Board 8 > Zuckerberg, Gates and Buffet have all said that they plan on giving 99% of......

(+) Yeah! (+)

HotDogButts posted...

common core is garbage.

teachers hate it
parents hate it
kids hate it but thats the same as always

change is scary

Is there any data on how effective it actually is?
---

HanOfTheNekos posted...

You have to be incredibly stupid to not understand how the math on the left works.

It took me a few minutes to figure out the last step, but now that I got it, that way is a lot more fun. And the way they do addition and subtraction is how I do it in my head. I'm liking common core more and more as I see it. These old foggies don't like it because "that's not how I learned math" lol.
---

Once again, let's not mix up "common core" with "different math techniques".


Without Common Core, you still have the same sort of techniques being taught, which is because they have been found to be effective.
---

HanOfTheNekos posted...

You don't need to explain how it might be difficult. But you're not explaining why it's difficult, just saying that the parent dun geddit.

If it's an unfamiliar strategy, then the work being assigned to the student will include examples. These "scary new math" examples always leave out that it's not that the parents don't know how to do it, but they refuse to learn how. It's usually that the child is asking for help later than they should've, or that the teacher made a bad worksheet by not properly giving examples for a new concept, or the child is hung up on a later step and the parent is freaking out about the stuff the child already knows how to do.

If it's an unfamiliar strategy to the student, there should be examples yes. But that is what time in class would be spent on doing. In a perfect world, the worksheet in question might have some kind of example done, but maybe not, particularly if it is already at a point where the child is assumed to be proficient enough to do without. A textbook might be an aid, assuming the child is at a school where those are assigned to them and can take them home.

Ultimately, there are a number of ways a parent can be in a situation where they lack sufficient context for the problem that would not exist with the method they do know.

Admittedly, the internet exists, but if the parent in question were clever enough to find the steps online, they're probably not the sort that would rage about 'the evils of common core'. And even if they are clever enough, they might strongly prefer the normal tried and true proper way that was good enough for them etc etc.
---

i'd probably need the textbook to figure out the required method if i didn't have a solved example in front of me like there is in the picture
---

SovietOmega posted...

HanOfTheNekos posted...

You don't need to explain how it might be difficult. But you're not explaining why it's difficult, just saying that the parent dun geddit.

If it's an unfamiliar strategy, then the work being assigned to the student will include examples. These "scary new math" examples always leave out that it's not that the parents don't know how to do it, but they refuse to learn how. It's usually that the child is asking for help later than they should've, or that the teacher made a bad worksheet by not properly giving examples for a new concept, or the child is hung up on a later step and the parent is freaking out about the stuff the child already knows how to do.

If it's an unfamiliar strategy to the student, there should be examples yes. But that is what time in class would be spent on doing. In a perfect world, the worksheet in question might have some kind of example done, but maybe not, particularly if it is already at a point where the child is assumed to be proficient enough to do without. A textbook might be an aid, assuming the child is at a school where those are assigned to them and can take them home.

Ultimately, there are a number of ways a parent can be in a situation where they lack sufficient context for the problem that would not exist with the method they do know.

Admittedly, the internet exists, but if the parent in question were clever enough to find the steps online, they're probably not the sort that would rage about 'the evils of common core'. And even if they are clever enough, they might strongly prefer the normal tried and true proper way that was good enough for them etc etc.

I would summarize what you said here as "there are problems other than the strategy itself".

X_Dante_X posted...

i'd probably need the textbook to figure out the required method if i didn't have a solved example in front of me like there is in the picture

As long as you know that the problem is "26x13", you should be able to figure it out.
---

HanOfTheNekos posted...

As long as you know that the problem is "26x13", you should be able to figure it out.

https://www.mathworksheets4kids.com/multiplication/lattice/5by3-large.png

"Alright parent, here are the boxes, now just do the problem! You should be able to figure it out!
---

i can figure out the answer easily, i can't figure out the method they want without a push in the right direction

i can solve it with grouping too, which is an acceptable method!
---

the liberal shilling in this topic is actually nauseating
---

SovietOmega posted...

