The task was impossible because they gave them light bulbs that simply cannot light up with a low V battery.
The one scene where a student appears to succeed (this clip is spliced in after the segment where the professor says "it's not the case [it's not a trick question]") is not with the light bulb they were given (they essentially say "here, I can show you, see, with a small bulb I would do this and it works", laughing which to me indicates they didn't get it done with the initially given large bulb).
But maybe not? Maybe they were given several bulbs to choose from. And yeah some people clearly didn't figure out the basics ("I need two wires"). The others, unclear, they showed short cuts of them fumbling around (possibly after failing a few times) but they might have already tried the right approach before that.
The core issue with the video is that it doesn't establish a base line. What is it they expected from the students? That they identified they cannot do it with just any bulb or any battery before saying yes? I don't think so, based on the professor interview that really seems to imply that the folks should know how to do it (and get it done).
If there was a way to do it they should have shown. They just go on to folks saying "see, we need to teach the basics better" and I still don't know how it connects to the "experiment".
The way it stands it really does seem to be designed to make the graduates fail the test without making clear (to the viewer at least) what the test really was.
I mean at this point I'm not even clear if the reporters were the stupid ones not realizing it cannot be done. Again, they didn't show it. It's more likely they did actually make it impossible / pose a trick question.
I am not doubting the professor as much. They probably conducted an actual experiment that showed a significant number of subjects (was it MIT grads though) weren't able to accomplish it despite feasibility. It's just that the adhoc on-video tests there seem to provide a false hook into the story, like all these types of on the street interviews.
The one scene where a student appears to succeed (this clip is spliced in after the segment where the professor says "it's not the case [it's not a trick question]") is not with the light bulb they were given (they essentially say "here, I can show you, see, with a small bulb I would do this and it works", laughing which to me indicates they didn't get it done with the initially given large bulb).
But maybe not? Maybe they were given several bulbs to choose from. And yeah some people clearly didn't figure out the basics ("I need two wires"). The others, unclear, they showed short cuts of them fumbling around (possibly after failing a few times) but they might have already tried the right approach before that.
The core issue with the video is that it doesn't establish a base line. What is it they expected from the students? That they identified they cannot do it with just any bulb or any battery before saying yes? I don't think so, based on the professor interview that really seems to imply that the folks should know how to do it (and get it done).
If there was a way to do it they should have shown. They just go on to folks saying "see, we need to teach the basics better" and I still don't know how it connects to the "experiment".
The way it stands it really does seem to be designed to make the graduates fail the test without making clear (to the viewer at least) what the test really was.
I mean at this point I'm not even clear if the reporters were the stupid ones not realizing it cannot be done. Again, they didn't show it. It's more likely they did actually make it impossible / pose a trick question.
I am not doubting the professor as much. They probably conducted an actual experiment that showed a significant number of subjects (was it MIT grads though) weren't able to accomplish it despite feasibility. It's just that the adhoc on-video tests there seem to provide a false hook into the story, like all these types of on the street interviews.
reply