Scaling and Relevancy of Maths? (1 Viewer)

[gnrlies]

Originally posted by Toodulu


yea? tell us about it then.

Yes in fact it uses the simplest mathematical concept of all...

It has a series of 1 and 0's which represent on or off and then these can make up certain elements of computer code / language.

there are 8 bits in a byte, and each byte represents a particular thing (whether it be a number, text whatever depending on the nature of the coding)

e.g.

1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1
128 + 0 + 0 + 16 + 0 + 4 + 2 + 1

=151

So from this you may undertand the way in which a number is generated through binary.

In order for the computer to analyse this binary code, it uses a system of switches which in the early days was vacuum tibes which would allow electrivity to flow if a secondary circuit had current passing through it. Now they use transistors which is basically a P - N - P (or N - P - N) sandwhich of group 4 elements (usually silicon) doped in either group 3 or group 5 elements which sandwiches them together to form this switch. These daysthere are maniy millions and i think in fact billions of transisotrs held in an integrated circuit or microprocessor which can allow these 1's and 0's to work...

 

[gnrlies]

well all i know is that when i look at the top ten studients for each subject, you haver your regulars who are there for maths, and they dont appear in the top tens for the other subjects. You can argue with that if you like, but otherwise dont give me some cock and bull story about scaling when it may apply after the whole thing is worked out and done, but it dont change the fact that my observations occur and are very typical.

and im not saying that those who do well at maths arent good at anything else, im saying that they dont do comparitively as well in other subjects. E.g. if someone comes first in maths they wont necessarily come first in other subjects.

Or if they come the top 10% in maths, they wont necessarily come in the top 10% for other subjects.

 

[Lazarus]

Originally posted by gnrlies
and im not saying that those who do well at maths arent good at anything else, im saying that they dont do comparitively as well in other subjects. E.g. if someone comes first in maths they wont necessarily come first in other subjects.

I have to admit I haven't read most of the other posts in this thread - but couldn't your argument be applied to the top students in any subject, not simply mathematics? Which would mean that any inherent value in the argument is negated if one were to apply it to a specific course...

 

[kini mini]

Originally posted by Lazarus
Mmm and you can give us all your non-UAI scaling shit, but that's bullshit if you ask me.

LOL!

Originally posted by gnrlies
well all i know is that when i look at the top ten studients for each subject, you haver your regulars who are there for maths, and they dont appear in the top tens for the other subjects.

Maybe they do, maybe they don't. I'm not going to go and check, so let's just assume it for the moment. Before we even get to James's argument, how can you possibly claim that looking at the top 10 students in a course gives you the ability to judge the entire candidature of thousands?

 

[Minai]

Originally posted by gnrlies
well all i know is that when i look at the top ten studients for each subject, you haver your regulars who are there for maths, and they dont appear in the top tens for the other subjects.

and im not saying that those who do well at maths arent good at anything else, im saying that they dont do comparitively as well in other subjects. E.g. if someone comes first in maths they wont necessarily come first in other subjects.

Or if they come the top 10% in maths, they wont necessarily come in the top 10% for other subjects.

Yeah as Lazarus said - wat the hell..?
So are u saying non-Asians typically do well in English, and comparatively do worse in other subjects? Because u have to apply your 'theory' to other subjects as well e.g if someone comes first in english, they wont necessarily come first in other subjects. And actually, that argument is bullshit - it all comes down to work ethic and intelligence. U kno why asians tend to get top marks? its because of the work ethic they grew up with in Asia or that comes from parents. I forgot wat we're even arguing here, but u say mathematics is useless, and society places so much importance on it...but then u can say every other subject in school is useless, so why bother going to school at all? since its all going to be useless anyway. Eg, if u study physics in high school, 90% of the population (ur quote) wont be using it etc etc etc..

 

[gnrlies]

Originally posted by Minai


Yeah as Lazarus said - wat the hell..?
So are u saying non-Asians typically do well in English, and comparatively do worse in other subjects? Because u have to apply your 'theory' to other subjects as well e.g if someone comes first in english, they wont necessarily come first in other subjects.

