How's your maths?

[jake-the-peg]

Apparently Chinese maths questions are way harder than those we give our kids.

I have to say I don't buy the article at all because my 14 year old son was able to do the so called "diagnostic test" apparently given to first year UK undergraduates - it's the sort of thing they're doing at school right now!

All the same the Chinese maths problem is a bit of fun and not quite as scary as it first looks

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6589301.s tm

Your time starts now!

[kempie]

14 year olds may well be able to do the so called "diagnostic test" but that does not mean that 18+ year olds can!

Government Ministers are at pains to point out that the policy of "Education, Education, Education" has only fully benefitted pupils who started school after New Labour came to power i.e. 5 years old in 1997/8, which seems to encompass the age of your son.

[jake-the-peg]

Maybe but I simply fail to believe that any undergraduate in a numerate discipline is unable to find the legth of a 3,4,5 triangle!

In fact I've just found this:

http://www.cimt.plymouth.ac.uk/interactive/tta audits/a-pure/default.htm

Seems such papers have questions that become progresively more difficult so comparing question 1 on such a paper to the equivilent of a A level paper in China is completely unrepresentative

[kempie]

Is it representative to compare a Pure Maths audit test with a Science Department general maths audit test?

[jake-the-peg]

The point is the sort of test papers being employed here start with ridiculously easy and get much harder.

If as I suspect the english question comes from a similar type of paper it's probably not fair to compare the English and Chinese out of context.

Which is a shame because the thrust of the article, that science students are being admitted to university without studying A level maths is a problem.

Incidently I make the answer to the second part of the Chinese question 90 degrees anybody agree or disagree?

[fo3nix]

Incidentally, perhaps the chemistry are being taught the maths that is applicable to them. Proving lengths of sides and such things as in the Chinese example is, in my opinion, pointless except as an exercise. I'm about to start a PhD in theoretical physics, and I can say that I've never had to do any such proof like that. Using the same maths, sure, but not that sort of question.

After all, maths is just a language. What part of the language you learn is dependant entirely on your requirements.

Also, as with all universities, the difficulty of the exams and exercises depends a lot on the university itself. I'm sure some of the Oxbridge chemistry maths is harder than that quoted.

The article is little more than 'common maths knowledge' rubbish, for those that haven't studied it beyond GCSE or equivalent.