This reminds me of a punishment homework thing I was given in my youth, I had to write out something a bunch of times, which was a shit punishment to begin with and only happened once in like, grade 3 or something. Maybe even grade 1 when we were learning to write, idk. Maybe it wasn’t a punishment (it felt like one).
Instead of writing the letter “i” at the start of every line like I was supposed to, I just put a long line down the page to be that letter on every line.
The only part of this that I remember to this day is that I got it back with that line circled in red and the word “lazy!” Written next to it, with points off of the assignment for it.
That’s literally the only thing I recall about it, that finding an “easy” way to write the same letter across multiple lines was lazy, therefore I’m lazy and worthless. I don’t even remember if I passed or failed it, because that was less important to my young mind than being called lazy for simply trying to optimize my working time.
I dunno, but at this point I kind feel like that teacher was a bit of an asshole.
You gotta try to make a perfectly spaced dashed line down the page, as fast as you can. It’s a bit of a challenge and get all the I’s out of the way. Then the teacher can’t say boo.
Ok but forcing me to show my work was one of those things I hated until I was extremely grateful for it. I didn’t need to show my work to prove my answer was correct in elementary school, but it was a slow drift from “I can do it in my head with ease” to “I need to document my steps so I can check where the error occurred”. Also “it’s not enough to be correct, you need to be correct with evidence” is the reality for people who do math for a living
The “show your work” is about checking if you understand the logic in getting the answer. We had lots of questions out of 5. Right answer was only worth 1 mark, the other 4 were the steps and reasoning.
This type of setup punishes those that skip right to the answer, or have memorized answers. But rewards those that show they know the concepts
Maybe you do, but some arrive at the answer using the wrong techniwue that doesnt work when the equation is altered. There is no way you are doing calculus and functions and relations in your head. Process and method is the important part.
I think you are nissing the point about the goal of schooling, it is not to get correct answers but to teach people methods of problem solving, so when faced with a brand new problem you can extrapolate methods and find a solution. As acedemia progresses solutions are not possible in your head, so applying principles is the goal.
So, by your logic, any student who doesn’t conform to the specific, approved processes and methodology is therefore wrong, is that it?
Tell me, do you value the perspectives of others, or are you concrete in the surety that yours is always the infallible way? Is everyone who does something differently from the way you do it, wrong?
What do you hope to gain in your escalation of commitment? Or is lecturing me its own reward?
Having gone forward from high school to undergrad, to half a dozen graduate schools, I do think I’m at least somewhat privy to the methodologies of academia- in fact, I even studied process design at MIT, among other things. What I find most, is that rigid thinking is more susceptible to Group Think than allowing room for alternative paths to a desired outcome.
Does that make me right, and you wrong? Or vice versa? No, probably not in either case. But it certainly doesn’t make you right in an absolute sense, which is the sentiment you seem to be pushing.
I was explaining why they want you to show your work. I work with a lot of engineers who got the right answers on tests in university, but you give them a unique problem they can’t reason out a new method to solve it. This is why testing wants you to show your work so somebody can check you are connecting the dots of reasoning.
All they would have to do tgough is make the question multipart, so step A asks for a certain portion, step b asks for next portion, and so on.
Passing University doesn’t always mean you can think. Granted other testing is needed to assist non typical learners
I was always a space cadet in class, falling behind, but accelled in testing, add on top that I sucked at showing my work, and my teacher was adamant that I must be cheating somehow.
I had to retake an algebra 2 exam multiple times because they thought I was cheating- including sitting IN the principal’s office, yet the scores were all within points of each other.
They were so fucking salty about it too when there was no “gotcha.” I wish I could time travel back to advocate for myself, because I would have TORN THEM A NEW ONE. My parents were apathetic cowards.
I would have sued them personally for defamation just under the small claims court amount ($10k) with a jury demand. Small claims cases in my state cannot be dismissed for cause of action. They could ask for a summary judgement, but that would still cost more in attorneys fees than just settling.
I deconstructed the underlying methodology of the creator of the system in order to understand their internalized blind spots or artificial limitations imposed on them by unrelated third parties at the time of the systems creation.
Then they also get mad when you find an easier way to accomplish the same thing in a fraction of the time or even automating it.
This reminds me of a punishment homework thing I was given in my youth, I had to write out something a bunch of times, which was a shit punishment to begin with and only happened once in like, grade 3 or something. Maybe even grade 1 when we were learning to write, idk. Maybe it wasn’t a punishment (it felt like one).
Instead of writing the letter “i” at the start of every line like I was supposed to, I just put a long line down the page to be that letter on every line.
The only part of this that I remember to this day is that I got it back with that line circled in red and the word “lazy!” Written next to it, with points off of the assignment for it.
That’s literally the only thing I recall about it, that finding an “easy” way to write the same letter across multiple lines was lazy, therefore I’m lazy and worthless. I don’t even remember if I passed or failed it, because that was less important to my young mind than being called lazy for simply trying to optimize my working time.
