I’m in WA and we have the same technology in our General/Applications exam.
The fact is teachers and students know about these programs, and when I was involved in writing the examination we made it very clear that students should not be advantaged by having these programs.
I don’t have access to the original article, nor do I want to read it – just being honest!
(Don’t try this, see below)
I you hold down the escape button while turning on a CAS, it will go into press-to-test mode, which disables UDFs and by default also disables a lot of other functions (such as “solve”). The examiner could do that for each CAS and re-enable any necessary functions (such as exact values)
Note that the CAS stupidly requires external software to exit press-to-test, despite easily entering it by simply holding down escape. So please don’t try to test this method, you’ll end up shooting yourself in the foot (unless you have a charging cable, in which case you can easily exit it using the nspireconnect website)
So, any suggestions for me, a General 3/4 & Methods 3/4 teacher who doesn’t know about or use any of those programs?! I don’t want my students at a disadvantage.
Tell your Methods (and Spec) students to use https://lazymath.github.io/. I haven’t tested it but it looks pretty good and it advertises generating full worked solutions. It can be transfered the same way
Tell your general students to automate their hungarian algorithm questions using ticalc.org/archives/files/fileinfo/470/47035.html. It can be transfered to CASes using nspireconnect.ti.com
Tell your Methods (and Spec) students to use lazymath.github.io. I haven’t tested it but it looks pretty good and it advertises generating full worked solutions. It can be transfered the same way
@marty I’ve tried multiple times to send suggestions, but it’s not working (likely because my message contains external links). Do I have permission to use spaces to try to bypass the link filter?
Hi Jay. I found your various attempts in spam. Sorry for the bother. I’ve de-spammed two of the comments, since I wasn’t sure which you preferred. I can delete one if you care enough.
While waiting for direct links, you can try searching for “LazyMath” (TI) and “ClassPad links”. There are some programs, especially for Methods, although unlikely to be what the article is specifically referring to.
What’s wrong with that article? Apart from dumbing the issue down slightly (“specially programmed calculators” should be replaced with “modified CAS calculators” or “calculators with specific programs installed”), I really don’t see the issue at all. Especially because it’s a very fair criticism of the General exam, for a few reasons:
1. judging by Reddit posts, it seems that the Hungarian Algorithm UDF was used much more widely than other UDFs
2. General Maths is a much more competitive exam where a single mark makes a much larger difference. For example, one of my friends believes she got every exam 1 question right except questions 38 and 39, and I think it’s extremely unfair that she’d likely get a worse result than someone who put in an identical amount of work and had an identical amount of mathematical knowledge but was able to use a UDF to solve question 39
3. VCAA should have been aware that people would use UDFs for the Hungarian Algorithm, and hence should have put those questions on exam 2 with multiple marks allocated and working out required
The LazyMath ‘invints’ UDF has trivialised the final question on many previous Methods exams (whenever one is required to find the values for which a certain function intersects its inverse a certain amount of times), but this has never seemed to court a similar level of controversy. A lot of these discussions are clearly being inflamed by forums such as r/VCE which is frankly a cult of whining about exam papers populated by people who simply can’t be bothered taking responsibility and putting any work in. Of course, I’m not defending UDFs, they (and CAS in general) are a net negative, but the ultimate impact on this exam is overblown and certainly no worse than the impacts on Methods in previous years.
> r/VCE which is frankly a cult of whining about exam papers populated by people who simply can’t be bothered taking responsibility and putting any work in
I can’t disagree with this criticism, even though I’ve definitely been guilty of that. I think a lot of the complaints on r/vce are reasonable, although they’re definitely amplified to distract from people doing badly in exams and scapegoat VCAA for it. I think this particular criticism of the General exam is reasonable, but again it could very well be amplified
> certainly no worse than the impacts on Methods in previous years
The same goes for the 2023 general exam error. The media seems to only talk about issues affecting General Maths, since it’s a much larger subject that more students do. Regardless, I do think this controversy will bring to light the overall issues with CAS UDFs, which affect Methods and Spec as well
> whenever one is required to find the values for which a certain function intersects its inverse a certain amount of times
It is fine for VCE students to have a place to whine. It is not fine for a reporter to simply accept or pretend that this whining is an accurate indication of reality.
The vast majority of Susie O’Brien’s articles on education are devoid of research, actual analysis or a single intelligent comment. Her MO is to find a quote or two that makes a good headline and spew out a few hundred words repeating the same idea repeatedly with no interrogation. She somehow fails to hit even the journalistic standard of the Herald Sun.
In principle, I’m OK with an article framed around this exam question. It was clearly a point of discussion, for example, on this blog. I’d prefer articles on VCAA now working damn hard to fix things, but the topic is still reasonable in and of itself, as long as the coverage is reasonable.
There are two versions of the article, with the online version quoting me at some length. I prefer the online version (of course), where I try to make the general points about CAS and programming. The print version, from which the above screenshot is taken, is dominated by and goes little beyond the gossip. And the first sentence, also in the online version, is stupid. And the headline is insane.
