Could You Have Passed the 8th Grade in 1895? Take a Look(people.moreheadstate.edu)
people.moreheadstate.edu
Could You Have Passed the 8th Grade in 1895? Take a Look
http://people.moreheadstate.edu/fs/w.willis/eighthgrade.html
103 comments
Right, but this is basic, practical stuff for everyday life (except for the stuff about bushels and rods). Even though you can learn it and then pass, the fact that you are past 8th grade and cannot means your education is deficient (mine as well).
Rote memorization is underrated. Yes, memorization alone is useless, but critical thinking without anything to think about is also useless.
Rote memorization is underrated. Yes, memorization alone is useless, but critical thinking without anything to think about is also useless.
So you can still pass all your tests you wrote in school? I certainly can’t and I don’t consider my education deficient because of that. To say nothing of the fact that those questions are more than a century out of date.
I also think you are misunderstanding the point I’m making about rote memorization. What good does it if you can merely name and define all the parts of speech? You can learn that whole list and all the right definitions without ever understanding anything. You can answer that question in the test completely without knowing anything of worth. There are better ways of testing whether you know what the parts of speech are and whether you can identify them.
I also think you are misunderstanding the point I’m making about rote memorization. What good does it if you can merely name and define all the parts of speech? You can learn that whole list and all the right definitions without ever understanding anything. You can answer that question in the test completely without knowing anything of worth. There are better ways of testing whether you know what the parts of speech are and whether you can identify them.
If you read the questions you'd see they are a combination of both memorization and understanding. You can't have understanding without memorization.
"Even though you can learn it and then pass, the fact that you are past 8th grade and cannot means your education is deficient (mine as well)."
No, it means that people forget things that they don't use.
This test is testing specific content knowledge. Learning content doesn't matter. The content of your job or whatever changes depending on what you're doing. Like other people have said, if you were being taught these topics for the term leading up to the test, it's an easy test - there's no thinking involved, just memory.
What matters is the PROCESS of learning, and in that respect, I think the modern methods of education are far better than straight ROTE learning. (Though not optimal by any means)
No, it means that people forget things that they don't use.
This test is testing specific content knowledge. Learning content doesn't matter. The content of your job or whatever changes depending on what you're doing. Like other people have said, if you were being taught these topics for the term leading up to the test, it's an easy test - there's no thinking involved, just memory.
What matters is the PROCESS of learning, and in that respect, I think the modern methods of education are far better than straight ROTE learning. (Though not optimal by any means)
Disagree completely. I could only answer one or maybe two of the grammar questions and yet I speak and write English just fine. Honestly, I don't even know what the "Principle Parts" of a verb refer to and I certainly can't list them. What bearing does that have on anything?
It's always nice to be able to take a machine apart, see how it works, and put it back together successfully. Language is a tool used every day by everyone, but fewer and fewer people know how it actually works. I wish schools still taught grammar properly. I hardly learned anything about how English (or language in general) worked until I took a foreign language course in high school.
Some aspects of grammar are important, but it's important to reflect on the purpose of its study: The ability to construct a sentence that's cogent, clear and understandable both in writing and while speaking.
Some things are simply not important to know as a native speaker but still manage to get taught in English classes. A couple of examples:
1. The different between "that" and "which" (e.g. The curtains that/which cover the windows). Either way is perfectly clear and rigid adherence to a correct "rule" is just language fascism.
2. Terminology for many things that are specific to grammar are also pretty useless. Words like 'participle', 'split-infinitive', and 'gerund' (I literally had to look that up to remember it) are basically useless. Specifically from the test are phrases which obviously have been taught within the class, but don't have any real meaning outside of the concept it's teaching: "Parts of Speech" and "Define Case".
Grammar is only important insomuch as you can write and speak intelligently and coherently. Construction beyond that belongs in a linguistics class specifically focused on the mechanics of language.
Some things are simply not important to know as a native speaker but still manage to get taught in English classes. A couple of examples:
1. The different between "that" and "which" (e.g. The curtains that/which cover the windows). Either way is perfectly clear and rigid adherence to a correct "rule" is just language fascism.
2. Terminology for many things that are specific to grammar are also pretty useless. Words like 'participle', 'split-infinitive', and 'gerund' (I literally had to look that up to remember it) are basically useless. Specifically from the test are phrases which obviously have been taught within the class, but don't have any real meaning outside of the concept it's teaching: "Parts of Speech" and "Define Case".
Grammar is only important insomuch as you can write and speak intelligently and coherently. Construction beyond that belongs in a linguistics class specifically focused on the mechanics of language.
Good communication is crucial to pretty much everything in life.
Additionally, grammar is not merely a matter of formulating sentences properly. Learning grammar structures your thought and allows you to make precise distinctions, important for sophisticated thinking.
Additionally, grammar is not merely a matter of formulating sentences properly. Learning grammar structures your thought and allows you to make precise distinctions, important for sophisticated thinking.
Times tables are useful to have memorized. Memorizing random world rivers and semi-major cities, not so much.
Right, I definitely feel bad to have forgotten Aspinwall, if ever I knew where it was. Yet I doubt that anyone worth reading has used the word "fane" since about Alfred Lord Tennyson--I won't feign shame for missing that one.
I bet a fair number of HN readers (the Americans anyway), could pass Grammar, History, and Geography. So remind me what critical thinking Orthography feeds.
I bet a fair number of HN readers (the Americans anyway), could pass Grammar, History, and Geography. So remind me what critical thinking Orthography feeds.
Actually, rote memorization is overrated, it's not a natural way for humans to remember information. The brain is much better at remembering locations and events, rather than lists of items, I've posted this before, but if you've not seen it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_of_loci
Here comes the flame war about how our educational system has declined in the past hundred years. In an attempt to head that off at the pass (Hey, if you're going to have a cliché argument I get to use a cliché) here is the problem with that. This is a test designed to review the material deemed important by one person in 1895 (If it is really from then). The class would have gone over what "epochs into which U.S. History is divided". This is the same thing with the stupid joke that I always heard when I was doing calculus and adults were around "When I was growing up, you didn't have to spell out your math homework". That is code for "I have no idea what's going on here" and let's be honest, that is fine.