Yes ! you are probably right

And actually, that argument is bullshit - it all comes down to work ethic and intelligence. U kno why asians tend to get top marks? its because of the work ethic they grew up with in Asia or that comes from parents.

Well i wont argue that some asians have more motivation to do school work, but i dont necessarily believe its work ethic becuase i know many people including myself, who can hold down a job, play sport which takes up at least 2 days a week (training and actual match) and take the time to do school (and study etc etc), so in terms of hours worked i doubt it would be that many more its just that they would spend more time studying (whereas people i know spend less time studying and more time doing other things) but then as you said it would mean that asians spend more time studying, but then i believe they spend more time studying maths than any other subject to the point that they do no more study at other subjects than anyone else which is why they perform no better (comparitively).

I forgot wat we're even arguing here, but u say mathematics is useless, and society places so much importance on it...but then u can say every other subject in school is useless, so why bother going to school at all? since its all going to be useless anyway. Eg, if u study physics in high school, 90% of the population (ur quote) wont be using it etc etc etc..

Well in theory yes, but at least these subjects give background to future tertiary studies. For example, if you are interested in science, you might choose biology, physics and chemistry becyase you might want to do a science degree at UNI. If you are interested in business, you might do business studies and economics or even legal studies and then do a business or commerce degree at uni, and if you are interested in more hands on things, you might do woodwork or metalwork etc. So thats why those subjects are more relevant.

Maths doesn't have that same relevancy - i mean who wants to get a mathematics degree?

its only needed in uni to do some subjects where the maths will then be lost and forgotton. (unless you do one of the very few that needs maths like engineering)

___________

And as for the scaling being high on 4 unit maths, ive worked out why becuase i know that its the only way you will begin to take me seriously:

in 4 unit, you only have people who are trying to do well whether they be asian, caucasian whatever. People who lack the motivation, or dont necessarily see their future as being in uni, or anythign school related tend to do either mathemcatics or general maths (of course there are brilliant people who do both those maths that simply choose them for nother reasons). Now these people who lack motivation spend less time studying and really dont really care what they get in the HSC. So these people tend to do not so well (on a whole) in other subjects.

So becuase in 4 unit you have people who have motivation, they tend to want to do well in other subjects as well therefore they actually try in other subjects, whereas in other subjects such as mathematics or general there are some, not all, who dont neccessarily care what they get in other subjects simply becuase they lack motivation.

So for the lower graded maths, you have people who generally dont necessarily care how they go in other subjects which makes the scaling lower.
AND
in the higher graded maths such as ext 1 or 4u, you have basically a 100% rate of people who want to do well which in turn means generally better results in other subjects which accounts for the higher scaling.

But from this, it simply means that if you were to take a pool of people who are serious away from those who dont care, you would find no correlation between those who do well in maths, and those who do well in other subjects. or if you take the fact that asians are typically higher graded in maths, they wouldn't be as higher graded in other subjects.

 

[gnrlies]

Originally posted by Lazarus
I have to admit I haven't read most of the other posts in this thread - but couldn't your argument be applied to the top students in any subject, not simply mathematics? Which would mean that any inherent value in the argument is negated if one were to apply it to a specific course...

of course it does....

i mean people who do well in english tend to be all arie faire and dont tend to do as well in the more mechanical subjects like physics...

i am merely applying it to maths to point out that although asians tend to be superior in maths, that they are not so good at other subjects.

 

[gnrlies]

Originally posted by Cyph
gnrlies, no one still codes in binary anymore! People generally code in high level languages, which make use of much harder mathematical concepts than binary. Next time you play a game and you see the shadow following the person you're controlling, or the shadow move as you jump - take a look to admire and appreciate the physics & mathematics that was coded to give that effect. Real simple, huh?

no, of course no-one codes in binary anymore.....

but as far as your comment applied to a certain technique which would mostly apply to computer games (which if you ask me is a waste of time and not really that important) then the maths you would need wouldn't necessarily need that high maths. I mean you would need to know the general equations of motion such as gravity and that sort of stuff but theres nothing more than year 10 maths in it.

