Who is knocking on Kristy's door? I thought she tutored kids much older than 11. At my school, pre-calc was Sr. level math for the standard "college track" kids. 9 was Algebra 1, 10 was Geometry, 11 was Algebra 2, 12 was pre-calc. And you only needed Algebra 1 to graduate. I know this b/c my brother got a diploma with Algebra 1 part 2 as his senior year class. When I moved to Texas it was the same except Geometry and Algebra 1 were flipped. Our school offered up to Calculus 3 iirc but that was not the standard. Pre-calculus was not even close to being required for graduation. I don't know where you went to high school where Pre-calculus was a 10th grade level standard-track course, but it was not common. Everyone else must just live in hickville towns with 1 intersection I guess. Maybe a chord and tangent here or there.

So if you can't coast through pre-calculus as a 15 year old, you are a stoner. That can't be right.

Its not about coasting, its about being able to do it. Precalc was 11th grade at my school for about half the kids and 12th for the other half. However, all of the top half and the majority of the bottom half were easily capable of making an A or B if they put the work in.

You dont have to have a math brain or be a genius to do it, you just have to take the time to do some problems, look at examples, and pay attention to a teacher once in a while. For some people they may not need to do any of these 3 and for others they may need to do all 3. With ~180 days in a school year and around an hour of effective class time thats only 180 hours a school year for a subject. Sure some kids will get it a lot faster than others and could learn everything in preclac in 40 hours while other take 300, but there is just no way in hell that any meaningful portion of the population is unable to learn the subject itself. If the ones that need 300 hours to learn it quit before then because their peers only took 100 then that is laziness. Hell, maybe 300 hours isnt even enough for some kids and they need 500 or 1000. Not putting in the work is laziness. Just because it requires more time doesnt mean it isnt possible for them to understand it.

kristy's multiquote is pretty spot on. If you put in the time you can learn almost anything that any meaningful portion of society understands. Hell, it may take years and years of studying 40 hours a week, but even the average person can get to the point where they know multivariable calculus, non-linear algebra, discrete math, and whatever other high level college math is out there. Most people are just simply too lazy to work toward it. I know that I am simply too lazy to learn all of that as I have no interest in ever spending thousands of hours to understand it, but its not stupidity that it the limiting factor, it is my work ethic.

What's the point of taking years to learn Pre-calculus? If you can't pass the tests during the normal course or a school year just like your peers then I don't get it. Are people in tutoring for more than 1 year to learn a math subject that is taught in 1 year?

Also you are forgetting that kids have other classes, too. I'm sure some guy who isn't naturally good at math could learn calculus given 20 years of non-stop studying, but that's totally pointless. For the intents and purposes of a student saying "I don't have a math brain" they effectively mean "this stuff doesn't come to me like it does the other kids in my class with whom I'm competing." And they are right. They can't just outwork the other, more gifted kids, because the expected timetable of learning the course material is finite.

And if Pre-calculus isn't senior level math then that just hurts your argument as you said "high school math" earlier. So fine, say Calculus is standard finishing high school level math. That's even worse for the person with no math brain.

well this thread turned to total ****

People that ruin threads about B/S that doesn't belong in the thread.

That should piss you guys off.

This is petty , but people who confuse memorial day , with veterans day. Today is about honoring those that died while serving , not those that are still around.

I didnt say that, I believe it was dkgo or someone else who said the last part.

And yes, even with other classes they could outwork the other kids and get an A. They just choose not too because its a lot more fun to play a sport or play video games or drive around getting in trouble than to do math problems after school each day. They aren't to blame for choosing these other activities over studying. That stuff is a lot more attractive to almost every well-adjusted high school kid. Just because it is perfectly normal to pass on studying to enjoy yourself more doesnt mean its not lazy.

The people who work 8 hour days and watch 6 hours of TV each night are typically lazier than the ones working 16 hour days. That doesnt mean they couldnt work 16 hour days if they wanted to. They simply choose not too. The kids who dont learn math through a high school level are, generally, just too lazy to learn it rather than incapable of learning it as you seem to be arguing.

to be clear, this is the post that I think is wrong. I dont think that everyone can, but I think that over 90% of people can and probably over 95%. I wont dispute that it comes FARRRRRRRRR easier to some people, but even those who struggle the most and are a SD or two below the mean intelligence level in society can put in the effort to get there. Its when you start pushing that 2 SD barrier below average IQ that you end up finding people who actually CANT do it rather than ones who simply dont try hard enough to succeed.

We're gonna have to agree to disagree here. I don't get the thing about if someone can't do pre-calculus they are a stoner or video-game burnout. I think more of it has to do with natural ability. Actually a lot of video game burnouts are probably good at math.

