Now on ScienceBlogs: Charles Darwin February 12, 1809 - April 19, 1882
Evolution, Life Sciences, Science Education, Human Evolution, and Stuff
Looking for stuff about birds?
Learn more about Charles Darwin and his work.
Lean more about lions
An archaeological expedition to the Congo
The Skeptical Search Engine
This search engine will only give you results from carefully selected skeptical and scientific sites.
The contents of Greg Laden's Blog are copyrighted by Greg Laden.
Click on "About" for the big picture, and "Archives" for the details.
« 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....
Education & CareersTrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/56061
PZ Myers 02.12.2012
Tim Lambert 02.01.2012
ERV 11.26.2011
Jason Rosenhouse 02.12.2012
Jason Rosenhouse 02.10.2012
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