Yes i will agree that some obscure elements of computer programming would require the harder maths, but then it is no more valid than saying in order to pour a perfect cup of coffee you would need to apply calculus to find the rate at which you should pour it to get it at a perfect level.

 

[losty]

YOU PEOPLE CRACK ME UP!! :rofl:

ok ok i didnt read every single post in here so shoot me if this has been sorted out...

MOSSAD (i think it was him) DIDNT SAY ALL PEOPLE ARE LAZY SO QUIT COMING BACK TO THAT FUCKING ARGUMENT.... if u people read his posts PROPERLY he also said...... bad at OR HATE maths.... as well as unintelligent or stupid as some people like to put it... hence he actually covered everything........ there i sno other reason why ppl wouldnt do maths apart from those 4.... actually aside from it not fitting in lines....

 

[gnrlies]

Originally posted by Cyph
MOSSAD (i think it was him) DIDNT SAY ALL PEOPLE ARE LAZY SO QUIT COMING BACK TO THAT FUCKING ARGUMENT.... if u people read his posts PROPERLY he also said...... bad at OR HATE maths.... as well as unintelligent or stupid as some people like to put it... hence he actually covered everything........ there i sno other reason why ppl wouldnt do maths apart from those 4.... actually aside from it not fitting in lines....

i appreciate your comments but if you did read all the posts you would aknowledge that i addressed this matter in that i wasn't specifically refering to his post but rather the very first post before it was split up.

 

[Minai]

Originally posted by gnrlies
Well in theory yes, but at least these subjects give background to future tertiary studies. For example, if you are interested in science, you might choose biology, physics and chemistry becyase you might want to do a science degree at UNI. If you are interested in business, you might do business studies and economics or even legal studies and then do a business or commerce degree at uni, and if you are interested in more hands on things, you might do woodwork or metalwork etc. So thats why those subjects are more relevant.

Maths doesn't have that same relevancy - i mean who wants to get a mathematics degree?

Doing maths at uni isnt confined to doing a Mathematics degree
I do Economics, and maths is a fundemental subject in this degree, I have to do it every year, because I will be needing it in future.
Back to your original argument that maths is important because of bureocracy, and that if u need to study maths, just pick it up in uni - u missed the point that maths is a gradual subject, I said before in an earlier example, u cant expect a kid with yr7 maths to be able to integrate the area under a curve on his first day of uni - and also, most courses at uni ASSUME u have a knowledge of mathematics from HSC level. There is not one course that teaches foundation mathematics that u could've learnt at high school.

Originally posted by gnrlies

So becuase in 4 unit you have people who have motivation, they tend to want to do well in other subjects as well therefore they actually try in other subjects, whereas in other subjects such as mathematics or general there are some, not all, who dont neccessarily care what they get in other subjects simply becuase they lack motivation.

So for the lower graded maths, you have people who generally dont necessarily care how they go in other subjects which makes the scaling lower.
AND
in the higher graded maths such as ext 1 or 4u, you have basically a 100% rate of people who want to do well which in turn means generally better results in other subjects which accounts for the higher scaling.

before u said "asians tend to be superior in maths, that they are not so good at other subjects."
but above, u are basically contradicting urself - because of the scaling results, they MUST be as good in their other subjects

 

[gnrlies]

Originally posted by Minai


Doing maths at uni isnt confined to doing a Mathematics degree
I do Economics, and maths is a fundemental subject in this degree, I have to do it every year, because I will be needing it in future.
Back to your original argument that maths is important because of bureocracy, and that if u need to study maths, just pick it up in uni - u missed the point that maths is a gradual subject, I said before in an earlier example, u cant expect a kid with yr7 maths to be able to integrate the area under a curve on his first day of uni - and also, most courses at uni ASSUME u have a knowledge of mathematics from HSC level. There is not one course that teaches foundation mathematics that u could've learnt at high school.



