So then what is the generally accepted unit of measure that is published? I would imagine kelvin?
And i was merely trying to state that the general public would probably have an easier grasp on a 0-100 scale rather a 32 to 212 scale (in non scientific purposes). Though i guess if people grew up using kelvin, everyone would be able to visualize and compare kelvin values naturally.
[quote]samdan wrote:
My two cents on this exam:
I DO think that a lot of it is formula memorization and unit conversion. Do I know the exact formula for interest and discount off the top of my head? Hell no. Do you know the formula for deformation of a load-bearing member as a function of it’s physical properties and size? I do. Those financial formulas might be basic for the kinds of people who deal with money, but my formula is the most basic for those dealing with materials under load.
That being said, I understand the concepts for every single question being asked and, if given a reference, I could do that whole test in under 20 minutes. I have a degree in Engineering, for fuck’s sake… I can do algebra without pausing my masturbation.
Going to Bill’s example, I couldn’t answer most of those because I don’t have much financial knowledge. I pay off my credit card every month, don’t carry a balance, and I know who to ask if I have an important decision to make.
Yes, financial knowledge is important. But being that I’m spending time learning how to design buildings that will support loads that would make your head spin and I haven’t had to deal with financial stuff much, I’d rather just find what I need when I need it than go out of my way to learn all kinds of things I might never deal with, or might only deal with once in my life.[/quote]
You completely missed the point of the bantering going on in the last few pages. These finance questions require zero memorization. All that is required is a basic definition of interest and knowing how long a year is. If you know even the basics of these subjects you can answer this question without memorizing a thing.
Your example does not work well. While you may know a lot about designing buildings and why they are constructed in the fashion that they are so that the loads can be supported properly, can you tell me off the top of your head the span for a 2x10 redwood joist, and the proper beam size if I have a 12’ wide deck and only want to pour two piers? I highly doubt it, but if you are as qualified as you put on then I’m sure you know the general principles behind this and can find a chart or formula in no time at all, but guess what? I rarely deal with these things, but since I also have a basic understading of construction principles and loads, I can just as easily find the chart or formula. These things are not at all necessary for these questions.
Furthermore, the test could have asked about compound interest and annuities and even thrown in a variable annuity and it still would not have required memorization. A thorough understading of these subjects would allow one to derive the proper formulas on the spot. Of course, this is a more advanced subject that may be pushing it for the average eighth grader, but it still shows how little memorization is required for many of these subjects.
I always got a real kick out of physics in college for this reason. The majority of the students spent countless hours trying to memorize all sorts of formulas, especially for the basic things like velocity and acceleration when all that is really necessary is KNOWING how to calculate a derivative and doing some basic algebra and one should be able to derive any of these formulas at the drop of a hat.
I went around and around with a chemistry teacher way back in high school when it came to basic stoichiometry, even once flunking a test where I got every single answer correct (God bless public schools). She insisted that I must make a little diagram with a bunch of boxes and make sure I cross out all my units and then just multiply straight across. I said screw it, set up my own equalities, and just did a series of algebraic calculations. Why? Because I had the basic understanding of what I needed to figure out, and knew the algebra and theory behind it. I then asked her if the other students knew why they were just putting numbers in boxes, crossing out units and multiplying. I didn’t get an answer.
[quote]jahall wrote:
So then what is the generally accepted unit of measure that is published? I would imagine kelvin?[/quote]
In general Celsius, but where a calculation is more readily done in Kelvin, then Kelvin.
(Btw you are correct to not capitalize Kelvin. I do so even though it is considered incorrect style.)
The conversion is simple: degrees C equals degrees K - 273.15.
But that would really be only if where one was, or a thing was, along the scale of freezing to boiling water was important. Rarely is that any more relevant to anything than, say, the freezing or boiling points of methanol or any other two arbitrary values.
The temperatures denoted by 0 F and 100 F – about as cold as it gets in most Northern climates and also about as hot as it typically gets, roughly speaking – are of at least as much relevance as the O C (useful) and 100 C (not so useful to ordinary life) points.
