Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
Pat Dye Field => War Damn Eagle => Topic started by: The Six on February 19, 2014, 12:40:19 PM
-
Per the Twitters:
@DrewDALIntel
Huge news 4 Bo Scarbrough's chances to qualify: He will NOT have 2 pass the AL HS exit exam as it has been waved for this yr's senior class
Seriously?!?
:facepalm: Alabama High School Athletic Association :facepalm: :facepalm: :fu:
-
You know, it's one thing to have to play those guys every year, but this is ridiculous.
EVERY. SINGLE. ADVANTAGE.
Over the long haul, how on Earth can anyone compete?
-
So, Lord Saybinz was invited to speak to the AHSAA rules committee?
-
Per the Twitters:
Seriously?!?
:facepalm: Alabama High School Athletic Association :facepalm: :facepalm: :fu:
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but didn't that say that the exam is waived for the entire senior class?
-
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but didn't that say that the exam is waived for the entire senior class?
The entire senior class of Bama signees.
-
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but didn't that say that the exam is waived for the entire senior class?
They had to throw them in there to make it look legit. :facepalm:
-
Riddle me this...if the kid couldn't pass the AL HS exit exam (which, btw is at an 8th grade level) then what is the minimum score an alabama foosball player has to make on the ACT? 2? 3?
-
Riddle me this...if the kid couldn't pass the AL HS exit exam (which, btw is at an 8th grade level) then what is the minimum score an alabama foosball player has to make on the ACT? 2? 3?
Don't you get 7 for filling your name out correctly?
-
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but didn't that say that the exam is waived for the entire senior class?
I remember when this news broke a few months ago. The exam was deemed too difficult and was thrown into the shit can. The state BOE was looking into rewriting it to increase the dumbass kids chances of passing it.
-
I remember when this news broke a few months ago. The exam was deemed too difficult and was thrown into the shit can. The state BOE was looking into rewriting it to increase the dumbass kids chances of passing it.
They did away with the grad exam a few years ago. This year's senior class was supposed to be the last class to pass it, but I guess they didn't go through with that expectation. Probably because there were lawsuits threatened if someone's kid didn't get a diploma because they couldn't pass a test the state already admitted wasn't worthy of being used.
They're replacing it with Common Core assessment tests that will be given at the end of each nine weeks. I quit teaching last year, so I'm not really sure what those tests are, but if my memory serves correct, they are written by system with a state test coming at the end of each semester. Something like that.
-
Riddle me this...if the kid couldn't pass the AL HS exit exam (which, btw is at an 8th grade level) then what is the minimum score an alabama foosball player has to make on the ACT? 2? 3?
Cone on you're better than this.
Yes they make a 2 but claim 15.
-
They did away with the grad exam a few years ago. This year's senior class was supposed to be the last class to pass it, but I guess they didn't go through with that expectation. Probably because there were lawsuits threatened if someone's kid didn't get a diploma because they couldn't pass a test the state already admitted wasn't worthy of being used.
They're replacing it with Common Core assessment tests that will be given at the end of each nine weeks. I quit teaching last year, so I'm not really sure what those tests are, but if my memory serves correct, they are written by system with a state test coming at the end of each semester. Something like that.
I'm glad my youngest is a freshman. This new common core does not sound like teaching as much as indoctrination. There is a huge backlash and some systems have rejected it. It will be interesting to see where this goes.
I always wonder why we could send a guy to the moon with a slide rule in the 60s and can't do shit with supercomputers in the now.
Old math seemed to work just fine!
-
I always wonder why we could send a guy to the moon with a slide rule in the 60s and can't do shit with supercomputers in the now.
Old math seemed to work just fine!
:facepalm:
-
I'm glad my youngest is a freshman. This new common core does not sound like teaching as much as indoctrination. There is a huge backlash and some systems have rejected it. It will be interesting to see where this goes.
I always wonder why we could send a guy to the moon with a slide rule in the 60s and can't do shoot with supercomputers in the now.
Old math seemed to work just fine!
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSaeBc4DVxOcroTGRFMdV4CDSHuuR_oRSncOT3hdKYJkw5NVC_R)
-
I'm glad my youngest is a freshman. This new common core does not sound like teaching as much as indoctrination. There is a huge backlash and some systems have rejected it. It will be interesting to see where this goes.
