Five Missing Calories

Dr. Pepper has a new version of Dr. Pepper out. It's called Dr. Pepper TEN. I guess it's being marketed to men. No, I don't know why. But maybe their marketing department could spend a little more time with the math department next time. Behold!

Let's see..."10 BOLD TASTING CALORIES PER 8 FL OZ". And it's a 20 FL OZ bottle. So that would make 25 calories per bottle, yes? Not if you're the Dr. Pepper people because it says right there on the right "20 CALORIES PER BOTTLE". Are the calories only in the second half of the fluid ounces? So they don't count those four extra ounces in there because the calories are in the other four ounces that aren't in there? Why aren't those five calories listed? Mind you that for me, this isn't a question of calorie counting. This is a question of basic math. Basic, simple, math.

I have no answers, but I will be emailing Dr. Pepper and inquiring where those five calories went to. Let's see if I get a response back.

Sphere: Related Content

Another Useless Study

I know that I'm always saying that we're doomed. It's only because we are. Do you need another example of how I know that to be true? Because I have one. And I'm going to share.

The Post-Gazette.com has an article which goes over a study by some sort of think tank called Rand Corp. Their study found "...that couples who scored well on a short test of math skills accumulated more wealth by middle age than couples who scored poorly." It goes on to say that "...when both spouses correctly answered three math questions, family wealth averaged $1.7 million. That compared with $200,000 for households where neither spouse answered any question correctly." Wow. 200 grand when you don't get anything right? That really doesn't seem like such a horrible consolation prize, does it?

No, not at all. Which is kind of why this study is seeming a) ridiculous, and b) useless. But if there's a shred of reality to it, we're doomed. Even if there isn't a shred of reality to it, just that we're being subjected to it as if it is fact is rather dooming. But at this point of the article, I'm still fairly intrigued and wondering about the type of questions which will determine future wealth. Naturally, I was also wondering how I would fare with the questions. I stopped wondering after I read them and instead began wondering how a dog would fare, as I can't imagine a human being who is capable of earning $200,000 at the very least not being able to answer these questions.

Seriously, if these are the determining factors of wealth, then something has gone seriously wrong in this country. But maybe you should decide. Question One: If the chance of getting a disease is 10 percent, how many people out of 1,000 would be expected to get the disease? Uh, really? That's the sort of question that, if I can noodle it through, is indicative of my ability to earn money? Even more extraordinary is that that's the sort of question that would be indicative of my ability to do math. Come on! What is that? Fourth grade level? Third?

Maybe they get harder as we continue. Let's look at the second question: If five people all have the winning numbers in the lottery, and the prize is $2 million, how much will each of them get? Hmm. No. No, I don't see these getting harder. I sort of see them getting a little easier. And I definitely see myself getting more annoyed with this study. (Seriously, how do I get a job at a think tank? Wait. First let me ask: Is it really a tank? Because I don't know if I'd like that very much. I'd like all of the thinking, but the thought of being in a tank all day is a bit off-putting.)

The last question (did I mention it was a really short quiz?) reads as follows: Let's say you have $200 in a savings account. The account earns 10 percent interest per year. How much would you have in the account at the end of two years? Oh, for cryin' out loud. Are you kidding me?! First of all, what sort of savings account is going to earn 10 percent interest per year? None! There isn't one! Not a single one! I mean, really, the lottery question was pretty far-fetched. I'd have to believe that if I held a winning lottery number, I'd be able to figure out EXACTLY what my share was in a split-second after learning that I had won. That's a no-brainer. But this question is just completely baseless. Why not make it more realistic? I guess because then it might actually be somewhat relevant? Nah, that can't be it. The whole idea of this study having any relevance at all is completely preposterous.

See? We're doomed. Is anyone paying any attention to stuff like this? God, I hope not. What a waste of time. But seriously, how do I get a cush gig with a think tank? Anyone? Anyone?

Sphere: Related Content

2+2 = zebra

Yesterday's post involved the idiotic notion that it is a good idea to pay people to remember to take their medication. Apparently, in some people's world, not dying isn't enough of an incentive, but fifty bucks a months seems to really motivate folks. Go figure. Why I should care if they croak it because they're too moronic to realize the benefits of taking medication that they need is beyond me. But I'm guessing that the reason that test scores are going up over there in New York has to do with a method that has to be along these same lines of thinking. That's right. They're giving kids credit on tests even if they have given the wrong answer (including no answer at all). Wait. Wuck?