Not that there’s anything wrong with Celsius – I’m just saying that in this case, the metric system actually has no practical advantage other than having been adopted in science and thus published scientific values and constants employ it these days, but this is not so any longer for Fahrenheit.
If I really had one take-home point to make in all this, it is that K-12 education, and some college education as well, has a severe leaning in the very bad direction that Tedro describes above.
The approach of actually understanding the thing and knowing its qualities as one might know, for example, the features of an animal – something not learned by “memorization” but by the natural learning process of the brain – is far superior.
Those who believe that solving problems requires being able to remember some necessary formula, but often they don’t know what, and typically won’t know unless they crammed recently or have used it habitually for extended periods of time including recently, will never be as good at reasoning things out as those who believe that such things are a matter of understanding and seeing for oneself what to do with the information.
Bad educators produce students whose habitual belief system is the first.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
[quote]jahall wrote:
So then what is the generally accepted unit of measure that is published? I would imagine kelvin?[/quote]
In general Celsius, but where a calculation is more readily done in Kelvin, then Kelvin.
(Btw you are correct to not capitalize Kelvin. I do so even though it is considered incorrect style.)
The conversion is simple: degrees C equals degrees K - 273.15.
But that would really be only if where one was, or a thing was, along the scale of freezing to boiling water was important. Rarely is that any more relevant to anything than, say, the freezing or boiling points of methanol or any other two arbitrary values.
The temperatures denoted by 0 F and 100 F – about as cold as it gets in most Northern climates and also about as hot as it typically gets, roughly speaking – are of at least as much relevance as the O C (useful) and 100 C (not so useful to ordinary life) points.
Not that there’s anything wrong with Celsius – I’m just saying that in this case, the metric system actually has no practical advantage other than having been adopted in science and thus published scientific values and constants employ it these days, but this is not so any longer for Fahrenheit.[/quote]
Well, to me 0°C means snow doesn’t melt, 25-30°C means it’s warm enough for swimming in the sea.
[quote]tedro wrote:
[quote]matko5 wrote:
I still don’t get the logic behind imperial units. People who thought of that were on some kind of drugs. It’s just… I wouldn’t use the word “wrong” but “strange” or “uncomfortable” I would.
Fahrenheit scale also.[/quote]
Throw out the calculator and pick up a tape measure and the logic is very apparent. Fraction’s are much easier to deal with when measuring and cutting. If you really want to see the benefits of the imperial system, try using a metric tape measure sometime.
[/quote]
I use the metric tape measure all the time, it’s the imperial one I can’t wrap my head around.
[quote]matko5 wrote:
[quote]tedro wrote:
[quote]matko5 wrote:
I still don’t get the logic behind imperial units. People who thought of that were on some kind of drugs. It’s just… I wouldn’t use the word “wrong” but “strange” or “uncomfortable” I would.
Fahrenheit scale also.[/quote]
Throw out the calculator and pick up a tape measure and the logic is very apparent. Fraction’s are much easier to deal with when measuring and cutting. If you really want to see the benefits of the imperial system, try using a metric tape measure sometime.
[/quote]
I use the metric tape measure all the time, it’s the imperial one I can’t wrap my head around.[/quote]
Ok, then let’s try another example. Take your favorite unit of measurement (I’m assuming a cm or mm) and cut it in half. Cut it in half again. Again. Again. Again.
I have 1/32". What do you have?
To take it a step further. Add this number back to what you had after you had only cut it in half 3 times. Gives me 5/32". You?
Now show me where this is at on your rule.
[quote]tedro wrote:
[quote]matko5 wrote:
[quote]tedro wrote:
[quote]matko5 wrote:
I still don’t get the logic behind imperial units. People who thought of that were on some kind of drugs. It’s just… I wouldn’t use the word “wrong” but “strange” or “uncomfortable” I would.
Fahrenheit scale also.[/quote]
Throw out the calculator and pick up a tape measure and the logic is very apparent. Fraction’s are much easier to deal with when measuring and cutting. If you really want to see the benefits of the imperial system, try using a metric tape measure sometime.