I would bet that most people who read this could have answered almost all of these questions at some point in their life. We have to remember that the purpose of education is to teach you how to learn and how to adjust to your current situations. You learn what you need to get the job done and you relearn what you can't remember to complete the job.
EDIT: It's good to see that Snopes already did this. Thank you Snopes and thanks glhaynes for pointing us to it.
I would bet that most people who read this could have answered almost all of these questions at some point in their life. We have to remember that the purpose of education is to teach you how to learn and how to adjust to your current situations. You learn what you need to get the job done and you relearn what you can't remember to complete the job.
EDIT: It's good to see that Snopes already did this. Thank you Snopes and thanks glhaynes for pointing us to it.
More importantly, many of the test questions are dependent on rote memorization of facts that are nearly useless in the accomplishment of successful life. How many bushels in a tare? What is a "principle part" of a verb? These things can be found on Google. I have all the skills tested by this test, but lack some of the knowledge. Since my brain is just a cache for knowledge, I can always fault it in if the need arises.
I think of it more as a look at how different life was in 1895. You couldn't Google anything. A farm owner probably would benefit from being able to do those math problems in his head.
BTW, tare isn't a unit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tare_weight
BTW, tare isn't a unit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tare_weight
I think you are right about how it reflects a different time.
I doubt many average farmers kids made it through to 8th Grade though. Anyone who was taking the 8th Grade exam was probably reasonably wealthy, looking to continue studying, and take on a profession of some kind.
I doubt many average farmers kids made it through to 8th Grade though. Anyone who was taking the 8th Grade exam was probably reasonably wealthy, looking to continue studying, and take on a profession of some kind.
The "tare" is the weight of the container holding the item being weighed, in this case presumably the weight of the wagon, which is why the question specifies that weight. If you ask Google "tare in bushels", your comment itself shows up as the top answer :-).
I don't agree with you, I rather think farmers would need to know how to convert things like bushels just as much as I need to know how to convert milliamps to amps. The only difference is metric is easy, so you don't need to get tested on it.
My point is that I am not a farmer, thus whether I can pass this test from memory is totally uninteresting and means nothing about whether or not education is declining in America. (I.e. I agree with the parent.)
But the long-term memory is a memory cache that shrinks when not used. That's why the ignorant are always thrashing about, no matter how clever they are.
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_...: "By 1918, all states had passed school attendance legislation, although until the 1930s, many were unsuccessful in enforcing their compulsory schooling laws."
Comparing compulsory education standards to non-compulsory education standards is unfair and unenlightening. The forces affecting the school are so different they can not be said to be the same thing except inasmuch as they share the word "schooling".
I say this as one who is carefully refraining from going any deeper because I have as rich an opinion on the topic as anyone else around here, one not friendly to current practices (to put my cards on the table), but this is a non-data-point, at least without a lot more context, so much as to dwarf this little tidbit anyhow.
Comparing compulsory education standards to non-compulsory education standards is unfair and unenlightening. The forces affecting the school are so different they can not be said to be the same thing except inasmuch as they share the word "schooling".
I say this as one who is carefully refraining from going any deeper because I have as rich an opinion on the topic as anyone else around here, one not friendly to current practices (to put my cards on the table), but this is a non-data-point, at least without a lot more context, so much as to dwarf this little tidbit anyhow.
Hmm, snopes doesn't seem to be saying that this is not, in fact, an exam from 1895, just that current educational standards haven't declined since then. So? Neither the HN headline nor the article make the claim that snopes refutes. Strawman.
This is interesting, just because it illustrates how the world has changed since 1895.
This is interesting, just because it illustrates how the world has changed since 1895.
Could you have passed the 8th grade in 1895?
It's a dumb question that implies a conclusion that the text doesn't support. Snopes addresses the falseness of the implication adequately, and we're reproducing much of their reasoning here.
It's a dumb question that implies a conclusion that the text doesn't support. Snopes addresses the falseness of the implication adequately, and we're reproducing much of their reasoning here.
It's not a dumb question at all. The world has changed in 115 years, and it's not at all a obvious that the average HN reader has the knowledge and skills that were deemed important in Kansas in 1895.
The question its self doesn't imply a conclusion. If you come to one, it's because you have knowledge of the questioner's intentions that I do not.
The question its self doesn't imply a conclusion. If you come to one, it's because you have knowledge of the questioner's intentions that I do not.
This kind of "I never said that" semantic quibble raises one essential question: Have you stopped beating your elderly mother yet?
Things have implications beyond their explicit claims.
Things have implications beyond their explicit claims.
Pointing out a classic fallacy is hardly a quibble, and certainly not a question of semantics.
On the other hand, yes, it's quite true that all arguments appear in a specific context. I think we must live in quite different political contexts, though, because I don't see anything in the article that implies a decline in educational standards.
On the other hand, yes, it's quite true that all arguments appear in a specific context. I think we must live in quite different political contexts, though, because I don't see anything in the article that implies a decline in educational standards.
The two quibbles above seem nearly identical to me. It's interesting what role the assumptions of the audience play in their reaction to a statement.
I assumed that a snopes link would credit or discredit the claim (that this was a test from 1895.)
I assumed that a snopes link would credit or discredit the claim (that this was a test from 1895.)
I've always preferred "Do you still beat your wife?"
Rolls off the tongue better.
Rolls off the tongue better.
The title is, "Could You Have Passed the 8th Grade in 1895? Take a Look". Snopes does a perfectly good job of making the point that merely "taking a look" will not help you to answer that question.
As soon as I saw this title I was going to post the Snopes rebuttal, but you beat me to it.