I folks, I just wanted to point out that I had no input into the headline, but I did contact Marty prior to writing the article and he had a look at my draft and I made a few tweaks according to his suggestions.
Cheers
Susie O’Brien
Thanks, Susie. Without dragging all the linen out in public, I will make some comments.
First, as you noted, you approached me with a draft of the story, asked me a few questions and showed me your draft, which included quoting me. I am fine with that and pleased with that, as I always am, from any journalist. If I can help make a maths ed story more accurate and on point, then I am always happy to do so, even if I don’t particularly care for the story.
Secondly, although I didn’t particularly care for this story, I thought it was fair enough. It was based on student gossip but it’s reasonable to consider what students are gossiping about, including on this blog, and of course there was something there.
Thirdly, I believe your quoting me in the story made the story significantly better, because it put some focus on the long-standing and systemic issue of CAS in the VCE exams.
Fourthly, and here is where things go wrong, the were two version of your story, and the print version was bad. First and foremost it was bad because the title is ludicrous, which is why we are here. Similarly, the first line of the article is ludicrous, and it is not remotely saved by the quotes. You cannot simply quote student gossip, and certainly not lead with such gossip, pretending or allowing the reader to imagine that this gossip is an accurate reflection of reality. I can write “Commenters have claimed ‘Susie O’Brien is an axe-muderer’ “, but the quotations don’t make it either fair or reasonable to do so. Beyond that, the print version of the story was only gossip: my quotes along with the broader CAS picture were removed entirely.
Fifthly, although I believe you, that you had nothing to do with the print-version title, and perhaps also the paring down, that is a cheap answer. The end result is still that I am associated with a bad story and an appalling headline, and I am seriously annoyed. So, you are not to blame, but the buck stops with your editor. I am sure his apology is on the way.
Sixthly and finally, you will of course write the articles you choose to write, according to what you believe your readers want to read. But, to my knowledge, the Herald-Sun (and The Age) did not have a single word on the VCAA-Monash agreement to have solid mathematicians, which was and is a way, way more important story. You, of course, have the right to choose your topics. Others, of course, have the right to not think highly of your choices.
I’m in WA and we have the same technology in our General/Applications exam.
The fact is teachers and students know about these programs, and when I was involved in writing the examination we made it very clear that students should not be advantaged by having these programs.
I don’t have access to the original article, nor do I want to read it – just being honest!
Thanks, Chris. No way you can avoid it except by clearing or, better, smashing the calculators.
(Don’t try this, see below)
I you hold down the escape button while turning on a CAS, it will go into press-to-test mode, which disables UDFs and by default also disables a lot of other functions (such as “solve”). The examiner could do that for each CAS and re-enable any necessary functions (such as exact values)
Note that the CAS stupidly requires external software to exit press-to-test, despite easily entering it by simply holding down escape. So please don’t try to test this method, you’ll end up shooting yourself in the foot (unless you have a charging cable, in which case you can easily exit it using the nspireconnect website)
So, any suggestions for me, a General 3/4 & Methods 3/4 teacher who doesn’t know about or use any of those programs?! I don’t want my students at a disadvantage.
If your students are using TI calculators:
Tell your general students to automate their hungarian algorithm questions using https://www.ticalc.org/archives/files/fileinfo/470/47035.html. It can be transfered to CASes using https://nspireconnect.ti.com
Tell your Methods (and Spec) students to use https://lazymath.github.io/. I haven’t tested it but it looks pretty good and it advertises generating full worked solutions. It can be transfered the same way
Both programs are free, by the way
TI or CASIO?
EDIT: If your students are using TI calculators:
Tell your general students to automate their hungarian algorithm questions using ticalc.org/archives/files/fileinfo/470/47035.html. It can be transfered to CASes using nspireconnect.ti.com
Tell your Methods (and Spec) students to use lazymath.github.io. I haven’t tested it but it looks pretty good and it advertises generating full worked solutions. It can be transfered the same way
Both programs are free, by the way
@marty I’ve tried multiple times to send suggestions, but it’s not working (likely because my message contains external links). Do I have permission to use spaces to try to bypass the link filter?
Ah. It’s probably waiting for approval from. I’ll look.
It may be in spam, which I can’t find on my phone. Will check when home.
Hi Jay. I found your various attempts in spam. Sorry for the bother. I’ve de-spammed two of the comments, since I wasn’t sure which you preferred. I can delete one if you care enough.
While waiting for direct links, you can try searching for “LazyMath” (TI) and “ClassPad links”. There are some programs, especially for Methods, although unlikely to be what the article is specifically referring to.
What’s wrong with that article? Apart from dumbing the issue down slightly (“specially programmed calculators” should be replaced with “modified CAS calculators” or “calculators with specific programs installed”), I really don’t see the issue at all. Especially because it’s a very fair criticism of the General exam, for a few reasons:
1. judging by Reddit posts, it seems that the Hungarian Algorithm UDF was used much more widely than other UDFs
2. General Maths is a much more competitive exam where a single mark makes a much larger difference. For example, one of my friends believes she got every exam 1 question right except questions 38 and 39, and I think it’s extremely unfair that she’d likely get a worse result than someone who put in an identical amount of work and had an identical amount of mathematical knowledge but was able to use a UDF to solve question 39
3. VCAA should have been aware that people would use UDFs for the Hungarian Algorithm, and hence should have put those questions on exam 2 with multiple marks allocated and working out required
For fuck’s sake, Jay.