[/quote]
I use the metric tape measure all the time, it’s the imperial one I can’t wrap my head around.[/quote]
Ok, then let’s try another example. Take your favorite unit of measurement (I’m assuming a cm or mm) and cut it in half. Cut it in half again. Again. Again. Again.
I have 1/32". What do you have?
To take it a step further. Add this number back to what you had after you had only cut it in half 3 times. Gives me 5/32". You?
Now show me where this is at on your rule.[/quote]
why would I want to work in fractions? If I split my cm 3 times, it’s not 1/8cm, it’s 1.25mm.
If I’m measuring something that’s 1 and a 1/4cm, I’ll probably say 12.5mm not 1 and 1/4cm.
I think what’s missing here is an actual 8th grade test from the year 2010 for comparison.
[quote]matko5 wrote:
[quote]tedro wrote:
[quote]matko5 wrote:
[quote]tedro wrote:
[quote]matko5 wrote:
I still don’t get the logic behind imperial units. People who thought of that were on some kind of drugs. It’s just… I wouldn’t use the word “wrong” but “strange” or “uncomfortable” I would.
Fahrenheit scale also.[/quote]
Throw out the calculator and pick up a tape measure and the logic is very apparent. Fraction’s are much easier to deal with when measuring and cutting. If you really want to see the benefits of the imperial system, try using a metric tape measure sometime.
[/quote]
I use the metric tape measure all the time, it’s the imperial one I can’t wrap my head around.[/quote]
Ok, then let’s try another example. Take your favorite unit of measurement (I’m assuming a cm or mm) and cut it in half. Cut it in half again. Again. Again. Again.
I have 1/32". What do you have?
To take it a step further. Add this number back to what you had after you had only cut it in half 3 times. Gives me 5/32". You?
Now show me where this is at on your rule.[/quote]
why would I want to work in fractions? If I split my cm 3 times, it’s not 1/8cm, it’s 1.25mm.
If I’m measuring something that’s 1 and a 1/4cm, I’ll probably say 12.5mm not 1 and 1/4cm.[/quote]
You didn’t do what I asked.
Where is 1.25mm on a tape measure?
[quote]tedro wrote:
That’s exactly the point. He wouldn’t do that, he’d approach the concept slightly differently.
[quote]
2. Where is 1.25mm on a tape measure?[/quote]
Where’s 1/64" on a tape measure? Sometimes you have to make a good guess, though at 1.25mm you’d be better off using calipers regardless of system.
[quote]buffalokilla wrote:
[quote]tedro wrote:
That’s exactly the point. He wouldn’t do that, he’d approach the concept slightly differently.
[/quote]
Based on his posts, I’d say it is very safe to say that he is approaching this with a purely academic background and has never been involved with construction, architecture, or engineering in the real world. You can approach the concept however you want, but don’t pretend that fractions don’t have a time and place where they are much more convenient and precise to use, and it just so happens a base 12 imperial system lends itself to fractions very well.
[quote]
Many tape measures and rules have 1/64" on them, but you missed the point. You start cutting things in half, which is what is very commonly done when you are working with numbers in your head, and the base 10 metric system fails you very quickly.
He asked a question, and in the spirit of this thread I made an attempt to lead him to the answer instead of just giving it to him. He couldn’t even cut his measurement in half five times, let alone trying to add measurements together. When it comes to construction and carpenty, fractions are a natural way of doing things, and the U.S. imperial system trumps a base 10 system any time that fractions are involved.
Some of you act like some of this stuff was just devised on a whim, as if people had no clue how to build anything a hundred years ago. Kind of like how so many people insist on questioning the exam that this thread is based on.
[quote]tedro wrote:
Many tape measures and rules have 1/64" on them, but you missed the point.
[/quote]
1/256 then; I was just making the point that sometimes you have to cut wood at a spot slightly off of a tick on a tape measure. I didn’t miss the point, I just didn’t make mine very well.
It’s perfectly legitimate to say 1/64 meter, you just usually don’t. I haven’t used European construction tools though, I don’t know how they’re set up. They could have rulers with marks at 1/512 of a cm for all I know.
