121–130 of 141 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well explained, but 2^4 * 2^4 doesn't take into account the "different powers" part.
2^3 == 2 * 2 * 2 2^2 == 2 * 2 2^3 * 2^2 == 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 == 2^5
In a way, this reinforces my hypothesis that Latin in traditional Western higher education was never quite so much about Latin itself as it was about gaining a deeper understanding and greater praxis of your native tongue by reading its source code.
I don't agree with you. I did 2 years of latin and one year of greek. I don't feel like it really helped me. I actually found it pretty useless except the syntax/grammar part which can be good to understand new languages easier. It's exactly like learning scheme. Seriously who fucking cares about scheme? I see latin and greek in a Harvard test as a part of distinguishing highly educated kids from the others.
I can see how Latin will probably not help with English much (and with French I couldn't see it either) but in comparison German has a LOT more grammatical possibilities and rules and they are very much like Latin except for maybe 2 cases and a few other Latin oddities. This probably makes German comparatively harder for a native English speaker..
The way we had to study Latin was very analytical, never like a spoken language but like dissecting word by word until you could finally understand the sentence. So through studying Latin vocabulary and grammar like that, you got a different and actually excellent insight into your own German mother tongue. And a lot of words, vocabulary and expressions (also in English) at least have Latin (if not Greek) roots.
Some university degrees used to require you to have had Latin in school, medicine was one of those.
The more interesting part of Latin, however, is reading all the great writers and learning about the times they lived in. In a modern Latin class, this should get much more emphasis, even if it happens at the expense of pure language analytical skills.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're exaggerating more than a little bit. There's 2 trigonometric proofs, and a number of less than obvious geometric proofs, especially the latter ones pertaining to the circle. The rational equation in #8 on algebra going to involve solving a cubic. And although #7 in arithmetic wouldn't be too hard if you worked entirely in pence, it is still a trickier problem in the days before decimalization. Granted, it's we…
What age are Americans typically when they take SATS? The geometry stuff is not so bad if you can give visual proofs, pretty hellish otherwise. I think I had to know quite a lot of this stuff for A-level maths as well as Calculus, basic Statistics, Linear Algebra and Applied Maths. But we take these exams when we are 17 and it was 1 of 3 subjects we specialised in for 2 years. Also, regarding your point about calcula…
Also, as you may know, many calculators today have a CAS, a Computer\Calculator Algebra System, that will gladly give responses as a surd or fraction (or even solve a differential equation). To my knowledge, College Board has yet to ban a calculator for a CAS.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They have a working knowledge of it, with very rare exceptions -- but I find that students are taught math as a bunch of rules and not all of them are comfortable giving explanations.
Yeah, that is what I perceive as the greateset failing of modern math education. More emphasis on memorization rather than a deep understanding.
It's the same as libraries in programming, really. You don't need to understand how a library works, you need to know what it does and how to use it. And in many cases, that's perfectly fine. After all, who would have the time to study the source code[1] of all libraries they use? You'd study that if you are interested, noticed a bug or need to know some specific detail of the implementation, not just because you need to use it.
[1] Not to mention those unfree binary libraries which you couldn't inspect even if you wanted.
It seems that, neither then nor now, would I have been accepted to Harvard.
I can't even comprehend what is being asked on most of these questions let alone what it's about, at least if I knew what they were asking I'd be halfway there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What age are Americans typically when they take SATS? The geometry stuff is not so bad if you can give visual proofs, pretty hellish otherwise. I think I had to know quite a lot of this stuff for A-level maths as well as Calculus, basic Statistics, Linear Algebra and Applied Maths. But we take these exams when we are 17 and it was 1 of 3 subjects we specialised in for 2 years. Also, regarding your point about calcula…
Traditionally, Americans applying to Ivy schools take the SATs sometime midway through their 3rd year of High School, when they're anywhere from 16-17. Many will take it this month. Also, as you may know, many calculators today have a CAS, a Computer\Calculator Algebra System, that will gladly give responses as a surd or fraction (or even solve a differential equation). To my knowledge, College Board has yet to ban a…
Where is the modern history? Where are the questions on governments? Worse, this test doesn't call for much analysis; it's mainly regurgitation of memorized trivia and the most mechanical arithmetical techniques.
I agree, but sadly I think a lot of testing is the same now. We are still strongly skewed towards giving people who have rote learned the right things a 'leg up', rather than those with true 'ability'. To be fair though, at least now you can rote learn the right things to pass the tests in any country, not just a few wealthy western schools that teach latin and greek....
I also have a very close friend who is now an elementary school teacher (4th grade), and says this as well (they don't just teach with rote memorization). Recently, she was telling me about the subjects she was teaching and the different learning tools they were employing in the class room, and we were having a discussion about how great it was that they are focusing on problem solving and knowledge discovery and not just on rote memorization.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given that the exam is from 1869 for entrance into college, I suspect that's basically what they are looking for.
Yes, because irrational numbers wouldn't be discovered until the 1900's....
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't agree with you. I did 2 years of latin and one year of greek. I don't feel like it really helped me. I actually found it pretty useless except the syntax/grammar part which can be good to understand new languages easier. It's exactly like learning scheme. Seriously who fucking cares about scheme? I see latin and greek in a Harvard test as a part of distinguishing highly educated kids from the others.
The point of learning Scheme is that you can learn Scheme the language in five minutes and move on the actual topic of the course, which is about how a program gets executed.