Survey posted 2000-02-27 20:36 by Andy.

Contribute ideas to surveys by sending a mail to survey@ticalc.org.

The algebra used on tests (the SAT anyway) is never above algebra 1. They always word it in weird ways, thus making it harder than it really is. The real test is if can reason through the garbage they throw in there to see the real problem (a simple one at that.) A calculator can't do that logic, so use it all you want. Besides, if you can't do algebra 1 without a calculator, you are hurting...

After reading most of the commits, I noticed that the number of people woting went from close to one sided. I wonder which will win win.

By the way, did you know the 86 can solve a system of equations the form below?

a(1,1)x1+a(1,2)x2+...a(1,n)xn=b1
a(2,1)x1+a(2,2)x2+...a(2,n)xn=b2
.
.
.
a(n,1)x1+a(n,2)x2+...a(n,n)xn=bn

It labeled as "Simult" look on pgs 208-210,354 of you manual if you still have it.

Actually I do know, I thought that it was awesome when I first discovered what it was (I was stupid and didn't realize 'simultanious equations' was the same as systems of equations....actually I never really gave it a thought)
I think that that is easier to use (but not exactly better) than the 89's version of a system solver - you don't need to press as many buttons on the 86 (but no symbolic answer)

Yeah, so can the 85.

You can also solve systems of equations with my Algebra Toolkit for the TI-83.

I beleve the TI-89, 92 and 92+ should be allowed on standerdized tests for this reason: A person With one these Calculators knows what the calculator can do and how to do it, if people can figure out what the question is asking and how to plug it in and why this answer is right over an other answer, Then these Calculators should be allowed.

(This Problem From ICTM Reganals 2000 Written Competiton Algebra I)

EG.

Factor completely over the real numbers into 4 linear factors:
(x^4)-(2x^3)-(6x^2)+(6x)+9

Which if pluged into the calculator as factor((x^4)-(2x^3)-(6x^2)+(6x)+9)
Would return:
(x-3)(x+1)(x^2-3)

But pluged in as: factor((x^4)-(2x^3)-(6x^2)+(6x)+9,x)
Would Return:
(x-3)(x+1)(x+*3)(x-*3)

Which is the correct answer?

In this Case (x-3)(x+1)(x+*3)(x-*3) is the correct answer

I think i Rest my Case...

PS. 89s, 92s 92+s are allowed in this contest
PSS. I used a TI-92 Plus and placed 3rd in The region.

PSSSS. It's (x-3)(x+1)(x+[the square root of]3)(x-[the square root of]3)

Good for you. You know how to punch the correct buttons to get the correct answer. I salute you! Now, how about the poor souls you are tested against who may be as smart/smarter than you that actually have to work a problem like that out by hand? You are both being graded the same way, but who actually has to put more effort into the work?

I voted "no." I did not spend three years of my education stuck in math classes a year above my fellow sophomores so that they can buy a fancier calculator and do better than me on the SAT. They should have to work for a math score of 800 just like I will.

YEAH!? I dont believe you people. Why are you using a computer? Some of your friends dont have computers, so maybe you shouldnt either.That gives you an advantage in school. And thats not fair. BAh! What GARBAGE! Of course you should have a calculater. I agree with the post near the top that says why send palentoligist without a pick. We are going to have these in our professional careers, and we should be able to utilize them. And I would like to see 1 person do the 3d graph of the ripple and trace it on paper as fast as the calculater. TI makes them to aid us, not to brain drain us. All games aside, the calculater alone is an excellent math source. Smarter than you in some things, and faster too. Embrace technology, or it will embrace you. Dont be afraid we are being replaced with technology. No need to fear. Because we are and you cant help it or stop it. And it is a good thing. But that is another argument. You can do so much with even an 81! you could store notes and do graphing, and all sorts of neat stuff you CANNOT do in your head. ("Ok, class. Calculaters away. Take out a peice of paper and graph 33x^2-209x+7809. Evaluate X at 765, then find where it intersects 7000.You have five minutes.This will be a major grade.For 1 point bonus, divide 4972610834 by four.") Yeah, right. You cant do it. You would fail. If only ti had a brain implant that COULD do it, that would be neat. One day that will exist, making smarter, more effiecient humans. So: Vote YES for calculaters on tests.
Thank you...
--R
Ronnie B.

I agree, all this BS about unfair advantages is crap! If you have a better tool USE IT! The point most people fail to realize is that ...

1) If you already know how to do something, why continue to tediously do it on paper, its slower and more error prone than the calculator. Doing it by hand is necessary to learn, memorize, and understand mathematical concepts, the calculator comes in after you already understand it.

2) You should be able to use something despite 100,000 people not having it. That's like saying rich people should live in ghettos because poor people have to. If only you could hear the ridiculousness of what you are saying.

3) Calculators are mathematical aids, not the main power supply, that is the human brain. People are saying that we should reject calculators because they brainwash people and make them dependent on them are hypocrites pure and simple. The Radio was condemned as the end of literacy. The TV was met with equal scorn. So was the computer. History repeats like a river. Calculators are still relatively new and a few guardians of the past may find it hard to swallow, but calculators are here to stay, like it or not. Soon they will become an integral part of our life and we will be dependent on them, just like were dependent on 100,000,000 other technological devices that were once ridiculed and condemned like cars, radios, TVs, movies, wrist watches, trains, steam boats, trains, and computers.