[quote]buffalokilla wrote:
It’s perfectly legitimate to say 1/64 meter, you just usually don’t. I haven’t used European construction tools though, I don’t know how they’re set up. They could have rulers with marks at 1/512 of a cm for all I know.
[/quote]
They are all set up in increments of 10, as it is a base 10 system. Marking at 64ths or 512ths would completely defeat the purpose of the system, and would show exactly why our system is preferred by so many. We can use these fractions and throw them around and add them and divide them by common divisors like 2, 4, 6, 8, and 12 without any problem, whereas a base 10 system is stuck with multiples of 5 and 10 before you start getting in to decimals - Which brings up another point, there is absolutely no reason why an inch can’t be expressed in decimal format, which is the norm in the engineering field in this country, done to the thousandth. If you are using them strictly like this, there is little benefit over the metric system, but it definitely isn’t a hinderance either, and you always have the ease of converting back to a fraction when you need to in a pinch.
[quote]tedro wrote:
Based on his posts, I’d say it is very safe to say that he is approaching this with a purely academic background and has never been involved with construction, architecture, or engineering in the real world. You can approach the concept however you want, but don’t pretend that fractions don’t have a time and place where they are much more convenient and precise to use, and it just so happens a base 12 imperial system lends itself to fractions very well.
[/quote]
(Emphasis is mine.)
“Explain what a base N number system is.” Maybe that needs to be on the exam. 
The imperial system isn’t base 12.
In my best Bill Roberts impression: “Fail.”
(By the way, as far as understanding units go, the above is actually a mistake that points far more towards a fundamental misunderstanding of our measurement system than not knowing there’s 2.54 centimeters to an inch, or 2240 pounds to ton [unless we’re talking about the ‘short ton’ used in the US).)
(Yes, I realize this was quite possibly a silly mistake, and you didn’t intend to imply that the whole system was base 12. I just feel like being a prick.)
What? Rather frequently one finds specifications for 4A5 inches, 30B pounds, and so forth.
[quote]goochadamg wrote:
[quote]tedro wrote:
Based on his posts, I’d say it is very safe to say that he is approaching this with a purely academic background and has never been involved with construction, architecture, or engineering in the real world. You can approach the concept however you want, but don’t pretend that fractions don’t have a time and place where they are much more convenient and precise to use, and it just so happens a base 12 imperial system lends itself to fractions very well.
[/quote]
(Emphasis is mine.)
“Explain what a base N number system is.” Maybe that needs to be on the exam. The imperial system isn’t base 12.
In my best Bill Roberts impression: “Fail.”
(By the way, as far as understanding units go, the above is actually a mistake that points far more towards a fundamental misunderstanding of our measurement system than not knowing there’s 2.54 centimeters to an inch, or 2240 pounds to ton [unless we’re talking about the ‘short ton’ used in the US).)
(Yes, I realize this was quite possibly a silly mistake, and you didn’t intend to imply that the whole system was base 12. I just feel like being a prick.) ;)[/quote]
We commonly break inches down into fractions using the simple geometric sequence 2,4,8,16,… The whole theory behind inches is the benefits of using a base 12 system because of the high number of divisors of 12. So while you are correct that the imperial measurement system is not technically base 12 or any base in particular, I think it was understood that we were referring to inches and feet only and my point was made. A similar argument can be made for the other units - both volume and measure. It all falls back to fractions.
Those that want to negate the benefits of fractions frankly come across as ignorant to the world outside of academia and any exact science.
1/4" does not equal .25", for I have no idea how many significant digits were used in the calcuation of .25", but I know that 1/4" is exactly a quarter of inch.
[quote]tedro wrote:
You didn’t do what I asked.
Where is 1.25mm on a tape measure?[/quote]
why would I do that? 1/32’’ is to small for a tape measure, if you can see than fine gradation you have a better than hawk eye my friend. If you want to divide and inch 5 times in half, in centimeters you’d get 0,08cm, that’s 0.8mm.
