Common core hate

Anons on /sci/ actually defended this. Has common core won?

Other urls found in this thread:

softschools.com/math/topics/front_end_estimation/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

/sci/ is a liberal shithole full of researchers who don't have real-world job experience

Guarantee a woman is involved with this. Somewhere some bitch got affirmative auctioned into a position she wasn't ready for and created this disaster.

And then everyone went along with it because of identity politics.

Front-end estimation is what I did to your mother.

>rounding 354 to 300 instead of 400
>rounding 291 to 200 instead of 300

Wouldn't 700 be much more reasonable as an estimate? It's closer to the actual answer...

I can defend that. They're just teaching a common sense way to quickly check that dumb-assed kids aren't way off in their calculations.

Why is it so hard to round to 350 and 300?

Okay, to be completely fair, the mental processes involved with "common core" mathematics are ACTUALLY what the ultra-intelligent people use to mentally grasp numbers and calculations very quickly

HOWEVER
Most people are retards who can't hold more than two digits in their heads. There is NO point teaching this to dumbass kids, it's not gonna make them smart. This is scientific learning run amok

>This Autist does X and he's really good at math
>Therefore let's make our kids do X.

This. I've always been taught that 5-9 you round up 1-4 you round down

But you round up.

Diluting the quality of education and instilling a sense of superiority!!!! REEEEEE

Why is the correct answer "reasonable"?

Would saying the answer is 620 be "reasonable" because its close enough?

but the rounding is completely retarded.
Why on earth would you ever consider 291 the same as 200? It's so close to 300 you're far better off calling it 300 than 200.

This answer is just quackery.

That so called estimate IS way off.

We've been over this. Some kike created it to screw white kids up

I wouldn't round it like that, but there's nothing wrong with the question itself.

You are rounding tens user, in that case it would be 350 and 290. What is so hard about that?

This is reasonable. A lot of kids do shit like this without thinking about it AT ALL and just see it as some meaningless number and an equally meaningless number out. Some dumbass would get like 3000 and not see any problem. The smart kids would already be doing this.

>291 --> 200

fpbp

i've never met a professor or researcher from the academic world who hadn't had circles run around them by private research.

they literally get together and board certify one another and hand out medals to one another for taking what was 99.95% done by someone else and putting the last little sprinkle on top and calling it genius.

they're morons.

They dont want rounding, they want flooring. And obviously a 25% deviation is very reasonable.

rounding a number merely 9 less than the next significant value down 91? That's fucking your entire valuation.

That's not really common core. I did front-end estimation when I was in elementary school. This was early 2000s.

Well no shit, they took the intelligent way to do things and dumbed it down so there weren't as many steps. An autist/decently intelligent person does all of this super fast, almost instinctually. To emulate that and make it understandable to idiots, you have to do things like "ROUND EVERYTHING DOWN TO THE LOWEST INTEGER PLACE"

"Reasonable" becomes vaguer and vaguer as your tolerance for wrong answers increases. The intelligent have a very low tolerance for wrong answers, because they are capable of estimating much faster and much more precisely.

the real problem is that 1. kids aren't mentally equipped for the levels of abstraction used in higher level math and 2. elementary school teachers are retards who also aren't capable of handling it

But did you do it incorrectly like in the picture?

>291 not rounding to 300
>354 not technically rounding to 400
>estimate is 500 instead of 700
>645 is "reasonable" and not 'correct'
>using the correct answer instead of something close, like 673
Fucking common core can't estimate shit.

so if a student said the answer is 500 hed be correct?

exactly. Agree 100%.

Another issue is that they half-ass the abstraction. So it confuses the smart kids who are like "why don't we just do this right?" and it confuses the dumb kids who are like "hurr durr I'm a retard can't we just add the numbers?"

You end up with a bunch of confused kids who aren't ready when it's time to do ACTUAL math.

Front-end estimation just adds zeroes to every significant figure after the first from what I remember. I could be wrong.

The thing that people don't understand about common core is that it is about teaching math in a way where it is impossible for kids to fall behind.

Before common core, bright kids grasped the subject right away and personally developed habits that helped them get a "feel" for what they were doing. Stupid lazy kids only memorized what they had to in order to advance, and promptly forgot the material. Because they never developed an intuitive understanding of how things worked, they had to go back and relearn prior material before advancing. Eventually you get high school seniors with 8th grade abilities.

