<p>
</p>
<p>Work not force, yo. 
Or at least impulse.</p>
<p>Force determines her acceleration (given her mass), but in order to get her initial velocity (to determine how far she’ll go) you need to know how long the force was applied for (in either the time and physical senses of “long”).</p>
<p>[/geeky pedantry]</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A lot of students in newly industrialized countries actually go to school in SECOND languages, not their native language that they speak at home. (This is one of the phoniest excuses that United States schools offer up for poor academic performance–diverse language backgrounds of pupils.) For example, my wife’s entire primary and secondary education in an east Asian country was conducted in a language that she didn’t speak at home with her parents, a language no more similar to her native language than English is to German. How would the United States do educationally if all instruction were delivered in German? Certainly not as well as Singapore (where all primary and secondary instruction is in English, which is NOT the native language of most residents, and where all students have to learn some of one of the country’s THREE other official languages).</p>
<p>anitaw, your answer is the classic excuse that american kids have a ‘broader’ curriculum. which does not explain why they can’t do basic math.</p>
<p>i wonder how 68% of US Seniors got that one wrong. all you had to do was quadruple the height, double the length and width, and add the extra 25.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>i love how knowing that conversion is completely irrelevant to the question posed, considering all the answers are (gasp, shock!) centimeters!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think you’re over-simplifying my point. Taken at face-value, I certainly do think that this article’s claim was goofy! But I also think it’s worth reading a bit more broadly. </p>
<p>First of all, you say that “As long as students are given the proper foundation in math…”, which the 68% of students who couldn’t answer this question clearly did not receive. Second, I’m trying to speak beyond the specific box-wrapping example. Yes, numbers are numbers, and whether you’re wrapping a box or just adding dimensions, or using centimeters or inches or made-up lengths, the process is the same and the details shouldn’t change that. I’m not agreeing with the specific idea that so many kids missed this question because they don’t understand the metric system. What I’m trying to point out is that there might a larger point which is related, and IMO, is worth considering.</p>
<p>Of course kids are perfectly capable of figuring out math problems that aren’t relevant to their lives, but that doesn’t mean that all of them really want (or will bother) to do so, nor does it mean that all of them are aware of their own abilities. I’m sure that every single one of us has heard frustrated math students lament the apparent uselessness of the material–“Why do I have to memorize this? My calculator does it!”, or “I’m going to be an author…why do I need to know how to calculate a derivative?!”–so what message does it send when even the most elementary examples of applied arithmetic, which we assure kids is absolutely essential, seem stupid to them? The example given by the OP wasn’t even that bad, relatively speaking. Some textbooks truly are contrived or outdated, and kids can get so hung up on subject matter or terminology that they never even see through the words to the math. </p>
<p>I was a math minor. Even in college, though, when a real-world application flew at me from a field in which I had zero experience, I often ended up flustered. I’d get bogged down in unnecessary details or unfamiliar terminology, and I’d struggle to believe that I really didn’t need any background knowledge to tackle the question. It was a mental block…not a lack of mathematical ability. I’m very happy to play with numbers and work abstractly, but give me an econ example or something about sports statistics and my mind shuts down, even if the actual processes are identical. Now, I can deal with the box-wrapping problem, and I certainly agree that the vast majority of 12th graders should be able to, also! But if this article is correct, then they may not be (FYI, I didn’t read the whole article…only the portion quoted by the OP). I don’t think it’s just a widespread lack of natural ability…I think it’s probably also a lack of solid foundation, a lack of concern, a lack of interest, and/or a fear of word problems, all of which could stem from poor, uninteresting, and/or irrelevant instruction/examples at lower levels of education.</p>
<p>“Paris Hilton, Soulja Boy, television, fast food, and movies released on DVD”-themed math problems are not what I mean when I say that the subject ought to be made interesting + relevant to students. I just think that the article, as ridiculous as it does seem when read at face-value, might be hinting at some broader, more interesting points (unfortunately, it also seems to do a pretty good job of obscuring them). </p>
<p>As I recall, John Allen Paulos’ Innumeracy deals with this topic, but I’m not positive about that.</p>
<p>ETA: For what it’s worth, I’ve also seen math texts that are “overly relevant,” in a sense. The material is so practical and so applied that it borders on the mundane, and I have to wonder what it does to kids’ abilities/confidence re: abstract thought, not to mention that it seems to suck the fun out of the subject. I’m no expert in this, but I do think that there has to be a happy medium. And to reiterate yet again, I’m really not talking directly about the problem presented by the OP…just sort of using it as a jumping-off point for this stream-of-consciousness whining ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m a Singaporean, and I would like to say a lot hinges on the definition of “native speaker” – a lot of the population isn’t a native speaker of non-creolised, stress-timed, standard English. But we do speak a creolised, syllable-timed version of it natively.</p>
<p>geesch xiggi, I thought I was loosing it for a minute there.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is primary school work. </p>
<p>Of course, I wonder how many American elementary school students are fluent in another language. <em>rolleyes</em></p>
<p>My grandmother, who raised her family during the depression, would’ve missed this: to save ribbon, she’d tape two perpendicular strands of ribbon to the wrapping, saving the ribbon that would’ve been used for the knot and the invisible bottom. That possibility would’ve been a halfway interesting argument, kind of like the ancient, infamous “regatta” question on the SAT.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Just because they take English, doesn’t mean they’re fluent.</p>
<p>how do you wrap width x height AND length x height with 1 continuous piece of ribbon?</p>
<p>Why are there are even people out there who are trying to explain or come up with excuses as to why our kids can’t do these math problems?! Let’s stop looking for excuses and start working on solutions!