I always wonder why we could send a guy to the moon with a slide rule in the 60s and can't do shoot with supercomputers in the now.
Old math seemed to work just fine!
We are mired in the middle of it with our oldest in the third grade. So far the problem hasn't been with what they are teaching (though IMO they are trying to get them to learn mathematical shortcuts before they have good grasp on the basics which is just causing the kids confusion) but with the execution.
All the tests are on computer. Some of her grades were off from normal (she's been an A student so far, and an A+ in reading, her first three reading comprehension tests got her scores in the 60's and 70's). We contacted the teacher asking what we could do to help, maybe if we saw her tests and what she was struggling with we could help her out at home. We were told there was a website that we could go to to view her tests. We went and it looked like this...
1. A Correct
2. C Incorrect
3. A Correct
No questions, no idea of what the answers were that went along with the multiple choice answers. Took us 3 weeks of being "those parents" and getting a group of parents together in the principal's office in order to get copies of the tests so that we could see where the problems were.
And it wasn't the teacher's or even the school's fault. There was no easy mechanism on the computer system for parents to be able to see the tests and answers. It appeared to me to be set up that way on purpose.
-
I always wonder why we could send a guy to the moon with a slide rule in the 60s and can't do shit with supercomputers in the now.
Old math seemed to work just fine!
Nevermind all the ships that blew up or the astronauts that died.
-
Nevermind all the ships that blew up or the astronauts that died.
Less died back in the early days than in the 80's on.
If you don't know shit about math, hang your head.
But he bottom line is that we had more people in this country who could solve a problem than we have today. So you can teach for test grades all you want, but the old way created more thinkers and solvers.
The new way created more robots.
-
:facepalm:
This from the guy that gets laughed at every time numbers are introduced into a thread....
-
This from the guy that gets laughed at every time numbers are introduced into a thread....
It's not every time. Only 86% or 5/7th's of the time.
-
Less died back in the early days than in the 80's on.
Care to wager on that... I'm talking testing as well.
I agree about the tests with you, I just don't agree that sliderules are better than supercomputers.
-
Care to wager on that... I'm talking testing as well.
I agree about the tests with you, I just don't agree that sliderules are better than supercomputers.
They definitely are better for putting under the foot of a wobbly table. So, there. You are wrong. You can't use a super computer for that.
And what about spanking a kid. A straight edge. A fly swatter. I could go on but I think I've made my point. And, won this debate.
-
They definitely are better for putting under the foot of a wobbly table. So, there. You are wrong. You can't use a super computer for that.
And what about spanking a kid. A straight edge. A fly swatter. I could go on but I think I've made my point. And, won this debate.
chuckles
-
The point CCTAU was making (I think) is that when you use a sliderule, you have to understand the underlying concepts to achieve the correct answer. A computer takes all that away from you. You can ask a computer to do long division and it gives you an answer - but if pressed, most students don't know how to draw the little division box on a piece of paper and work out the problem long hand - and that's a shame. You get better results, IMO, from a computer if you understand the concepts, and the computer is just a means to work out the problem more quickly.
I love that my daughter's teacher made them learn to work out long division by hand - our school district teaches the fundamentals, and that makes me very happy.
-
Less died back in the early days than in the 80's on.
If you don't know shoot about math, hang your head.
But he bottom line is that we had more people in this country who could solve a problem than we have today. So you can teach for test grades all you want, but the old way created more thinkers and solvers.
The new way created more robots.
We lost the crew of Apollo 1 by trying something monumentally stupid (pressurizing the cabin with pure oxygen) and should have lost the crew of Apollo 13. Apollo 6 was also a failed mission objective. We only launched the Saturn V 13 times and had 2 failures in flight (15%).
Shuttle had two failures in 135 flights (1.5%).
-
We lost the crew of Apollo 1 by trying something monumentally stupid (pressurizing the cabin with pure oxygen) and should have lost the crew of Apollo 13. Apollo 6 was also a failed mission objective. We only launched the Saturn V 13 times and had 2 failures in flight (15%).
Shuttle had two failures in 135 flights (1.5%).
Apollo 1= 3 deaths?
Apollo 6 = 0 deaths?
two failed missions = ? deaths.
Not to mention, pretty much all of the technology used to fly the shuttles came from the early Apollo missions. There was not a lot of new basic technology (other than computing) that came about. Propulsion remained essentially the same.
We are living today off of the GREAT strides made in technology during that period.
