Another Useless Study

I know that I'm always saying that we're doomed. It's only because we are. Do you need another example of how I know that to be true? Because I have one. And I'm going to share.

The Post-Gazette.com has an article which goes over a study by some sort of think tank called Rand Corp. Their study found "...that couples who scored well on a short test of math skills accumulated more wealth by middle age than couples who scored poorly." It goes on to say that "...when both spouses correctly answered three math questions, family wealth averaged $1.7 million. That compared with $200,000 for households where neither spouse answered any question correctly." Wow. 200 grand when you don't get anything right? That really doesn't seem like such a horrible consolation prize, does it?

No, not at all. Which is kind of why this study is seeming a) ridiculous, and b) useless. But if there's a shred of reality to it, we're doomed. Even if there isn't a shred of reality to it, just that we're being subjected to it as if it is fact is rather dooming. But at this point of the article, I'm still fairly intrigued and wondering about the type of questions which will determine future wealth. Naturally, I was also wondering how I would fare with the questions. I stopped wondering after I read them and instead began wondering how a dog would fare, as I can't imagine a human being who is capable of earning $200,000 at the very least not being able to answer these questions.

Seriously, if these are the determining factors of wealth, then something has gone seriously wrong in this country. But maybe you should decide. Question One: If the chance of getting a disease is 10 percent, how many people out of 1,000 would be expected to get the disease? Uh, really? That's the sort of question that, if I can noodle it through, is indicative of my ability to earn money? Even more extraordinary is that that's the sort of question that would be indicative of my ability to do math. Come on! What is that? Fourth grade level? Third?

Maybe they get harder as we continue. Let's look at the second question: If five people all have the winning numbers in the lottery, and the prize is $2 million, how much will each of them get? Hmm. No. No, I don't see these getting harder. I sort of see them getting a little easier. And I definitely see myself getting more annoyed with this study. (Seriously, how do I get a job at a think tank? Wait. First let me ask: Is it really a tank? Because I don't know if I'd like that very much. I'd like all of the thinking, but the thought of being in a tank all day is a bit off-putting.)

The last question (did I mention it was a really short quiz?) reads as follows: Let's say you have $200 in a savings account. The account earns 10 percent interest per year. How much would you have in the account at the end of two years? Oh, for cryin' out loud. Are you kidding me?! First of all, what sort of savings account is going to earn 10 percent interest per year? None! There isn't one! Not a single one! I mean, really, the lottery question was pretty far-fetched. I'd have to believe that if I held a winning lottery number, I'd be able to figure out EXACTLY what my share was in a split-second after learning that I had won. That's a no-brainer. But this question is just completely baseless. Why not make it more realistic? I guess because then it might actually be somewhat relevant? Nah, that can't be it. The whole idea of this study having any relevance at all is completely preposterous.

See? We're doomed. Is anyone paying any attention to stuff like this? God, I hope not. What a waste of time. But seriously, how do I get a cush gig with a think tank? Anyone? Anyone?

2+2 = zebra

Yesterday's post involved the idiotic notion that it is a good idea to pay people to remember to take their medication. Apparently, in some people's world, not dying isn't enough of an incentive, but fifty bucks a months seems to really motivate folks. Go figure. Why I should care if they croak it because they're too moronic to realize the benefits of taking medication that they need is beyond me. But I'm guessing that the reason that test scores are going up over there in New York has to do with a method that has to be along these same lines of thinking. That's right. They're giving kids credit on tests even if they have given the wrong answer (including no answer at all). Wait. Wuck?

Correct. According to the NY Post, on the exams that kids take to determine if they're going to advance up to the next grade, the students "...got "partial credit" for wrong answers". Now, I read that and I wondered if they were referring to something like essay questions, as you can have rather subjective answers that vary here and there. Good thing I didn't have to read too much farther to learn that is wasn't English or anything like that for which partial credit was being given. No, it was MATH. That's right. Math. See, there was at least half a credit given"...after failing to correctly add, subtract, multiply and divide." And "Some got credit for no answer at all." NO answer? Was the answer zero? No? What the what?

