ewx: (Default)
[personal profile] ewx
[Poll #311278]

(If you want to quantify this, interpret the questions in terms of mean scores on a hypothetical arithmetic test.)

(no subject)

Date: 2004-06-22 12:38 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] songster.livejournal.com
I expect almost everyone with good arithmentic fails to realise just how *bad* the average is compared to them.

I remember our GCSE maths paper showing us one of the lowest-level papers. One of the questions showed you a photocopy of the side of a juice carton and asked you to write down how much was in it. Basically, "Can you recognise a number when written?"

And still a significant number of people fail.

(no subject)

Date: 2004-06-22 01:05 am (UTC)
ext_8103: (Default)
From: [identity profile] ewx.livejournal.com
What number is a "significant number"?

(no subject)

Date: 2004-06-22 01:26 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] songster.livejournal.com
In 2003, the Maths results included a 4% complete fail rate (grade U), and 16.6% getting F or lower.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/education/03/exam_results/gcses/html/18.stm

(no subject)

Date: 2004-06-22 01:49 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ptc24.livejournal.com
Yeep! OK, hypothesis: trained mathmos have a level of arithmetic ability similar to that of people with a similar level of general intellegence and education to them but with no mathematical specialisation.

November 2025

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
91011121314 15
1617 181920 2122
23242526272829
30      

Most Popular Tags

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags