The Lounge is rated PG. If you're about to post something you wouldn't want your
kid sister to read then don't post it. No flame wars, no abusive conduct, no programming
questions and please don't post ads.
Some time ago an independent arbiter received a call from a colleague, who asked if he would be the referee on the grading of an examination question. He was about to give a student a zero for his answer to a physics question, while the student claimed he should receive a perfect score and would if the system were not set up against the student.
The instructor and the student agreed to an impartial arbiter, and I(the arbiter) was selected. I went to my colleague's office and read the examination question: "Show how it is possible to determine the height of a tall building with the aid of a barometer."
The student had answered: "Take the barometer to the top of the building, attach a long rope to it, lower it to the street, and then bring it up, measuring the length of the rope. The length of the rope is the height of the building."
I pointed out that the student really had a strong case for full credit since he had really answered the question completely and correctly. On the other hand, if full credit were given, it could well contribute to a high grade in his physics course. A high grade is supposed to certify competence in physics, but the answer did not confirm this. I suggested that the student have another try at answering the question. I was not surprised that my colleague agreed, but I was surprised when the student did.
I gave the student six minutes to answer the question with the warning that the answer should show some knowledge of physics. At the end of five minutes, he had not written anything. I asked if he wished to give up, but he said no. He had many answers to this problem; he was just thinking of the best one. I excused myself for interrupting him and asked him to please go on. In the next minute, he dashed off his answer which read:
"Take the barometer to the top of the building and lean over the edge of the roof. Drop the barometer, timing its fall with a stopwatch. Then, using the formula x=0.5g * t^2, calculate the height of the building."
At this point, I asked my colleague if he would give up. He conceded, and gave the student almost full credit. In leaving my colleague's office, I recalled that the student had said that he had other answers to the problem, so I asked him what they were.
"Well," said the student. "there are many ways of getting the height of a tall building with the aid of a barometer. For example, you could take the barometer out on a sunny day and measure the height of the barometer, the length of its shadow, and the length of the shadow of the building, and by the use of simple proportion, determine the height of the building."
"Fine," I said, "and others?"
"Yes," said the student." There is a very basic measurement method you will like. In this method, you take the barometer and begin to walk up the stairs. As you climb the stairs, you mark off the length of the barometer along the wall. You then count the number of marks, and this will give you the height of the building in barometer units.
"A very direct method."
"Of course. If you want a more sophisticated method, you can tie the barometer to the end of a string, swing it as a pendulum, and determine the value of g at the street level and at the top of the building. From the difference between the two values of g, the height of the building, in principle, can be calculated."
"On this same tack, you could take the barometer to the top of the building, attach a long rope to it, lower it to just above the street, and then swing it as a pendulum. You could then calculate the height of the building by the period of the precession".
"Finally," he concluded, "there are many other ways of solving the problem. Probably the best," he said, "is to take the barometer to the basement and knock on the superintendent's door. When the superintendent answers, you speak to him as follows: 'Mr. Superintendent, here is a fine barometer. If you will tell me the height of the building, I will give you this barometer.'"
At this point, I asked the student if he really did know the conventional answer to this question. He admitted that he did, but said that he was fed up with high school and college instructors trying to "teach him to think".
Please let me tell you that the story you have posted is a well known joke, presumably attributed to Niels Bohr (I bet you know this name). The joke has been around for many decades: just take a look at this reference on Internet: http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/barometer.asp[^]
It's a very confusing that: 1). Your writing, seemingly in the first person, presents a story as your personal experience
2). This story is attributed to Nobel Prize winner for physics Niels Bohr, but in your message there's no any attribution to the real story originator, and/or any other references
Because of that your post can be possibly qualified as a case of plagiarism. Please clarify this issue.
Also, please check/correct the formula that you have posted: it should be H=0.5g*t^2, as per the article mentioned above.
Well, it's appreciated that you've corrected the formula as it appears in the original article (link: http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/barometer.asp[^], and added some hyperlinks, though it should be appropriate to clearly and unambiguously indicate that your post is essentially a "copy-paste job" of that article, plus some errors and moralization added.
Thus, you should probably make another correction in your post. Last but not least, and sorry for a bit of irony: do you think that the person posting under "Thinking unconventionally" subject line probably should add some examples of such "unconventional thinking" of his/her own, rather than copy-pasting a joke well known for half a century+ under his/her name? I would say so; it's called "lead by example"...
Thanks and regards,
I think geekbond's only, and minor, misdeed was posting such a well known joke. The tone of the post so quickly falls into the didactic that it dispels any notion that geekbond was attempting to pass this off as personal experience.
Yeah, I agree. It was actually one of the favorite jokes of my previous boss long, long time ago. Also, the actual line in original text (not in the kinda erroneous 'copy-paste replica' that I put under criticism) refers to University of Copenhagen, Denmark (not the high school/college mentioned in that ill-fated post), so the joke per se probably can be traced back to the dawn of last Century (1903-1911, Niels Bohr period as a student). But it is not forgotten, obviously...
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.-John Q. Adams You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering.-Wernher von Braun Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.-Albert Einstein
Well, regardless of whether this is attributed to Niels Bohr or not, it still is a great story pointing out how we immediately constrain our thinking about a solution to the context of the problem (the problem being, in reality, getting a good grade, not measuring the building's height.)
The real issue here is about proper attribution to others' work. The story is indeed great, as many other great things, but betcha you will not present Maxwell's equations, or Pythagorean theorem as your own work? Lucky enough, such phenomenally great pieces of work carry the attribution to the originator in the very name, but there are also smaller things that are not so clearly associated with their authors, thus, following the rule of professional ethics, proper attribution is a must!
Have a great day.
Kind Regards, AB