Written Think Time Form: Fill & Download for Free

“Among the 34 OECD countries, the United States performed below average in mathematics in 2012 and is ranked 27th (this is the best estimate, although the rank could be between 23 and 29 due to sampling and measurement error). Performance in reading and science are both close to the OECD average.”[1]The US ranks 39 in mathematics according to the 2015 PISA scores. [2]So according to a the usually quotes sources the US’s status in math is average to below average in comparison to other countries around the world.Even given the above the US still manages to produce quite a few very high level mathematicians and continues to be among the forefront in terms of math research and discovery.—————————————————————————————————————So we have established that compared to other countries, that are measured in this way, students in the US indeed struggle with math. But why?All things being equal American students are just as capable as learning math as any other students around the world. Schools all over the world use many different common algorithms and different methods for learning math.The east Asian countries tend toward lecture, rote memorization, and drill and kill instruction.The Europeans tend toward systems that fall in a middle zone. Rote memorization plays a role but so does being able to solve practical problems and explain your thinking in written or verbal form.The US tendency, especially as of late, is highly focused on students learning a set of strategies and understanding why math works the way it does. Of the 3 general regions the US is the most likely not to require the teaching of specific algorithms. But this is actually a rather large change for the US as not too long ago the US tended to favor rote memorization and drill and kill style of teaching. (Think timed math tests and flash cards.) It’s why we get parents saying “Well I didn’t learn it that way!” or “Why can’t we just teach it the old or ‘normal’ way!”How math is taught certainly is a factor but I think it’s a factor that pales in comparison to culture.Americans just don’t view math as all that valuable for the majority of the population to learn. You’ve probably all come across memes like the one below. The mentality in the meme is very American, you just don’t see this to the same degree in other countries as you do in the US.The myth that math is hard is all pervasive in US culture. Kids hear that math is hard over and over again from nearly everyone even before they have tried it themselves. They come to school for the 1st time as 5 or 6 year olds already thinking that math is hard.In the US, parent meetings were common where one parent or the other would say something like: “Well I wasn’t very good at math either.” They would say this right in front of their children. I’ve never had a German parent do the same. (I currently live and teach in Germany.)The US does not perform as well as other countries because mathematics is not very highly valued in US culture.Footnotes[1] https://www.oecd.org/unitedstates/PISA-2012-results-US.pdf[2] PISA 2015 Worldwide Ranking – average score of math, science and reading

Question: What are the positives and negatives of Amazon's Good Omens? Has it been a faithful adaptation?A friend messaged me after we binge watched the entire show and said “Is this what a good book adaption feels like?” Yes. Yes it is.I disliked where Game of Thrones went, truly do not enjoy the Harry Potter movies, and watch the Hitchhiker’s Guide movie thinking it could have been so much more. I am particular. But Good Omens nailed it, completely and utterly. I suppose it helps having one of the authors be on the actual production team. It may be one of two instances where I don’t sigh and go “But the book was so much better” (the other is the Green Mile, in case you’re curious).There was so much positive.David Tennant and Michael Sheen truly are Crowley and Aziraphale. There was never a moment where they felt off character or out of place. The added scenes they were given that were not book were spot on, well written, and an excellent addition to the canon.To address a comment in the other response about them coming across as gay… well yes. In the books Aziraphale is described: “Many people, meeting Aziraphale for the first time, formed three impressions: that he was English, that he was intelligent, and that he was gayer than a tree full of monkeys on nitrous oxide.”So yes, the acting is on point and I’ll let you be the judge of if there’s something else there. Suffice to say Michael and David’s off screen friendship and chemistry is clearly evident throughout the show. They’re both amazing alone, but putting them together is almost… celestial.The introduction and glimpses we get into Heaven and Hell and their operatives are something that is largely missing from the books. While we do get to meet Hastur and Ligur, the rest of the heavenly and demonic counterparts are strictly off screen. Like the added scenes to Crowley’s and Aziraphale’s backstory, these scenes were well done and welcome. No, the make up was not the same across the board. It’s clearly not supposed to be as neither Heaven nor Hell seem to understand what the humans are actually like. That’s a huge plot point right there. You’re able to perceive the malice in both locations from the start.There are many other aspects of the show that vary from acceptable to great. I personally truly enjoyed things like the introduction of Dog, the signs of the apocalypse, and other fun things.The entire tone of the show is spot on. Yes, Adam gets magazines and starts trying to ‘fix’ the world in the way that an 11 year old would. That’s part of the charm and the overall commentary of the work on the religious fervor of the world and how ridiculous it seems at times. He learns as it goes, which is not covered as in-depth, but is part of his character arc in both the books and the show. Keep in mind that even though this child is the Antichrist, he’s still a child. As the parent of a 12 year old, their rationale isn’t always the best even when they do have the best of intentions.The show itself feels ridiculous because frankly religion sometimes is ridiculous, and Good Omens is a commentary on it. It’s also an excellent commentary on how ridiculous life itself is. You can embrace it, and your human side. Or you can do as the forces of good and evil attempt to and insist that things go by schedule (which rarely, if ever works).There were a few negativesI’m frankly amazed there weren’t more negatives. The four Horseman lacked… something. They rushed through certain scenes and left a few out with them, which made them not quite as strong and as important as they were in the books. But I do understand cuts need to be made in certain places.The other four horsemen of the Apocalypse were cut completely. Again, I understand the decision. While they’re a hilarious part of the books, they aren’t really a plot point and when you’re looking at a budget sometimes something has to go. I wouldn’t have traded the extra time we had with Aziraphale and Crowley for their screen time.I mentioned briefly above, but we got to spend more time with Adam and seeing his rationale in the books. As a book reader, I caught the nuances and what was going on but I can see someone being a bit confused just watching the show for the first time without stopping to think it through.Overall it was an amazing adaptionMy complaints above are mere nitpicks when it comes to amazing story telling.Is it going to be for everyone? No. Nothing is. From the beginning I thought it would develop a cult following of fans, but not be a widespread popular show. The sheer religious heresy will be enough to turn some people off and others will be turned off by the style and other things.But is it an excellent representation of an amazing book written by two world class authors? Yes.Many thanks Neil and Terry. To the world.

