I agree, if they really knew who cheated, it's not reasonable to not apply a real penalty. (I especially liked how he said that cheating will not be tolerated when that's precisely what he's doing with this deal.)
I agree that they might be worried about the strength of their analysis. It'll depend on where they got questions from. If they're all from the same test bank, they might be screwed. If they came from a variety of sources, especially a few that they wrote themselves, they have a good hope of finding cheaters. Probably not proving it, but it doesn't take proof to make someone crack in an interview with the Dean. It's also possible, however, that they simply don't want to deal with interviewing 200 students suspected of cheating. I don't agree with this mentality, but I know where it comes from.
What makes you think that isn't not easy to cheat in a science class? It's just different. All you need to do with a lot of assignments is see the solutions and essentially copy them, more or less verbatim. That's just easier and cheaper cheating. (A lot of textbooks have solution manuals circulating, some even on the web. I know because I've found them.)
-that the White House's edits to the report gave the impression (intentionally or not, based on which political party you lean toward)
See, you say, "intentionally or not," but you use the phrase, "to give the impression." You've already decided what you think and you don't seem to think that there is another side. (That the edit wasn't intended to mislead.) And you seem to be defending the AC I replied to who clearly has also made up his mind (look at his wording) and doesn't view facts as relevant.
That's where seeing the edit comes in. You may have made up your mind to the point where no evidence matters, but I haven't. I don't know what to think: was this edit something I could imagine being accidentally misleading or was it almost certainly deliberate? Without seeing the data, I can't say. All of the talking heads and shouting from ACs (like the one I replied to) in the world won't replace that for me. I don't care if the pundits are people I tend to agree with or revile, their opinion isn't worth the facts.
In the end, facts matter. You and I may look at the facts and disagree about interpretation (reasonable people can certainly do so), but please don't tell me that we don't need to see them.
'We' don't need it. The published version deliberately attributed the peer review of scientists to something they did not analyze. These are the facts; they are not in dispute. Of what use is the revision history?
I don't think you know what a "fact" is.
A fact would be the two versions, side by side.
And inference or a conclusion would be why it was done and what effect it had. Not the same as a fact.
I can't think of a single reasonable reason why you wouldn't want to see the two versions published. You might be right that this was shady business, but if you are, the actual evidence would support your case so let's get it out there.
The only question is whether the claim of 'no intent to mislead' is credible. It isn't. It's a second lie heaped upon the first.
You've offered zero evidence of this. Proof by strident claim isn't proof, it's pundit hocus-pocus. Please stick with the facts. (But first, learn what that term means.)
Personal finances are only part of it. Statistics aren't just financial. Finances extend to governments (which are more than just large personal finances). And there are a lot of other practical uses of math, not to mention the value of learning logical thinking skills that math teaches.
Are there many schools that even require calculus for all students? Having taught at both a large state university and a small liberal arts college (that's my sample, so it's limited), neither required students take any math if they didn't want to and didn't need to in order to take their other requirements. In both cases, math classes did satisfy general education distribution requirements, but there are options to avoid the math department if one desires. And it's certainly true neither school required calculus for everyone.
It would be far better if it were (replacing, say, calculus).
Calculus isn't part of the normal curriculum in most high schools, either. It's generally taught as an advanced class senior year. The students to whom it is taught are generally the ones most likely to benefit from the leg up in college since many if them will at least consider majors that require calc.
We'd be way better off than we are now trying to teach everyone calculus.
Which we're not doing.
This guy isn't quite random, being someone who actually knows a little something about math.
But not about K-12 education, necessarily, or about relative importance of various disciplines. I'd certainly not take his word over the Department of Education's research that he derides, for example.
You've argued that we should be teaching "practical" math to students, but that's not the case being made here. He's arguing that we should be teaching a few years of basic math and then after that they'd benefit more from literature or music classes.
The original article is long on assertion and short on actual data to back it up. It amounts to "people don't need math." If you believe that, most of the piece is redundant. If you don't, he isn't convincing.
I think that there's a risk of generalizing that, though. Not all districts favor math departments over others. The math classes in my old high school were taught in the basement rooms and were certainly no better equipped than the other departments. Less so than some, in fact.
So while I can see why you'd be annoyed, I'm not sure you've established it's a trend rather than poor choices made by your school/school district.
Ramblings about books is also not news. It's an opinion piece at best. But I can't think of the last time I saw an equivalent piece claiming Shakespeare sucks (or some equivalent) making much of a splash as stories like this or yesterday's "We need an open source Google" story seem to.