I dunno, but at this point I kind feel like that teacher was a bit of an asshole.
You gotta try to make a perfectly spaced dashed line down the page, as fast as you can. It’s a bit of a challenge and get all the I’s out of the way. Then the teacher can’t say boo.
This applies so hard to programmers, as well. I love making things automated, but I never have the time to make them properly.
Come join us on the QA side! I’m an automation developer, so it’s my job to make things automated :)
Hahaha! I’m a full stack… I’m supposed to do both. Lol. I need more automation…!!!
Hello, me!
Why hello there, me! Have a great day. ;)
“Why didn’t you show your work, so I can see how you think?”
Because I did it in my head and got the right answer. This isn’t about you.
Ok but forcing me to show my work was one of those things I hated until I was extremely grateful for it. I didn’t need to show my work to prove my answer was correct in elementary school, but it was a slow drift from “I can do it in my head with ease” to “I need to document my steps so I can check where the error occurred”. Also “it’s not enough to be correct, you need to be correct with evidence” is the reality for people who do math for a living
The “show your work” is about checking if you understand the logic in getting the answer. We had lots of questions out of 5. Right answer was only worth 1 mark, the other 4 were the steps and reasoning. This type of setup punishes those that skip right to the answer, or have memorized answers. But rewards those that show they know the concepts
What part of what you said changes what I said?
That you need to show your work, so they can test if they taught you the principles.
If I arrive at the correct answer every single time then I clearly understand the principles.
Maybe you do, but some arrive at the answer using the wrong techniwue that doesnt work when the equation is altered. There is no way you are doing calculus and functions and relations in your head. Process and method is the important part.
Right, so nothing.
My brain didn’t go through the steps like that. It looked at the problem and found the answer.
It’s why they thought I was cheating: my scantron results were above 90% correct, and the written portion was scored abysmally for lack of work.
That’s a failure of Test Design, not of student ability.
I think you are nissing the point about the goal of schooling, it is not to get correct answers but to teach people methods of problem solving, so when faced with a brand new problem you can extrapolate methods and find a solution. As acedemia progresses solutions are not possible in your head, so applying principles is the goal.
So, by your logic, any student who doesn’t conform to the specific, approved processes and methodology is therefore wrong, is that it?
Tell me, do you value the perspectives of others, or are you concrete in the surety that yours is always the infallible way? Is everyone who does something differently from the way you do it, wrong?
What do you hope to gain in your escalation of commitment? Or is lecturing me its own reward?
Having gone forward from high school to undergrad, to half a dozen graduate schools, I do think I’m at least somewhat privy to the methodologies of academia- in fact, I even studied process design at MIT, among other things. What I find most, is that rigid thinking is more susceptible to Group Think than allowing room for alternative paths to a desired outcome.
Does that make me right, and you wrong? Or vice versa? No, probably not in either case. But it certainly doesn’t make you right in an absolute sense, which is the sentiment you seem to be pushing.
I was explaining why they want you to show your work. I work with a lot of engineers who got the right answers on tests in university, but you give them a unique problem they can’t reason out a new method to solve it. This is why testing wants you to show your work so somebody can check you are connecting the dots of reasoning. All they would have to do tgough is make the question multipart, so step A asks for a certain portion, step b asks for next portion, and so on. Passing University doesn’t always mean you can think. Granted other testing is needed to assist non typical learners
It doesn’t matter if you use mental math or not, you just need to write what you did in your head on the paper.
Yes. Having been there, and done that, I would agree that it should count. My teacher disagreed.
What did you write then? I’m confused. You showed how to solve the problem and got it marked wrong?
I had the exact same problem.
I was always a space cadet in class, falling behind, but accelled in testing, add on top that I sucked at showing my work, and my teacher was adamant that I must be cheating somehow.
Literally every single damn math class I ever took
I had to retake an algebra 2 exam multiple times because they thought I was cheating- including sitting IN the principal’s office, yet the scores were all within points of each other.
They were so fucking salty about it too when there was no “gotcha.” I wish I could time travel back to advocate for myself, because I would have TORN THEM A NEW ONE. My parents were apathetic cowards.
Like all cutting injustices, it’s stuck with me.
I would have sued them personally for defamation just under the small claims court amount ($10k) with a jury demand. Small claims cases in my state cannot be dismissed for cause of action. They could ask for a summary judgement, but that would still cost more in attorneys fees than just settling.
That’s probably what better parents might have done. Mine did nothing.
Of course, to bring it up now is only to be met with a constant stream of, “I don’t remember that.”
The tree remembers what the axe forgets.
I deconstructed the underlying methodology of the creator of the system in order to understand their internalized blind spots or artificial limitations imposed on them by unrelated third parties at the time of the systems creation.