Yes, they’re different population groups genetically but North Italians do not look “Nordic” at all (you may find some exceptional faces to post here, but they’re not representative). “Ethnicity” is another matter, for two or even more genetically distinct populations may merge culturally under one sole political and sociocultural identity over the time, forming just one ethnic group or at least one “macro-ethnicity” (think of the Arabs, for instance) even when there is absolutely no genetic homogeneity between them. Historically Northern Italians and Southern Italians were clearly distinct if clearly related sociocultural clusters, each with their own culture, language, customs etc. They had well more than one millennium of political fragmentation to diverge since the end of the Western Roman Empire.That said, even if by “Nordic” you do not mean their overall look, including the shape of the cranium, jawline, nose, eyebrows and so on, but just a popular monicker to “pale-skinned with light eyes and light hair”, the fact is that blue/green eyes and blonde hair are in the minority even in North italy, though in much larger proportions than in South Italy. Northern Italians are actually closest to Spaniards and Southeastern French genetically, and it’s also in these populations that you’ll find people with the closest average looks in relation to Northern Italians.As far as their ancient genetic roots are concerned, the Northern Italians owe by far more of their ancestry to Neolithic Europeans, who had a large (>75%) majority of Anatolian (i.e. West Asian) roots.Southern Italians instead are not very close to Middle Eastern populations at all, unless you include the Maltese people as well as the European Jews, such as Ashkenazi Jews and Sephardic Jews, as “Middle Easterners” (they’re a sort of bridge between Europeans and Middle Easterners).That’s not simply because Southern Italians received a lot of genetic input from the Middle East in recent historic times, but mainly because South Italy was particularly affected by Neolithic, Copper Age and Bronze Age migrations from Anatolia, Transcaucasia and the Levant They’re closer to the Middle Easterner genetic cluster than the Northern Italians, of course, but where you’ll find people genetically closest to them is particularly in the Balkans & Aegean area, Greeks, Albanians and Cypriots in particular.The differences between Northern Italians and Southern Italians are much more a matter of proportions than a matter of quality/nature. All of them seem to derive from the same basic ancient population admixtures, but what differs very much is the degree to which those distinct regions were affected by those gene flows. Therefore, there is a gradual cline, not a stark disparity, all the way from North Italy to South Italy.I have written about the genetic makeup of Italians in more detail here:Ygor Coelho's answer to What ethnic or national group are the Italians most closely related to genetically?Ygor Coelho's answer to How Middle Eastern are Italians in culture, genetics, language, and phenotype?Ygor Coelho's answer to Why is Sardinian ancestry considered separate than Italian on Ancestry.com?