Babylonian word problems - Response #6

The context of what a world problem should be has always been an interesting topic to discuss about. Two opposing arguments that commonly comes up is whether a word problem should test one's practical or theoretical abilities. Indeed, when we solve word problems appear to have real world applications, we may deem it as practical. However, just because we replace numbers and symbols with sentences and phrases, does that make it actually practical? I think that applications that are contrived are quite meaningless. It is the ones that have real implications that prove to be beneficial. We need to make sure that word problems are true applications and not simply translations of mathematical formula. The difficulty arises when we try to represent the physical word using limited ideas. Questions that are ill made often have unnecessary jargon. 

Most of us here have most likely dealt with mathematics in an abstract and theoretical setting. Some people often hate dealing with proofs, while others thrive in an application-free environment. Both are great but I do think the former tends to not suit well for most individuals. We also see all the time, students become lost and experience math anxiety which leads to them jamming numbers with random operators. But realistically, what kind of application would ever satisfy a student? Should we provide the Babylonian ways about legal practices in dividing land heritance to beneficiaries? This was one of the first motivators of applications in history! Or do they need to know how to compute compounded interest rates and understand its growth? I don't think that the value of a word problem is always measured by how relatable it is. It is also important to hold high standards for both literacy and numeracy, while also effectively bridging the gap between them.