A non-tech family member will send this in an email chain at least once every six months along with some variant on this message: "OMG THE SKY IS FALLING, OUR EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM IS POOP!?!!" (All caps used for quote truth/ accuracy).
A non-tech family member will send this in an email chain at least once every six months along with some variant on this message: "OMG THE SKY IS FALLING, OUR EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM IS POOP!?!!" (All caps used for quote truth/ accuracy).
A statement being contradicted on Snopes isn't automatically rendered false. The education system, in at least some locations and some subjects, is indeed declining, based on the statements and experiences of several public school teachers I know personally.
An example of education system decline, since apparently at least one person doesn't believe me:
In the state where one of my teacher friends works, the statewide high school math curriculum currently consists of Algebra, Geometry, Algebra 2, Pre-calculus, and Calculus AB or BC. Advanced students can take Algebra as early as 7th grade, while struggling students take it as late as 10th grade. Soon, Algebra through Pre-calculus will be replaced with Math 1, Math 2, and Math 3, with Math 1 being mandatory for all 9th graders, Math 2 for 10th graders, and Math 3 for 11th graders. There are "honors" versions of each class available that differ little from the corresponding non-honors class.
This change, as it was explained to me, hurts both gifted students and struggling students. The gifted students are held back by as much as 3 years from where they could be in math, while struggling students are advanced regardless of competence.
In the state where one of my teacher friends works, the statewide high school math curriculum currently consists of Algebra, Geometry, Algebra 2, Pre-calculus, and Calculus AB or BC. Advanced students can take Algebra as early as 7th grade, while struggling students take it as late as 10th grade. Soon, Algebra through Pre-calculus will be replaced with Math 1, Math 2, and Math 3, with Math 1 being mandatory for all 9th graders, Math 2 for 10th graders, and Math 3 for 11th graders. There are "honors" versions of each class available that differ little from the corresponding non-honors class.
This change, as it was explained to me, hurts both gifted students and struggling students. The gifted students are held back by as much as 3 years from where they could be in math, while struggling students are advanced regardless of competence.
"I have heard from someone that there is a specific instance where students do not partake in an education that is optimal for every single of them" != "The education system, in at least some locations and some subjects, is indeed declining"
Just describing the current state of affairs is by definition insufficient to be able to say something about the evolution over time of the quality of said affairs.
Just describing the current state of affairs is by definition insufficient to be able to say something about the evolution over time of the quality of said affairs.
Not over the past 100+ years, no, but between two years ago and two years from now, yes. Further, this isn't a change that is not "optimal for every single [one] of them," this is a change that is significantly suboptimal for the majority of students.
May be, we don't know; if you have data or (somewhat) robust theories on why and how, please tell. My point was that your 'proof' wasn't proof at all for your stated premise. I suspect this will be hard for you, because I don't have rational reasons to believe that such a sudden drop-off is happening. I don't really know though, I'm just trusting on an abstract 'common sense' approach; the best I have in situation like this where objective measure are not available (to me).
Anyway please feel free to share your theories and data on why you think that over such a very short amount of time the level of education will take a sharp drop-off.
Anyway please feel free to share your theories and data on why you think that over such a very short amount of time the level of education will take a sharp drop-off.
... and, in my experience, followed up with a comment about how "obviously shoveling money at the department of education doesn't fix anything."
Nice find. What I would be more interested to find out is how it compares to tests that are presently being given to 8th graders. It might be difficult to do an apples-to-apples comparison though. I don't seem to recall having an actual final exam in 8th grade.
Nice find.
Snopes is TFM for this kind of unlikely forwarded-email fodder. Whoever submitted it was woefully negligent in not checking.
Snopes is TFM for this kind of unlikely forwarded-email fodder. Whoever submitted it was woefully negligent in not checking.
[deleted]
I did. Don't have copies of them, though.
I don't think I did, but Texas has something equivalent: the TAKS test. I doubt actual copies are available, but the social studies practice test is at:
http://www.glencoe.com/sec/socialstudies/taks/gr08/
http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/student.assessment/resources/online/2003/grade8/math.htm
I glanced at the first test.
It had only one history question. The rest were reading comprehension questions that anyone with fairly basic English and logic skills should be able to answer.
I'm not a fan of memorization. But it seems plausible to argue that contemporary education hasn't added anything very challenging in it's place.
It had only one history question. The rest were reading comprehension questions that anyone with fairly basic English and logic skills should be able to answer.
I'm not a fan of memorization. But it seems plausible to argue that contemporary education hasn't added anything very challenging in it's place.
Holy cow. I took that test (it was called TAAS back then) and was basically just an easy day in school. It was nowhere near as tough as some of those questions look.
That page gives no evidence that it is fake, it's all just making excuses for how people shouldn't be expected to do well on it. I followed a couple of links bac and found Snopes's definition of "False" as "claims which cannot be established as true by a preponderance of (reliable) evidence." Which is easy enough, if you don't want it to be true under this standard, just don't look too hard for evidence.
I had never really looked into Snopes before, this just knocked its reputation back a good bit for me.
I had never really looked into Snopes before, this just knocked its reputation back a good bit for me.
The claim at the top that they're saying is "false" is: "An 1895 graduation examination for public school students demonstrates a shocking decline in educational standards", a claim that's usually attached to this document when it's being forwarded around the internet. It's true that this post doesn't make that claim, but I posted the Snopes link just to try to head off the conversation from going in that direction. My comment would have been much better if I'd added more than just the link, though.
The Snopes page gives no evidence that it's fake because the snopes never makes the claim that it's fake.
Read the actual 'claim' statment. The claim is that the exam demonstrates a decline in education, not that the exam is real.
Read the actual 'claim' statment. The claim is that the exam demonstrates a decline in education, not that the exam is real.
What do you propose we use to determine veracity if not evidence? Should we just believe everything we hear?
And isn't what you just did with Snopes a pretty good example of not wanting wanting something to be correct and not looking too hard for evidence to the contrary?
