I can not get over this pink vinyl!!! I just want to stare at it all day, it’s so pretty. I’m also into how one side looks like ovaries because as you guys know, I’m a general supporter of ovaries. The packaging for this album overall is top notch. The cover art is really subtle with these…
Wait, really? Is anyone out there actually teaching / learning math this way? Is this accurate?
As far as the algorithm goes, it’s pretty clear that the two ways of doing things are the same:
x - y = z -> x = z + y -> x = y + z
That is while the question used to be “what happens when you ‘take y out of x’” the question is now “What do you have to add to y to get x?”
The algebra above tells us these are exactly the same questions.
Why do it the new way?
1) Kids don’t have to learn a new algorithm to subtract. They can just use their addition skills to solve subtraction problems.
2) Later on down the road when we’re talking about doing addition/subtraction on weird sets (like vectors, for example) the intuitive notion of ‘take away’ goes away and so thinking in terms of addition is helpful.
Yeah! The process makes sense to me. It is the overwrought complexity that’s gobsmacking. The explanation of once you get into more complex applications of addition/subtraction makes logical sense, but it seems wrong to employ that complexity early on because it will be useful later; that is the opposite of everything I’ve learned about How To Teach™ (which is not an exceptional amount and mostly anecdotal so .. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ).
@bairfanx actually has a convincing explanation, which I’ve lifted from a reblog with longer commentary that you can find here:
From what I hear it is similar to this, but the video picks an example that makes it look idiotic.
[W]hen you’re looking to talk smack about something, why pick an example that shows its versatility or practicality? Pick a two digit number that many people would do in their heads and show a long and convoluted method without the math behind it.
The idea of the common core makes me a bit nervous, but this video is a whole different kind of frustrating.
I guess my question now is: are math teachers using this method for problem sets which are this simple? Or are they teaching the “old” way and then employing this method (“Common Core Method”? It must have a real name) when the numbers get larger?
Well I’ve never taught math at this level, but I do teach upper level high school and 100-level undergraduate math (currently calculus and trigonometry), and many students are way too reliant on algorithms that they learned in elementary and middle school. Believe it or not, we do occasionally run into issues with what it really means to subtract, because some students never really learned what subtraction is, they only learned the algorithm. The Common Core’s stated goal is to try to get students to problem solve on their own and develop their own methods rather than relying on algorithms, which is a good thing. But, this example makes it look ridiculous, and if I’ve learned anything from 10 years of teaching, in reality the Common Core will probably just replace old algorithms with different algorithms. Powerful people who support the Common Core have no interest in people learning to solve problems on their own, that’s too dangerous. Their interest lies primarily with generating revenue for their friends at Pearson etc.
“One U.S. Supreme Court justice referred to Netflix as “Netflick.” Another seemed not to know that HBO is a cable channel. A third appeared to think most software coding could be tossed off in a mere weekend.”
I save my anger for our bankrupt liberal intelligentsia of which, sadly, I guess I am a member. Liberals are the defeated, self-absorbed Mouse Man in Dostoevsky’s “Notes From Underground.” They embrace cynicism, a cloak for their cowardice and impotence. They, like Dostoevsky’s depraved character, have come to believe that the “conscious inertia” of the underground surpasses all other forms of existence. They too use inaction and empty moral posturing, not to affect change but to engage in an orgy of self-adulation and self-pity. They too refuse to act or engage with anyone not cowering in the underground. This choice does not satisfy the Mouse Man, as it does not satisfy our liberal class, but neither has the strength to change. The gravest danger we face as a nation is not from the far right, although it may well inherit power, but from a bankrupt liberal class that has lost the will to fight and the moral courage to stand up for what it espouses.
Anyone who says he or she cares about the working class in this country should have walked out on the Democratic Party in 1994 with the passage of NAFTA. And it has only been downhill since. If welfare reform, the 1999 Financial Services Modernization Act, which gutted the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act—designed to prevent the kind of banking crisis we are now undergoing—and the craven decision by the Democratic Congress to continue to fund and expand our imperial wars were not enough to make you revolt, how about the refusal to restore habeas corpus, end torture in our offshore penal colonies, abolish George W. Bush’s secrecy laws or halt the warrantless wiretapping and monitoring of American citizens? The imperial projects and the corporate state have not altered under Obama. The state kills as ruthlessly and indiscriminately in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan as it did under Bush. It steals from the U.S. treasury as rapaciously to enrich the corporate elite. It, too, bows before the conservative Israel lobby, refuses to enact serious environmental or health care reform, regulate Wall Street, end our relationship with private mercenary contractors or stop handing obscene sums of money, some $1 trillion a year, to the military and arms industry. At what point do we stop being a doormat? At what point do we fight back? We may lose if we step outside the mainstream, but at least we will salvage our self-esteem and integrity.
“Walter Berbrick, a retired Navy officer and a professor of war games at the U.S. Naval War College, was conducting the Fleet Arctic Operations Game in 2011, simulating, among other things, how the Navy would respond to an oil spill in the Arctic, when he discovered there were no rules of engagement for polar bears. “You’ve really got to be mindful of where you’re at and where they’re at,” Berbrick says, pointing out that polar bears travel in open waters and on ice floes where naval units would have to operate. “Folks need to be trained and deployed understanding their interaction with polar bears. The Navy needs some kind of specialized force protection training, policies, rules of engagement.”
“If you kill a person, you’re a murderer. If you steal, no one would hesitate to call you a thief. But in America, when you force yourself on someone sexually, some people will jump through flaming hoops not to call you a rapist.”