digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

New Math watch!

youtube.com — For those of you who didn't know, they used to teach mathematics a little differently. Here's how they do it now.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • clc101, on 03/19/2008, -28/+11This is absolutely hilarious!
    • saleem, on 03/19/2008, -7/+37No, it's not.
      • markp88, on 03/19/2008, -14/+3Yes it is.
        I do think understanding is important though.
        • d03boy, on 03/19/2008, -2/+4I understood it just fine and it didn't help me
      • MacEnvy, on 03/19/2008, -2/+6I liked it a lot. But to be honest, I'm not sure why.
    • jemka, on 03/19/2008, -2/+9At around 1:00, the equation changes from 342-173 to 342-176, but the answer stays the same (169). Then at 1:16, the correct equation is back.
  • Jesus2007, on 03/19/2008, -20/+6Thanks for sending this along. It's in my favorites.
  • daithiocoinnigh, on 03/19/2008, -8/+89I'm not very good at new maths, I keep getting the right answer.
  • RRBACK, on 03/19/2008, -26/+11Stupid.
    • technogenius, on 03/19/2008, -3/+9It's actually not that stupid (the video that is, not the program).

      It's the new math program--My wife is a teacher and they have to teach it this way. It's called investigations. Thank the no child left behind act for it.
      • BOFH2, on 03/19/2008, -3/+1No thank the laziness of some parents(most of the blame rests here) and tenured teacher who think they have seen it all and can tell you who is easiest to teach so they concentrate on those individuals.
      • fasda, on 03/19/2008, -0/+4but the second style of subtraction of borrowing from the next column isn't actually new thats how I learned it in first grade 14 years ago.
  • JohnFlux, on 03/19/2008, -2/+60Okay, I'm somewhat out of the loop, but the second way did seem better in terms of understand what was going on.

    In my computer science degree, a lot of people in the first year could not make the jump from addition/subtraction in base 10 to base 8. They'd learnt the rules for base 10 but had no idea why they worked or what they meant.
    • kerrmudgeon, on 03/19/2008, -0/+9Yes, though it seems the downfall of new math is many people failed to understand what was going on in spite of the clearer presentation. Since no emphasis was placed on a concise and apparently memorable algorithm, the result was the same subset of students who, today, can only perform simple arithmetic and nothing higher would, after an education in New Math, not have been able to accomplish *anything.*

      To claim a teaching style of arithmetic that more closely resembles arithmetic on polynomials rather than someone's shorthand constitutes a "new" form of math is a bit of a misnomer, but so it goes.
  • tazdo0d, on 03/19/2008, -31/+17Sorry, I turned it off after the first round of fake laughter.
    • Abomonog, on 03/19/2008, -6/+34That's not fake laughter. It's from a live concert recorded in the 50's or possibly 60's. I can't remember which.

      The Album it's from is either, "An evening wasted with Tom Leher" or, "That was the year that was".

      You fail utterly and disgracefully.
      • tazdo0d, on 03/19/2008, -15/+5That's not what I meant... like you say the laughter is dubbed in (fake) from another source...
        • tazdo0d, on 03/19/2008, -1/+18Oh ok... I get it now... It's not even him singing... I DO feel stupid now!
        • juneaudigger, on 03/19/2008, -2/+11I think you misunderstand Abomo's explanation as well. The entire performance was taken from Tom Lehrer's live rendition of "New Math", which means there is no "fake laughter", as the "other source" where the laughter originates is idenitcal to the source of the song itself.

          In any case, you're missing out if you seriously didn't watch it because of "fake laughter" (which is, in fact, not fake). The song is rather hilarious, and although the maker of the video didn't perform the song himself, he merely lip synched it while providing a good visual aid to go with it.


          tl;dr; the laughter is fake in the same way that the song itself is fake (ie, it's not).
        • d03boy, on 03/19/2008, -1/+6i'll give you a digg for admitting your mistake instead of being George W. Bush
      • Malachai, on 03/19/2008, -0/+9I believe it was "An Evening Wasted with Tom Lehrer." I have the song, and when I saw the title on Digg, I immediately new what was coming.

        Tom Lehrer is amazing.
      • Elliuotatar, on 03/19/2008, -2/+2Ah, that would explain why I'm just under 35 but I already know "new math".