And isn't what you just did with Snopes a pretty good example of not wanting wanting something to be correct and not looking too hard for evidence to the contrary?
Snopes' notes suggest that the exam was first printed in the Salina Journal. Their website includes this page, which includes some more backstory, as well as answers: http://www.salina.com/1895test/
Maybe I missed it, but at no point did I see Snopes give an alternate age or source for the test. They only argue that the test isn't any harder than a modern test, which is IMO debatable.
A wagon box is 2 ft. deep, 10 feet long, and 3 ft. wide. How many bushels of wheat will it hold?
I like how the volume and weight of a bushel of wheat was common knowledge :)
I like how the volume and weight of a bushel of wheat was common knowledge :)
In Kansas, in 1895, there really wasn't a lot else to know about besides wheat.
I suspect the percentage of GDP from agriculture (and related industries) in 1895 was a fair bit higher than it is today.
Why weight? The problem only requires knowing how to convert a bushel to English measurements.
The next question on the test is:
3. If a load of wheat weighs 3942 lbs., what is it worth at 50 cts. per bu., deducting 1050 lbs. for tare?
3. If a load of wheat weighs 3942 lbs., what is it worth at 50 cts. per bu., deducting 1050 lbs. for tare?
So, 4 replies and nobody gave the answer yet ;) ?
I don't think this can provide any insight into our current education system, it wouldn't make much sense to compare them...
However it is a rather fascinating look at life in the late 1800's, and what the common concerns were.
The section on linguistics; back then there was no large (non-print) media and the US English dialects were more splintered. Additionally English hadn't become quite the lingua franca it is today; (educated) people generally knew several languages in order to communicate with people. If you read books written around that time, it's rather common for the author to quote French or Latin without translation, with the implicit understanding that the reader knows them.
The math questions also provide some really neat insight into what were considered "common practical tasks"...in my schooling most of the word problems were phrased in terms of buying things at the supermarket or for more advanced topics building skyscrapers and bridges etc... Here however it's all about bushels of wheat etc.
Really neat.
However it is a rather fascinating look at life in the late 1800's, and what the common concerns were.
The section on linguistics; back then there was no large (non-print) media and the US English dialects were more splintered. Additionally English hadn't become quite the lingua franca it is today; (educated) people generally knew several languages in order to communicate with people. If you read books written around that time, it's rather common for the author to quote French or Latin without translation, with the implicit understanding that the reader knows them.
The math questions also provide some really neat insight into what were considered "common practical tasks"...in my schooling most of the word problems were phrased in terms of buying things at the supermarket or for more advanced topics building skyscrapers and bridges etc... Here however it's all about bushels of wheat etc.
Really neat.
Could you have passed an 1869 MIT entrance exam?
http://libraries.mit.edu/archives/exhibits/exam/algebra.html
I suspect so, maybe in the 7th or 8th grade.
http://libraries.mit.edu/archives/exhibits/exam/algebra.html
I suspect so, maybe in the 7th or 8th grade.
Over the distance of time it is easier than the year 8 exam.
I've seen another variant on this test -
What it boils down to is that:
(1) rote memorization is not an indicator of intelligence or skill.
(2) specialty datapoints regarding farm life are no longer required
(3) English grammar teaching is in a sad state. (A known aspect of today's public schools)
For a fair comparison, one should review the 8th grade requirements in a variety of today's schools (I did so once in a cursory fashion). In my opinion, today's students have to take in at least as much information, some of it also specialized, and spit it out.
Arguably today's requirements are not as focused on exact knowledge as late 1800s requirements. I leave that to the philosopher of education to evaluate for better/worse.
What should also be considered is not just the test itself, but how tests were graded - was passing the top 90%? 60%? How lenient were teachers? An issue today is some teachers giving "free As". Did that exist in 1890?
What can also be considered is the difference between Kanas 8th grade and Boston 8th grade. Was there one? What about different schools?
There is not a simple analysis here. There must needs be a careful data-driven reflection examining the subtleties of the educational system before someone pushes out the generalization - "today's students are all worse and we are all stupid". I see many examples of smart people. Admittedly, they anecdotally seem to have "beat the system" most of the time, so, well - there's another facet to the analysis.
Note - I hear occasionally about Dewey & early 1900s educators setting up US education to optimize for factory workers and a compliant populace. Does anyone have any factual data/bibliographic sources asserting/refuting that?
What it boils down to is that:
(1) rote memorization is not an indicator of intelligence or skill.
(2) specialty datapoints regarding farm life are no longer required
(3) English grammar teaching is in a sad state. (A known aspect of today's public schools)
For a fair comparison, one should review the 8th grade requirements in a variety of today's schools (I did so once in a cursory fashion). In my opinion, today's students have to take in at least as much information, some of it also specialized, and spit it out.
Arguably today's requirements are not as focused on exact knowledge as late 1800s requirements. I leave that to the philosopher of education to evaluate for better/worse.
What should also be considered is not just the test itself, but how tests were graded - was passing the top 90%? 60%? How lenient were teachers? An issue today is some teachers giving "free As". Did that exist in 1890?
What can also be considered is the difference between Kanas 8th grade and Boston 8th grade. Was there one? What about different schools?
There is not a simple analysis here. There must needs be a careful data-driven reflection examining the subtleties of the educational system before someone pushes out the generalization - "today's students are all worse and we are all stupid". I see many examples of smart people. Admittedly, they anecdotally seem to have "beat the system" most of the time, so, well - there's another facet to the analysis.
Note - I hear occasionally about Dewey & early 1900s educators setting up US education to optimize for factory workers and a compliant populace. Does anyone have any factual data/bibliographic sources asserting/refuting that?
Grammar (Time, one hour)
1. Give nine rules for the use of Capital Letters.
2. Name the Parts of Speech and define those that have no modifications.
#1: Not "Parts of Speech" in #2.