-
The point CCTAU was making (I think) is that when you use a sliderule, you have to understand the underlying concepts to achieve the correct answer. A computer takes all that away from you. You can ask a computer to do long division and it gives you an answer - but if pressed, most students don't know how to draw the little division box on a piece of paper and work out the problem long hand - and that's a shame. You get better results, IMO, from a computer if you understand the concepts, and the computer is just a means to work out the problem more quickly.
I love that my daughter's teacher made them learn to work out long division by hand - our school district teaches the fundamentals, and that makes me very happy.
Yes. And if you have not had a kid bring home some of the new math, you haven't lived.
In 3rd grade I showed my kid long division and he breathed a sigh of relief. "That is so much easier , Dad".
He used that method to check his answers. If only he had continued those thorough ways...
Some basic principles were not broken and did not need fixing. Don't even get me started on reading.
-
The point CCTAU was making (I think) is that when you use a sliderule, you have to understand the underlying concepts to achieve the correct answer. A computer takes all that away from you. You can ask a computer to do long division and it gives you an answer - but if pressed, most students don't know how to draw the little division box on a piece of paper and work out the problem long hand - and that's a shame. You get better results, IMO, from a computer if you understand the concepts, and the computer is just a means to work out the problem more quickly.
I love that my daughter's teacher made them learn to work out long division by hand - our school district teaches the fundamentals, and that makes me very happy.
AMSTI and the Common Core are both aimed to teach mathematical concepts that are understood at a fundamental level rather than working number patterns to get an answer.
You can write 2+2=4 and not have any clue what it really means. A good example of current pedagogy is the ole trusty strategy of taking two apples and placing with two other apples and explaining why and how 2+2=4. That's what is being implemented in the modern classroom. Teaching students how to get the answer and understand what it means.
Working long division with the funky box does help you get the answer, but does it really teach them what they are doing? Is it applicable to real life situations?
-
Apollo 1= 3 deaths?
Apollo 6 = 0 deaths?
two failed missions = ? deaths.
Not to mention, pretty much all of the technology used to fly the shuttles came from the early Apollo missions. There was not a lot of new basic technology (other than computing) that came about. Propulsion remained essentially the same.
Tons of new technology on the shuttle. Solid fuel boosters that were reusable, fly by wire control systems, ability to pinpoint controllable landing, reusable craft, some of the first large scale robotics (that big arm that comes out of the shuttle is basically a larger version of the robotic welders you see in car factories), our welding technology was light years ahead of the hand Tig welds they used on Saturn, composites used in manufacturing some of the secondary structural components, etc.
Working on the SLS we reuse everything we can from shuttle, Apollo, Delta, Thor, Titan, Atlas, etc for the real reason we haven't gone back to the moon, $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. But the stuff that we are using new is way beyond what we used on shuttle. Some of the ways we are manufacturing and the technology we are using is beyond what would be believable in the old days.
We are living today off of the GREAT strides made in technology during that period.
And they lived off great strides made by the Germans building the V2 who lived off the great strides of Goddard in the '20's. I get irked at work when people try to claim that the old engineers were infallible gods because they didn't use computers. A computer is a tool, we do the exact same calculations as the guys used to do with a slide rule, we can just do them faster. It's not Jarvis, I can't just tell my computer to calculate the accelerations from following a particular trajectory and go get a drink, I still have to put in the same equations that were essentially derived by Robert Goddard in the '20's that the guys were calculating by hand, now I just don't have to worry about forgetting to carry the one because I went and got a drink. And we can be more accurate about it, so we can build it lighter, faster, and more efficient.
Plus all the computing power that we are able to put us ahead of the curve of the old guys in other ways. In Saturn the testing budget was immense. That's why in the mid '60's NASA was eating up nearly 4.5% of the total national budget. Think about that, Cold War, Vietnam, Bay of Pigs, Cuban Missile Crisis, equal rights movement all happening in that same time frame and we were spending nearly 5% of the budget on NASA. Now we are using 0.5% of the national budget (of course the budget overall is larger now, in adjusted dollars we are getting 50% of what we got in '66). Partly because rather than running to the test stand every time we are not sure about what is going to happen I can do a Finite Element Analysis rather than destructive testing. I can do Computational Fluid Dynamics analysis rather than immediately running to the wind tunnel. I can build 3D computer models and build assemblies in CAD space rather than building a prototype.