        Now could someone explain to me how 3 from 2 is 9?
        • parax, on 03/19/2008, -0/+113 from 2 is 9 because you can't subtract 3 from 2 so you must use the tens place and subtract 3 from 12.
          • Elliuotatar, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1But that's the same way you do it with "new" math. That's why I asked. He talked about it like it was different somehow.
          • 11oops, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2Well, technically in this comment's context 3 from 2 is -1 because no tens was specified.
    • expatcatalyst, on 03/19/2008, -3/+1Fourth pic down of the fish: http://www.linkinn.com/topindex.php?topic=animals& ...
  • Abomonog, on 03/19/2008, -3/+19Hehe someone makes a video out of an old Tom Leher tune. The guy penned some other winners too.

    Poisoning Pigeons in the Park
    We will all go together when we go
    The Vatican Rag
    Oedipus Rex
    The Masochism Tango

    Hilarious stuff.
    • tehbored, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1Don't forget

      The Chemical Elements
      Who's Next?
      National Brotherhood Week
      Pollution
      ... and others

      He is the ***** MAN!
  • SnowflakePillow, on 03/19/2008, -1/+38This is clearly the TF2 engineer with a new hairdo.
  • GIFF3, on 03/19/2008, -25/+4Who the frick thinks this is funny?
    • Murdats, on 03/19/2008, -2/+26frick? seriously?
      • steveoeo, on 03/19/2008, -0/+12i think they meant *****, but maybe mommy was looking over their shoulder
        • xaeon, on 03/19/2008, -2/+7Or maybe it was an ode to the most beautiful female doctor to ever grace this foul earth?
        • dalaeth, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1Bajingo
    • logicalnoise, on 03/19/2008, -1/+3sorry, I guess it's not as hilarious as scrubs.
  • GIFF3, on 03/19/2008, -31/+1Who the frick thinks this is funny?
  • JackHarkness, on 03/19/2008, -4/+11Can anyone explain to me why they taught it the "old" math way. it seems counter intuitive expecialy seeing as old mathers, like Johnflux above me, agrees that new math makes more sense.
    • RationalXubrnce, on 03/19/2008, -4/+13Because it was far simpler and required less steps. As the problems get more advanced the likelihood of you mistake increases. It seems to me they don't teach the fundamentals anymore but are instead teaching the tricks that you learn to develop on your own as you go. Besides results speak for themselves and the previous generation routinely passed standardized tests that this generations struggles with.
      • d03boy, on 03/19/2008, -7/+1maybe that shows that the tests are inaccurately testing people?
        • IdevInull, on 03/19/2008, -0/+4Yeah, that is it -- genius.

          /sarcasm
      • JohnFlux, on 03/19/2008, -2/+3If the purpose is to just do it quickly and without mistakes, then just use a calculator. If the purpose is to understand addition, then use this 'New Math' way.
      • opnickc, on 03/19/2008, -1/+13"It seems to me they don't teach the fundamentals anymore but are instead teaching the tricks that you learn to develop on your own as you go."
        Based on that video, it looked like the old math was nothing but tricks and new math actually taught the fundamentals of what you were doing. After all, did everyone really understand WHY they carried the one in old math, or did they just do it because that's what they were taught?
        If the video is accurate, it would appear that new math does exactly what you complain it doesn't do - teaches the fundamentals and not just the tricks.
  • Samjay23, on 03/19/2008, -16/+0He's surprisingly a decent singer
    • 525600, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2Only he isn't. he's an average lip-syncer. Tom Lehrer gets the real credit, if you read the other comments.
  • CaLeDee, on 03/19/2008, -5/+83I don't get it
    • iPissExcellence, on 03/19/2008, -6/+3Are you havin a laugh? Is he havin a laugh?!
    • LegendarySock, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2Its new math! You're not supposed to!
  • EvilMoose, on 03/19/2008, -21/+65I didn't find this amusing or insightful and I want my wasted time back.
    • atruskot, on 03/19/2008, -4/+19You could start by not wasting even more time bitching about it...
    • Trilock, on 03/19/2008, -3/+4Wait.. you came to digg and expected anything other than a waste of time? Is that not why they have this site?
    • mattbrad2, on 03/19/2008, -1/+1Welcome to Digg, my friend.
    • hierophantus, on 03/19/2008, -0/+6"I want my ____ back" = auto-bury. That comment is always even more useless than whatever it complains about.
      • mattbrad2, on 03/19/2008, -0/+0I'd have to disagree. Some stories you REALLY have to scratch your head about how they made the front page of Digg. The entire comments section should be of people asking for their ______ back. This was horrible.
  • bysubmitted, on 03/19/2008, -3/+15Lehrer is a genius. He was doing commentary on political correctness before anyone knew what political correctness was. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIlJ8ZCs4jY
  • moletimer, on 03/19/2008, -2/+10My school doesn't do math that way.

