I recently read something that stated we've never really had more than 30% of students in the US at a level of mathematical understanding where they can tell that 3/4ths and 0.75 are the same thing, conceptually.
I cannot stop thinking about this; it honestly explains so much.
Indeed, one thing I keep in mind is that almost all progress, social, technical, political, etc. are wrought by an exceedingly small proportion of people. These are usually the people derided as deviant, nonconforming, abnormal.
Left to the vast majority of "normal" people who want to half-ass everything, there'd be absolutely no progress whatsoever, and what is more, society might actually fall apart.
That’s probably one of those cases where they use two different statistics to assume a conclusion, e.g. maybe only 30% of students pass a particular profiency test, and then add to the fact that that test is the minimum level where fractions/percentages are expected to be known, and combine it to make a scary sounding headline.
The score is an aggregate over questions testing many different skills, so while getting a low score suggests that a student is less skilled, it doesn't immediately tell you which skills they're bad at in particular. So this is exactly the scenario that 'ninkendo was talking about. If you want to know how many students correctly answered a specific question testing a certain skill, you would need the raw disaggregated data, which I don't think NAGB publishes.
I'd like to add that it's intentional that there are substantial numbers of students in each of the four buckets defined by the three thresholds, since the goal is to track the performance of the overall population, not just a few very bad or exceptionally good students.
I should've clarified it was an example, not that literally that one highly particular thing is what all American students are bad at, or that knowing .75 == 3/4ths == 75% somehow causally affects your future or whatever.
To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand the joke. The humour is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of CSS the joke will go over a typical viewer's head. There's also the author's nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his post - his personal philosophy draws heavily from Chris Coyier's classic blogs, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of this joke, to realise that it's not just funny - it says something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who criticise being unable to select text within the blog post truly ARE idiots. I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Bologov's genius wit unfolds itself in their browsers. What fools.. how I pity them.
And yes, by the way, i DO have a tattoo of the Lobotomized Owl selector. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the ladies' eyes only- and even then they have to demonstrate that they're within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand. Nothin personnel kid.