Correct. According to the NY Post, on the exams that kids take to determine if they're going to advance up to the next grade, the students "...got "partial credit" for wrong answers". Now, I read that and I wondered if they were referring to something like essay questions, as you can have rather subjective answers that vary here and there. Good thing I didn't have to read too much farther to learn that is wasn't English or anything like that for which partial credit was being given. No, it was MATH. That's right. Math. See, there was at least half a credit given"...after failing to correctly add, subtract, multiply and divide." And "Some got credit for no answer at all." NO answer? Was the answer zero? No? What the what?

Keep in mind that these were not just rogue scorers who were grading these tests and giving away credit like it was welfare. No, this extremely unorthodox (Translation: Asinine) method was discovered when "...scoring guides obtained by The Post reveal that kids get half-credit or more for showing fragments of work related to the problem -- even if they screw up the calculations or leave the answer blank." Oh, good Lord....

At this point, I'm still hoping that this isn't going to be as bad as it sounds like it is. Turns out, it's at least that bad. Probably worse. Let's look at a few examples that the Post gives us. Try not to weep until you're at the end. Your eyes will get watery and it will be hard for you to focus on the remaining words.

The example below is worth 2 points. The question reads: "Milton takes $400 on a shopping trip. He plans to spend 1/5 of his money on DVDs. How much money will Milton spend on the DVDs?" Try not to focus on the logistics of why Milton is on a "shopping trip" that includes a budget for DVDs. Also, try not to wonder what he is spending the other 4/5ths of his money on. No, try and focus on how the child whose answer sheet this is wrote down the formula for figuring out Milton's DVD budget, but did not do the calculations. The child knew that you divide 5 into 400.00, but did not actually perform the act of said dividing. Granted, the question did say "Show your work". It did not say "Show your answer". Perhaps this is why the child was given one point for showing the correct equation. Never mind that the child never answered the question, leaving Milton at a loss as to how much to spend on those DVDs. No, he knew the theory behind division, so that's good enough. That's pretty much all they require at NASA, right? Just know basic concepts and those space shuttles will fly themselves, right? Yeah, OK. Next example...

The example below is worth 2 points. The question reads: "Thomas buys a skateboard that is two feet long. What is the length, in inches, of the skateboard?" Never mind that two feet is a rather short skateboard. The poor simpleton who answered this question chose to add 24 and 24. Now, he added them correctly and came up with the answer of 48. Unfortunately, the only thing he got correct was adding 24 and 24. See, it might surprise you (or at least, that child) to learn that there are only 12 inches in a foot. Thus, the correct answer is 24. This child has multiplied the number of skateboards that he has by two. Either that or he had a four foot long skateboard. Both of which are not deserving of ANY credit! But in New York, he gets one point!

Other examples of what New York feels are deserving of partial credit are things like :

A miscalculation that 28 divided by 14 equals 4 instead of 2 is "partially correct" if the student uses the right method to verify the wrong answer. Tell me, how in the hell are you going to use the right method to verify the wrong answer?! If you used the right method to verify, wouldn't you figure out that the answer was wrong and change it to the right one?

A kid who subtracts 57 cents from three quarters for the right change and comes up with 15 cents instead of 18 cents still gets half-credit. Half credit? For giving someone not enough change? Sure, that's fine. Whenever I receive the incorrect amount of change, I always just let it slide because I know that the cashier did something. Yeah, that's how the real world works. Exactly. Perfect. Seems logical!

These scoring guidelines are something called "holistic rubrics". The fact that this stupidity has a name makes me hate it even more. (Though I do appreciate that it has a variation of the word "rube" in the name. That's telling.) This holistic rubric crap "...require that points be given if a kid's attempt at an answer reflects a "partial understanding" of the math concept, "addresses some element of the task correctly," or uses the "appropriate process" to arrive at a wrong solution." I need a wall. I need to bang my head against it until I pass out. Are you effing kidding me?

Please note that it says "attempt at an answer". Does that mean that if the question is "2+2= __" and the kid writes "zebra" that there is partial credit given because an attempt was made? I mean, it does "address some element of the task correctly", right? The kid knew that an answer went in that spot and wrote "zebra". Does that count? It probably does. And do they not see the problem with their logic in giving credit for using the "appropriate process to arrive at a wrong solution"? If you get the WRONG answer, you're NOT using the APPROPRIATE process! The APPROPRIATE process is the process that gives you the CORRECT answer! You morons!

The part that really scares me is that these are not difficult questions. If the scoring has to be dumbed down to this ridiculous level (ie, just marking things correct when they are clearly wrong) for such basic calculations, then how dumb are these kids really? We're never going to know until it's too late. And we might just be a little past too late these days. We're so doomed. Goodbye, sweet America. Goodbye.