I fail to see why my profession has any bearing o this, incidentally. Were you attempting to imply something?
Yes! How can statistics possibly be useful in today's world? Or an understanding of continuously changing variables, like mortgages?
If more people understood math at that level, a lot fewer of us would be constantly fooled by financial flim-flam and political bullshit.
I'm a professor at a liberal arts college. I feel that music and literature is important, but there's no way I can say it's strictly more important than math or sciences. Equally important to being a well-rounded person? Sure.
Out of idle curiosity, when did "ramblings of a random guy" become "news"?
Telling me that only one donation was to the RNC or that so-and-so donated $5,000 to the Democrat is completely and utterly useless. It's a single number without context, people. (Yes, I know it's FOXnews. Doesn't mean Slashdot has to waste space repeating it.)
Where did the OTHER NINE donations go? The RNC is only one part of the Republican political machine to which one can donate: there are candidates and PACs, for example.
How large were they by comparison? One donation of $10,000 is surely more significant than 10 of $500, isn't it?
As far as I can tell, this path makes sense if and only if you're trying to run from home to home. If you're going for a single, or a double, or a triple, you'd have different ideal path.
As the article notes, the authors are aware of this. They also are aware of the fact that runners seldom adjust to more efficient paths even when they know they've hit doubles, not singles. This was, in fact, the motivation for the study.
I think you're confusing their point: they're quite clear that they don't think that this helps in reality (at least, not much). It's an exercise in "I wonder..."
You're right, he needn't have been Christian to have studied the Bible. But the lengths he went to hide his (purported) non-Christianity aren't really that amazing, as you claim. He was given a special waiver to be Lucasian Professor without being clergy, so he was already somewhat in the religious hot-seat. Stepping too far out of line would have been a bad career move. And then, as Warden of the Royal Mint, he had even less reason to want to do anything to cause question of his views.
Geometry was clearly the tool of scientists as the time...
Yes. Descartes had only introduced analytic geometry about a generation prior and Euclid had been around for 2000 years. Hardly surprising, given that. (Annoying as sin, though, I will say that.)
He was also passionate about biblical passages. He thought that one could extract important scientific information from the bible, ancient texts and architecture, allowing him to predict the apocalypse and other "insights".
I have biography of Newton on my desk at work that suggests that he was just the opposite: firmly non-Christian, but he couldn't say anything because he was a professor at Cambridge (which usually required being clergy) and society was not friendly to non-Christians.
I intentionally left them out as this was the House (although I considered bringing up the Senate). "Congressman" generally refers only to the House, although both bodies are collectively also "Congress".
On the other hand, the Senate is just as ready to be bug nuts at the drop of a hat. I'm looking at you, Inhofe, and former senators Byrd and Stevens. (To name just a few.)
We should, nay must!, send one of them off into space at speeds near that of light! If we do not, future generations will rightly chastise us for missing this once-every-fifty-year opportunity to confirm the Twins Paradox. Ladies and Gentlemen, we know our duty. Now let us act upon it as women and men of science and of action!
Yep. I also love how the headline conflates "Congress" with "a single Congressman". It's nearly impossible to do anything that doesn't piss off at least one of the 435 members of congress.
Honestly, it sounds like Wolf is a blowhard how has his vendetta against China and doesn't care who he hurts pursuing it.
That or comet breakup (or moon breakup due to comet impact... etc). I don't know that either theory is terribly strongly supported, but the origin and age of the rings is all an wide open question, but one that I've never felt (as a ring scientist) was particularly worrisome.
I think your definition of "destroyed" isn't standard and human-centered, but you're right that Earth will be inhabitable at this point. That was sort of a given, though, that it would happen eventually. Of course, it's somewhat arrogant to worry about this since humanity has no real reason to even think it'll be around in 5 billion years anyway. And if we are, it strong suggests that we will have had ample time and technological advances to move on from this planet. It would be a million times the duration of recorded history, after all.
No! By that logic, the Moon can't recede from the Earth at all (in spite of observations to the contrary).
There is energy in Earth's spin. I just did the math and it looks like it's enough to get the Moon unbound, actually. Not with a lot of margin for error, though. (Of course, that requires suspending or otherwise accounting for Conservation of Angular Momentum; in general, the situation is reversed and L is conserved and we are shedding energy in the form of heat from tides.)
Slashdot Mirror
I agree, if they really knew who cheated, it's not reasonable to not apply a real penalty. (I especially liked how he said that cheating will not be tolerated when that's precisely what he's doing with this deal.)