Also your second post is turrrrble. 1 or 2 SDs below mean intelligence is like an IQ of 70-85. I'm pretty sure 70 is considered legally mentally ******ed. So you think a mentally ******ed person can do pre-calculus and get an A while given only 9 months to pass it like everyone else. I just don't even.

Anything below an IQ of 70 is like bottom 2+% Basically the complete opposite end of the spectrum of what many people in society would call "genius".

who cares what they literally do instead, they "cant do it" in large part because they dont try.

Alright we are mostly in agreement. There's a line for me too where the word multiply is needed to not sound ******ed, though i prob still use times a little bit more than you

I can't stand when, a cashier gives me change like this:

Coins on top of receipt on top of bills.

Motherjeffin electrical jesus!

I have my wallet in one hand and maybe whatever I just bought in the other hand. Even if one hand is empty, I STILL have to put everything down and separate the change.

I assume cashiers are trained to do this, because they all do it. I'm sure it works out great for women, they just stuff everything in a purse.

But for men, it sucks.

I've stopped accepting the change back like that. I ask them to hand me any bills first do I can put my wallet away. Then they can hand me the other two. I'm sure this makes me a dik.

But for fukssake, at least put the damn receipt in the bag.

Thanks for the links. I found them to be very interesting as I am a bit of a self-admitted math ******. I always knew that I simply "didn't get it", no matter how much I studied. Through "hard work" :eye roll: in high school and university I was able to get through all the math crap that was required to become an architect. I have my own architectural practice and never deal with math. Instead, I get the people in the office that are good at math to do any math that is required.

LOL at "hard work" being all there is to it. I could essentially breeze through practically every other subject I took in high school and university, but not math. I guess all those other students that couldn't take to all those other subjects that I could deal with easily just must not have been working hard enough. Or maybe they just naturally sucked at some of those subjects.

What a novel concept.

Oh, and congratulations to you and your hard-working math-genius ability that enabled you to achieve a successful and satisfying career as a math tutor.

I still can't wrap my head around pre-calculus being a standard sophomore level class. What do you think the average person who took pre-calc as a 10th grader scored on the math portion of their SAT? Or on an IQ test? Because those tests have a lot less to do with hard work and a lot more to do with natural intelligence. Please say you think their typical IQ was 100 and math SAT score around 500.

This is about as uppity as it gets. What is their typical response? I was a cashier for a few years and always gave their change like this: "That's 77 (hand them change), and ten, fifteen, sixteen, seventeen" while dishing each bill into their hand. That's how we were trained. Then I'd rip the receipt and hold it out for them while they put stuff away and they'd usually be like "You can throw that away" or grab it when they're done putting their change away.

Also an architect and all they required of us was Pre-Calculus, which is more than enough to be a practitioner.

Somewhat back on topic: pretty much all mainstream media coverage of scientific studies pisses me off, especially when it involves a correlation vs causation mistake. I get that they want to put attention grabbing headlines though.

Here's a thought:

Whenever you get handed change like that, stick your wallet in your pocket, take the pile, put on a quizzical expression, and say outloud, "What am I supposed to do with this?...Oh, I know--just like testicles." then cup and lift your pile hand up near face level, hold for a sec, and squeeze your hand shut crumpling all the paper. Then stick the wad in your pocket and walk away.

That seems like more work.

And A-Rod, I wish all cashiers did it your way! Then I wouldn't have to be so uppity.

Definitely more than enough to be a practitioner.

I actually did okay at calculus – cause I "tried hard", I guess.

It was all the crap that they made us do beyond calculus that I couldn't follow.

back to the spirit of this thread. I always get pissed off when people use the word "average" to talk about the median, especially when they are likely to be far different due to the nature of the distribution. Similarly, when "average" is used in reference to a specific subset of the population or data if that subset is not specified. The more qualifiers the actual subset has the more annoying. It bothers me even more if there is a significant portion of the data set that is 0 which shifts the median way down.

For example, when people cite net worth they say the average net worth is $X when it really is like 4-5x that number and theyre citing a median number. Or if they say that $Y is an average annual income for someone working a full-time job when the real figure is much higher due to people skewing the mean upwards. I find that this is exceedingly common and annoying as people fail to grasp the difference between the two. Random article I found on the actual numeric differences: http://www.thomasjstanley.com/blog-a...dian_Poor.html

Same with Meijer imo - "Meijer's" is perfectly acceptable and the chosen pronunciation of the vast majority of Michiganders

Never heard anyone say "wal mart's"