Cancer Posted January 23, 2019 Report Share Posted January 23, 2019 Meanwhile, they changed the hardware in the big lecture room again (of course without warning us first) and some functionality went away. You can no longer switch off the display projector independently of the computer driving that display, so that now, to turn on the computer you must also turn on the whole-room display, which is a distinct downgrade. This in a building which is going to be renovated in about three years and lots of things are going to change then anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cancer Posted January 31, 2019 Report Share Posted January 31, 2019 I think my biggest complaint with chemistry departments is not their subject matter but the bad scientific habits they grind into their students. Quantitative analysis is the worst. Students are required to have uncertainty estimates that are small rather than honest. And when I require honest uncertainty analysis, I more or less have to beat the chem students about the head and shoulders to get them to do it. The psychological pressure for members of a lab team to get the same reading when first using an unfamiliar apparatus is a big part of it, and the different but related pressure to get the same answer the second and subsequent times a given person uses a device is another big part, and those stack on the rewarded-for-small-numbers conditioning that chemistry faculty put on their students. That leaves me with little option but the equivalent of rubbing the puppy's nose in what he did when I see them doing this herd-compliance tiny-uncertainty thing in their physics lab writeups. Gosh, you got densities (in grams/mL) of 11.2 +/- 0.4 (from mass divided by displacement volume) and 10.04 +/- 0.06 (via dry and submerged mass measurements and Archimedes' Principle) for the same piece of twisted rod lead using two independent means? How could that have happened? If you say "human error", you are correct. I'll bet if you got a second iteration at using either method, you'd converge at least one of your two measurements onto a more-consistent value somehow. Can you say "academic dishonesty"? That's what that would be. It's "human error", and the error you are making borders on criminal practice. Let that sink in a bit, and then go back to the asinine egotistical statements in your write-up. (Just as a hint, some physicists suggest that "zero point energy" is the energy field undergraduates generate around themselves that causes them to get zero points on their physics labs. Because we physics faculty trust established principles in physics more than we trust undergraduate students who come to lab without having read the lab handout ahead of time to correctly use the apparatus and treat their data.) No, the problem is that you have the unmitigated gall (1) to think you can read to 0.02 grams an old-style pan balance with slider on a graduated bar when the bar is marked in 0.1-gram increments, and (2) you think you can get uncontrolled displacement volumes to 0.2 mL while using a graduated cylinder with 1-mL graduations. And your displacement volume process is: get a poorly-controlled volume of water into the cylinder, read the volume, slide in the test sample, read the volume again, and do the subtraction. Because you've had the herd mentality whipped into you so powerfully, yeah, you get an RMS dispersion of 0.2 mL in five trials on a single sample object. But I do not believe for even a hundred milliseconds that you can actually perform a measurement to the precision you claim. More conservative estimates are the +/- 0.1 gram graduations on the scale, and +/- 0.5 mL on a displacement volumes. Now when you propagate the uncertainties correctly, you get uncertainty estimates on your density values that (barely) overlap, without your having to go back and fudge your re-measurements, which is what I darkly suspect happens in your chem labs. Fewer red pens would be consumed if you read and thought before you showed up to lab. To make an appeal that is alleged to work on you millennials: won't you please think of the red pens? Pariah 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cancer Posted January 31, 2019 Report Share Posted January 31, 2019 On point for the preceding post: http://nautil.us/blog/the-case-for-professors-of-stupidity Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted January 31, 2019 Report Share Posted January 31, 2019 I had that experience in my mechanics physics lab. Week 1 TA: "Please log and report actual data, do not falsify your data." Me (thinking): "Okay." Week 1 Lab: Reports honest data, G=9.5 m/s^2, discussion of systemic errors resulting from lab equipment in writeup Week 1 Lab Grade: C Weeks 2-12 Lab: Data mysteriously falls into line with expected result Weeks 2-12 Grade: A To be honest, though, there was a shocking lack of training in lab procedures, standard deviations, statistics, uncertainty propagation, and estimations in every lab I took, which includes chemistry, mechanics, electromagnetism two or three times, and quantum/particle physics twice. I think there were certain specific labs in the latter classes that addressed specific reporting issues because (for example) catching gamma rays in a scintillator happens infrequently. And then I got flashbacks when I started helping the boys with their science projects. It's all I can do to not shout "Quantify! Quantify! You need more data!