HanOfTheNekos posted...

As long as you know that the problem is "26x13", you should be able to figure it out.

https://www.mathworksheets4kids.com/multiplication/lattice/5by3-large.png

"Alright parent, here are the boxes, now just do the problem! You should be able to figure it out!

I've had cousins bring home math homework where i had to use Google to figure out how to help them. They don't necessarily have textbooks that they bring home in grade school.

There really needs to be some sort of reach out to parents to explain these methods because while they are intuitive from a mental math standpoint how they are displayed on paper is not always clear to someone that didn't learn that way.

At the very least, kids should be given tutorial pages to reference.

HotDogButts posted...

the liberal shilling in this topic is actually nauseating

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ed/Status_of_Common_Core_Standards_vector.svg/959px-Status_of_Common_Core_Standards_vector.svg.png

(blue = fully adopted standards)
---

Leafeon13N posted...

SovietOmega posted...

HanOfTheNekos posted...

As long as you know that the problem is "26x13", you should be able to figure it out.

https://www.mathworksheets4kids.com/multiplication/lattice/5by3-large.png

"Alright parent, here are the boxes, now just do the problem! You should be able to figure it out!

I've had cousins bring home math homework where i had to use Google to figure out how to help them. They don't necessarily have textbooks that they bring home in grade school.

There really needs to be some sort of reach out to parents to explain these methods because while they are intuitive from a mental math standpoint how they are displayed on paper is not always clear to someone that didn't learn that way.

At the very least, kids should be given tutorial pages to reference.

Definitely this.

Early childhood ed always should involve communication with parents.


HotDogButts posted...

the liberal shilling in this topic is actually nauseating

Don't be daft, bad education legislation has always been bipartisan.
---

lmao.
https://www.thestar.com/business/2015/12/11/zuckerbergs-46b-charitable-gift-not-what-it-seems.html
https://www.propublica.org/article/how-mark-zuckerbergs-altruism-helps-himself

How Mark Zuckerberg’s Altruism Helps Himself

Zuckerberg set up a limited liability company, which has reaped enormous benefits as public relations coup and will help minimize his tax bill.

Mark Zuckerberg did not donate $45 billion to charity. You may have heard that, but that was wrong.

Here’s what happened instead: Zuckerberg created an investment vehicle.

[...]

In doing so, Zuckerberg and Chan did not set up a charitable foundation, which has nonprofit status. He created a limited liability company, one that has already reaped enormous benefits as public relations coup for himself. His PR return-on-investment dwarfs that of his Facebook stock. Zuckerberg was depicted in breathless, glowing terms for having, in essence, moved money from one pocket to the other.

An LLC can invest in for-profit companies (perhaps these will be characterized as societally responsible companies, but lots of companies claim the mantle of societal responsibility). An LLC can make political donations. It can lobby for changes in the law. He remains completely free to do as he wishes with his money. That’s what America is all about. But as a society, we don’t generally call these types of activities “charity.”

What’s more, a charitable foundation is subject to rules and oversight. It has to allocate a certain percentage of its assets every year. The new Zuckerberg LLC won’t be subject to those rules and won’t have any transparency requirements.

In covering the event, many commentators praised the size and percentage of the gift and pointed out that Zuckerberg is relatively young to be planning to give his wealth away. “Mark Zuckerberg Philanthropy Pledge Sets New Giving Standard,” Bloomberg glowed. Few news outlets initially considered the tax implications of Zuckerberg’s plan. A Wall Street Journal article didn’t mention taxes at all.

[...]

So what are the tax implications? They are quite generous to Zuckerberg. I asked Victor Fleischer, a law professor and tax specialist at the University of San Diego School of Law, as well as a contributor to DealBook. He explained that if the LLC sold stock, Zuckerberg would pay a hefty capital gains tax, particularly if Facebook stock kept climbing.

