In the wake of rating compilers
Recently, an article entitled “ Viva China: (Russia ”) was published on Habré, from which it followed that, according to research by American scientists, Russian scientists are hopelessly lagging behind and Russian science is generally bent. Intrigued, I’ve got to look at where the woods are actually. I found it (it was too many letters), but I came across something beautiful. Here it is: www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind10 , chapter 7.
Those who are interested in this topic are likely to remember the surveys that the organization is satisfied with among the adult population, in order to establish the level of knowledge of the average US citizen (Japan, Russia, the European Union, etc.). Like, "is it true that the electron is smaller than an atom" or "The earth revolves around the sun or the sun around the earth." Which is typical, judging by the data on page 19, the questions have not changed at least since 2001.
On page 20 of the study, a new, 2008 questionnaire (General Social Survey) entitled “New Science Knowledge Questions” is presented. This, I tell you, is just a song. Also with the refrain. While reading this monumental work, in my head there was basically something that vaguely resembled “WELL STUFF”. Who made this list is interesting to me.
')
The first question kills on the spot.
Attention:
What is the most important property of water for living organisms?
My relatively good school education hinted to me that it was necessary to build on the high dielectric constant of water (80), which makes it a good solvent, etc. And then I somehow find it difficult to formulate in one sentence what (one!) Property of water makes it so important for living organisms.
Guess which answer is correct. Attention:
"It is liquid for most temperatures on Earth" (I translate it literally).
This is brilliant, I think.
UPD. I explain.
1) the criteria of importance, unimportance, no one gave;
2) during the entire period of development of life on Earth, there were periods when liquid water was present far from everywhere on the globe. By the way, the maximum recorded temperature on Earth is +53, and the minimum is -89, therefore the wording “most temperatures” requires substantial clarification (on most of the surface?);
3) water is necessary for life primarily because many reactions that are crucial for life occur in an aqueous medium: water is a good solvent with a high dielectric constant. Therefore, the answer B is actually the most like the truth.
The second question is specifically designed for morons - see, evaluate yourself. Questions 3 and 4 are still nothing. In the fifth question there is no question.
The sixth question: a student conducts an experiment - how a temperature increase changes the behavior of goldfish. He has 4 aquariums and 20 fish. Which experiment from the picture should he do?
Yes FIG knows! About the essence of the study is nothing written. Or do the authors believe that any studies of the effect of temperature on the behavior of fish should be carried out, seeding 5 fish in an aquarium?
UPD:
A student on this experiment CANNOT draw the required conclusion because:
1.1) if there is no difference in behavior, then only that temperature does not affect the behavior of FIVE fish at DATA temperatures in an aquarium of such volume.
1.2) there is at least one factor affecting the behavior of fish that this experiment does not exclude: the sex composition of the fish. It is obvious that five males will tirelessly fight for the territory, in contrast to the mixed composition.
Total: the test does not check the logic (and specifically, the understanding of the difference between the necessary and sufficient condition) and does not check the knowledge of scientific methodology (excluding other factors - the sex of the fish, age, time of day, etc.).
UPD2:
Generally speaking, the idiocy of the question becomes clear if one asks the question: is it necessary to know something about fish to answer this question?
If we consider the question as purely logical (replacing the fish and the temperature with abstract parameters), the problem is posed completely incorrectly: none of the experiments can answer the question in the case of a negative result.
If you know something about fish, then the answer is - no experiments are needed. At zero temperature, the fish obviously die, therefore, the temperature influences the behavior of the fish.
UPD3. Here is the correct analogy:
How much is 2 + 2 * 2
A 8
B 27
C 873
D 0
The correct answer, according to the logic of the test compilers, is 8. Yes, everything is wrong, but 8 can be logically explained at least somehow. And in addition, the man demonstrated the ability to perform simple actions.
Seventh question. The farmer thinks that the vegetables on her farm do not get enough water. Her son suggests using water from the ocean to water vegetables.
Attention, question: is this a good idea? How do you articulate?
Let's start with the fact that the question is not written anywhere: a) But do vegetables really suffer from a lack of water? b) and the son offers to desalinate the water or just water it like that?
And there is still an answer option D - no, because ocean water is dirtier than rainwater. In principle, in some places it is).
UPD. In a dry climate, the proposal to use desalinated water is extremely meaningful. And just for the reason mentioned in paragraph A - there is a lot more salt water than fresh water. To answer C you must make an implicit assumption that desalinate water is too expensive.
The eighth question. Which of these is not an example of erosion?
A wind in the desert blows sand into the rocks.