#1: Not "Parts of Speech" in #2.
Have capitalization rules changed over time? IIRC, German capitalizes most nouns, and German was very nearly chosen for America's national language. Further, reading a facsimile of the Declaration of Independence, one can see that Rights, Happiness, and other important words were capitalized.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Us_declaration_independenc...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Us_declaration_independenc...
> German was very nearly chosen for America's national language
Snopes to the rescue once again: http://www.snopes.com/language/apocryph/german.asp
Snopes to the rescue once again: http://www.snopes.com/language/apocryph/german.asp
Yes, in English many nouns used to be capitalized but are not today.
(And speaking of capitalization, I can't beleive Deletionpedia has a whole page about whether "Internet" should be capitalized or not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_capitalization_convent... )
(And speaking of capitalization, I can't beleive Deletionpedia has a whole page about whether "Internet" should be capitalized or not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_capitalization_convent... )
We still do this in English; consider "Free software" versus "free software". The first means "libre", the second means "zero cost".
It's not an issue of importance but of making a generic word into one with specific meaning.
It's not an issue of importance but of making a generic word into one with specific meaning.
It seems to me that this still falls under the current rule of capitalizing proper nouns, though in this instance the nouns are made proper for exactly the reason you stated.
Article that touches on some of this: http://www.slate.com/id/2273197/
This always makes me think of Isaac Asimov's classic essay, "Forget It!" in which he gets a hold of a hundred-year-old math textbook and writes about what's in there that isn't taught anymore. (A lot of stuff about computation using long-forgotten English units of measurement, for one.)
Anyone know if it's online? I have a print copy, but I can't find anything with a quick Googling.
Anyone know if it's online? I have a print copy, but I can't find anything with a quick Googling.
I'd be curious to see the answers for someone who got an average grade on this test.
It's not much of a test by modern standards - it's more a few quizzes strung together with somewhat generous time limits. Some things stick out:
1) Math section is farming-centric, as people have pointed out; it ends on making examples of paperwork. The first question is obscure terminology for something we cover in second grade or so. No algebra. Especially generous time limit for these questions, though you have to remember your bushels.
2) "fane, fain, feign" Those days had a different fashion in popular homophones. Also, interesting the focus on indicating pronunciation and breaking words down into syllables - I remember doing that well before 8th grade.
3) The geography section mentions the rest of the world, huzzah. ...Well, to test memorization of a few names. Otherwise, a better section than the others.
4) No questions about the Civil War except to describe some famous battles and recognize the year it ended.
It's not much of a test by modern standards - it's more a few quizzes strung together with somewhat generous time limits. Some things stick out:
1) Math section is farming-centric, as people have pointed out; it ends on making examples of paperwork. The first question is obscure terminology for something we cover in second grade or so. No algebra. Especially generous time limit for these questions, though you have to remember your bushels.
2) "fane, fain, feign" Those days had a different fashion in popular homophones. Also, interesting the focus on indicating pronunciation and breaking words down into syllables - I remember doing that well before 8th grade.
3) The geography section mentions the rest of the world, huzzah. ...Well, to test memorization of a few names. Otherwise, a better section than the others.
4) No questions about the Civil War except to describe some famous battles and recognize the year it ended.
Regarding the arithmetic, the finance questions stick out to me: Arithmetic questions 4, 6, 8, and 10. Especially #8.
Regarding orthography, I find the mention of etymology, and the morphological question (#7), interesting, as these are pieces in a toolkit for understanding previously-unseen words.
The geography section is as much about meteorology as it is about placenames, which is awesome. This kind of scientific whole-world view is amusing contrasted with the Kansas Evolution Hearings.
Regarding orthography, I find the mention of etymology, and the morphological question (#7), interesting, as these are pieces in a toolkit for understanding previously-unseen words.
The geography section is as much about meteorology as it is about placenames, which is awesome. This kind of scientific whole-world view is amusing contrasted with the Kansas Evolution Hearings.
As to the geography section, meteorology was covered in world geography when I was in eighth grade in Texas in the late 80s.
What isn't as impressive (and has been pointed out elsewhere) is that those are the only science questions.
What isn't as impressive (and has been pointed out elsewhere) is that those are the only science questions.
It's hard for me to feel inadequate when looking at this test—regardless of whether it's real or not—because tests are typically dependent on your retention of what you are taught. If you're an 8th grader whose teacher doesn't explain what elementary sounds are, it would have no impact on whether or not you could pass the 8th grade.
More specifically, this is a test heavily based on facts. Nothing wrong with that. Knowing and retaining facts is important to life. Even if you have Google.
But the relevance of facts is based on context, and will change through time. Many of the facts tested for just aren't relevant in today's life. It's likely several of these weren't even relevant back in 1895 and were just added because 'they were always asked' or something.
But the relevance of facts is based on context, and will change through time. Many of the facts tested for just aren't relevant in today's life. It's likely several of these weren't even relevant back in 1895 and were just added because 'they were always asked' or something.
If that teacher doesn't explain it, but there are such questions on a test, it certainly would have an impact on whether or not you could pass the 8th grade.
In either case, it does have an effect on whether you know what elementary sounds are. If you missed out on a lot of such mere knowledge, you may also grow up without understanding that the world, and the powers of human beings, can be analyzed in that way. This is likely to have an effect on whether you can analyze at all.
In either case, it does have an effect on whether you know what elementary sounds are. If you missed out on a lot of such mere knowledge, you may also grow up without understanding that the world, and the powers of human beings, can be analyzed in that way. This is likely to have an effect on whether you can analyze at all.
>2. A wagon box is 2 ft. deep, 10 feet long, and 3 ft. wide. How many bushels of wheat will it hold?
My, how far we've fallen.
My, how far we've fallen.
Ignoring the quality of the original question ("Could you have passed?"), an equally good follow up would be:
Could someone from 1895 have passed an 8th grade test today?
Could someone from 1895 have passed an 8th grade test today?