If the LLC donated to a charity, he would get a deduction just like anyone else. That’s a nice little bonus. But the LLC probably won’t do that because it can do better. The savvier move, Professor Fleischer explained, would be to have the LLC donate the appreciated shares to charity, which would generate a deduction at fair market value of the stock without triggering any tax.

Zuckerberg didn’t create these tax laws and cannot be criticized for minimizing his tax bills. If he had created a foundation, he would have accrued similar tax benefits. But what this means is that he amassed one of the greatest fortunes in the world — and is likely never to pay any taxes on it. Any time a superwealthy plutocrat makes a charitable donation, the public ought to be reminded that this is how our tax system works. The superwealthy buy great public relations and adulation for donations that minimize their taxes.

I'm tired of uneducated fools who lap up PR stunts by the rich without bothering to use an ounce of wit as to why.

TheRock1525 posted...

I still don't get why America, a land built on immigration, should suddenly hate it.

You're drinking the Kool-Aid.

Only a teeny, tiny group of racists are against immigration entirely. Most people are only against illegal/undocumented immigration. You'll be hard-pressed to find anyone that's upset by someone who entered the country legally.
---

McDohl MR posted...

TheRock1525 posted...

I still don't get why America, a land built on immigration, should suddenly hate it.

You're drinking the Kool-Aid.

Only a teeny, tiny group of racists are against immigration entirely. Most people are only against illegal/undocumented immigration. You'll be hard-pressed to find anyone that's upset by someone who entered the country legally.

I'm a liberal and not a racist and I have a negative attitude about immigration right now because it wouldn't be easy/convenient enough for me to immigrate from the US to Canada the way I want to, so if I can't have that specific and contextual luxury, fuck everyone else. No one else on the planet deserves to be able to immigrate.
---

spite! the best motivator
---

McDohl MR posted...

TheRock1525 posted...

I still don't get why America, a land built on immigration, should suddenly hate it.

You're drinking the Kool-Aid.

Only a teeny, tiny group of racists are against immigration entirely. Most people are only against illegal/undocumented immigration. You'll be hard-pressed to find anyone that's upset by someone who entered the country legally.

yeah you're right. it's just a weird thing to base your entire platform on. feels like a distraction or scapegoat

i think most americans are pretty much in agreement as to what the problems are, it's just the order, magnitude and manner in which they are tackled which is the problem
---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lattice_multiplication#History

Lattice multiplication has been used historically in many different cultures. It is not known where it arose first, nor whether it developed independently within more than one region of the world. The earliest recorded use of lattice multiplication:

* in Arab mathematics was by Ibn al-Banna' al-Marrakushi in his Talkhis a'mal al-hisab, in the Maghreb in the late 13th century
* in European mathematics was by the unknown author of a Latin treatise in England, Tractatus de minutis philosophicis et vulgaribus, c. 1300
* in Chinese mathematics was by Wu Jing in his Jiuzhang suanfa bilei daquan, completed in 1450.

Scary new math!
---

MrGreenonion posted...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lattice_multiplication#History

Lattice multiplication has been used historically in many different cultures. It is not known where it arose first, nor whether it developed independently within more than one region of the world. The earliest recorded use of lattice multiplication:

* in Arab mathematics was by Ibn al-Banna' al-Marrakushi in his Talkhis a'mal al-hisab, in the Maghreb in the late 13th century
* in European mathematics was by the unknown author of a Latin treatise in England, Tractatus de minutis philosophicis et vulgaribus, c. 1300
* in Chinese mathematics was by Wu Jing in his Jiuzhang suanfa bilei daquan, completed in 1450.

Scary new math!

Scary new math, used by muslims, europeans, and china, all the enemies of America!
---

The subtraction method used by common core is much better for doing mental math.

It's basically the equivalent of saying 111 - 99 = 1 + 11 instead of carrying over like 2 times. Sure you can find examples where it makes it more long winded, but those aren't a problem to begin with. Try 3123 - 1564. It took me about 3 seconds to do it in my head. (436 + 1000 + 123). I can't even imagine trying to do it digit by digit mentally.
---