Again, to small for anything you’d use in construction or engineering with a tape measure, then best you can do is to a 0.5mm. Let me put it to you like this: for every inch in a tape measure, there are 25.4 markings on a milimeter scale. You don’t need fractions, you can get almost exact results (I need to cut 14mm from this plank) instead of fractions (I need to cut 1/8’’ from this plank). I may not come from construction background, but I’ve watched my father numerious times building or fixing something.
Not a single one of those questions has anything to do with my relationship with my clients, or my ability to accomplish the tasks they pay me for. We live in an instant-info age. If I don’t know the answer to something, we have modern means for searching and finding it. My 17-year old son is far smarter than I am in so many areas. Not only does this not bother me, nor diminish my talents, but it gives me confidence that he will have no problem making a good life for himself.
[quote]SSC wrote:
In this country we teach for testing scores, not for useful or long-term knowledge.[/quote]
So true, SSC!
For those who would just like to know the damn answers and avoid the bickering.
Name and define the Fundamental Rules of Arithmetic.
a.) The Fundamental Rules of Arithmetic are Addition, Subtraction, Multiplication and Division.
b.) Addition - the summing of a set of numbers to obtain the total quantity of items to which the number set refers indicated in arithmetic by +.
c.) Subtraction - the mathematical process of finding the difference between two numbers or quantities, indicated in arithmetic by - .
d.) Multiplication - the mathematical process of finding a number or quantity (the product) obtained by repeating a specified number or quantity a (the multiplicand) a specified number of times (the multiplier), indicated in arithmetic by X .
e.) Division - the mathematical process of finding how many times a number (the divisor) is contained in another number (the dividend); the number of times constitutes the quotient, indicated in arithmetic by / .
A wagon box is 2 ft. deep, 10 feet long, and 3 ft. wide. How many bushels of wheat will it hold?
The wagon box contains 2 x 10 x 3 = 60 cubic feet. A struck bushel equals 1 1/4 cubic feet. A heaped bushel in general equals 1 1/4 struck bushels. Therefore the wagon box if heaped contains 60 bushels and if struck, 1/5th less or 48 bushels.
If a load of wheat weighs 3942 lbs., what is it worth at 50 cts. per bu, deducting 1050 lbs. for tare?
The actual weight of the wheat, subtracting the tare of the wagon weight of 1050 lbs is 2892 lbs. A fully ripe and dried struck bushel of wheat weighs on average 58 lbs per bushel. Therefore the solution is 2892 / 58 x $.50 = $24.93
District No. 33 has a valuation of $35,000. What is the necessary levy to carry on a school seven months at $50 per month, and have $104 for incidentals?
The cost of 7 months of school equals $50 x 7 = $104, therefore $454.The mil levy is therefore $454 / $35,000 which equals .013 levy or $1.30 per $100 valuation of the district.
Find cost of 6720 lbs. coal at $6.00 per ton.
One ton equals 2000 lbs, therefore 6720 / 2000 x $6 = $20.16
Find the interest of $512.60 for 8 months and 18 days at 7 percent.
A banking month is 30 days, or 360 days per year. If the principal is held for 258 days the proportional interest for the period held is 258 / 360 x $512.60 x 7% or $25.72
What is the cost of 40 boards 12 inches wide and 16 ft. long at $.20 per inch?
40 X 12 X $.20 = $96.00
To verify this, lumber costs $150/1000 board feet, therefore –
40 x 16 / 1000 x $150 = $96.00
Find bank discount on $300 for 90 days (no grace) at 10 percent.
90 days is 3 months, 1/4 of the banking year, therefore the discount is .10 / 4 x $300 = $7.50
What is the cost of a square farm at $15 per acre, the distance around which is 640 rods?
An acre measure is 160 square rods. The farm has each side of 160 rods or 160 rods square, therefore 25600 square rods, is 160 acres in extent and is $2400 in value.
Write a Bank Check, a Promissory Note, and a Receipt.
Bank Check
Promissory Note
Salina School Dist. 33 Receipt
Salina, Kansas June 1, 1894
Received Of John Q. Parent $57.16
Fifty Seven and 16/100 ----------------------------- Dollars
1894-95 Tuition - James Roscoe R. Pound,Chmn.