6. Find the interest of $512.60 for 8 months and 18 days at 7 percent.
If this is a genuine question then I find it interesting that it was possible to answer back then. Now you'd have to know which months as the length of each month affects the answer.
If this is a genuine question then I find it interesting that it was possible to answer back then. Now you'd have to know which months as the length of each month affects the answer.
I had a 'mistake' in a question like that on an exam just a few weeks ago. You write 'I assume all months are 30 days' or 'I assume a full 30/31 day cycle' or whatever it is you assume at the top and you get full credit.
Additionally, I remember that most tests came with verbal instructions even as recently as when I was in primary school (well recent, 20 years ago). The teacher would dictate the questions which you'd write down on the paper; then afterward you had time to answer them. I think it's quite plausible that a similar system was used back then, especially considering the brevity of the questions. (I don't know how wide spread printing presses were back then, I know that many primary schools in Belgium in the 1980's still either didn't have them or only used them when it was 'necessary').
Additionally, I remember that most tests came with verbal instructions even as recently as when I was in primary school (well recent, 20 years ago). The teacher would dictate the questions which you'd write down on the paper; then afterward you had time to answer them. I think it's quite plausible that a similar system was used back then, especially considering the brevity of the questions. (I don't know how wide spread printing presses were back then, I know that many primary schools in Belgium in the 1980's still either didn't have them or only used them when it was 'necessary').
Honestly speaking, could I pass this test if I sat down and took it right now? No.
However I do believe that, given a study guide (i.e my notes, and a test book) and a reasonable idea of what would be on the test, I could pass the test--just as I passed many tests during my own educational era. Of course, a couple of days later most answers would be gone from my memory.
I've always been that way when it comes to learning, I don't retain details, I retain general idea's. For mathematics and sciences--problem solving, and for literature and history--that rules exists and many important events have occurred, all of which I can research and reference such material when the need arises. I'll admit, I'd like to able to recall names, and dates, and formulas at will--but frankly, as I obstinately claimed as a child, I've never actually needed such detailed information in real life. Generalizations, or time willing, a quick reference to related material are all you need.
However I do believe that, given a study guide (i.e my notes, and a test book) and a reasonable idea of what would be on the test, I could pass the test--just as I passed many tests during my own educational era. Of course, a couple of days later most answers would be gone from my memory.
I've always been that way when it comes to learning, I don't retain details, I retain general idea's. For mathematics and sciences--problem solving, and for literature and history--that rules exists and many important events have occurred, all of which I can research and reference such material when the need arises. I'll admit, I'd like to able to recall names, and dates, and formulas at will--but frankly, as I obstinately claimed as a child, I've never actually needed such detailed information in real life. Generalizations, or time willing, a quick reference to related material are all you need.
If I had attended school for 8 or 9 years prior to 1895, almost certainly. Many of these questions rely on knowing precise terminology no doubt used in that class or its textbook.
The time difference is the only thing that would hinder me. Heck, try asking a college student in 1895 a super easy question like how many states are in the United States in 2010.
The time difference is the only thing that would hinder me. Heck, try asking a college student in 1895 a super easy question like how many states are in the United States in 2010.
Had I gone to 8th grade in 1895, I would be familiar with all of the anachronisms.
Also, some of the questions are clearly lists that, were this "real", would be taught by rote memorization. The sort of thing you would be able to chant back without thinking if you were in the classroom where the lists were repeated over and over for you to "learn".
Also, some of the questions are clearly lists that, were this "real", would be taught by rote memorization. The sort of thing you would be able to chant back without thinking if you were in the classroom where the lists were repeated over and over for you to "learn".
I don't know. I do know that I could write essays several pages in length, do math up through algebra/geometry, know both American and European history, and have some knowledge of the sciences, which this totally ignores.
Could they have passed 8th grade in 1995? Doubtful:
* Advances in Science
* More (and more widely varied) history
* Different economic and political regimes
* Speaking a foreign language
* Algebra II
* Books (easily 90% drivel) which pass for great literature these days
Hard to compare when full information is not available. What is NIST standard for a bushel of wheat? What about rate of compounding at a bank (was that 10% apr or 10% per minute)?
This likely would be an easy test for most with today's level of education after a day of remedial education that covers the basics of this test.
Hard to compare when full information is not available. What is NIST standard for a bushel of wheat? What about rate of compounding at a bank (was that 10% apr or 10% per minute)?
This likely would be an easy test for most with today's level of education after a day of remedial education that covers the basics of this test.
In 1895 I would have been too busy being an immigrant farmer with the rest of my family to go to school at all, so I'm pretty ambivalent about what my standardized testing fate might have been.
As a homeschooling parent, I always find this kind of stuff interesting. For reference, people should check out the following link (under "Practice Tests for State Exams") for relatively current standards tests for various states, grade levels, and subjects:
http://quizhub.com/quiz/quizhub.cfm
http://quizhub.com/quiz/quizhub.cfm
This is similar to the kind of tests we had in India when I was in the 4th-8th grade. We had world history instead of US history, and did not have Orthography, but those are the only differences that I can see. I might have aced it back then, but it would be hard to get about 50% if I did it today.
What was with the focus on events that happened at specific dates? I understand the importance of knowing when events happened relative to each other, but memorizing dates seems a bit much. Perhaps the lack of easy access to reference materials made that kind of knowledge more important.
The real miracle is that this teacher built a computer for her students to take an English test on in 1895!
I could have passed the 8th grade in 1895 if I was born in 1882. But I wasn't.
There is certainly more republics in Europe now than it used to be back then
Kind of makes me feel real bad for those who can't pass High School today.
What is a passing grade for this test? Doesn't seem to say.
I know its fake but...
Arithmetic 6 - Can't get the interest(at least any interesting one) without the capitalization period.
Is it fake? Snopes says a lot about it not really demonstrating a decline in education, but I didn't see them make a strong call on whether they were or weren't actual questions from 1895?