Face it, calculators are here to stay.

Ouch! That stung! I espically like the parts where you implied that I (I think its my comments you are directing this to) wanted the rich to live in the ghettos and that all technolegy put to a stop. Just for the record, I don't. I realize that most rich people had to earn their fortunes and have a right to enjoy them. I also believe that if we stop pushing forward technollegically that we will become weakened as a species. I am only saying, that on a test that measures a person's knowledge and reasoning skills, there should not be a device that allows gives some people an unfair advantage. It would be like running a race where one guy is on foot and the other guy stops by a department store and buys a bicycle.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing you, I think I was in the same boat as you. I just resent people rubbing their lack (or excess) of money in my face. I may have been born plain white trash, but Laura is my name GOD DAMN IT!!

("Ok, class. Calculators away. Take out a piece of paper and graph 33x^2-209x+7809. Evaluate X at 765, then find where it intersects 7000. You have five minutes. This will be a major grade. For 1 point bonus, divide 4972610834 by four.")

1. When has that ever happened, especially on a standardized test?

2. Is that either 'neat' or useful?

Have you EVER seen a question like that on the SAT?!?

He said it to make a point you fool.

First of all, that is like the millionth time you insulted me because of my opinions. Its fine you don't agree with me. I respect that. Lets not get nasty about it, though. Kindly just shoot down my arguements and leave it at that. Now, to the "point" he was making. Perhaps you can enlighten me on it because I didn't see it. What it seemed like to be was that he was trying to think of a long and tedious question to advocate the use of graphing calculators. I agree with him that on a test with questions like those, one would want as high powered calculator as possible. The SAT and other standardized tests like it, however, does NOT have questions like that. This brings me to another point. If graphing calculators become standard use on these tests, two things will happen. First, the math scores will go up. Second, the tests will become harder because so many people are bringing the average up. Who knows, they might implement questions similar to our friends previous problem. That makes it that much harder for those who are trying to take the test without a graphing calc. (Maybe they aren't poor; lets say they have one but their batteries are dead, it get stolen and/or it breaks (happy now Laura?!?)).

I wasn't talking to you. I wasn't insulting you. I was insulting the other guy who made a totally bodus statment. You know the one that you said "would you ever see a question like that?". In other words I'm agreeing with you.

Laura

I'm afraid that some clearing up is necessary. I didn't write the equation. I responded to the guy who did. If you did come across a problem like that, you would be justified in using a graphing calc. However, that <B>doesn't happpen</B>. That was MY point. As for Laura, I KNOW he was making a point. I was ATTACKING it. The point of going to school, taking tests, etc. is not to learn how to operate a graphing calculator--it is to learn how to do the problem, or, put another way, to know how the calculator does the problem. That is exactly why this guy's example wouldn't exist. Try filling out a resumè and in the 'Special Skills' portion putting that you know how to use a TI-89. Nobody cares. There are millions of people, for example, that know how to load up Internet Explorer. They are sitting at their computers playing bridge with somebody from Turkey. There are also some people that actually know how IE works. They are doing something a bit more constructive than cards, and they are likely getting paid for it too. Knowing how to use the technology is never a fair substitute for knowing how to NOT use the technology. By taking a test with a calculator that is too advanced for that test, you hurt yourself because you don't know what counts, and you hurt everybody else taking the test with your artificially inflated grade.

Well, in response to your theoretical quiz.

Doing 4972610834/4 shouldn't be all that difficult. At least I hope not. Long division isn't that hard. (The answer, btw is 1243152708.5; it took me about 30 seconds, including copying down the problem and typing it back in here.)

Graphing 33 x^2 - 209x + 7809 is a bit more difficult. Evaluating x at 765 is neither interesting nor difficult, just plug 'n' chug. Finding where f(x)=7000 is equally easy, use quadratic formula on 33 x^2 - 209x + 809 = 0. Graphing it would be more difficult, although you can find the zeroes and intercepts pretty easily, graph those, and you know that the graph is a parabola opening upwards.

I don't see too many dumbasses using these calc's... not only do u have to be smart in general to use them, u must know what u are doing and how to enter the equation, formula, whatever to get the answer.

Yes, but a stupid person can be shown how to do things (monkey see, monkey do).

it does take brains to use the 89 to it's full potential, but a person should be skilled
without the calculator.

I love to impress my friends by going to a take a test and not bringing my calculator.
then i laugh in their face when i get a higher score than all of them.
(except ap calc bc, damn it a freaking 4...yeah the calculator is useful for this test)

Actually, there are cases in which having a programming calculator is a substitute for knowing what you are doing. Suppose you were given the following math problem:

Find a perfect number larger than 8,000.

As long as you know what a perfect number is, it's quite trivial to write a calculator program that will test all the numbers from 8,000 and up to get an answer e.g. (8128).

However, if you actually knew much about math, you could do this without a calculator (though a simple 4-function calculator would be helpful for the arithmetic) because you would be able to determine (and prove) that (2^(N+1)-1)*(2^N) is a perfect number wherever (2^(N+1)-1) is prime. This way you would only need to test whether 3, 7, 15, 31, 63, and 127 were prime, and then you'd know that 8128 is perfect.

Not too many people use them at my school. They are smart enough to do it with an scientific calculator. Graphing calculators just make the things faster. It takes smart people to do all of the programs for algebra. Most people know how to do it anyway.