Common Core Math rant.* Here is a sample math test question from
   the mind of Kenneth Udut.* I _think_ it's solvable.* This is why
   I hate word problems in math.* They don't reflect REALITY IN ANY
   WAY.* Here, enjoy. "Billy is on a train going west at 238.5
   km/hr. Sally is in a car heading northeast at 30 feet/s. They
   are starting on the line of a circle that has a radius of 50
   miles, one at 300degrees and the other at 5pi/4 radians. a) draw
   secant between Billy and Sally. b) Play intersecting chord on a
   keyboard tuned to Dorian scale, paying close attention to note
   frequency in centicycles per second. c) utilizing a triangular
   isometric grid on a euclidean base with 3/7 hecre spacing,
   compensating for spacetime warping using vector spaces of the
   tensor product, on a planet made entirely of carbon nanofibers
   with a heptagram/pentagram alternating packing and a core of
   molten iron spinning at 8.3 meters per decisecond in a
   east-south-east counterclockwise rotation in a mobius strip
   pattern (north to south), identify precisely where they will
   meet within the circle. 3) Must use #2 Pencil. You have 15
   minutes to complete this portion of the test. Unit Conversion
   Chart is provided as is specific gravity for carbon. NOTE: the
   chirality of the nanocarbon is primarily left-winding but you
   may estimate utilizing standard van der Waals forces. No
   calculators. SHOW YOUR WORK [This is how I see Common Core Math.
   I should write these tests - I think I asked an answerable set
   of questions up there - but don't try to answer them. I'm not
   evil] ======= I see various issues with the question, and I
   don't see Common Core as this confusing. As for word problems, I
   see them as the only truly useful real-world application
   problems. Abstract numbers and sets are hard for many people to
   conceptualize, so word problems give them context. As they are
   written currently, though, they do a poor job at this, as well
   as most people are not taught how to take out only the relevant
   information for a problem (another needed skill for the real
   world).

   But, as this question stands, it is unanswerable. ====== Oh I'm
   exaggerating entirely for affect (effect?). I did it more for
   humor/rant than I did for being accurate.

   The issue I have, I suppose, is the unrealistic nature of
   thought problems. I know what they're _trying_ to accomplish,
   but I think understanding concepts and accuracy should be marked
   separately.

   I can conceptualize this problem just fine and could offer a
   framework on HOW to solve it. It is partially answerable.

   I didn't provide the necessary conversion charts though, nor the
   base units (such as the frequencies of notes on a keyboard tuned
   to dorian). I should have - but you can also substitute Google.
   I said "no calculator" - never said "no Google". Thinking
   outside of the framework of the question as presented is
   important.

   Billy and Sally are inside of trains on a circle that is 100
   miles wide.

   Billy is at the five o'clock position. Sally is 7:30 position.

   Drawing the line between the two is easy. a) is solvable.
   b) isn't that hard either. 7:30 position is 225 degrees - 5
   oclock position is 300 degrees.

   238 km/hr = 66.25 m/s or 217.356 f/second. Possible calculation
   using conversation chart, which I didn't provide.

   sally is going 30 feet per second.

   Billy will meet Sally at a point outside of the circle, before
   she begins, as he's going west.

   Third octave A is approximately Sally's note.
   Third Octave D is approximately Billy's note.
   The third note is outside of the circle, meaning it happened
   before they left the circle, but the point of intersection would
   be approximately an b, making it likely a D6 . Somewhat
   chauvanistic, making Billy the dominant key, but hey, he was in
   a faster train.

   The interesting stuff about the planet ultimately is irrelevant
   to the question as is the notion of "precision" here. I did not
   provide the radius of the planet on purpose. The student is
   supposed to figure that out and deem that part of the question,
   "Not Enough Information to complete task".

   You answer what you can. You get partial credit for trying.

   an answer of "unanswerable" would result in a 0.

   I made it purposely difficult/impossible (even with a conversion
   chart).... which is exactly what I've noticed in various sample
   common core questions I've seen on the web (real ones - not the
   memes. I went to the various states and took their sample
   tests)... and going by my nephew's complaints about the 'new
   math tests'. They're designed to give you 'grit' - to be
   confusing - to be difficult. Maybe it will work as an
   educational theory and I REALLY HOPE it works.

   I just wish they had tested it more before such wide
   implementation that's all. It's probably a valid theory but I
   honestly don't know, and haven't seen proof that it is just yet.
   it's being alpha tested (not even beta tested) on REAL kids
   whose REAL futures will depend on the grades they get *today*.

   And once school is over, they'll have to do real world math,
   which looks nothing like this.

   In short, I just want them to improve the testing and teaching
   materials so that kids everywhere aren't doing more of what I
   did in school. "This is BS and isn't a realistic question!". The
   questions that I did poorly on school, I thought that. The
   'grit' implementation will just be more of that unless it turns
   out they're right.

