Now on ScienceBlogs: The Laboratory at Harvard
Evolution, Life Sciences, Science Education, Human Evolution, and Stuff
Welcome to Greg Laden's Blog.
« Which way is this bus traveling? | Main | DI Being Bad »
Category: Science Education
Posted on: November 25, 2007 9:33 PM, by Greg Laden
A new bunch of math text books slated for implementation in Texas was werefound to have 109,263 errors. Apparently, in Texas, the publishers are fined $5000 per error. That comes out to $546,315,000.
The publisher, Houghton Mifflin, is working hard to correct the errors....
Find more posts in: 
Education & Careers
Share this: Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/56061
Comments
Next time you reference a six-sentence article, would you mind reading it first?
Thanks ever so very much!
Posted by: The Decidenator | November 25, 2007 9:55 PM
Yeah, it's actually 164 textbooks.
Posted by: JYB | November 25, 2007 10:18 PM
How could one math book hold that many errors? Ah, it's many books.
Moral of the story: Hire a free-lance editor.
I once ran into a fellow editor on the subway. He was pulling little scraps of paper out of his pockets and making notes. I asked him what he was doing, and he said he was editing a textbook. Apparently, those scraps were the manuscript he was given!
Posted by: Monado | November 25, 2007 10:22 PM
I assume the size of the potential fine was worked out in a neighbouring state.
Posted by: Peter McGrath | November 26, 2007 4:42 AM
Hey, that averages out to 666 errors per textbook.
Coincidence?
Textbooks of the Beast!!
Posted by: Dave S. | November 26, 2007 6:54 AM
free-lance editor here:
The original version is correct: "a bunch" is the subject of the verb, so the proper conjugation is "was". A bunch {of books} WAS to have errors. I know it sounds odd...
Compare to "A pile of books was sitting in the driveway."
The best way to avoid this ugly grammar is to avoid it:
"n books were examined, and they contained a total of m errors."
BTW: were they written by "cintelligent design proponentsists"? They're always good for redefining reality.
Posted by: djlactin | November 26, 2007 11:02 AM