    Confusing.
    • Diancechet, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1Thats because it was recorded in the 1960's
  • wingertank, on 03/19/2008, -4/+30I feel dumber for having watched that.
    • mattbrad2, on 03/19/2008, -5/+0This is what happens when you let just anybody digg up these things. I pray that "most" of us in Diggnation aren't this stupid.
  • Suricou, on 03/19/2008, -15/+10The new math idea made perfect sense to the engineers and mathematicians who designed it, and it makes sense to diggers who are mostly well-educated compared to the general population. It fell out of favor because it baffles everyone else who just needs to be able to perform arithmatic. While it does set a much more solid foundation for more advanced math than the 'procedure by memory' technique, not many people will go on to study mathematics in such detail. This is why the new math fell out of fashion.
    On a related subject, wikipedia can make anyone sound like an expert on anything.
    • Trilock, on 03/19/2008, -5/+2Its one thing copying crap from wikipedia.
      but its another thing taking only the related things from wikipedia and conveniently posting here in the comments, that most digg users apparently think is the place to put their mega cheesy one liners and failiorific comedy routine.
      so thank you for the information and thank you digg and diggers for entertaining me...
      I am so gonna be dugg down... but before you hit that button, remember it was me who called you failiorific!!!
  • 0ceanic, on 03/19/2008, -11/+1at the beginning, that guy has a very destinctive look & voice. he should be a thespian of some kind.
    • logicalnoise, on 03/19/2008, -0/+22the dude was lipsyncing to a comedy song from 1964.
  • SilverNakamura, on 03/19/2008, -7/+7I learnt it the new way, which I find works very well and is much easier to understand than what I saw from the old method.
  • ZombieSociety, on 03/19/2008, -6/+4Dug for Tom Lehrer.

    Also, his Elements Song is a brilliant way to memorize the periodic table.
  • wafflesomd, on 03/19/2008, -3/+17I can't stand how they teach math now. My 11 year old cousin is learning "lattice multiplication". It takes so much longer to do than standard multiplication, I can't even begin to imagine why anyone thought it was a good idea.
    • RationalXubrnce, on 03/19/2008, -3/+8 This is why local education is so important. The Board of Ed should be abolished for forcing this nonsense upon us. And we wonder why we have to import scientists.
    • Pushkin, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1The video is a reply to this interesting discussion (which methods to use in 4-6th grade)
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr1qee-bTZI&NR=1
      which led me to this
      http://www.wgquirk.com/TERC.html
      • MindStalker, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1Hmm, I disagree with her that the real world problems like "american tour" are bas lessons, as well as calculator practice. But at the same time yea you need to know basic algorithms. I really don't think the fault in students knowing math out of highschool is these textbooks, I learned math the old way when I graduated (1997) and most of my classmates couldn't do basic math either. I think it boils down to lower expectations and work ethic, not necessarily the methods, which actually are probably better methods for the lower work ethic sadly :/
    • logicalnoise, on 03/19/2008, -2/+2Oddly enough for me I strayed from the old standard and used the lattice method. My teachers didn't care as long as I knew what I was doing. It can be just as quick and you don't need the lattice lines after you know the technique enough.
  • wrathchilde, on 03/19/2008, -2/+12Loving Tom Lehrer is intellectual and nostalgic. If you need it explained, it will never be funny to you. If you get it, then you are either old, or have an old soul.
    Easy for all: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNfx0FO4hzs
    Funnier: http://video.aol.com/video-detail/national-brother ...
    Educational, not Tom singing: http://video.aol.com/video-detail/national-brother ...
    Another educational with Tom: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVC9TayQIh8
    OK, sorry, but really you GOTTA love Tom.