   It's not the _theory_ that's the problem. It's what's being put
   into practice. What's being put into practice is my main issue.
   I'm sure the theory is likely a good one. But it's like giving
   knives to children; - The "New Theory" is the knives, the
   Educators/Test preparation people are the children.

   if they don't know how to properly design testing procedures,
   how accurate will the results be? *sigh* - sorry. I shouldn't
   complain - there's nothing I can do about it besides that. I
   agree that teaching abstract numbers and sets is good. But go
   around the web - take some of the "sample common core math"
   provided by various states. I understand what they're trying to
   do... it just bothers me that it's been poorly tested first. The
   teachers haven't been trained to teach it and I fear it will
   result in what my brother went through when "New Math" was the
   thing, and they thought that "Chinese Math" was the ultimate
   answer to the US math problems. It wasn't. The gap between "nice
   theory" and "how it's put into practice" is too wide of a gap at
   present for it to be practical at present imo. Maybe in the
   future. ==== Well, I was teasing but for a purpose. The exercise
   was to show, through putting you through the experience. the
   ridiculous boundaries placed upon students.

   Now, let's say you had given me that response (doing it on your
   phone) and I was a teacher, let's say in a future distance
   learning course. I might consider that an unacceptable excuse
   and even drop the grade further for not apologizing / admitting
   fault, even when you saw no fault.

   I'm sure you had teachers like that; Kids today also have
   teachers like that. Teachers that affect their grades. Teachers
   teaching subject matter that in theory is good - I agree
   withthat my own math education might have been greatly improved
   with _proper_ application of Common Core.

   Now, the NY *is* one of the better ones. I'm hoping NY sets the
   standard for other states.

   Again, I'm not criticizing the theory so much. My concern is
   with improper training of personnel in teaching. My concern is
   with the consistency of teaching and testing materials. The
   extra testing that this is bringing into the system puts *all*
   of the pressure on the teachers to squeeze out results - results
   affecting their pay, the future income of their school, their
   district.

   Everything is tied together in things that look good on paper
   and will result in a nice bunch of statistics to work with.

   The students will manage ultimately and some of them will likely
   thrive. But we don't know - it's being tested LIVE.

   Perhaps in 12 years or so, once the dust settles, a generation
   of teachers trained properly in the application of Common Core
   methodology... then it may be a good system.

   But... teacher's pay will be penalized, and students grades are
   predicted to suffer for an unknown time to come. [it's on the
   common core site itself; in their FAQ - rather important yet
   buried in there].

   I'm having trouble expressing it properly; YOU as an adult can
   do these tests. YOU see the value in it. And _you can walk away
   from it_ and move on with your life.

   But when you're embedded within the system itself; as a teacher
   or a student, when you're looking to get straight A's but your
   teacher only _seems_ to understand the materials and doesn't....
   then you fall into the "expected casualties" of grades.

   Good bye scholarship. Good bye GPA. A potential generation of
   students who got ripped off, like my brother got ripped off with
   New Math in the early 70s because people that are *outside of
   the System* dictate changes that must happen *inside of the
   System*.

   Basic Systems Theory stuff. Big externally applied solutions, no
   matter how logical and pretty they are on paper, no matter how
   much "someday this will work great".... *will* cause problems,
   casualties, injuries and broken parts within the system unless
   implemented carefully, surgically, with plenty of healing salve.

   But instead, it's guns blazing, "we're gonna fix this once and
   fer all, yup" and roll it out quickly to get those statistics
   in.

   The problem is: the statistics are _students_ and teachers.
   They're not numbers. They're people, with futures.

   I'm not *against Common Core* per se. I'm against slipshod
   implementation of it and some of the unofficial baggage that's
   coming in *with* Common Core. [the GRIT philosophy, which is
   barely tested on real students, and is part of a bit of pop
   psychology that has been gaining in popularity over the last few
   years within academic circles... - The whole package; not
   promotional materials that have us look only at the best
   possible angle of things.

   I'm all for change. Just... "well implemented" change - not
   expectations of failure for an unspecified period of time... the
   implementers should bear the difficulties of implementation, not
   the teachers and students.

   Oh well. This is why I don't do politics. I don't believe in
   "one size fits all" projects... and the promotional videos are
   unrealistic.

   Remember: *we too* took part in experimental education. We're
   the product of some fad and experiment that was popular in
   education at the times we went there. Do we look back and go,
   "Good thing they taught us things that way" or "Man, something
   gotta change"?

   Something _does_ have to change, and Common Core is as good as
   any concept for change. I just... don't like how they're going
   about it.

   I hope they compensate the kids and teachers with some
   forgiveness for poor performance over the next few years as its
   implemented. Experiments in Education rarely seem to last more
   than a few years before they're abandoned... and I hope that
   Common Core isn't yet another one of those casualties in 12-15
   years from now when something new comes along, kids and teachers
   just getting the hang of it are left in the dust and those going
   through the first few years now, will spend their lives cursing
   Common Core... _not_ because of the theory... but because it
   messed up their academic opportunities.

   *sigh*. I've ranted enough about it. You don't have to agree
   with me. I just don't like heavy-handed solutions, no matter how
   good they are on paper.