Kids are graduating from high school reading at a third grade level, we have real problems with our educational system in this country. Nobody wants to be held accountable. We worry about the children and their “self esteem” and heaven forbid we test anyone to see if they understand the material.</p>
<p>Fluency != native speaker proficiency </p>
<p>Although perhaps I mean “near fluency” – you can hold a conversation about Plato’s Forms and Ideas, for example, but with lots of effort (in addition to the effort you would apply if you were a native speaker).</p>
<p>Unfortunately, fluency does not have a universal definition. </p>
<p>Native speaker proficiency doesn’t have a universal definintion either. Babies are native speakers of whatever language, but they can’t exactly hold conversations on Plato either. Kindergarteners don’t either (I guess they could if they were pretty intelligent). Even though they’re both native speakers, their knowledge on some of the most basic grammar forms won’t be as great as a second language learner of English while a secon language learner of English won’t be able to understand as much as these ‘native speakers’ do. </p>
<p>But I have a hard time seeing the Chinese primary school students being able to do that either. I’ve met quite a few before, and their English isn’t quite decent enough to even begin considering Plato (in English, that is). </p>
<p>However, I am not knocking the fact that they are taking foreign language classes in elementary school; that’s great.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Indeed, the evasive answer to this question helped spark my interest in linguistics.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not consciously (i.e. not explicitly), but indeed they know the forms.</p>
<p>You can easily gauge knowledge/mastery of specific grammatical forms (without conscious knowledge of them) for the scientific study of a demographic – apply the “Wug test”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think they do this at the bakeries with those cute white boxes. They tie a half-knot under the bottom of the box, then keep going in a new perpendicular direction. </p>
<p>They are smart enough to make the bow so it opens QUICKLY, like while I’m still driving home with the goods.</p>
<p>Nothing gets between me and my rugelach.</p>
<p>Yikes, Galoisien, I stand corrected on my Paris problem (hangs head in shame). That’ll teach me to make up silly statements on the fly.</p>
<p>P3T, I prefer bakeries that just tuck the flaps into the box. I’m sort of anal about streamlining things … it’s far more efficient for all concerned to just forget about the string! As a bonus, the person who does the purchasing for the bakery doesn’t even have to know how to figure out how much string it takes to tie a box (also avoiding the BORING necessity of figuring out how many boxes can be tied with a roll of string & multiplying that times the expected number of boxes to be tied).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The article linked below, written by a college prof, explains what’s been happening to our schools since the 1960’s. Don’t forget that since this article was published, the SAT had to be ‘recentered’ due to persistent declines in students’ SAT scores.</p>
<p>“A college professor looks at the forgotten victims of our mediocre educational system–the potentially high achievers whose SAT scores have fallen, and who read less, understand less of what they read, and know less than the top students of a generation ago.”
[The</a> Other Crisis in American Education - 91.11](<a href=“http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/educatio/singalf.htm]The”>http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/educatio/singalf.htm)</p>
<p>An explanation for why our schools have lost their focus on academics:
[Horsefeathers</a> - ON EDUCATION: BY RITA KRAMER](<a href=“http://doctor-horsefeathers.com/archives2/000391.php]Horsefeathers”>http://doctor-horsefeathers.com/archives2/000391.php)</p>
<p>The article from the Atlantic is spot-on!! Thank you for that link,</p>
<p>A college sophomore from my town recently shared with me that he had NEVER read a book for class until he got to college (other than in his learning-how-to-read years). No books were assigned in middle school, and he tells me students routinely made up their book reports (only basic info was required, which kids got from the book jacket) & book log info. In high school, every book was read in class either by the teacher or on tape. No book reports for outside reading had ever been required. He still hasn’t taken a required lit class at his LAC & he is scared. No wonder. I would say the school failed him (& all the other kids).</p>