Sphere: Related Content

Something Doesn't Add Up

Today we can thank the lovely state of Minnesota for their contribution to the dumbing down of America. Nice job, Minnesota! You've managed to make sure that those that fail are not accountable for their own failures! On top of that, you've managed to implement a system of test taking as a 'requirement' that doesn't 'require' one to actually pass the test! Again, ladies and gents, that's Minnesota! The state of Minnesota! How 'bout a big hand for 'em? Grrrrr.

So, I see the headline over there in the StarTribune.com which read "Minnesota juniors dodge math-test bullet." First of all, you really shouldn't be shooting at the students, I don't care what class you're in. Math, biology, English, it doesn't matter. Leave the firearms out of the classroom, that's what I always say. (Well, it's what I've always thought. No one likes to be shot at.) And I tried really hard to ignore the fact that they hyphenated "math test" (even though I think that it makes them look like dumb-asses.). But what I couldn't ignore was only 57 percent of high school juniors who took a state math test (the passing of said test was to be a requirement for graduation) were able to pass the test. That means that 43 percent (or, if you're authoring this article "more than 40 percent". What? Could they not figure out how many didn't pass if they knew how many passed, so they just rounded down to 40? Were the folks writing this story part of that 43 percent?) of the kids failed the test that was a requirement for graduation. Yeah, that's a problem. So you know what they did to fix it? That's right. "The Legislature decided in May that, at least for now, students no longer have to pass the 11th-grade math graduation test." Um, what now?

Correct. See, the thing is "Many educators think it's too hard, and feared it would have caused a dramatic drop in graduation rates next year." Oh, OK. That's fine. Better to just get the kids to graduate regardless as to whether or not they've learned a damn thing than to not graduate them and realize that something is wrong somewhere and try and fix it. Sure, that seems like a perfectly reasonable solution. Oh, wait a minute. NO IT DOESN'T!!

I mean, that's not even a do-over rule. I want that rule applied to my entire life! I want Minnesota's "Too hard, never mind, our bad" rule applied to my entire life. Bank account overdrawn? Yeah, the math that I needed to do to in order to have an accurate balance was too hard, so the bank should give me back all of those overdraft fees they charged me. Oral exams for my Master's degree? Too hard? Ah, never mind. Just give me the degree anyway. Always late to work because it's "too hard" to make it on time? That's OK. Just show up whenever you feel like it; that will be much easier. Sure, all of those examples sound swell. What could possibly go wrong?

Well, how about this scenario? How about new rules get implemented that say if you fail the test that was required for graduation, you're allowed to take it again and try and pass again? Sound good? And if you fail again, you can try again after that. After all, this is high school graduation we're talking about. I'm all for second chances. Minnesota is even giving them a THIRD chance if they fail the test the first two times. Well, good. Giving the students at least three chances to pass seems reasonable and if they can't pass it after the third try, well then I guess they don't graduate. Wait a minute. Whoops. I'm sorry. That's not right. This is how it really works: If they take the test which is a requirement to graduate all three times and fail alll three times, they can still graduate. Wait. What?!

Then that's not a "requirement"! A "requirement" is something that is "required" of you. HENCE THE TERM! Um, I'm not trying to be demeaning here, but just how stupid are these kids who can't pass the test? I mean, are they really not so bright that they're going to take the test two more times after the first failure and graduate regardless as to how they do on it? Why on earth would you do that? Take it once. Fail it once. Realize that you don't have to pass it to get your diploma. Do not take the test two more times. Do not pass 'GO'. Do not collect....oh, never mind. Those folks will be collecting $200 and then some from the welfare rolls because they'll have a useless diploma.

The state Education Commissioner, a one Alice Seagren, has said that "...she's worried that the math scores could drop next year once students figure out they don't have to do well to graduate." What is wrong with you people in Minnesota who are running the education system?! Of course that would happen! If I didn't have to pass the behind the wheel portion of the driver's license exam, would I be a careful and courteous driver with that testing person in the car with me? Hell, no! It's demolition derby all the way, baby! I'm taking out a couple of cars in the parking lot before a run a few red lights going at least 20 miles over the speed limit in a residential neighborhood as I dodge families of four in crosswalks! I'm certainly not keeping my hands at 10 and 2 on the steering wheel if I can still get a license if I fail that test! (Does anyone really drive like that? 10 and 2? It's like an ancient myth or something. Be on the lookout for someone who drives with their hands at the 10 and 2 position on the steering wheel. And while you're at it, keep an eye out for Bigfoot and the Yeti as well.)

