Posted on 03/30/2009 8:54:01 AM PDT by Leg Olam
"Our initial reaction was that the reprint illustrated the reliance on force-fed rote memorization of yesteryear. On further reflection, most of the questions are still appropriate. They stress a broadness of education, which seems largely lacking today. Enjoy testing yourself; the questions are tough for 8th graders or adults!"
(Excerpt) Read more at liveleak.com ...
This is just one example of many weak attempts to debunk the test.
I didn't know what exactly a bushel was when I saw the test, so I googled it. The first link was the Wikipedia entry which told me clearly, near the top of the page, that a bushel of wheat weighs 60 lbs, using standard commodity trading measures. (Although it is a unit of volume, bushels of commodities are regularly treated as units of weight with set conditions for each commodity, e.g. 13.5% moisture by weight for wheat.) It took me less than 2 minutes to find this information, which let me answer the question. This question is a simple word problem, not out of line for today's 8th graders, provided only that they know or are given a conversion factor for wheat. For the children of farmers, it's neither shocking nor difficult.
The amazing thing is how wedded some commenters are to the idea of ignorance, not just their own ignorance but that of others. Consider that IYAS9YAS couldn't solve this simple word problem with access to google, so he assumed others were incompetent. I don't believe IYAS9YAS is truly that ignorant, given proper motivation. Rather he has an emotional issue that has a practical result of leaving him willfully ignorant and needing to believe others are as well.
Other attempts to debunk the test are just as weak, and, as with the attempt to debunk the bushel question, tell more about the would be debunkers than about 8th graders in 1895 Kansas. Note that the most cited link "debunking" the test clearly states that there is no reason to doubt the authenticity of the test. The "debunking" site merely claims the clearly existing test, clearly published in 1895, and clearly stated as a graduation test, might really be something else, like a test for teachers. The entire evidence given for this is the word "applicant" in the newspaper article, which might possibly not mean applicant for a diploma. Honestly, the argument is childish.
Note that the pendulum has swung back towards academics since I was a child, at least for early grade levels. My grandson is in kindergarten, where he reads (simple) books to me and writes in complete sentences. This is the norm for his class of 20 students in a public school in a state where kindergarten is mandatory. When I was in kindergarten, we only learned our ABC's. At the current learning rate, my grandson will be past the level shown on that 1895 test by 8th grade.
That test isn't so amazing. What's amazing is the period of ignorance and incompetence in public schools that became accepted in the late 20th century US. Hopefully, that period is just an interlude that will end soon.
It's quite a stretch to go from my positing that the test questions are supect to saying that I was calling someone incompetent.
If you'd bothered to read further down the thread, you'd see my mea culpas - there were a couple.
My response was certainly not made from emotion.
It was, however, made from a lack of further investigation on my part. I used google, but not wiki - I knew that a bushel, by itself, was a volume measurement. So, instead of simply looking up bushel, I looked for volume equivalents of a bushel. I got what I searched for - conversions. My search method, and memory (from my days on the farm in my youth) were imperfect.
Were I emotionally tied to this issue, I would have either lashed out at those who tried to correct me, or simply left the thread in shame. As it was, I took the responses to my ignorance and learned from them. I also expressed my remorse over forgetting where I came from.
Ah ha. Now that would make sense. I think you just aced that question.
That would be a perfectly practical question for that era.
>>>> If you were receiving a shipment of teak wood from Brazil that was cut and shipped by a French firm, would you necessarily expect English measurements? <<<<<
Then I would be paying in ‘reals’ or in ‘francs’, wouldn’t I?
I would also be negotiating for them to cut standard sized boards for my customers so that I would have a chance of selling them.
My kids could do a lot of this, and they’re tiny.
Kids memorize. Giving them “surveys” is fun, but it’s educationally a waste of time.
http://www.classicalconversations.com/Foundations.htm
This year we learned what happened in 24 different time periods in American History, 24 English grammar rules (such as: “An Infinitive is “to” added to a verb used as a noun, adjective or adverb”, 180 timeline facts in order from “Creation” to “Modern America”, times tables to 15x15 and other math rules (like the area of a triangle, circle, square, and rectangle, associative law, commutative law, etc.), the U.S. states and capitals along with U.S. mountains, rivers, canals, bays, and other prominent features. and all the Latin grammar required to recite John 1:1-7 in said language. We also learned grammar rules for Latin and 24 science facts (such as: Q: What is your endocrine system? A: glands and organs that use hormones to send messages through the bloodstream to the rest of your body”.
Many of the 9-year-olds have it mastered.
Oh, and of course they also know the U.S. Presidents in order, the Preamble to the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.
Congratulations, this was linked to NRO by Jonah Goldberg this afternoon.
I suspect that ‘m’ did not mean meters but a thousand board feet (as used on this page: http://ezinearticles.com/?id=1886359 )
You are correct. That is what it means.
There is no toughness. This is completely trivial.
At the time the constitution was ratified, here is what a high school graduate was expected to know, to be considered for college.
(1) translate an ode of Horace from Latin into English *verse* (graded for rhyme and meter as well as accuracy)
(2) translate a single book of the New Testament from Greek *into Latin*
(3) be expert in arithmetic (timed math test)
(4) have a blameless moral character (clean record and 3 letters of recommendation)
We are surrounded by idiots because we accept idiocy, no other reason...
Of course when I look at these examples I think of my own kids.
They could not translate Greek or Latin.
They can, however, translate some German. So I am not sure one is superior to the other. In other words, I think it is a characteristic of a good education to know a foreign language (or two!). But I don’t see where Greek or Latin is necessarily superior.
My two adult sons could pass the math test. One has a BS in Physics already. The other is not so gifted, but does higher Algebra with few mistakes. They may not know what a few of the obscure weights and measures are, but then again, the Kansas children of old didn’t know our current references either. So I don’t think that’s indicative of much.
As for the moral qualities, yes, they are essential. No one wants a well educated devil.
I think in re: public schools, they drop the ball on higher math, by necessity higher sciences, and foreign language.
We need not mention the moral degradation.
But we home school. I have tried to do better than that.
And the point is not that it is more useful to know this language or that, use is quite irrelevant. The point is anyone who has completely mastered 2 other languages and those known for their intricate cases and grammar, will be a rigorous conceptual thinker. There is simply no way to succeed at it without training the mind to exactness. You can learn a modern language passably to talk to someone else without any such exactness. It is the difference between knowing analysis at the level of proof and knowing the times table to calculate a tip. One is theoretical knowledge and rigorous training and the other merely isn't. And no, the point is not that moderns know nothing by the time they actually get a hard science degree. The point is we accept as normal that children *entering* college have learned practically nothing, and certainly have not learned how to think clearly and rigorously. Despite a dozen years of formal schooling.
We are surrounded by mediocrity because we accept it. No other reason. Individuals can excel anyway, but they have to do it themselves. As a society we are providing nothing. We live in a cultural wasteland, and there is no denying it or evading it. And that is a self inflicted lobotomy, compared to our entire past.
“The point is anyone who has completely mastered 2 other languages and those known for their intricate cases and grammar, will be a rigorous conceptual thinker.”
So true. When I learned French, I mastered English. Yes, I know I write in fragments and I comma splice on FR. I write conversationally because I find formal English to be pretentious on casual forums.
Anyway, that’s my purpose in teaching my kids German. I don’t assume they are going to live or work in Germany or Austria. I just want that part of their brain well developed. Plus it is fun.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.