B glacier drags boulders when moving
C stream washes the bank of the river and takes with it fragments of soil
D from the cold wind there are cracks on the sidewalks
As the Russian Vicky suggests, erosion is the destruction of soil and rock by water currents and wind. So the correct answer is B and D. The same Vicky indicates that in the West it is customary to call any destructive activity of geological forces erosion. So there is no right answer at all. English Wiki, however, clearly indicates the option D. Suppose. Do you think that checks this issue? According to the compilers - Composition of the Earth; forces that alter the Earth's surface; rocks: their formation, characteristics, and uses; soil: its changes and uses; natural resources used by humankind; and forces within the Earth. Here I already have the strength to laugh. In my opinion, this question checks only the knowledge of the school definition.
UPD. In general, everything is written above. I repeat: the question is not checked by the basic knowledge of the structure of the earth's surface, the formation of rocks and soil, as the authors believe, but knowledge of the definition of erosion from an American school textbook. In the Russian tradition, the definition is different. There is no logical difference between the answers - everywhere we are talking about the destructive influence of natural forces (here, rather, the version about the glacier is out of line).
The ninth question - and again the song:
Traits are transferred from generation to generation through
A Only cum
B Only egg
C Sperm and ovum
D Testicles
To begin with, the correct answer is through DNA. The wording itself implies a million different readings - traits can be interpreted as “facial features” or “characteristic features”, an egg - as “egg” or “egg”, etc. The condition does not say whether it is about sexual reproduction. Etc.
13 question. Students calculated the weight of a sheet 20 times and obtained 20 slightly different values. Which of the following is the best method to describe (to report - to report? Again ambiguity) the weight of the paper?
A ask a teacher
B Report the result of the first measurement
C Average of all values.
D Average of maximum and minimum value.
E Drop 5 minimum values.
UPD. Generally speaking, the correct answer should sound something like this: discard the extreme values, calculate the mean and variance. Answers C, D, E contain each part of the correct solution.
In addition, the answers are grammatically heterogeneous: the first two indicate the action (ask - report), the 3rd and 4th digits (that is, do not answer the formulated question: "Which is the best method out of this" - "average"). Actually, this is the main reason why I brought this particular question: the inability of the authors to at least correctly formulate questions and answers.
The remaining questions are no better. All of them are idiotically formulated, most require significant clarification, many do not have the answer, or there are several correct answers.
And on the basis of such tests, they make up their "ratings". The first reasonable question - what kind of idiots work in this organization? They demonstrate a) complete scientific illiteracy and b) complete inability to compose tests. Who are these people?
The second reasonable question - what is the use of these ratings? What can they reflect?
Of course, I did not carefully read the rest of the report. Of course, it may be that in the subdivision engaged in the study of the level of scientific knowledge, some idiots work, and all the rest are white and fluffy. But for me personally, the value of this report is rapidly approaching zero.
UPD. Especially for commentators deciphered each item.
Those who are interested in this topic are likely to remember the surveys that the organization is satisfied with among the adult population, in order to establish the level of knowledge of the average US citizen (Japan, Russia, the European Union, etc.). Like, "is it true that the electron is smaller than an atom" or "The earth revolves around the sun or the sun around the earth." Which is typical, judging by the data on page 19, the questions have not changed at least since 2001.
On page 20 of the study, a new, 2008 questionnaire (General Social Survey) entitled “New Science Knowledge Questions” is presented. This, I tell you, is just a song. Also with the refrain. While reading this monumental work, in my head there was basically something that vaguely resembled “WELL STUFF”. Who made this list is interesting to me.
')
The first question kills on the spot.
Attention:
What is the most important property of water for living organisms?
My relatively good school education hinted to me that it was necessary to build on the high dielectric constant of water (80), which makes it a good solvent, etc. And then I somehow find it difficult to formulate in one sentence what (one!) Property of water makes it so important for living organisms.
Guess which answer is correct. Attention:
"It is liquid for most temperatures on Earth" (I translate it literally).
This is brilliant, I think.
UPD. I explain.
1) the criteria of importance, unimportance, no one gave;
2) during the entire period of development of life on Earth, there were periods when liquid water was present far from everywhere on the globe. By the way, the maximum recorded temperature on Earth is +53, and the minimum is -89, therefore the wording “most temperatures” requires substantial clarification (on most of the surface?);
3) water is necessary for life primarily because many reactions that are crucial for life occur in an aqueous medium: water is a good solvent with a high dielectric constant. Therefore, the answer B is actually the most like the truth.
The second question is specifically designed for morons - see, evaluate yourself. Questions 3 and 4 are still nothing. In the fifth question there is no question.
The sixth question: a student conducts an experiment - how a temperature increase changes the behavior of goldfish. He has 4 aquariums and 20 fish. Which experiment from the picture should he do?
Yes FIG knows! About the essence of the study is nothing written. Or do the authors believe that any studies of the effect of temperature on the behavior of fish should be carried out, seeding 5 fish in an aquarium?
UPD:
A student on this experiment CANNOT draw the required conclusion because:
1.1) if there is no difference in behavior, then only that temperature does not affect the behavior of FIVE fish at DATA temperatures in an aquarium of such volume.