The idea with common core is that you make getting a "feel" for things like math part of the curriculum. It sounds stupid, but breaking it down like OP's pic helps reinforce basic shit like how a number is basically ones, tens, and hundreds. It's obvious to us, but to stupid lazy 6 year olds its mind blowing, especially given that the alternative is teaching a process of addition that most first graders can't do in their heads. They have to KNOW the process. If they don't intuitively understand what a number is, and forget the process, you have to start from scratch.

I had to Google if it means literally just taking the first number to make it more nigger-accessible, but no, it means rounding to 1 significant figure. 291 would be 300, just like you and I did it in school.

I forgot what it's called, but there's an estimating heuristic that involves just using the leftmost digit.

So what else is new?

And so what happens to those idiots who continue to be lazy and neglect to learn how to apply math?

They become dumb retards and vote democrat because they failed to learn critical thinking processes and just do what makes life easy.

When I was at school we we're always taught that

(to the nearest hundred)
A number below 50 you round down and a number 50 and above you round up
like 149 -> 100 and 150 -> 200

>291 rounds to 200

What the fuck America

Floor and ceiling?

Why don't we just acknowledge different students have different abilities and have remedial math classes and advanced math classes instead of shoving everyone through the same pigeonhole

1-4 round down, 6-9 round up

5 Is rounded based on whether the previous digit is odd or even ex:

255 is rounded down to 250

285 is rounded up to 290

Or maybe it's vice versa, wither way it's useless.

>missing the point this hard

8th grade abilities include literally all the math 99% of the population will ever need to know

Which is?

Logarithmically speaking, the estimate is close. Within mathematical proofs there are certain standards of arbitrary closeness. The estimation is arbitrarily close to the answer and takes almost no time to do in your head. Here's the point:
Let x=500 (the estimation), y=645 (the answer)
It follows that log(x)-log(y)

What does "reasonable" mean in this context?

What is the purpose of using front-end estimation after the answer is already determined? The answer could still be wrong.

Obviously in this context it is called "Front end estimation" which is in the worksheet.

Don't assume that all people who can't think critically are democrats.
Some people are voting for Jill Stein, too.

What is the value of this determination in arthritic, or in math in general when a precise answer is required?

What the fuck is even happening? What is front-end estimation? Is this some sort of retard math that i wasn't taught?

>off by 22%
>reasonable

civil engineer here, if i was off by 22% in a past project a whole lot of people might die someday.

I didnt miss the point that its about using a floor method to estimate. And not rounding.

But if the point is to ignore the extra digits to make math easier or just quick estimation its fine. But they made the claim that a ~25% variance is reasonable.

No. High level math they didn't teach you because you're retarded.

We do. When I was in high school, my senior year, I took Calc II and III (dual-enrolling at college), just like a few people in the grades ahead of me, and some people behind me were on the same track, and my high-school had about 400 students. When I was a Junior in AP Calc, my friends were in precalc and trig and some were in algebra II. Maybe some other schools are different, but the one I went to started to separate people by math ability in 7th grade.

Why round it all? just do the fucking math,

>Anons on /sci/ actually defended this.
hahahah! Doubt it. Unless you samefagged it up really hard. Which you might have because /sci/ is a troll trap.

seriously this what the fuck.
this math has no place in these areas

This doesn't even qualify as math.

Its a fancy term for floor. Mainly used in programming. If they really wanted to be confusing they could of went with "most significant module subtraction"

Outside of Sup Forums Sup Forums is basically tumblr. If the samurai deleted this place it would be indistinguishable.

>Rounding 290 to 200

Welp this generation of kids is gonna be fucking retarded.

This is an entirely valid technique; first digit estimation is significantly faster and simpler than rounding.

It's extremely helpful for sufferers of dyslexia, for example, who may lose track of figures partway through calculation and need a fast way to check for mistakes.

sounds about right

That's the whole point of communist core.
Retards are less likely to challenge a totalitarian state.

>It's extremely helpful for sufferers of dyslexia

Yes, yes, But this math is taught as standard to Everyone which is the problem.

If math just isn't their thing then perhaps they should try a career in the custodial arts.

>Outside of Sup Forums Sup Forums is basically tumblr.
You sure about that?

Or you could just spend the extra nanosecond of brain-power to learn how to properly round

We shouldn't be teaching kids by dyslexic standards if we ever want them to succeed.