Link for the budget numbers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA)
TL;DR. We are not dumber because we are using computers.
-
AMSTI and the Common Core are both aimed to teach mathematical concepts that are understood at a fundamental level rather than working number patterns to get an answer.
You can write 2+2=4 and not have any clue what it really means. A good example of current pedagogy is the ole trusty strategy of taking two apples and placing with two other apples and explaining why and how 2+2=4. That's what is being implemented in the modern classroom. Teaching students how to get the answer and understand what it means.
Working long division with the funky box does help you get the answer, but does it really teach them what they are doing? Is it applicable to real life situations?
As a parent with a struggling math student, it's not helping. And as far as is it applicable in real life, if it gives the right answer then yes, yes it is.
-
So, now the HS Grad Exam is all rocket surgery?
-
As a parent with a struggling math student, it's not helping. And as far as is it applicable in real life, if it gives the right answer then yes, yes it is.
But does it really matter if 2 apples and 2 apples equal 4 apples? 2 +2 = 4? Always has, always will.
Real life math. Math for those that will never use math in an advanced way. These are all things that we learned without having to have the fruit exercise. The problem is that educators kept dumbing shit down to help out those that were not catered for, until they watered the shit so far down that people could not even work at McDonald's without a damn picture on the register.
And now we are having to start back over with the fruit.
-
As a parent with a struggling math student, it's not helping. And as far as is it applicable in real life, if it gives the right answer then yes, yes it is.
Hey I'm with you. I made an A in AP Calculus in high school simply knowing how to make numbers work.
I think there's a problem in math education. People think that 8 year olds should understand proofs and theorems. I think 8 year olds should enjoy playing outside and knowing their times tables and how to divide numbers into parts. Not everyone's meant to be a rocket scientist.
-
Hey I'm with you. I made an A in AP Calculus in high school simply knowing how to make numbers work.
I think there's a problem in math education. People think that 8 year olds should understand proofs and theorems. I think 8 year olds should enjoy playing outside and knowing their times tables and how to divide numbers into parts. Not everyone's meant to be a rocket scientist.
I got extremely aggrieved at core curriculum when my child's third homework assignment in 3rd grade was a lesson in estimating sums. Why does a third grader need to estimate? They are being tested on getting answers exactly right one week and taught to estimate the next week. This was very frustrating for her and aggravating to me.
-
Hey I'm with you. I made an A in AP Calculus in high school simply knowing how to make numbers work.
That is all you needed to know at the time. I never got proofs and theorems until junior year at AU.
But I damn sure knew I better make the numbers work using the methods supplied to me in Statics, Thermo, etc..
I didn't need to know how these affected the real world (cantilevered beam, etc..) until I learned enough to apply what I had learned. Some learn faster than others, but I think we try to cram too much in, in too little time.
Teach the basics, then teach the shortcuts.
-
All I need to know is how to count the money. Cha-ching
-
All I need to know is how to count the money. Cha-ching
#struggleoverwit
-
The point CCTAU was making (I think) is that when you use a sliderule, you have to understand the underlying concepts to achieve the correct answer.
While true, the same can be said about a slide rule, which is nothing more than a mechanical computer. It gives you shortcuts for a variety of functions that you should know in order to have an overall better grasp of what you're doing. A computer does far more than a slide rule, yes, but it's still the same basic concept: shortcuts.
And as THS pointed out, shortcuts are abound. Being able to recite 2+2=4 doesn't address the actual underlying concepts of addition and how it's applied in the real world, but just because you're not consciously thinking about that every time you do addition, multiplication, division, linear trigonometry, etc., does not mean you're ignorant of the underlying concepts or their application.
Shortcuts have been used in math and science for forever, it's just the complexity of them that has changed. I don't think these shortcuts are detrimental, so long as the underlying concept and the application of the shortcuts are understood as you mentioned.
-
My youngest is in 3rd grade this year. While I'll admit, the math homework is a lot different than having 100 division problems to complete, I like what they are doing. Most of the math work is reading problems and finding solutions. Not as simple as 3+3=6. By looking at 5x5, he automatically knows the answer and doesn't have to think. By making that same question (5x5) into a word problem, he has to read, think and conclude. Sometimes he has questions, but I'd rather him have to actually think a problem out rather than know the answer by repetition alone.