  • Kral, on 03/19/2008, -11/+6The laughter felt painfully forced.
  • JeffKochosky, on 03/19/2008, -1/+6Actually, the laughter is directly from the audio track that this performer used. It's from "That Was the Year That Was", one of Tom Lehrer's live albums, originally released in 1965.
    Tom was an absolutely brilliant writer, and one of the main inspirations for the likes of "Weird Al" Yankovic.
  • FunkyELF, on 03/19/2008, -1/+11That video has an error in it. At some point it switched the 173 to a 176 and it is wrong.
    Here is the corrected version...
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAm3KWiDPKU&watch_r ...
  • hokie47, on 03/19/2008, -3/+9Call me a math conservative, but why would we change they way we do simple math problems like these? It worked well since my great great grandparents and we want to change it now. We come up with this ***** but we can't find a better way to solve matrices problems by hand.
    • progman445, on 03/19/2008, -1/+2Because the way we learn math since forever is basically just memorizing rules for base 10. Ask someone to add two numbers in base 8, they won't even know what you are talking about. This so called new math changes that so you can apply addition, subtraction, etc rules to any base.
      • vidorian, on 03/19/2008, -0/+4But if you understand how base 10 is calculated then you have no trouble switching to base 8.
      • erkokite, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1I didn't find it too difficult to switch to non-10 bases when I started learning them. I learned math the "old" way.
  • Trilock, on 03/19/2008, -8/+2DOUCHBAG!!!
    what? I gotta have at least one comment that makes no ***** sense. the one comment to dugg down for eons! echo....
    I hate that fat kid in the videoh! (H for emphasis bitch!) his lip syncing is teh sux! he should have been more entertaining dammit!!!
    and now to assure vicTORY. math rules! also I did math before it became cool!
    • charlietuna, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2Are you feeling okay? It's a dam comedy vid. Either it's funny to you or it aint.
    • hierophantus, on 03/19/2008, -0/+3Dugg up to make it approach the appropriate +1 of indifference.
  • prizim, on 03/19/2008, -5/+5was this supposed to be funny?

    • mattbrad2, on 03/19/2008, -1/+0The better question is how on Earth did this make the front page of Digg?
    • MikeMcG, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1Yes. Next question, please.
  • social101, on 03/19/2008, -4/+0just say very funny;). good one
  • spinthread, on 03/19/2008, -3/+17How about I just use a calculator
    • Chebsi, on 03/19/2008, -3/+1Do you have a base 16 calculator on you?
      • leerayIG88, on 03/19/2008, -2/+1let me just program it using open source.
        *click* and *click* Done!
    • ch33sehead, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1Most scientific calculators have base 16, actually. It's one of the different modes... Hex if I remember it correctly, where they have letters A-F to replace 11-16. Or, you could just use algebra (polynomials) to convert numbers.
  • Hologram0110, on 03/19/2008, -0/+7All the people ragging on how the old way is better probably are not well educated in more advanced math. I'm a 3rd year engineering student in Canada, and when I got to university is was surprised at how much I sucked at math compared to international students (not from North-America). I learned half the brute force memorize and do 25 questions of each example and then they switched to the understand approach and it took a very long time to get used to trying to understand why... Teaching kids WHAT they are doing is as important as how to do it, the math it self is pretty trivial because we have at least a dozens of different methods to do the arithmetic for for us but if you don't understand what is happening you can't apply that to other situations...
    Most people however will never have any use for math in detail however.
    • Kzoo, on 03/19/2008, -1/+0I have little experience with the new methods of teaching. I taught some programs at the zoo that have a token math problem so teachers can justify a trip to the zoo with state standards. I'm standing there multiplying out the "normal way" while the kids are drawing boxes and triangles. Completely baffles me since I wasn't taught that way. I wonder if they recognized what I was doing.

      Either way it's taught though, understanding what's going on sure helps. Which is why I completely suck at math. I don't care about memorizing things that have no meaning to me (hence sucking at history as well...), I do better when I know why you do something (or why something historical happened). An example a teaching student I know brought up: why is the area of a triangle 1/2bh? it's half of a rectangle with the dimensions b and h. Ohh! Yeah, nobody ever told either of us that, you just memorized it and hoped for the best.
  • usingpond, on 03/19/2008, -0/+4Why is Robert Smith teaching math?
  • ventralnet, on 03/19/2008, -0/+4guy is kinda creepy
  • paulzy, on 03/19/2008, -0/+5I didnt even know that old way existed... How is this movement new? I learned it in 1983.
    • zdislaw, on 03/19/2008, -0/+3The "New Math," as well as the song lipsynced in the video, have been around since the '60s.
  • DesdinovaEL, on 03/19/2008, -8/+3Ive always said it. Calculator FTW
    -abc
  • kaeves, on 03/19/2008, -4/+2Almost everything I've heard about "New Math" is total crap, but is it true that they're doing some stuff in base 8? Base 8 is great. If it could ever happen, it might be a good thing to switch to. Check out http://www.octomatics.org/
    Now, this is just my crazy optimism talking. The US can't even switch to the metric system. *sigh*
    • progman445, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1I heard base 12 is the where its at.
    • Diancechet, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2This song was recorded in 1965.... theres nothing "NEW" about it
  • millenniumjules, on 03/19/2008, -1/+3Boring Math!
  • DasCorCor, on 03/19/2008, -7/+5That was the stupidest thing I have ever seen. Completely unfunny.