1.2) there is at least one factor affecting the behavior of fish that this experiment does not exclude: the sex composition of the fish. It is obvious that five males will tirelessly fight for the territory, in contrast to the mixed composition.
Total: the test does not check the logic (and specifically, the understanding of the difference between the necessary and sufficient condition) and does not check the knowledge of scientific methodology (excluding other factors - the sex of the fish, age, time of day, etc.).
UPD2:
Generally speaking, the idiocy of the question becomes clear if one asks the question: is it necessary to know something about fish to answer this question?
If we consider the question as purely logical (replacing the fish and the temperature with abstract parameters), the problem is posed completely incorrectly: none of the experiments can answer the question in the case of a negative result.
If you know something about fish, then the answer is - no experiments are needed. At zero temperature, the fish obviously die, therefore, the temperature influences the behavior of the fish.
UPD3. Here is the correct analogy:
How much is 2 + 2 * 2
A 8
B 27
C 873
D 0
The correct answer, according to the logic of the test compilers, is 8. Yes, everything is wrong, but 8 can be logically explained at least somehow. And in addition, the man demonstrated the ability to perform simple actions.
Seventh question. The farmer thinks that the vegetables on her farm do not get enough water. Her son suggests using water from the ocean to water vegetables.
Attention, question: is this a good idea? How do you articulate?
Let's start with the fact that the question is not written anywhere: a) But do vegetables really suffer from a lack of water? b) and the son offers to desalinate the water or just water it like that?
And there is still an answer option D - no, because ocean water is dirtier than rainwater. In principle, in some places it is).
UPD. In a dry climate, the proposal to use desalinated water is extremely meaningful. And just for the reason mentioned in paragraph A - there is a lot more salt water than fresh water. To answer C you must make an implicit assumption that desalinate water is too expensive.
The eighth question. Which of these is not an example of erosion?
A wind in the desert blows sand into the rocks.
B glacier drags boulders when moving
C stream washes the bank of the river and takes with it fragments of soil
D from the cold wind there are cracks on the sidewalks
As the Russian Vicky suggests, erosion is the destruction of soil and rock by water currents and wind. So the correct answer is B and D. The same Vicky indicates that in the West it is customary to call any destructive activity of geological forces erosion. So there is no right answer at all. English Wiki, however, clearly indicates the option D. Suppose. Do you think that checks this issue? According to the compilers - Composition of the Earth; forces that alter the Earth's surface; rocks: their formation, characteristics, and uses; soil: its changes and uses; natural resources used by humankind; and forces within the Earth. Here I already have the strength to laugh. In my opinion, this question checks only the knowledge of the school definition.
UPD. In general, everything is written above. I repeat: the question is not checked by the basic knowledge of the structure of the earth's surface, the formation of rocks and soil, as the authors believe, but knowledge of the definition of erosion from an American school textbook. In the Russian tradition, the definition is different. There is no logical difference between the answers - everywhere we are talking about the destructive influence of natural forces (here, rather, the version about the glacier is out of line).
The ninth question - and again the song:
Traits are transferred from generation to generation through
A Only cum
B Only egg
C Sperm and ovum
D Testicles
To begin with, the correct answer is through DNA. The wording itself implies a million different readings - traits can be interpreted as “facial features” or “characteristic features”, an egg - as “egg” or “egg”, etc. The condition does not say whether it is about sexual reproduction. Etc.
13 question. Students calculated the weight of a sheet 20 times and obtained 20 slightly different values. Which of the following is the best method to describe (to report - to report? Again ambiguity) the weight of the paper?
A ask a teacher
B Report the result of the first measurement
C Average of all values.
D Average of maximum and minimum value.
E Drop 5 minimum values.
UPD. Generally speaking, the correct answer should sound something like this: discard the extreme values, calculate the mean and variance. Answers C, D, E contain each part of the correct solution.
In addition, the answers are grammatically heterogeneous: the first two indicate the action (ask - report), the 3rd and 4th digits (that is, do not answer the formulated question: "Which is the best method out of this" - "average"). Actually, this is the main reason why I brought this particular question: the inability of the authors to at least correctly formulate questions and answers.
The remaining questions are no better. All of them are idiotically formulated, most require significant clarification, many do not have the answer, or there are several correct answers.
And on the basis of such tests, they make up their "ratings". The first reasonable question - what kind of idiots work in this organization? They demonstrate a) complete scientific illiteracy and b) complete inability to compose tests. Who are these people?
The second reasonable question - what is the use of these ratings? What can they reflect?
Of course, I did not carefully read the rest of the report. Of course, it may be that in the subdivision engaged in the study of the level of scientific knowledge, some idiots work, and all the rest are white and fluffy. But for me personally, the value of this report is rapidly approaching zero.
UPD. Especially for commentators deciphered each item.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/82510/
All Articles