Simple interest would be calculated by simple division, but for compound interest you would definitely need more information. Maybe it was safe to assume at the time that students were taught about simple, rather than compound, interest.
i dont know how to answer a single one of these questions.
Yes, there are many opinions on this thread, and this fact supports an observation:
The 'theory' or 'principals' of what 'education' should be are a MESS!
One of the posts mentioned Dewey: Yes he wrote:
John Dewey, 'Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education', The Free Press, New York, 1966.
although this is clearly not nearly the 'first printing'! Since my father was in education and had some influence from Dewey, I read that book. Dewey summarizes what 'education' actually is, and, really, is essentially forced to be, all other theories or principles aside, as just:
What the older generations pass down to the younger generations, with a lot of what was wrong and, hopefully, with some improvements.
So, here's an 'application': If have a broad 'public' education system where use essentially just a broad sample of the older generation to teach essentially everyone in the younger generation, then have to expect that what gets 'passed down' will have nearly all that was bad about society in the older generation and relatively little that is new and advantageous!
Here is a telling example: I was a college professor at Ohio State University. At one point I was asked to represent the faculty at a lunch for parents. Yes, many of the parents were quite skeptical of what was being taught or not taught. So, one question went:
"Why are you teaching my child calculus? I've never needed to know it."
I was a bit slow to see all the emotional, social, educational, and rational issues and, not wanting to say something wrong, said next to nothing. In a sense, it can be safer not to argue with 'the customer' or with a poorly informed and angry question. But here is what I might have said:
"We're trying to educate for the future, say, teach things that can be useful at some points over the next 50 years or so.
"Calculus is a pillar of Western Civilization: Although not everyone uses it, without it we would be in deep trouble in strength of materials, design of structures, electric power generation, distribution, and use, electronics and essentially everything involving electro-magnetic waves, engines of all kinds, airplanes, essentially everything in mechanical engineering, nearly all more advanced military technology, and in many subjects from more in math, all the physical and social sciences, statistics, finance, and more.
"We're not necessarily trying to teach what is already in very common usage but what is less well known and can give an advantage over the next 50 years. So, from its track record, calculus looks promising. That is, we believe that so few people know calculus well that more people could get an advantage from knowing it.
"For a specific example, before my graduate studies, I was in a new, rapidly growing company. At one point the Board of Directors wanted some projections of the revenue of the company. Many people could describe hopes, intentions, assumptions, dreams, etc., but there was a lack of anything with a more solid, objective, rational basis.
"While I didn't want to get involved, I thought for a while: What do we know? What do we want to know?
"Well we knew what our (daily) revenue was then. And, from our capacity planning, we knew what our planned, eventual daily revenue would be. So, for the projections the Board wanted, essentially we needed to 'interpolate' between these two revenue figures, that is, say how fast we would grow.
"So what could we observe about what was causing our growth? Well, broadly the growth was due to 'viral' effects, that is, happy customers talking to target customers not yet customers. So, each day in the future, the amount of this 'talking' by happy customers was proportional to the number of happy customers and, thus, to the revenue. And the number of potential customers hearing the talking and becoming customers was proportional to the number of potential customers.
"So, let t be time in days with the present day t = 0. Let y(t) be our revenue at time t. As in calculus, let y'(t) be the first derivative of y(t), that is, the rate of growth in y(t).
"Let b be the maximum daily revenue from our capacity planning.
"Then the rate of growth y'(t) is proportional to the current revenue y(t) and the capacity yet served b - y(t). So for some constant k, we must have
y'(t) = k y(t) ( b - y(t) )
"So, this is a non-linear ordinary differential equation initial value problem. With a little calculus, really just classic integration by parts, we can get a simple algebraic expression for the solution. This solution will have one constant c we so far do not know. But we have reduced the problem of projecting out to the future to selecting just one constant c. And we can estimate c from our growth over the past few months.
"So, on a Friday my SVP Planning and I selected a value for c and drew the graph of the growth. My SVP left on a business trip, and the Board meeting started the next morning.
"At noon I was in my office working and got a phone call to come to the Board meeting.
"The Board meeting was in disarray and no longer 'meeting'. Our two Board representatives from our main investor were unhappy and standing in a doorway to the hall with their bags packed.
"At about 8 AM the graph had been presented to the Board, and the two investor representatives asked how it had been calculated. For the next three hours or so, all the top management struggled to reproduce the graph and could not. The representatives then became angry, lost faith in and patience with the top management, made plane reservations back to Texas, returned to their rented rooms, packed their bags, and as a last chance returned to the offices for an answer.
"I arrived, reproduced a few points on the graph, and the investor representatives canceled their plane reservations, unpacked their bags, and stayed, and the company was saved. It is now a major company you know well and have used often; you value their work highly.
"This success was all because I knew calculus well and was about the only one there who did.
"So, we believe that in the next 50 years, calculus can be an advantage."
Yes, there is some question at how well even this answer would have been received!
Generally, then, in the real world of the broad population, it is difficult to know what to teach, how to teach it, or to get it learned!
Here's my take on the US 'way out': As we can tell, in K-12 and maybe more, the most important educational advantage is the family life of the student. So, in some families, education is understood and emphasized. So, education is really not just from the K-12 classrooms, not nearly!
Broadly, then, the secret to good education is to have parents who care do what they can at HOME. In extreme cases this solution can be just 'home schooling' and, at its best, can totally blow the doors off essentially anything from 'organized' education.
So, as in many things in the US, really good results are the responsibility of each individual, their family, their local community, etc. and much less well served by the county, state, or DC.
Topics with big advantages are essentially necessarily understood by at most only a tiny fraction of the population. Or, if a large fraction of the population understood, then much of the advantage would be gone. So, education with big advantages cannot be from the public school system! Sorry 'bout that!
The 'theory' or 'principals' of what 'education' should be are a MESS!
