391–400 of 460 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nothing. There's not a single operation that you learn between grades 7 and 12 that requires anything more than a scientific, non-graphic calculator to perform.
You don't think graphing equations is an important function for any math done by kids in grades 7-12?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Before jumping to pedantry, consider that "higher-level" here is relative (we are talking about high school students).
This is not about pedantic correctness. “Lower level” math courses also should not have excessive amounts of arithmetic. What arithmetic is included should be there for the express purpose of practicing arithmetic (at which point a handheld calculator is exactly the opposite of what you want). At any point that arithmetic isn’t the point of the problem, the arithmetic used should be designed to not be a barrier or ti…
> Learning to fluently navigate a handheld calculator is not an important life skill
It very arguably is. Contrary to what HNers seem to think, not everybody wants or is inclined to picking up Python to tally up a receipt or similar, and that's quite okay. (Sure, the handheld calculator is often now a phone, but that's a difference without much distinction)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cheat-sheets are also far more "real world" than the fake environment many schools cling to. I don't know a single practicing engineer that doesn't have a note scribbled somewhere. My engineering school recognized this decades ago and adjusted accordingly. Now the math department? They were a different story. No calculators. Period. Ever. Made higher-level calculus... interesting. Thankfully I'd already had it in hig…
> Now the math department? They were a different story. No calculators. Period. Ever. Made higher-level calculus... interesting. There is no reason for any math course at any level to ever need a calculator, period. The point of math courses is learning to think, not learning to avoid fat-fingering tiny buttons or learning the specific crappy interface of some anachronistic antique machine. Without an electronic calc…
Numerical methods courses need calculators for questions about practice rather than theory. Basic (non-graphing) cheap ones are usually sufficient, though.
I think slide rules are thoroughly obsolete in almost every context. There's no point in wasting students' time when better tools are available.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It should be fairly easy to setup a parallel Lichess (or whatever it is you use) account and compare Elo ratings?
Sorry I don't understand this comment. In case it's not clear I was talking about classical, over the board chess.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In prison, only non-programmable calculators were allowed. A friend somehow had gotten a TI-85 in. I programmed it to say "NON-PROGRAMMABLE CALCULATOR" as its startup message, so they wouldn't take it during a random search. I also wrote a basic stock portfolio manager - this was the only chance I had to program during my 5 years there.
I fascinated by the hinted-at backstory here. Would you mind sharing how you came to program in prison? Was it before, or during your time that you learned?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only way to have a way for OEMs to provide a proctor mode in the context of the test is to take away your personal freedom to use your device in all contexts. The cure is vastly worse than the disease. It would on the other hand be trivial to provide a device owned by the school that Only runs calculator software without admin access. It would also probably cost at least a $100 per unit and be less familiar to st…
The HP Prime calculator has these features. Non-destructive but restrictive test mode, and the teacher/instructor or whomever can see if you've escaped test mode thanks to status LEDs on the device. They thought of those things and implemented a good system.
The original thought expressed was
>Now if Apple/Android made a simple way for a test proctor to put your phone into a single app only that you couldn't easily break out of, maybe things will change.
This expresses the idea of Apple/Google granting a third party control of your machine to render it suitable for use during the test. This restriction must happen at a level that is superior to the user on a device with a lot of personal information.
This is hard to implement and terrible for the users right to con their own device and their privacy.
The same restrictions on a school owned device not used for personal communication would be easier to implement and less worrisome.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes most of my engineering classes back in college allowed you to use a cheat-sheet. Cheat sheets are way faster than thumbing through a book or notes in a calculator. And most problems required you to show your work. Maybe you could cross-check your results and fix something. The funny thing is to an extent, the performance of the student seems to be inversely proportional to the density of the cheat-sheet. The wors…
> The funny thing is to an extent, the performance of the student seems to be inversely proportional to the density of the cheat-sheet. This brings back the memory of the circuit theory exam. You could bring a cheatsheet but it was mostly useless. The test had very simple numbers (1, -1, 2, 1/2, -i or things like that) because the professor didn't want to be bothered checking complex formulas and the difficulty was m…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’d be in trouble: I use RPN calculators, and am practically crippled if I try to use anything else. Of course, I’d probably not be in as much trouble as whatever poor sod got stuck with my HP.
Oh, we had one approved graphing calculator - well, two. The Casio FX-7700 and its big brother, the FX-9700. Problem solved. Except if you happened to prefer RPN; I had a HP-48 which I had bought prior to the edict naming The One True Calculator - the day I enrolled at university, I started using it again, only to be met with a similar edict in my second term, naming the Ti-89 the only kosher graphing calculator. Sin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The TI-89 is definitely not fair in a calculus class because it can solve most of the problems for you
Back when I was in calc, you actually had to show your work, so a calculator was pointless.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry I don't understand this comment. In case it's not clear I was talking about classical, over the board chess.
There would be no difference other than acting it out on a physical board (as well).