Naturally it feels outdated as it was a speech from 62 years ago. Multiple generations of science education and teaching paradigms have come and gone since then.
The law is not on the citizens' side and never has been. Driving over the limit (even the smallest increment) is technically illegal. Driving under can be considered suspicious and warrant further surveillance (or more likely incite road rage from other drivers) in which you will likely make a mistake. Nobody follows every traffic law perfectly and in all likelyhood cannot. Every cop I have ever known has admitted to this fact and there are even more examples of former(or current) law enforcement officers going on record saying the same thing.
"Y.T.’s mom pulls up the new memo, checks the time, and starts reading it. The estimated reading time is 15.62 minutes. Later, when Marietta does her end-of-day statistical roundup, sitting in her private office at 9:00pm, she will see the name of each employee and next to it, the amount of time spent reading this memo, and her reaction, based on the time spent, will go something like this:
Less than 10 min.: Time for an employee conference and possible attitude counseling.
10-14 min.: Keep an eye on this employee; may be developing slipshod attitude.
14-15.61 min.: Employee is an efficient worker, may sometimes miss important details.
16-18 min.: Employee is a methodical worker, may sometimes get hung up on minor details.
More than 18 min.: Check the security videotape, see just what this employee was up to (e.g., possible unauthorized restroom break).
Y.T.’s mom decides to spend between fourteen and fifteen minutes reading the memo. It’s better for younger workers to spend too long, to show that they’re careful, not cocky. It’s better for older workers to go a little fast, to show good management potential. She’s pushing forty. She scans through the memo, hitting the Page Down button at reasonably regular intervals, occasionally paging back up to pretend to reread some earlier section. The computer is going to notice all this. It approves of rereading. It’s a small thing, but over a decade or so this stuff really shows up on your work-habits summary."
The interest in pure mathematics probably sets inquiring individuals in a higher intelligence bracket already. If somebody got through high school enjoying and succeeding at geometry and calculus, then they probably could stomach most undergraduate work in the same manner.
It seems a bit like gatekeeping to make people question whether they are smart enough when they will figure out pretty quickly if they have the aptitude or will to do it just by being exposed.
>they will figure out pretty quickly if they have the aptitude or will to do it just by being exposed
We disagree here, most people are not very good at figuring this out for themselves at all ime. It's always wise to compare yourself to known or semi-known metrics before you take the plunge into any given career, to make sure it really does seem like a good fit for you, or to make sure you can justify why you want to do it anyway even if the metrics paint an unflattering story.