Ah, but here's the problem. See, the folks in Minnesota who are in charge of these sorts of things? They seem to have an amazing talent for interpreting the situation in a way that has absolutely nothing to do with what the problems are. That and they say things that are the complete opposite of each other, but act like they're the same. For example, the article states that "...many educators say that, overall, Minnesota is still near the top in the world when it comes to math education. The state simply has high expectations for its students." Now, the article doesn't specifically cite any of the "many" by name. And really? "Top in the world"? Minnesota? Math? Was the state originally going to be named Minus-ota, but they wanted to keep their world class math education kind of low key, so they went with Minnesota instead?

So what's the problem? I mean, if you set those high expectations and you actually did have "top in the world" math education, wouldn't you be able to 'educate' those kids about all of your world class math and get them to pass the damn test? And why is Minnesota even comparing itself to the rest of the world? What say you start with the other states in this country before you and your "top in the world" math education start globetrotting, OK? And while you're over there not comparing your state to Latvia, can you give me any sources at all that back that up?

Well, the article (which continues to get worse in content as it goes along) cites something called The Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study that claims "...Minnesota's students are outperformed by only four of 36 countries in fourth-grade math, and five of 49 countries in eighth-grade math." Am I the only one who remembers that we're talking about those in eleventh grade?! And who are in the United States?! Where are those numbers?! Nope, they don't have them and that lends absolutely no credibility to the unnamed educators who are allegedly claiming "top in the world" math education exists in Minnesota. I'll tell you what does not exist in Minnesota, (at least at the Star Tribune )and that's decent reporting and journalism! (We're SO doomed.)

So the next time you make a purchase in a store and the clerk (who looks to be about twelve but is probably 18) can't even count your damn change back to you correctly, you can thank Minnesota for leading the way in the dumbing down of our youth! Not only that, but let's make sure that re recognize their education administration over there because that bureaucracy is really "top in the world" for stupidity and asinine decision making as well!

Now, anyone who knows me personally knows that I have a very fond affection for math in general. (I have an even fonder affection for some of those who taught me math in high school.) I like numbers because they're orderly and they make sense. I wanted to see this test that these 11th graders could not pass. Let me just mention that you ARE allowed to use a calculator AND the first few pages of it are every single formula under the sun that you could ever possibly need to solve any of problems (thus eliminating any extra memorization of said formulas). The test itself does contain some typos and some of the questions are poorly constructed, I will say that about it. Other than that, it's not that difficult. Once you understand what the question is asking (which, again, not always the easiest to understand), you can use a little bit of logic and the process of elimination to noodle them through. So, considering all of the help that it gives you at the beginning, what with the formulas and the calculator and all, coupled with the "top in the world" system they think they have going there, perhaps it's not math that the students are having difficulty with and instead it's their inability to use logic and reasoning to effectively problem solve. Ever think of that, Minnesota?

You can view a sample of this test at this link here. You know, in case you want to see if you're smarter than a fifth grader AND smarter than an 11th grader in Minnesota. Actually, I'm not so sure if it's the 11th graders that I'm concerned about as much as I am the administrators who are patting themselves on the back and comparing the achievements of their students against those of students in foreign lands. After all, the 11th graders will eventually get out of that system. Those administrators? They'll still be there long after kids have failed the required math test three times and still been allowed to graduate. Way to go. USA! USA! USA!!

Sphere: Related Content

FB TOS ROFL

It's becoming more evident to me that people that run companies, businesses, etc., think that the public in general is absolutely clueless. There's something to be said about a false sense of empowerment which your potential audience, customer base, whatever, embraces like it's their long lost, rich, and about to die uncle. I blame the Internet, mainly because it's the easiest, but also because it's the most likely in this case.

Let's take Facebook for a moment, shall we? Take it and do whatever you want with it, by the way. I find the whole social networking thing not so much "necessary" as it is "expected" and I really don't do well with expectations of me. But really I don't see the overall appeal of being a constant voyeur into other people's mundane existence. Yes, mundane! Try as you might, I do not think that you're cool when you're doing whatever it is that you're doing and I'm not. There's a reason I'm not doing what you are and you might want to look at what you're doing just a little closer to understand why I'm not doing it.

But I digress. Back to Facebook. Last week, Facebook changed their Terms of Service in a way that basically said that you're granting rights to Facebook to do whatever they want with whatever you put on Facebook and that you're granting them those rights even if you terminate your account. Sound good? No, of course not, it sounds like crap.

