Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

MIT Entrance exam (1869)

libraries.mit.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 74 posts

Re: MIT Entrance exam (1869)

#31

Post by gojomo »

amelim wrote: post #6
kwantam wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on how far back you go. For a Roman, mental multiplication was exceedingly difficult. Clearly this implies that there was a period of upward trend. If we believe that we're dumber than some of our forefathers, then there must have been a peak at some point in the past (or perhaps even multiple peaks, but we don't have enough evidence to suspect more than one, so let's assume it's an approximately parabolic tr…

I'm sorry, but being able to perform arithmetic does not equate to higher intelligence or mental capacity. As society begins to perform more calculations via computer, it will allow us to begin address more abstract and higher level mathematics, problems which would be near impossible to address had we been required to do the math with grease pencils. Conrad Wolfram recently gave a wonder TED talk on the subject. htt…

Performing math in your head requires concentration and a working memory. These improve with practice and are useful for more than just math (like following complex writing or multiparty discussions).

With computers, people won't perform the basic calculations in their head. But their strategy-forming about what, of the gigantic possibility space, they could or should ask the computer next will still require the same old concentration and working memory... and more.

Re: MIT Entrance exam (1869)

#32

Post by eitally »

TheEzEzz wrote: post #13
ashot wrote: post #11

the geometry section is much harder: http://libraries.mit.edu/archives/exhibits/exam/geometry.htm...

The English section is much harder.

It wouldn't be for a modern American high school student in an advanced English (wouldn't even have to be AP/IB) class. At least, I'm confident that 75% of the people in my AP English class would have known 85%+ of the answers. Dating myself slightly, that would've been back in '94.

Re: MIT Entrance exam (1869)

#33

Post by makmanalp »

kwantam wrote: post #4
iuytgfrtyuik wrote: post #2

Isn't that kind of high school level algebra? I thought we were all supposed to have been dumbed down compared to our illustrious forefathers?

Depends on how far back you go. For a Roman, mental multiplication was exceedingly difficult. Clearly this implies that there was a period of upward trend. If we believe that we're dumber than some of our forefathers, then there must have been a peak at some point in the past (or perhaps even multiple peaks, but we don't have enough evidence to suspect more than one, so let's assume it's an approximately parabolic tr…

Those roman numerals don't help with the multiplication at all.

Re: MIT Entrance exam (1869)

#34

Post by tibbon »

DanielN wrote: post #19

It's worth noting that MIT didn't really become an academically prestigious institution until the 1940-50's. Before the second world war it was largely a Engineering and technical college and certainly wasn't one of the top 10 institutions in the country. More specifically, at the time of this exam the school was only ~8 years old and engineering wasn't considered the prestigious career it is today. The round up of f…

Interestingly enough, many students there currently are all about 'keeping tradition' and are very adverse against change. There's an uproar currently over potentially required purchase of dining hall plans. In the not too distant past, they had such as well from what I understand, but now students want to keep things as they were.

Re: MIT Entrance exam (1869)

#35

Post by kingkilr »

tjarratt wrote: post #26
kingkilr wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, the algebra was frankly also elementary school level IMO.

Algebra isn't normally taught at the elementary school level. Now, I'd argue that it SHOULD be, so students can choose to study some interesting fields of mathematics after grade 5, but that's a different argument entirely. If I remember correctly, my school district didn't offer true algebra until 8th grade, for honors students only, in a class that started an hour before any regular class. Hardly elementary.

I'll grant you my elementary school math was better than most, but I think the point that this isn't very advanced stands.

Re: MIT Entrance exam (1869)

#36

Post by signa11 »

prat wrote: post #14

link to IIT joint entrance exam (JEE) http://www.wiziq.com/tutorial/98820-IIT-JEE-Mathematics-Pape...

from what i remember 1987's jee maths was the toughest. with the cutoff's in the lower teens or something....

Re: MIT Entrance exam (1869)

#37

Post by Thunder_Child »

tibbon wrote: post #34
DanielN wrote: post #19

It's worth noting that MIT didn't really become an academically prestigious institution until the 1940-50's. Before the second world war it was largely a Engineering and technical college and certainly wasn't one of the top 10 institutions in the country. More specifically, at the time of this exam the school was only ~8 years old and engineering wasn't considered the prestigious career it is today. The round up of f…

Interestingly enough, many students there currently are all about 'keeping tradition' and are very adverse against change. There's an uproar currently over potentially required purchase of dining hall plans. In the not too distant past, they had such as well from what I understand, but now students want to keep things as they were.

As a current MIT undergraduate, I would say that this isn't the whole story. The reason that people are in an uproar about the new dining hall plan is not that we dislike change. It is because the new plan will cost incoming students an additional $3,000 per semester (students already enrolled will only have to pay $2,500). Also, our administration was dishonest in drawing up these plans (releasing them for student input during finals week, blatantly ignoring the input we are currently providing).

EDIT: well, maybe not blatantly ignoring our current input, but the concessions that they are making are too little too late in my opinion

Re: MIT Entrance exam (1869)

#38

Post by andreyf »

Thunder_Child wrote: post #37
tibbon wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly enough, many students there currently are all about 'keeping tradition' and are very adverse against change. There's an uproar currently over potentially required purchase of dining hall plans. In the not too distant past, they had such as well from what I understand, but now students want to keep things as they were.

As a current MIT undergraduate, I would say that this isn't the whole story. The reason that people are in an uproar about the new dining hall plan is not that we dislike change. It is because the new plan will cost incoming students an additional $3,000 per semester (students already enrolled will only have to pay $2,500). Also, our administration was dishonest in drawing up these plans (releasing them for student i…

Is it just me, or would one expect the dining hall system to be open to use for anyone who is a student (and their facebook friends)?

Re: MIT Entrance exam (1869)

#39

Post by etfb »

chr15 wrote: post #15

Answers: http://libraries.mit.edu/archives/exhibits/exam/algebra-answ...

Their answer to the first one is wrong. Square root of a positive number gives two results, plus and minus. I haven't checked my working, but I believe the correct answers are 15, -9, 21 and -3. Rather disappointed that I caught the trick question and the questioners, apparently, didn't.

Re: MIT Entrance exam (1869)

#40

Post by spicyj »

etfb wrote: post #39
chr15 wrote: post #15

Answers: http://libraries.mit.edu/archives/exhibits/exam/algebra-answ...

Their answer to the first one is wrong. Square root of a positive number gives two results, plus and minus. I haven't checked my working, but I believe the correct answers are 15, -9, 21 and -3. Rather disappointed that I caught the trick question and the questioners, apparently, didn't.

Any positive number has two square roots, but the (present-day) notational convention is always to take the positive square root.
Post reply on HN