    Buried!!!!!
  • jsands, on 03/19/2008, -2/+2the "new math" makes perfect sense... I was terrible in math from kindergarten up to high school because I couldn't understand what the hell things like carrying were, teaching someone a recipe for getting the right answer is not the same as teaching them to understand whats actually going on... thankfully I can't even remember how they originally taught things like long division, its much faster to be able to break the problem down into easily manageable chunks then you can do it in your head
    • akamurph, on 03/19/2008, -1/+1what the crap was so hard to understand?
  • mrskill, on 03/19/2008, -2/+0Tom Lehrer is an absolute genius, and a great mathematician!!
  • slightvelleity, on 03/19/2008, -5/+2I guess I was taught the "new" way, wtf are they doing in the "old" way?
    • ilves7, on 03/19/2008, -1/+1I don't know why you're getting dug down for that... I feel the same way. I never knew anything except I guess the 'new' way.
  • phambam, on 03/19/2008, -2/+2The calculator is your friend.
  • KIERANMULLEN, on 03/19/2008, -0/+18If you want to get a better idea of what they are talking about rather than listening to some lip syncing fool.. Take a look at this video
    Math Education: An Inconvenient Truth
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=Tr1qee-bTZI
    • Diancechet, on 03/19/2008, -1/+1.....while i agree with the link in question the TERC system is inane. The song is over 40 years old.. he wasn't talking about anything in the current spectrum
    • sk11, on 03/19/2008, -1/+2I guess I'm the only one who actually uses the new methods to do my multiplication. It's really just a series of simplifications and short cuts. It's important to note that all techniques should still require memorisation of times tables. She purposely convoluted some of the other techniques for the sake of propaganda. I'm not arguing that the new methods should be taught in schools, just that's there's nothing really wrong with them.
      e.g. 26*31 = (25*31) + 31 = (750+25) + 31 = 775 + 31 = 806. See, it's simpler.
      • akamurph, on 03/19/2008, -1/+3is that considered 'new math'? If I had to do that problem in my head, I would sort it out exactly like that... well, 25*3 = 75 add the zero = 750 + 25 = 775 + 31 = 806. But if I had to do that on paper I would just carry the 1's, a lot easier to write it out on paper.
      • jazzboyrules, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1I agree, in everyday math, if you don't want to use a pen and paper, then the cluster math is the best way. She simply over-clustered the whole thing. All you need is a proficiency in tables till 15 or 20. I remember the tough times I had in memorizing those tables, but now am happy that my school and parents forced me to do so.
  • Akaziel, on 03/19/2008, -3/+8Hmmm. I'm torn here. Digg for great Tom Lehrer song, or Bury for the smarmy jackass VERY badly lip synching with no animation or personality to what he's doing? I'm gonna bury, cause I really dislike the guy in the video. For a video where he never ACTUALLY speaks, he just comes across as very smug and full of himself. Yeah, I'm a hater. I've got my hater pants on today.
  • thrallie, on 03/19/2008, -2/+2Um, didn't the new math way get it wrong? I did it on my calculator and it came out as the old math way. So if you are going to put the new math answer on a college exam, it will be wrong.
  • Deepmist, on 03/19/2008, -1/+1Some people seem confused. If you are a Digg user you probably learned "New" math and have no idea what the older style was, making this video very confusing unless you knew about the older style. If you learned the old style you're probably over 50 years old by now.
  • rhkaloge, on 03/19/2008, -1/+1The first time I heard this song, I didn't understand. Even with the snappy tune, I understood everything he was saying perfectly.
  • tblaney6591, on 03/19/2008, -1/+1That was retarded.
    http://wtcctr.blogspot.com
  • encrypteduser, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1I was in grade school during a huge math transformation period and was taught several different techniques.... all of which screwed me because I would cross them from time to time. :/
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 53 of 53 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.