Long-time readers will recall that AAMT and AMSI and others teamed up for the memorable statement, Why Maths Must Change. Given the genesis of that statement and the events following its release, one might imagine that AMSI would have learned to choose their friends more wisely. Apparently not. Continue reading “AAMT and AMSI Are Engaged”
Here’s a quickie, courtesy of Mr. Big.
SEN, a sports radio station, has an article up today, on the performance of lower ranked teams in the AFL semi-finals. The article first notes that, over the last ten years, the results aren’t all that bad:
Over the last 10 years, the lower ranked team holds a[n] 8-12 win-loss record which does give both the Giants and Blues somewhat of a fighting chance.
But, recent news is not so good: Continue reading “Giant Reporting Blues”
There is report today in The Herald Sun (Murdoch, paywalled), titled,
Mistake-riddled VCE maths exams robbing students
Regular readers will know pretty much the lay of the land. However, there may be some non-regular readers in the next few days. So, a few clarifying remarks are probably worthwhile. (This is quick: I’ll adjust as I can through the day.)
First of all, without reflecting at all on the accuracy or the merits of the report, I want to make clear that I had no role in the creation of the report.
Secondly, at one point the report makes quick reference to this blog:
A Bad Mathematics blog run by a professional mathematician with a PhD in maths has identified more than 90 serious problems with specialist maths exams and 77 in maths methods, including sample exams and Northern Hemisphere exams going back to 2006.
More specifically, this appears to refer to the Specialist and Methods (and there’s also Further) error list posts (and the subsequent links included there). The report refers to “serious errors”. Without rejecting that language, the language I use on these posts is of “major” and “minor” errors:
To be as clear as possible, by “error”, we mean a definite mistake, something more directly wrong than pointlessness or poor wording or stupid modelling. The mistake can be intrinsic to the question, or in the solution as indicated in the examination report; examples of the latter could include an insufficient or incomplete solution, or a solution that goes beyond the curriculum. Minor errors are still errors and will be listed.
With each error, we shall also indicate whether the error is (in our opinion) major or minor, and we’ll indicate whether the examination report acknowledges the error, updating as appropriate. Of course there will be judgment calls, and we’re the boss. But, we’ll happily argue the tosses in the comments.
In recording and characterising such errors, I have made no attempt to determine or guess the effect of such errors on students’ scores. That seems to me to be a very difficult thing to do, for anyone.
Thirdly the report refers specifically to three questions in error on the 2022 Specialist Exam 2. That exam is discussed generally here. (The other 2022 exams are discussed here and here and here and here and here.) The specific questions are discussed here and here and here. These three questions (and others on the 2022 exams) appear to me to be unquestionably in error.
Fourthly, and finally for now, for me the prevalence of errors on the VCE exams is simply the tip of the iceberg. The many posts on this blog concerning VCE and VCAA indicate my more general concerns with VCE mathematics. (My broader maths ed concerns are probably best captured by this post.)
That’s it for now. I’ll update this post if something occurs to me, or if someone suggests in the comments that I somehow should.
Chris Zappone is something called the Digital Foreign Editor for the Sydney Morning Herald. Yesterday, Zappone had an article published in the SMH,
Why haven’t we regulated social media yet?
The article is nuts.
We had been aware of Eugenia Cheng, of course, as the happy new face of mathematics popularisation. We hadn’t paid her much attention, however, until seeing her in a very bad maths documentary; the badness wasn’t Cheng’s fault but she fit right in. Then, in synch with the appearance of her weirdly pushy new book, Cheng wrote a very silly article for the Guardian. Now, with her most recent WSJ column (Murdoch, paywalled), Cheng has tripled down on her silliness.
Continue reading “Eugenia’s Rigid Focus on the Wrong Answers”
Eddie Woo has been annoying for a long time. Eddie knows much less than he realises and his smiling inanities, which are invariably swallowed whole, are a continual distraction from real issues and real solutions. But he’s gotten worse. Eddie Professor of Practice Woo has graduated from being a distraction and an annoyance to being an active menace. Continue reading “Eddie Woo’s Mental Connections”
Last week, Meta-Facebook-Instagram announced a program to combat “misinformation” during the referendum for the Voice to Parliament. This is a bad move, if for no other reason that it will be viewed, probably correctly, as the silencing of voices in order to support the Voice. The ironic anti-message will undoubtedly be clear to Voice sceptics. We had thought to write on this, but figured we’d already written enough on inappropriate Voice spruiking, and on the dangers of half-wit authorities declaring what is or is not misinformation.
M-F-I’s misinformation program is not just a bad move, however, for unintentionally screwing up the Yes guys on the Voice. M-F-I claims that their program is “contributing to democracy”, but there is a solid argument that they’re doing the exact opposite. Which brings us to Matt Taibbi. Again.
We wrote about Larry Marshall last year, when it was reported that Larry had “opted not try to extend his role” as CSIRO Chief Executive, and was threatening to unleash his entrepreneurial powers upon the university sector. It turns out that Larry’s “step down” from CISRO may have involved a bit of a push.
Continue reading “Squiggly Rick Bids Farewell to Squirrely Larry”
Yeah, “I’m sorry” would have been kinda nice. But those aren’t the missing words.
It was always too much to expect even a façade of contrition from Morrison or Tudge or Miller or Benson, or at least a dozen other down-punching sociopathic thugs. So, although the words of regret are blaring in their absence, the words were not to be expected, they’re not missing as such. The missing words are:
Well, duh. Continue reading “The Two Missing Words on Robodebt”
