made
    - corethree 3y ago
      First 10 seconds into the video I know one major reason working against him. He has a bit of lisp. Personally I don't mind, but I'd be lying if I said his videos would be better without it. Fortunately we have youtube.
    - EE84M3i 3y ago
      It's almost 2024. He seems to do very well on YouTube and has a lot more freedom in his niche. Why would he want to be on TV?
      - alt227 3y ago
        TV presenting pays very well in comparison to Youtube. Plus all you have to do is turn up and read a script, as opposed to filming and editing a video to high production standards, or having to pay somebody out of your ad revenue to do it for you.
presto8 3y ago
The video adds a lot of extra stuff beyond what is in the NY Times video: There is an interview with one of the test takers; a description of three possible correct answers (1, 3, or 4, depending on the perspective); a video demonstration of several ways to compute it; and an interesting discussion about sidereal time. Not that you were implying otherwise, but in this case I feel the video adds quite a bit more material and a more complete story beyond the NY Times piece. In reading the NY Times piece, I would leave with the conclusion that the correct answer was not one of the options. After watching the video, I would leave with the conclusion that the question was ambiguously written leading to multiple possible answers, one of which was there, but two other valid answers were not there.

by js2 3y ago

hightrix 3y ago

Thank you so very much. Reading this article was so much more valuable to me as I would have never watched an 18 min video to show a single question that needed 1 paragraph to discuss.

jjnoakes 3y ago
The video does go further - it contains some interesting content around how this concept relates to the earth's orbit around the sun, the discrepancy between the duration of an earth day and a 360 degree rotation about the earth's axis, and why astronomy days are not the same length as earth days.
- jraph 3y ago
  Yeah, the SAT question is almost an excuse to speak about this things, and you also get to see an interview with one of the concerned candidates. Very enjoyable video.
  - 2muchcoffeeman 3y ago
    There’s also an interesting note about when the specified answers in the question would have been right, the point of view of the centre circle.
    - jjnoakes 3y ago
      I actually didn't think that part belonged in there. Considering a rotating point of view seemed contrived to me.
      - 2muchcoffeeman 3y ago
        Surely the intended meaning of the question belongs in the discussion? You’re right, it’s contrived. But I automatically tried to compare lengths too. So it’s a good lesson in making sure that your simplification of the question still does what the question asks.
        jjnoakes 3y ago
        I'm not convinced that the intended meaning was to consider a rotating reference frame. I think it was simply an oversight that the straight-line answer and the around-a-circle answer aren't the same. A rotating reference frame is one way to explain that oversight, but it isn't the only one.
      - wlonkly 3y ago
        The rotating point of view was the "aha" for me. It's even clearer to me when you look at the 1:1 ratio with two identical coins, where when the rotating coin is upright at the bottom of the rotation, and the coin is right-side-up to the observer but is "top edge to middle coin" instead of "bottom edge to middle coin". (Specifically, my "aha" was that one rotation of the moving coin in place was not the same as one rotation of the moving coin around the middle coin.)
        jjnoakes 3y ago
        I should have been more specific. I didn't mind that part as a teaching aid in general, but I thought it was contrived as a possible explanation for what the question authors expected students to visualize when they made the correct answer 3.
fnordpiglet 3y ago
Also note you can speed it up. I usually watch YouTube on 1.5 speed, so this is a 12 minute video for me ;-)

alister 3y ago

The New York Times says: The choice was given among these answers: (a) 3 over 2. (b) 3. (c) 6. (d) 9 over 2. (e) 9. ''The answer to this question should have been 4, not 3. Daniel B. Taylor, the College Board's executive vice president for operations, said as a result of the flawed question, he anticipated score adjustments of 10 points, up or down. I'm wondering how they corrected the scores since the correct answer was not in the list of choices. I'm assuming that they simply excluded the question -- so if there were 154 questions in total, they recalculated as if there were only 153 questions. I'd like to imagine that the three students who reported the error got an extra boost to their scores, but probably not.

chatmasta 3y ago
According to the video, they rescored all 300,000 affected tests after excluding the question.
- sverhagen 3y ago
  I found the notion pretty shocking how deeply the rescoring affected people. If the test writers couldn't even get it right, why fault the test takers. I get it... rules... but it still feels unfair at some angle.
  - perryizgr8 3y ago
    They should have done max(old_score, re_score) for all test takers. That's the only fair way. Although I don't know if SAT grades on a curve, which wouldn't play well with this method (I think?).
    - SkeuomorphicBee 3y ago
      That is not a fair way, for two reasons: 1. You can't award a bonus question to a subset of people, that is not a fair way of running a standardized test. You can't score some people as x/154 and some at x/153. 2. The old score was just plain wrong, so using it in any way is unfair. The truth is no one got that question right because there was no right answer available. None of those available answers is "righter" than the other so it is not fair to assign a higher score to one of them like you proposed. Those people that got a higher old_score also got that question wrong, so their old_score is as wrong as any, and awarding them this unearned extra point would be unfair. The only two fair options would be: to annul the whole test and make everyone retake; or the one taken where they annul that one question pretending it never existed and score based on the remaining questions (with each remaining question now being worth a fraction more). And this later option is in fact very fair, I don't think there is any real argument against this being fair. It does suck that people were initially informed a wrong score and then later were disappointed with their real score. On this line I find it absurd that the SATs don't have the recourse period before they release the scores, and instead just releases the tentative scores as if they were real. This would all have been avoided if they heard the recourse and annulled the question before publishing results (as pretty much any serious exam around the world does it).

esafak 3y ago

[flagged]

ramraj07 3y ago

While I share your disdain for unnecessarily long YouTube videos, Veritasium often (not always) gets a pass from me. I have been instant clicking pretty much every video he’s released in the past few months and always came out having learned a lot and satisfied. The only other channel I would give the same pass is neo.

jraph 3y ago
> The only other channel I would give the same pass is neo. Nice, thanks for the mention, I'll check this out. At first sight, typically looks like stuff I would enjoy.
- ramraj07 3y ago
  I would start with their Thai Cave rescue video. I scratch my head how this guy is not on tv.
  - drdrey 3y ago
    his Kowloon Walled City is incredibly well made
  - corethree 3y ago
    First 10 seconds into the video I know one major reason working against him. He has a bit of lisp. Personally I don't mind, but I'd be lying if I said his videos would be better without it. Fortunately we have youtube.
  - EE84M3i 3y ago
    It's almost 2024. He seems to do very well on YouTube and has a lot more freedom in his niche. Why would he want to be on TV?
    - alt227 3y ago
      TV presenting pays very well in comparison to Youtube. Plus all you have to do is turn up and read a script, as opposed to filming and editing a video to high production standards, or having to pay somebody out of your ad revenue to do it for you.

presto8 3y ago

The video adds a lot of extra stuff beyond what is in the NY Times video: There is an interview with one of the test takers; a description of three possible correct answers (1, 3, or 4, depending on the perspective); a video demonstration of several ways to compute it; and an interesting discussion about sidereal time. Not that you were implying otherwise, but in this case I feel the video adds quite a bit more material and a more complete story beyond the NY Times piece. In reading the NY Times piece, I would leave with the conclusion that the correct answer was not one of the options. After watching the video, I would leave with the conclusion that the question was ambiguously written leading to multiple possible answers, one of which was there, but two other valid answers were not there.