Keep in mind that these were not just rogue scorers who were grading these tests and giving away credit like it was welfare. No, this extremely unorthodox (Translation: Asinine) method was discovered when "...scoring guides obtained by The Post reveal that kids get half-credit or more for showing fragments of work related to the problem -- even if they screw up the calculations or leave the answer blank." Oh, good Lord....

At this point, I'm still hoping that this isn't going to be as bad as it sounds like it is. Turns out, it's at least that bad. Probably worse. Let's look at a few examples that the Post gives us. Try not to weep until you're at the end. Your eyes will get watery and it will be hard for you to focus on the remaining words.

The example below is worth 2 points. The question reads: "Milton takes $400 on a shopping trip. He plans to spend 1/5 of his money on DVDs. How much money will Milton spend on the DVDs?" Try not to focus on the logistics of why Milton is on a "shopping trip" that includes a budget for DVDs. Also, try not to wonder what he is spending the other 4/5ths of his money on. No, try and focus on how the child whose answer sheet this is wrote down the formula for figuring out Milton's DVD budget, but did not do the calculations. The child knew that you divide 5 into 400.00, but did not actually perform the act of said dividing. Granted, the question did say "Show your work". It did not say "Show your answer". Perhaps this is why the child was given one point for showing the correct equation. Never mind that the child never answered the question, leaving Milton at a loss as to how much to spend on those DVDs. No, he knew the theory behind division, so that's good enough. That's pretty much all they require at NASA, right? Just know basic concepts and those space shuttles will fly themselves, right? Yeah, OK. Next example...

The example below is worth 2 points. The question reads: "Thomas buys a skateboard that is two feet long. What is the length, in inches, of the skateboard?" Never mind that two feet is a rather short skateboard. The poor simpleton who answered this question chose to add 24 and 24. Now, he added them correctly and came up with the answer of 48. Unfortunately, the only thing he got correct was adding 24 and 24. See, it might surprise you (or at least, that child) to learn that there are only 12 inches in a foot. Thus, the correct answer is 24. This child has multiplied the number of skateboards that he has by two. Either that or he had a four foot long skateboard. Both of which are not deserving of ANY credit! But in New York, he gets one point!

Other examples of what New York feels are deserving of partial credit are things like :

A miscalculation that 28 divided by 14 equals 4 instead of 2 is "partially correct" if the student uses the right method to verify the wrong answer. Tell me, how in the hell are you going to use the right method to verify the wrong answer?! If you used the right method to verify, wouldn't you figure out that the answer was wrong and change it to the right one?

A kid who subtracts 57 cents from three quarters for the right change and comes up with 15 cents instead of 18 cents still gets half-credit. Half credit? For giving someone not enough change? Sure, that's fine. Whenever I receive the incorrect amount of change, I always just let it slide because I know that the cashier did something. Yeah, that's how the real world works. Exactly. Perfect. Seems logical!

These scoring guidelines are something called "holistic rubrics". The fact that this stupidity has a name makes me hate it even more. (Though I do appreciate that it has a variation of the word "rube" in the name. That's telling.) This holistic rubric crap "...require that points be given if a kid's attempt at an answer reflects a "partial understanding" of the math concept, "addresses some element of the task correctly," or uses the "appropriate process" to arrive at a wrong solution." I need a wall. I need to bang my head against it until I pass out. Are you effing kidding me?

Please note that it says "attempt at an answer". Does that mean that if the question is "2+2= __" and the kid writes "zebra" that there is partial credit given because an attempt was made? I mean, it does "address some element of the task correctly", right? The kid knew that an answer went in that spot and wrote "zebra". Does that count? It probably does. And do they not see the problem with their logic in giving credit for using the "appropriate process to arrive at a wrong solution"? If you get the WRONG answer, you're NOT using the APPROPRIATE process! The APPROPRIATE process is the process that gives you the CORRECT answer! You morons!

The part that really scares me is that these are not difficult questions. If the scoring has to be dumbed down to this ridiculous level (ie, just marking things correct when they are clearly wrong) for such basic calculations, then how dumb are these kids really? We're never going to know until it's too late. And we might just be a little past too late these days. We're so doomed. Goodbye, sweet America. Goodbye.