I agree that they might be worried about the strength of their analysis. It'll depend on where they got questions from. If they're all from the same test bank, they might be screwed. If they came from a variety of sources, especially a few that they wrote themselves, they have a good hope of finding cheaters. Probably not proving it, but it doesn't take proof to make someone crack in an interview with the Dean. It's also possible, however, that they simply don't want to deal with interviewing 200 students suspected of cheating. I don't agree with this mentality, but I know where it comes from.
but it is surely sufficient to mail a letter to parents
Pretty sure that that violates FERPA. Parents cannot get any information about their kids' college performance unless said kids share it.
I find that sad and a little tragic. What school was this at?
What makes you think that isn't not easy to cheat in a science class? It's just different. All you need to do with a lot of assignments is see the solutions and essentially copy them, more or less verbatim. That's just easier and cheaper cheating. (A lot of textbooks have solution manuals circulating, some even on the web. I know because I've found them.)
I'm a professor of Physics. I've graded 286 papers this term for my class of 56.
Why is there this wide-spread myth that physicists don't need to write or that writing has nothing to do with the sciences?
-that the White House's edits to the report gave the impression (intentionally or not, based on which political party you lean toward)
See, you say, "intentionally or not," but you use the phrase, "to give the impression." You've already decided what you think and you don't seem to think that there is another side. (That the edit wasn't intended to mislead.) And you seem to be defending the AC I replied to who clearly has also made up his mind (look at his wording) and doesn't view facts as relevant.
That's where seeing the edit comes in. You may have made up your mind to the point where no evidence matters, but I haven't. I don't know what to think: was this edit something I could imagine being accidentally misleading or was it almost certainly deliberate? Without seeing the data, I can't say. All of the talking heads and shouting from ACs (like the one I replied to) in the world won't replace that for me. I don't care if the pundits are people I tend to agree with or revile, their opinion isn't worth the facts.
In the end, facts matter. You and I may look at the facts and disagree about interpretation (reasonable people can certainly do so), but please don't tell me that we don't need to see them.
'We' don't need it. The published version deliberately attributed the peer review of scientists to something they did not analyze. These are the facts; they are not in dispute. Of what use is the revision history?
I don't think you know what a "fact" is.
A fact would be the two versions, side by side.
And inference or a conclusion would be why it was done and what effect it had. Not the same as a fact.
I can't think of a single reasonable reason why you wouldn't want to see the two versions published. You might be right that this was shady business, but if you are, the actual evidence would support your case so let's get it out there.
The only question is whether the claim of 'no intent to mislead' is credible. It isn't. It's a second lie heaped upon the first.
You've offered zero evidence of this. Proof by strident claim isn't proof, it's pundit hocus-pocus. Please stick with the facts. (But first, learn what that term means.)
Personal finances are only part of it. Statistics aren't just financial. Finances extend to governments (which are more than just large personal finances). And there are a lot of other practical uses of math, not to mention the value of learning logical thinking skills that math teaches.
Are there many schools that even require calculus for all students? Having taught at both a large state university and a small liberal arts college (that's my sample, so it's limited), neither required students take any math if they didn't want to and didn't need to in order to take their other requirements. In both cases, math classes did satisfy general education distribution requirements, but there are options to avoid the math department if one desires. And it's certainly true neither school required calculus for everyone.
It would be far better if it were (replacing, say, calculus).
Calculus isn't part of the normal curriculum in most high schools, either. It's generally taught as an advanced class senior year. The students to whom it is taught are generally the ones most likely to benefit from the leg up in college since many if them will at least consider majors that require calc.
We'd be way better off than we are now trying to teach everyone calculus.
Which we're not doing.
This guy isn't quite random, being someone who actually knows a little something about math.
But not about K-12 education, necessarily, or about relative importance of various disciplines. I'd certainly not take his word over the Department of Education's research that he derides, for example.
You've argued that we should be teaching "practical" math to students, but that's not the case being made here. He's arguing that we should be teaching a few years of basic math and then after that they'd benefit more from literature or music classes.
The original article is long on assertion and short on actual data to back it up. It amounts to "people don't need math." If you believe that, most of the piece is redundant. If you don't, he isn't convincing.
I think that there's a risk of generalizing that, though. Not all districts favor math departments over others. The math classes in my old high school were taught in the basement rooms and were certainly no better equipped than the other departments. Less so than some, in fact.
So while I can see why you'd be annoyed, I'm not sure you've established it's a trend rather than poor choices made by your school/school district.
...
Right, you win this round.
Seriously, if we all ignore troll pieces like these, will they go away?