The Consumerist was where the crap originally hit the fan with this dealio. After all, who reads the Terms of Service? (OK, fine, I read them. I like fine print! I find it comical and in this case, informative.) When folks got wind of the new TOS, it was the Boston Tea Party all over again, except that it was online and there wasn't any tea and it wasn't in Boston. (It's just an easy metaphor for revolt, all right?) And the next thing you know, Facebook caved. Or did they?

Facebook reinstated the original TOS after CEO Mark Zuckerberg (who looks like he's 12 and actually isn't much older than that) posted a response on the Facebook blog that essentially said, "Whoa! Baby! Calm down! I wasn't saying you looked fat! I was just looking out for you! I didn't want you to be uncomfortable because...um, they...always have the heat turned up really high! And um, that outfit would have...uh, made you really hot! Not sweaty hot! I didn't mean to say 'sweat like a pig'. I was just trying to take care of you, baby. Now go put that tent, I mean dress! Go put that dress back on and let's go already."

As if Facebook folks weren't pretentious enough with their false sense of empowerment, now they're really full of themselves. "Look what our big, bad revolt did! We told Facebook where to go and what to do! We really do own Facebook!" Oh, please. Facebook plays nice with it's users, I'll give it that. Whether or not they were really trying to retain control over everything that was ever uploaded to their site, I have no idea. But they've seized an opportunity to reinforce that false sense of empowerment that the Facebook community is rolling around in right now. And they're doing so in a way that implies fairness. Sort of.

Their new policy is this: Some changes and some new policies will be put to a vote by Facebook users. According to Facebook, "The results of the vote will be made public and will be binding, if more than 30 percent of all active registered users vote." Well, that sounds great doesn't it? After all, when the uproar over the TOS began, the Facebook group "People Against the New Terms of Service" immediately formed and over 139,000 people joined up! Power to the FB people! Not so fast, FB-ers.Facebook has 175 million active registered users. That means that 52,500,000 "active registered users" need to vote. So, it sounds like the "People Against the New Terms of Service" group is going to fall just about 52,361,000 votes short as it is. Hmmm. Power to the people! Wait. What?

Facebook could have even gone with 10 percent of all "active registered users" needing to cast a vote before something was binding and they still (most likely) would have been just fine doing whatever they wanted to do. Numbers are a funny thing, aren't they? 139,000 people sounds like a really big number, but only until you realize that you don't need hundreds of thousands of people, but tens of millions of people. That's when that 139,000 seems like the total attendance at your Mom's book club meeting last week.

And not everything will be left up to the FB-users to vote on. In his blog post, Zuckerberg wrote that some things will change whether FB users like it or not. Those in management at Facebook are still the ones running the company. FB-ers can think that they are going to have this massive amount of say in what goes on, but if Facebook wants to change something, they will.

If I'm looking at the numbers that we're talking about in this instance, it makes me tend to think that the vastness of the Internet isn't something that you can just assume everyone is touched by. It's like if you only hang out with people who play Guitar Hero (and who wouldn't want a group of friends like that!? Hey, I'd take just ONE person at this point!), you're going to get the impression after a while that everyone plays Guitar Hero. I think that a lot of these Facebook folks think that everyone's world revolves around Facebook just like theirs does. Not so much. But what happens is that those who do think that everyone's world is the Facebook world start to influence other people to believe the same way. That's why people are so shocked when they come across someone who is not in the FB world. (On Facebook, it's FB. People tend to FB a lot of things. My favorite? "Keep in FB touch." Translation: "For God's sake, don't ever call me or email me. I really don't know you very well and I'm not sure I even like you. But drop me a note on Facebook once or twice a year just so I can compare my life to yours and feel superior. FB bye!")

If they meet someone without an FB life, this look which is a cross of confusion, sadness and pity sweeps across their face as if to say, "Aw. Why not? Too poor for an Internet connection? Can't afford a computer? Too dumb to log on? No friends? Social outcast? Is that why no FB for you?" They could not comprehend the rationale of "No, I think it's stupid." They would FB die if they heard that!

The point is that Facebook sort of pulled an FB FU to all of these folks who freaked out. (By the way, I'm not so sure that I'm in favor of a company or a business just arbitrarily being able to change the TOS whenever they want to. I don't think it mentions they retain the right to do that in the original TOS that people had to agree to in order to join Facebook.) I'm dying for Facebook to put the TOS that everyone flipped out over up for the vote. In fact, I'm begging them to do it! I'd be really interested to see if 52 million people would give a crap about it enough to log on and vote. Heck, I'd be shocked if 5 million people would give a crap about it enough to log on and vote.

Sphere: Related Content