Talk:United Kingdom Mathematics Trust
| WikiProject Mathematics | (Rated Start-class, Low-priority) | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||
| WikiProject Mathematics Competitions | (Inactive) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||
 | Text and/or other creative content from United Kingdom Mathematics Trust was copied or moved into British Mathematical Olympiad Subtrust with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. |
SMC scoring system[edit]
I'm going to get overruled on this, but I would like to state my opinion anyway. I believe that Wikipedia should provide simple and accurate information free from the bias of any organisations. The UKMT say that for the senior maths challenge you start off with a score of 25, get 4 marks for a correct answer and 1 mark deducted for an incorrect answer. However this is the same as giving 5 marks for a correct answer and 1 for leaving out the answer. This alternative version is shorter, easier to understand and easier to work out (instead of working out 25+4c-w you do 5c+b, the five times table is easier than the four times table, addition is easier than subtraction and you no longer need the random 25 at the beginning).
So why does UKMT use this other system? It seems to be because the version they present, sounds less like it regards people for not answering questions (the only alternative explanation I've come accross is that they haven't noticed that it can be simplified). This means that the 5 and 1 scoring system is simpler, just as accurate and freer from the bias of just putting what an organisation (UKMT) say. I expect most people regard me as crazy after reading that and feel that not using the original is introducing bias of it's own. But I don't think presenting a simplification of the rules which gives exactly the same results will do anything other than benefit the article. Raoul Harris 17:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thing is, whichever scoring system is simpler, is not the point. The idea of Wikipedia is to generate accurate sources of information. The UKMT have that scoring system for a reason, it is not up to us to alter it for the sake of easier understanding. Using the simpler scoring system is not only inaccurate but also unverifiable. It needs to conform to Wikipedia's policies. Spaztic ming 01:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- But it is accurate. Completely accurate. If UKMT cam up with a test where you only get marks for correct answers and they said "award 3 marks for each question, multiply the total by seven, then divide by 21 to get the final score" would it be better to put all that or just say "you get one mark for each correct answer"? Why would the first system be more accurate? I don't expect anyone to agree with me, even I think I'm a little crazy for mistrusting the scoring system of a charity. But it's completely accurate and a little bit of algebra can verify that. Raoul Harris 08:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not saying saying it's inaccurate in terms of the mathematics. It is inaccurate in terms of factual content. It is NOT something you can verify or source, therefore cannot be used on wikipedia. Your scoring system actually comes under "new interpretation" which is against Wikipedia's "No original research" policy. I understand where you are coming from, but the article needs to relate to the real situation. Spaztic ming 15:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I still think it is factually accurate though, even if it violates wikipedia policy. I'm not trying to get the article changed, it is just a statement of my disagreement. Just out of interest if there was an exam with the (3c*7)/21 scoring system example I gave in my last comment, would you be in favour of giving that scoring system in the article? It would be correct to write it out in full, but such a waste of space for something which just awards one mark per correct answer. Raoul Harris 15:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Besides, this scoring system is different from 5 points per correct answer, as candidates may wish not to attempt a question at all, in which case they don't lose or gain marks. 84.9.88.47 17:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Headings[edit]
I think the current headings are much clearer with JMC, IMC and SMC as separate titles. I understand that they should all go under "Mathematical challenges" but that makes the article really hard to read. Spaztic ming 21:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
2 of the most astonishing girls...[edit]
katie murphy and olivia prior were 2 of the most amazing girls that set the test and blew the records of chart, getting 99 and 100% !nobody has ever topped thier score. So well done and keep up the good work!!
I took the IMOK Cayley and Maclaurin papers in 2005 and 2006, and the format was that there were 6 questions, of which you were advised to answer 2 or 3. It says in the article:
"The IMOK consists of eighteen questions for which the student must answer six in full written solutions."
This is wrong as far as I know - there are 3 papers (for different age groups) each consisting of 6 questions, from which 2 or 3 full written answers are advised (although candidates can answer any number of questions in theory - but in practice this is practically impossible in the given time).
84.9.88.47 17:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
IMOK Papers[edit]
I took the IMOK Cayley and Maclaurin papers in 2005 and 2006, and the format was that there were 6 questions, of which you were advised to answer 2 or 3. It says in the article:
"The IMOK consists of eighteen questions for which the student must answer six in full written solutions."
This is wrong as far as I know - there are 3 papers (for different age groups) each consisting of 6 questions, from which 2 or 3 full written answers are advised (although candidates can answer any number of questions in theory - but in practice this is practically impossible in the given time).
84.9.88.47 17:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:UKMT.JPG[edit]
Image:UKMT.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- It is the logo of the chairty in question, and it is low resolution. Not being a US Copyright Law buff (my own country's being top priority) I wouldn't know what to put (although it is a UK charity, wouldn't UK law apply).
~~Lazyguythewerewolf Rawr. 11:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Cayley/Maclaurin/Hamilton differences[edit]
- "The IMOK consists of eighteen questions for which the student must answer six in full written solutions. The paper is divided into 'Cayley', 'Maclaurin' and 'Hamilton'. The paper the student will undertake depends on the year group that student is in."
I'm pretty sure this is inaccurate - I think I did Maclaurin two years in a row, and while the website seems to be inconclusive, google tells me:
- "I'm doing the Cayley too, and I did last year. What did you get in the IMC?"
https://nrich.maths.org/discus/messages/67613/68918.html?1153864921
Neither me nor that link are exactly authoritative sources, but nevertheless, it doesn't seem to be cited at all... --81.86.220.17 13:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Discussion[edit]
It has been suggested that we merge this with Mathematical Kangaroo. I see no need. This is the talk of a UK Mathematics Charity, the other of a Mathematics competition. The fact that the former encourages and hosts oppurtunities is no reason to merge them. It is like suggesting the merging of BBC and Doctor Who!!
If anyone disagrees, make yourself known but since the tag has been there since April 2007 and there has been no comments, I'm guessing it will be safe to remove the tag in 2-3 days if nobody disagrees! Hydrostatics 00:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Since there have been no objections to this, I shall remove the tag from both pages.
more info[edit]
there's not much content about anything besides the competitions. how about adding a section about other work the UKMT does-mentoring schemes for one, which isn't mentioned at all here, and is (i beleive) a substantial part of what the UKMT does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.148.193.179 (talk) 20:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
No comments:
Post a Comment