>first digit estimation is significantly faster and simpler than rounding.
What is the value of this when a precise value is required?

>291
>rounded down to 200
triggered

I have friends that are teachers and the majority of them are eager to implement common core because they're good little leftists. They're actually excited to do what the federal government says.

And they're even dumber now.
How else could leftists get elected?

They'll be good little leftists right up to the moment they're lined up against a wall.

compared to some of the other ridiculous shit i've seen from common core this isn't actually that bad. it's basically what i do in my head already (300+200=500 --> 50+90=140 --> 500+140=640 --> 4+1)
i've noticed when people are learning new things it's usually the initial step that makes people panic and start telling themselves "i can't do this," which causes them to panic more and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy
working out that 500 is "reasonable" with this impossible to fuck up technique gives kids a good foothold instead of having them look at the big numbers and start freaking the fuck out

...

Completely.

>(((/sci/)))

This isn't rounding, you're just focusing on the bigger part of the number. A good example of this is the pictures of blocks, where some were 1, some 10, some 100. You focusing on the 100s. That's why they don't round up. It's way easier to add 200 and 300 (500), then add 54 and 91 (145), then add that to 500.

Complaining about rounding down not up is fucking dumb, because this doesn't have anything to do with rounding. That's like trying to unscrew a flat head screw with a fillips head screw driver. You can't just look at a question and assume you're process is the correct one.

isn't it easier to add 300 and 200, then 90 and 50 (getting 140), adding 140 to 500, then add the ones together for 645? it took seconds. how is common core easier/better than simple addition and carry over?

Well, Sup Forums, Sup Forums, /jp/, /h/, /po/,/k/ and /biz/ may beg to differ

>I didnt miss the point that its about using a floor method to estimate.

By your own admission then you did miss the point. The purpose of the exercise is not to estimate an approximate answer but to determine a threshold beyond which the tentative solution can be rejected. Whether it's a useful approach is a different question.

...

I would do it like

354
291
---------
645

I do the add from right to left.

5. Then 5+9 and carry the one.

So much easier and faster that way. You get the exact answer and don't need to estimate shit.

I know math there are different ways to get answers but it doesn't make sense to estimate anything. What's wrong with the way I was taught?

softschools.com/math/topics/front_end_estimation/

According to this description of front-end estimation, numbers are supposed to be rounded normally, so both 290 and 354 would round up. Why doesn't that happen here?

Your way is way harder to do mentally compared to 200+300, 54+91, 145+500. Also you're not estimating anything. You're just splitting up the numbers.

>Majored in Computer Science
>Doesn't have to worry about young whippersnappers taking my job
>feelsgoodman

>building a spaceship
>calculating velocity
>calculating mechanical forces
>rounds the 291 down to 200
>"the answer is reasonable"
>just fuck my Apollo up

Common core is just another marxist horseshit designed to weaken you.

I think you're thinking of significant figures, or sig-figs.

So you're saying its for bringing the smart kids down to retard levels instead of the other way around, effectively pushing back progress for everyone.

Sounds like a stupid faggot "feels" plan that is going to kill human progress.

Really /po/? The origami board has opinions on pol? Is it cause we accidently start threads there?

How about an estimate of 650 and a final answer of 645 after account for the 9 we added to 291 to get our 300 to add for the estimate?

>reasonable

>"correct" is now a variable

I agree with the Philippines.
Burgers should stick to bible study.

It's because when anons don't want to look at politics they can relax on the origami board.

Isn't easier just to add left-to-right?

So your saying the point was to determine the minimum value the potential answer could be? So reasonable to them is just making sure the answer falls in the correct range?

>So your saying the point was to determine the minimum value the potential answer could be?

Spot on. That is the exact purpose of this exercise.

Can you work out what maximum value in the range would be using this method?

Well, obviously not. I'm speaking as some one that just graduated from a public school, my generation is fucking retarded. My 10th grade year we went through 5 teachers, and in my 11th grade class the teacher gave up on trying to teach kids. The current process is not working. I learned my the way common core is teaching it though, and I was doing 12th grade math in 5th grade. This could be an bad way to teach math, but the current negative flack it's getting doesn't have an backing. It's just lack of understanding.

So make idiots more dumb?

doing this right now it's actually quite pleasant

...