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cancer Posted January 31, 2019 Report Share Posted January 31, 2019 My background as an observing astronomer I think helps ... the quality of data back in the day was so awful, sanity checks about what it was possible to do were important, so you had to think along those lines. Also, the importance of carrying out full measurements of, and treatment for, standard cases turns out to be insanely useful. For my thesis stuff (stellar composition work) I did more standards than I did program objects (it was cheap to do so, since standards were bright and cost zero good telescope time ... you can do a 2nd magnitude standard through clouds that make your 10th magnitude program star utterly undetectable). And I found systematic errors. And I found ways around those. That's what you do. But yeah, these kids are gonna be shocked when I grade them *down* for excessively optimistic uncertainty estimates. I can't use it on these kids (it's an algebra-based class, no calculus) but there is a good textbook now, not too expensive, "Measurements and their Uncertainties -- A Practical Guide to Modern Error Analysis" by Hughes and Hase, 2010 Oxford U Press ISBN 978-0-19-956633-4, about 135 page paperback. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ternaugh Posted January 31, 2019 Report Share Posted January 31, 2019 Well, you wore out your welcome With random precision Cancer 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted January 31, 2019 Report Share Posted January 31, 2019 Oh yeah, I'd forgotten how much I hated clouds when I was working at IfA. Time flies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cancer Posted February 1, 2019 Report Share Posted February 1, 2019 2 hours ago, Ternaugh said: Well, you wore out your welcome With random precision A pity they didn't have another verse about "systematic sloppiness". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pariah Posted February 1, 2019 Author Report Share Posted February 1, 2019 "To pass this class, you'll have to demonstrate to me that you know more about the Solar System than my five-year-old does." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badger Posted February 1, 2019 Report Share Posted February 1, 2019 Well, now I worry about the veracity of lab findings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted February 1, 2019 Report Share Posted February 1, 2019 You should. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starlord Posted February 1, 2019 Report Share Posted February 1, 2019 Yeah, you never know what you'll find in a lab.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cancer Posted February 1, 2019 Report Share Posted February 1, 2019 Which is not a suggestion that you taste it to see if it's something you like. * sigh * Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted February 1, 2019 Report Share Posted February 1, 2019 Common Core strikes again! So newer boy has had a string of bad math tests, which were puzzling because he always seemed to have a clear understanding of the subjects based on his homework. It took a few weeks, but I finally figured out that his class is being taught four different ways to compute the same type of operation, and then being hit with quizzes that are word problems for that type of operation. Example: Multiplying fractions. Homework one, multiply the numerators, multiply the denominators, done. Homework two, draw a grid, color in the appropriate area of the grid, use the grid to work out the result. This method is useless. Homework three, draw a number line, count off the appropriate number of fractions and add up the result. This method is useless. Homework four, draw a bunch of circles, divide up the circles, color in the appropriate fraction of divided circles. This method is useless. Quiz: Karen's cupcake recipe requires 1 2/3 cups of milk to make 13 cupcakes. If she has 11 1/7 cups of milk, how many dozen cupcakes can she make? These kids are being set up to fail. I get that applying the math is important and should be taught--but it needs to be taught, not just tested out of the blue. I've already asked the faculty about this, and have been told that this is a result of "the new curriculum" and they're "working with" it. What it actually is is confusing and demoralizing for the kids. Newer boy is not a straight-A student by any means, but from what I can gather, even the super gifted kids are struggling with this. I can't even imagine what it would be like for ESL kids. No wonder kids struggle with math in this country. Jesus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badger Posted February 1, 2019 Report Share Posted February 1, 2019 5 hours ago, Cancer said: Which is not a suggestion that you taste it to see if it's something you like. * sigh * Sulfuric acid taste good? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badger Posted February 1, 2019 Report Share Posted February 1, 2019 12 minutes ago, Old Man said: Common Core strikes again! So newer boy has had a string of bad math tests, which were puzzling because he always seemed to have a clear understanding of the subjects based on his homework. It took a few weeks, but I finally figured out that his class is being taught four different ways to compute the same type of operation, and then being hit with quizzes that are word problems for that type of operation. Example: Multiplying fractions. Homework one, multiply the numerators, multiply the denominators, done. Homework two, draw a grid, color in the appropriate area of the grid, use the grid to work out the result. This method is useless. Homework three, draw a number line, count off the appropriate number of fractions and add up the result. This method is useless. Homework four, draw a bunch of circles, divide up the circles, color in the appropriate fraction of divided circles. This method is useless. Quiz: Karen's cupcake recipe requires 1 2/3 cups of milk to make 13 cupcakes. If she has 11 1/7 cups of milk, how many dozen cupcakes can she make? These kids are being set up to fail. I get that applying the math is important and should be taught--but it needs to be taught, not just tested out of the blue. I've already asked the faculty about this, and have been told that this is a result of "the new curriculum" and they're "working with" it. What it actually is is confusing and demoralizing for the kids. Newer boy is not a straight-A student by any means, but from what I can gather, even the super gifted kids are struggling with this. I can't even imagine what it would be like for ESL kids. No wonder kids struggle with math in this