The LazyMath ‘invints’ UDF has trivialised the final question on many previous Methods exams (whenever one is required to find the values for which a certain function intersects its inverse a certain amount of times), but this has never seemed to court a similar level of controversy. A lot of these discussions are clearly being inflamed by forums such as r/VCE which is frankly a cult of whining about exam papers populated by people who simply can’t be bothered taking responsibility and putting any work in. Of course, I’m not defending UDFs, they (and CAS in general) are a net negative, but the ultimate impact on this exam is overblown and certainly no worse than the impacts on Methods in previous years.
> r/VCE which is frankly a cult of whining about exam papers populated by people who simply can’t be bothered taking responsibility and putting any work in
I can’t disagree with this criticism, even though I’ve definitely been guilty of that. I think a lot of the complaints on r/vce are reasonable, although they’re definitely amplified to distract from people doing badly in exams and scapegoat VCAA for it. I think this particular criticism of the General exam is reasonable, but again it could very well be amplified
> certainly no worse than the impacts on Methods in previous years
The same goes for the 2023 general exam error. The media seems to only talk about issues affecting General Maths, since it’s a much larger subject that more students do. Regardless, I do think this controversy will bring to light the overall issues with CAS UDFs, which affect Methods and Spec as well
> whenever one is required to find the values for which a certain function intersects its inverse a certain amount of times
On a side note, that particular question is already a practical joke, see https://mathematicalcrap.com/2024/09/26/posww-41-jacasses/ and all the articles it links to
It is fine for VCE students to have a place to whine. It is not fine for a reporter to simply accept or pretend that this whining is an accurate indication of reality.
The vast majority of Susie O’Brien’s articles on education are devoid of research, actual analysis or a single intelligent comment. Her MO is to find a quote or two that makes a good headline and spew out a few hundred words repeating the same idea repeatedly with no interrogation. She somehow fails to hit even the journalistic standard of the Herald Sun.
In principle, I’m OK with an article framed around this exam question. It was clearly a point of discussion, for example, on this blog. I’d prefer articles on VCAA now working damn hard to fix things, but the topic is still reasonable in and of itself, as long as the coverage is reasonable.
There are two versions of the article, with the online version quoting me at some length. I prefer the online version (of course), where I try to make the general points about CAS and programming. The print version, from which the above screenshot is taken, is dominated by and goes little beyond the gossip. And the first sentence, also in the online version, is stupid. And the headline is insane.
Jesus. The point of this post was that, to begin, the headline of the article is insane. But you do what you do.
I folks, I just wanted to point out that I had no input into the headline, but I did contact Marty prior to writing the article and he had a look at my draft and I made a few tweaks according to his suggestions.
Cheers
Susie O’Brien
Thanks, Susie. Without dragging all the linen out in public, I will make some comments.
First, as you noted, you approached me with a draft of the story, asked me a few questions and showed me your draft, which included quoting me. I am fine with that and pleased with that, as I always am, from any journalist. If I can help make a maths ed story more accurate and on point, then I am always happy to do so, even if I don’t particularly care for the story.
Secondly, although I didn’t particularly care for this story, I thought it was fair enough. It was based on student gossip but it’s reasonable to consider what students are gossiping about, including on this blog, and of course there was something there.
Thirdly, I believe your quoting me in the story made the story significantly better, because it put some focus on the long-standing and systemic issue of CAS in the VCE exams.
Fourthly, and here is where things go wrong, the were two version of your story, and the print version was bad. First and foremost it was bad because the title is ludicrous, which is why we are here. Similarly, the first line of the article is ludicrous, and it is not remotely saved by the quotes. You cannot simply quote student gossip, and certainly not lead with such gossip, pretending or allowing the reader to imagine that this gossip is an accurate reflection of reality. I can write “Commenters have claimed ‘Susie O’Brien is an axe-muderer’ “, but the quotations don’t make it either fair or reasonable to do so. Beyond that, the print version of the story was only gossip: my quotes along with the broader CAS picture were removed entirely.
Fifthly, although I believe you, that you had nothing to do with the print-version title, and perhaps also the paring down, that is a cheap answer. The end result is still that I am associated with a bad story and an appalling headline, and I am seriously annoyed. So, you are not to blame, but the buck stops with your editor. I am sure his apology is on the way.
Sixthly and finally, you will of course write the articles you choose to write, according to what you believe your readers want to read. But, to my knowledge, the Herald-Sun (and The Age) did not have a single word on the VCAA-Monash agreement to have solid mathematicians, which was and is a way, way more important story. You, of course, have the right to choose your topics. Others, of course, have the right to not think highly of your choices.
If you do not have input to the headline then who does?
A sub-editor with more eagerness than brains. I’ll reply to Susie tomorrow.