One of the posts mentioned Dewey: Yes he wrote:
John Dewey, 'Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education', The Free Press, New York, 1966.
although this is clearly not nearly the 'first printing'! Since my father was in education and had some influence from Dewey, I read that book. Dewey summarizes what 'education' actually is, and, really, is essentially forced to be, all other theories or principles aside, as just:
What the older generations pass down to the younger generations, with a lot of what was wrong and, hopefully, with some improvements.
So, here's an 'application': If have a broad 'public' education system where use essentially just a broad sample of the older generation to teach essentially everyone in the younger generation, then have to expect that what gets 'passed down' will have nearly all that was bad about society in the older generation and relatively little that is new and advantageous!
Here is a telling example: I was a college professor at Ohio State University. At one point I was asked to represent the faculty at a lunch for parents. Yes, many of the parents were quite skeptical of what was being taught or not taught. So, one question went:
"Why are you teaching my child calculus? I've never needed to know it."
I was a bit slow to see all the emotional, social, educational, and rational issues and, not wanting to say something wrong, said next to nothing. In a sense, it can be safer not to argue with 'the customer' or with a poorly informed and angry question. But here is what I might have said:
"We're trying to educate for the future, say, teach things that can be useful at some points over the next 50 years or so.
"Calculus is a pillar of Western Civilization: Although not everyone uses it, without it we would be in deep trouble in strength of materials, design of structures, electric power generation, distribution, and use, electronics and essentially everything involving electro-magnetic waves, engines of all kinds, airplanes, essentially everything in mechanical engineering, nearly all more advanced military technology, and in many subjects from more in math, all the physical and social sciences, statistics, finance, and more.
"We're not necessarily trying to teach what is already in very common usage but what is less well known and can give an advantage over the next 50 years. So, from its track record, calculus looks promising. That is, we believe that so few people know calculus well that more people could get an advantage from knowing it.
"For a specific example, before my graduate studies, I was in a new, rapidly growing company. At one point the Board of Directors wanted some projections of the revenue of the company. Many people could describe hopes, intentions, assumptions, dreams, etc., but there was a lack of anything with a more solid, objective, rational basis.
"While I didn't want to get involved, I thought for a while: What do we know? What do we want to know?
"Well we knew what our (daily) revenue was then. And, from our capacity planning, we knew what our planned, eventual daily revenue would be. So, for the projections the Board wanted, essentially we needed to 'interpolate' between these two revenue figures, that is, say how fast we would grow.
"So what could we observe about what was causing our growth? Well, broadly the growth was due to 'viral' effects, that is, happy customers talking to target customers not yet customers. So, each day in the future, the amount of this 'talking' by happy customers was proportional to the number of happy customers and, thus, to the revenue. And the number of potential customers hearing the talking and becoming customers was proportional to the number of potential customers.
"So, let t be time in days with the present day t = 0. Let y(t) be our revenue at time t. As in calculus, let y'(t) be the first derivative of y(t), that is, the rate of growth in y(t).
"Let b be the maximum daily revenue from our capacity planning.
"Then the rate of growth y'(t) is proportional to the current revenue y(t) and the capacity yet served b - y(t). So for some constant k, we must have
y'(t) = k y(t) ( b - y(t) )
"So, this is a non-linear ordinary differential equation initial value problem. With a little calculus, really just classic integration by parts, we can get a simple algebraic expression for the solution. This solution will have one constant c we so far do not know. But we have reduced the problem of projecting out to the future to selecting just one constant c. And we can estimate c from our growth over the past few months.
"So, on a Friday my SVP Planning and I selected a value for c and drew the graph of the growth. My SVP left on a business trip, and the Board meeting started the next morning.
"At noon I was in my office working and got a phone call to come to the Board meeting.
"The Board meeting was in disarray and no longer 'meeting'. Our two Board representatives from our main investor were unhappy and standing in a doorway to the hall with their bags packed.
"At about 8 AM the graph had been presented to the Board, and the two investor representatives asked how it had been calculated. For the next three hours or so, all the top management struggled to reproduce the graph and could not. The representatives then became angry, lost faith in and patience with the top management, made plane reservations back to Texas, returned to their rented rooms, packed their bags, and as a last chance returned to the offices for an answer.
"I arrived, reproduced a few points on the graph, and the investor representatives canceled their plane reservations, unpacked their bags, and stayed, and the company was saved. It is now a major company you know well and have used often; you value their work highly.
"This success was all because I knew calculus well and was about the only one there who did.
"So, we believe that in the next 50 years, calculus can be an advantage."
Yes, there is some question at how well even this answer would have been received!
Generally, then, in the real world of the broad population, it is difficult to know what to teach, how to teach it, or to get it learned!
Here's my take on the US 'way out': As we can tell, in K-12 and maybe more, the most important educational advantage is the family life of the student. So, in some families, education is understood and emphasized. So, education is really not just from the K-12 classrooms, not nearly!
Broadly, then, the secret to good education is to have parents who care do what they can at HOME. In extreme cases this solution can be just 'home schooling' and, at its best, can totally blow the doors off essentially anything from 'organized' education.
So, as in many things in the US, really good results are the responsibility of each individual, their family, their local community, etc. and much less well served by the county, state, or DC.
Topics with big advantages are essentially necessarily understood by at most only a tiny fraction of the population. Or, if a large fraction of the population understood, then much of the advantage would be gone. So, education with big advantages cannot be from the public school system! Sorry 'bout that!
Consider also that they talked about all those things prior to the exam. Could you pass it right now? Maybe not. Could you pass it after a few weeks learning about the material? With flying colors.
It’s interesting to read the questions but certainly not at all indicative of any developments in the educational system. You need statistics and creative social scientists to find out something about that.
[0] I personally don’t like rote memorization. I recognize that rote memorization can sometimes be useful – I don’t need a calculator for simple multiplications – but I would much rather just understand something and develop from that understanding a clear picture of which facts are important enough to memorize.