(no subject)

[ewx]

[Poll #311278]

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

Comments

[pseudomonas.livejournal.com]

I'd think it likely that intelligence (and education) correlates somewhat with skill at arithmetic.
Would you agree with the statement "A university graduate has an above-average likelihood of being numerate"?

[k425.livejournal.com]

No, I wouldn't.

I trained as a nurse; I've got 2 degrees. I am, in theory, basically numerate, but am not good at arithmetic. I still use my fingers to count, and have been known to have trouble multiplying by ten.

Some people, with any amount of intelligence (and education) aren't good at number stuff. Some people, with any amount of intelligence (and education) aren't good with languages. Some people, with any amount of intelligence (and education) aren't good at science. Some people, with any amount of intelligence (and education) aren't good at arty stuff. It doesn't make them any less intelligent or educated.

Equally, there are people out there who aren't necessarily all that intelligent, and who don't have much of an education, who have superb arithmetic skills.

[angua.livejournal.com]

I agree with what you're saying.

I am a reasonably intelligent person but maths is a weakness of mine. I can play musical instruments, I can write reasonably well (I think), I can do lots of arty stuff, I can even do scientific stuff if pushed but I have real trouble with numbers.

I might be better than I think though as I've worked in lots of places where I've been dealing with money and I don't think I've ever made any major mistakes but I still get really worried that I'll cock it up.

[naath.livejournal.com]

But surely (since you were accepted at a university) you managed to get an A-C grade at GCSE maths ne? According to the table here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/education/03/exam_results/gcses/html/18.stm) that puts you in the top half of the population at maths in some form and from what I recall of GCSE maths that's mostely artifmetic.

[naath.livejournal.com]

Allthough, dispite pass ing English GCSE I can't spell...

[pseudomonas.livejournal.com]

You can likely spell better than the national average.

[naath.livejournal.com]

But the national average is all about people I don't know... the people-I-know average leaves me pretty much at the bottom of the heap (this is what you get for going to Cambridge Naath...)

[imc.livejournal.com]

I've not heard of Cambridge Naath - is it a good venue? <gdr>

[naath.livejournal.com]

snerk.

Maybe that should have a comma in it... whupth.

[k425.livejournal.com]

No, I was accepted at a university because I had proof of study skills i.e. my nursing qualifications.

I had to have Maths O Level (Yes, I'm that old) to go into nursing. But I did my O Levels in 1982. The fact that I got a B 22 years ago has no bearing on my ability to do arithmetic now. I got a B in History, too, and I'm V Poor at that now, as well.

[naath.livejournal.com]

Ah, whups... (nursing is a degree now...).

Well, yes, that is true... I mean I got an A* in German and now I can just about say 'my name is...' and that was only 5 years ago (meeep, 5 years ago!). But it still puts you down as being better than many people, probably.

[k425.livejournal.com]

All it means is that 22 years ago I was possibly above average. Or had been taught how to pass a maths exam.

[gerald_duck]

Even at GCSE level, there's a lot of logic, geometry, algebra, basic engineering/mechanics/dynamics/physics/applied Maths, and so on.

And people are allowed to use calculators in exams, aren't they? While this may help people who are naturally bad at arithemtic do better, it probably also means people apply themselves less to developing at least a basic facility with numbers. I feel it's very important people be able to tell when an answer is absurdly wrong, e.g. if someone keyed £3.99 instead of £399.