-
We are delving closer and closer to a territory in this discussion than most (if not all) of you have zero business discussing. Rocket Science.
Let's face it. I am very qualified to inform and educate on a variety of subjects and rocket science happens to be one of my four tays.
If you have any questions, feel free to post and I'll get back with you ASAP, if I'm not too busy on one of my big projects.
-
We are delving closer and closer to a territory in this discussion than most (if not all) of you have zero business discussing. Rocket Science.
Let's face it. I am very qualified to inform and educate on a variety of subjects and rocket science happens to be one of my four tays.
If you have any questions, feel free to post and I'll get back with you ASAP, if I'm not too busy on one of my big projects.
Like how to get 3 boxes up a flight of stairs with out scratching the walls?
-
We are delving closer and closer to a territory in this discussion than most (if not all) of you have zero business discussing. Rocket Science.
Let's face it. I am very qualified to inform and educate on a variety of subjects and rocket science happens to be one of my four tays.
If you have any questions, feel free to post and I'll get back with you ASAP, if I'm not too busy on one of my big projects.
How many rebounds did Hakeem Olajuwon have his rookie year?
-
Like how to get 3 boxes up a flight of stairs with out scratching the walls?
Among many other things, my friend. My knowledge is vast.
-
While true, the same can be said about a slide rule, which is nothing more than a mechanical computer. It gives you shortcuts for a variety of functions that you should know in order to have an overall better grasp of what you're doing. A computer does far more than a slide rule, yes, but it's still the same basic concept: shortcuts.
And as THS pointed out, shortcuts are abound. Being able to recite 2+2=4 doesn't address the actual underlying concepts of addition and how it's applied in the real world, but just because you're not consciously thinking about that every time you do addition, multiplication, division, linear trigonometry, etc., does not mean you're ignorant of the underlying concepts or their application.
Shortcuts have been used in math and science for forever, it's just the complexity of them that has changed. I don't think these shortcuts are detrimental, so long as the underlying concept and the application of the shortcuts are understood as you mentioned.
Shut up you atheist libtard.
-
Like how to get 3 boxes up a flight of stairs with out scratching the walls?
From way downtown.....BANG
-
Among many other things, my friend. My knowledge is vast.
Oh...I'm sorry the correct answer was.
Insurance.
-
How many rebounds did Hakeem Olajuwon have his rookie year?
11.5 rebounds my friend, however, I will have to get back to you on how one gets 1/2 a rebound. I suspect that it is shared by two players on the way down from the backboard and the official scorekeeper applies it as 1/2 to ea. (assuming that .5 is equal to 1/2, I will need to get back with you on that too. I am looking for my sliderule)
-
Let's face it. I am very qualified to inform and educate on a variety of subjects and rocket science happens to be one of my four tays.
You only have four tays? Slacker.
-
11.5 rebounds my friend, however, I will have to get back to you on how one gets 1/2 a rebound. I suspect that it is shared by two players on the way down from the backboard and the official scorekeeper applies it as 1/2 to ea. (assuming that .5 is equal to 1/2, I will need to get back with you on that too. I am looking for my sliderule)
Wikipedia knows all those answers too.
-
11.5 rebounds my friend, however, I will have to get back to you on how one gets 1/2 a rebound. I suspect that it is shared by two players on the way down from the backboard and the official scorekeeper applies it as 1/2 to ea. (assuming that .5 is equal to 1/2, I will need to get back with you on that too. I am looking for my sliderule)
Pretty impressive, especially since I accidentally asked a Rocket math question instead of Rocket science
-
Wikipedia knows all those answers too.
It may but I don't charge or ask for donations for the first 5 questions. And Wikipedia is often disputed. One difference between the Wiki and me is, if I tell you that a piss ant can eat a bale of hay, you should just give him a fork.
-
How many rebounds did Hakeem Olajuwon have his rookie year?
The correct answer is 974.
-
Who wants to fuck Mutumbo?
-
Who wants to fudge Mutumbo?
One of the funniest sports legends of all time, but I heard it was "Who wants to sex Dikembe?"
-
One of the funniest sports legends of all time, but I heard it was "Who wants to sex Dikembe?"
I believe it was actually "Who wants to sex Mutumbo"
-
I believe it was actually "Who wants to sex Mutumbo"
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/101e239c57e392359d664ba8d9adaad7/tumblr_mhz566qkas1qfrkf9o7_250.gif)