country. Jesus. I've heard many things about Common Core. None good. Most not repeatable. Edit: Funny note, my mother really cant do word problems too well. She still has nightmares. She wasn't that bad at math, but something about word problems didn't compute. (I am somewhat the same way back in the day albeit not that extreme , if I missed 2 on the math test, 1 was likely a word problem) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Posted February 1, 2019 Report Share Posted February 1, 2019 1 hour ago, Badger said: Sulfuric acid taste good? Didn't it smell like rotten eggs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ternaugh Posted February 1, 2019 Report Share Posted February 1, 2019 3 hours ago, Old Man said: Common Core strikes again! So newer boy has had a string of bad math tests, which were puzzling because he always seemed to have a clear understanding of the subjects based on his homework. It took a few weeks, but I finally figured out that his class is being taught four different ways to compute the same type of operation, and then being hit with quizzes that are word problems for that type of operation. Example: Multiplying fractions. Homework one, multiply the numerators, multiply the denominators, done. Homework two, draw a grid, color in the appropriate area of the grid, use the grid to work out the result. This method is useless. Homework three, draw a number line, count off the appropriate number of fractions and add up the result. This method is useless. Homework four, draw a bunch of circles, divide up the circles, color in the appropriate fraction of divided circles. This method is useless. Quiz: Karen's cupcake recipe requires 1 2/3 cups of milk to make 13 cupcakes. If she has 11 1/7 cups of milk, how many dozen cupcakes can she make? These kids are being set up to fail. I get that applying the math is important and should be taught--but it needs to be taught, not just tested out of the blue. I've already asked the faculty about this, and have been told that this is a result of "the new curriculum" and they're "working with" it. What it actually is is confusing and demoralizing for the kids. Newer boy is not a straight-A student by any means, but from what I can gather, even the super gifted kids are struggling with this. I can't even imagine what it would be like for ESL kids. No wonder kids struggle with math in this country. Jesus. The instructor should be forced to take one of the tests, and show their work. My guess is that he/she isn't actually familiar with the methods, or how to teach them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cancer Posted February 1, 2019 Report Share Posted February 1, 2019 3 hours ago, Old Man said: Common Core strikes again! So newer boy has had a string of bad math tests, which were puzzling because he always seemed to have a clear understanding of the subjects based on his homework. It took a few weeks, but I finally figured out that his class is being taught four different ways to compute the same type of operation, and then being hit with quizzes that are word problems for that type of operation. Example: Multiplying fractions. Homework one, multiply the numerators, multiply the denominators, done. Homework two, draw a grid, color in the appropriate area of the grid, use the grid to work out the result. This method is useless. Homework three, draw a number line, count off the appropriate number of fractions and add up the result. This method is useless. Homework four, draw a bunch of circles, divide up the circles, color in the appropriate fraction of divided circles. This method is useless. Quiz: Karen's cupcake recipe requires 1 2/3 cups of milk to make 13 cupcakes. If she has 11 1/7 cups of milk, how many dozen cupcakes can she make? These kids are being set up to fail. I get that applying the math is important and should be taught--but it needs to be taught, not just tested out of the blue. I've already asked the faculty about this, and have been told that this is a result of "the new curriculum" and they're "working with" it. What it actually is is confusing and demoralizing for the kids. Newer boy is not a straight-A student by any means, but from what I can gather, even the super gifted kids are struggling with this. I can't even imagine what it would be like for ESL kids. No wonder kids struggle with math in this country. Jesus. At some point, you have to start thinking that if the Nazis blamed all the troubles in the world on math education people and carried out the same actions they did back 75 years ago or so with the different target population, National Socialism would be hailed globally these days as an enlightened intervention in pedagogy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazza Posted February 1, 2019 Report Share Posted February 1, 2019 17 hours ago, Pariah said: "To pass this class, you'll have to demonstrate to me that you know more about the Solar System than my five-year-old does." That's hard as Pluto is a planet. *ducks* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cancer Posted February 1, 2019 Report Share Posted February 1, 2019 Hey, I knew you would fail. Pariah 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazza Posted February 1, 2019 Report Share Posted February 1, 2019 I'm too big to fail -- like Common Core Maths. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cancer Posted February 1, 2019 Report Share Posted February 1, 2019 They said that about Sanduleak -69 202, and look what happened to it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazza Posted February 2, 2019 Report Share Posted February 2, 2019 The same thing that happened to 'Vedic' maths? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badger Posted February 2, 2019 Report Share Posted February 2, 2019 1 hour ago, Bazza said: That's hard as Pluto is a planet. *ducks* Pluto is a planet Pluto is a planet Pluto is a planet Pluto is a planet Pluto is a planet Pluto is a planet *starts foaming at the mouth* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.