Ramblings about books is also not news. It's an opinion piece at best. But I can't think of the last time I saw an equivalent piece claiming Shakespeare sucks (or some equivalent) making much of a splash as stories like this or yesterday's "We need an open source Google" story seem to.
I fail to see why my profession has any bearing o this, incidentally. Were you attempting to imply something?
Yes! How can statistics possibly be useful in today's world? Or an understanding of continuously changing variables, like mortgages?
If more people understood math at that level, a lot fewer of us would be constantly fooled by financial flim-flam and political bullshit.
I'm a professor at a liberal arts college. I feel that music and literature is important, but there's no way I can say it's strictly more important than math or sciences. Equally important to being a well-rounded person? Sure.
Out of idle curiosity, when did "ramblings of a random guy" become "news"?
Telling me that only one donation was to the RNC or that so-and-so donated $5,000 to the Democrat is completely and utterly useless. It's a single number without context, people. (Yes, I know it's FOXnews. Doesn't mean Slashdot has to waste space repeating it.)
Where did the OTHER NINE donations go? The RNC is only one part of the Republican political machine to which one can donate: there are candidates and PACs, for example.
How large were they by comparison? One donation of $10,000 is surely more significant than 10 of $500, isn't it?
As far as I can tell, this path makes sense if and only if you're trying to run from home to home. If you're going for a single, or a double, or a triple, you'd have different ideal path.
As the article notes, the authors are aware of this. They also are aware of the fact that runners seldom adjust to more efficient paths even when they know they've hit doubles, not singles. This was, in fact, the motivation for the study.
I think you're confusing their point: they're quite clear that they don't think that this helps in reality (at least, not much). It's an exercise in "I wonder..."
You're right, he needn't have been Christian to have studied the Bible. But the lengths he went to hide his (purported) non-Christianity aren't really that amazing, as you claim. He was given a special waiver to be Lucasian Professor without being clergy, so he was already somewhat in the religious hot-seat. Stepping too far out of line would have been a bad career move. And then, as Warden of the Royal Mint, he had even less reason to want to do anything to cause question of his views.
Geometry was clearly the tool of scientists as the time...
Yes. Descartes had only introduced analytic geometry about a generation prior and Euclid had been around for 2000 years. Hardly surprising, given that. (Annoying as sin, though, I will say that.)
He was also passionate about biblical passages. He thought that one could extract important scientific information from the bible, ancient texts and architecture, allowing him to predict the apocalypse and other "insights".
I have biography of Newton on my desk at work that suggests that he was just the opposite: firmly non-Christian, but he couldn't say anything because he was a professor at Cambridge (which usually required being clergy) and society was not friendly to non-Christians.
Which was rather the point, although Clarke denied it.
I intentionally left them out as this was the House (although I considered bringing up the Senate). "Congressman" generally refers only to the House, although both bodies are collectively also "Congress".
On the other hand, the Senate is just as ready to be bug nuts at the drop of a hat. I'm looking at you, Inhofe, and former senators Byrd and Stevens. (To name just a few.)
We should, nay must!, send one of them off into space at speeds near that of light! If we do not, future generations will rightly chastise us for missing this once-every-fifty-year opportunity to confirm the Twins Paradox. Ladies and Gentlemen, we know our duty. Now let us act upon it as women and men of science and of action!
Yep. I also love how the headline conflates "Congress" with "a single Congressman". It's nearly impossible to do anything that doesn't piss off at least one of the 435 members of congress.
Honestly, it sounds like Wolf is a blowhard how has his vendetta against China and doesn't care who he hurts pursuing it.
That or comet breakup (or moon breakup due to comet impact... etc). I don't know that either theory is terribly strongly supported, but the origin and age of the rings is all an wide open question, but one that I've never felt (as a ring scientist) was particularly worrisome.
I think your definition of "destroyed" isn't standard and human-centered, but you're right that Earth will be inhabitable at this point. That was sort of a given, though, that it would happen eventually. Of course, it's somewhat arrogant to worry about this since humanity has no real reason to even think it'll be around in 5 billion years anyway. And if we are, it strong suggests that we will have had ample time and technological advances to move on from this planet. It would be a million times the duration of recorded history, after all.
No! By that logic, the Moon can't recede from the Earth at all (in spite of observations to the contrary).
There is energy in Earth's spin. I just did the math and it looks like it's enough to get the Moon unbound, actually. Not with a lot of margin for error, though. (Of course, that requires suspending or otherwise accounting for Conservation of Angular Momentum; in general, the situation is reversed and L is conserved and we are shedding energy in the form of heat from tides.)