before u said "asians tend to be superior in maths, that they are not so good at other subjects."
but above, u are basically contradicting urself - because of the scaling results, they MUST be as good in their other subjects

as far as maths is concerned, i understand that its a complete process, but only up to the year 10 level. Someone with year 10 maths could pick up the concepts. And my total argument is that maths need not have importance at UNI either. Like i do economics as a subject now, and my brother does it at uni, and i have seen that maths is definately required, but then i guess if that maths is absolutely essential to the future, then it could be taught at that fundamental level at uni saving people having to learn all concepts when only a portion may apply. I.e. rather than having 3 unit maths as a pre-requisite for a course, why not teach the 3 unit maths within the uni course? and then it would be far more efficient becuase the stuff that dont need to be leant can be taken out of the course.....

As for the second point about contradictng myself, i havent. I said that asians tend to be at the top of the field in maths, but then the reason why scaling is better, is becuase everybody doing the course is actually making the effort in the HSC, whereas 2unit and mathematics have people who perhaps want to go to tafe and dont need a uai etc. So if you like, within say 4 unit maths, the top percentages might be predominantly asian, but the same candidates within 4 unit competing in other subjects would not see the same tendancy for asians to be at the top.

So basically if you cut out all those who are not necessarily aiming for such a high UAI, and see the people who are left over, asians may be better at maths, but then they are no better in other subjects.

 

[Toodulu]

hmm, usually you pick a course because you want to do the subjects in it. and if you want to do a subject, you would study it at school. does that sound logical?

ok. example. you don't like maths. you don't want to do it at school. then why would you pick a course at uni that has maths as a prerequisite?
or even do it at school, considering it is not compulsory?

you shouldn't expect university prerequisites to be changed because of you. some people might happen to enjoy maths. yes i know, it is quite hard to accept that there are other people in this world as well.

also, all this talk about asians who can't do anything but maths is really contradicting what you said was the point of your argument- that we shouldn't stereotype people. i think a lot of asians get a good UAI. correct me if i am wrong, but i don't think you could do that with being good at only one subject.

the thing about how maths is useless for 90% of the state is quite stupid. you don't constitute 90% of the state. but then again, i'm not really surprised that you would get your percentages wrong.

computers - how do you think people came up with the simple idea of binary numbers? you shouldn't take everything for granted and only see the surface of everything.

finally, there is a list of people who do well in many subjects. it's called the all rounders list. maybe to support your argument, you could go and count the number of people with suspiciously asian sounding names. or is that too much maths to handle?

 

[gnrlies]

well for starters i am not saying asians are bad at other subjects, I am saying that they are superior at maths and then simply average at other subjects.

And as for stereotyping, well yes, it is a stereotype but its not a negative stereotype (as in lazy or stupid people), it is in fact complimentery so i dont know why your getting your knickers in a twist.

Some people like maths? well thats fine, but then let them do a mathematics degree or join some kind of maths club if they are in love with trigonometry so much. Heck, they can even attach a strap on dildo to their maths book and they can fuck their maths book if they love it so much.

Basically if the subject involves elemtns of maths, then keep it, but then if at the end of the day it is irrelevant to the topic then why have it.

 

[mysteek]

look maths isnt totally irrelevant just because u arent gonna pursue it as a career..but it help u think logically, which does affect all types of careers

 

[ujuphleg]

ok, i'll admit, i haven't read all the posts in this thread, but surely there are too many generalisations going on. you don't have to be asian to be good at maths. not all asian kids spend they're time doing maths. not all asian kids work hard just cos they're parents had strong work ethic from whatever country they came from. admittedly, there is a stronger work ethic amongst immigrant families, however, this doesn't mean that this is the only thing they do (study)

and surely maths has no relevancy to your UAI? its like any other two-unit subject isn't it? You do well in it, it scales well, you don't do well, its scales badly and if you don't do it, then you just do another subject that is better suited to you.

To say that those who don't do maths are all dropkicks or that your UAI won't be as high doesn't make sense. If they wanted the system to work that way, they should have kept Maths as a compulsory subject.

 

[:: ck ::]

fark this got digged up.... from so long ago