Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2012 January 20

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 20

Calling all diving experts

Well, I'm planning to swim and dive with the dolphins and false killer whales and if given a chance, dive to a site where I can see sunken ships. I've already found a place where I can go dive with these big fish but they are requiring me to present a dive card. I don't have a dive card but they told me that they can help me get one and need to pay them for they will give me diving lessons. But my question is, do you have to be an expert swimmer before you learn how to dive? I don't know how to swim. Whenever, I go swimming I just imitate what other swimmers do like the movements of their hands and feet. In doing so, I notice that I run out of breath easily and that's disappointing. I'm thinking that if I have the complete diving gears it will be easier for me to swim and won't worry about the supply of oxygen. But I'm not sure so I need the knowledge of diving experts here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.107.148.210 (talk) 07:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm no diving expert, but given that diving involves swimming underwater (amongst other things), if you can't do it on the surface, expecting it to be easier with all the complications of SCUBA gear seems rather optimistic. Take swimming lessons first... AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Andy... 'doing like movements' of others or buying gear will not make you adept at something. Swimming lessons I recommend as well, then a diving course, and - probably - if you think back to this query you shall probably laugh at your past self. --Ouro (blah blah) 08:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

A key component of learning to swim is a sense of comfort and competence in the water, so that you don't get flustered, or worse, panicked when something doesn't go right: a wave, a current, equipment problems, fatigue, etc. That is independent of learning to dive, but it's vital to your safety. Running out of breath can be brought on by anxiety as well as by poor technique, so I'd encourage you to get enough instruction to feel comfortable and competent without breathing apparatus before undertaking the much more complex task of getting a dive card. Acroterion (talk) 15:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Swim test requirements vary amongst the diver training organizations. PADI, the world's largest, calls for their students to:

• swim 200 metres/yards (or 300 metres/yards in mask, fins and snorkel). There is no time limit for this, and you may use any swimming strokes you want.
• float and tread water for 10 minutes, again using any methods that you want.[1]

Diving, under normal conditions, is easy. I could give an enthusiastic non-swimmer a five minute talk, pop a regulator in their mouth, and take them on a closely supervised dive, and everything would probably be fine, but what happens when, through carelessness, you get separated from your buddy and surface to find that you are in a strong current, a long way from the dive boat, and, when you inflate your BC, its dry rotted seams bust open, forcing you to ditch your gear to get rid of the negative buoyancy? Well, you'll never rent gear from that shop again! But hopefully it will be by your choice, having been comfortable enough that you were able either to swim back to the boat or to stay afloat long enough to have been picked up. So, go to your local dive shop and explain your situation so that they can recommend swimming lessons that will give you sufficient proficiency to be comfortable in the water. -- ToE 12:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree, ToE. I mean, I don't know You, but I suppose in most cases a few minutes of instructions will not make the diver in spe as prepared to feel comfortable in the water and _know what to do in an emergency_ as they should be/as they will be after an entire course. In other words, I appreciate the conjunctive in italics in your answer. Imagine something else: will a short discussion and a better car make someone a good driver or bring about a good driving experience? In most cases - no, it just means that they will be leaving better-quality paint on the lampposts they inevitably hit. --Ouro (blah blah) 14:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see where we disagree, so I must assume that I did a poor job conveying my answer. I am an advocate of strong swim requirements for diver courses. Back when the YMCA used to train divers, they had very strong swim requirements, presumable because they also taught swim and water safety classes. (YMCA (diving organization) currently redirects to YMCA which has a single sentence about their now defunct SCUBA training; it would make an interesting stand-alone article if we could come up with the sources). I've heard that some agencies these days have much laxer swim requirements, looking for students to perform only a few strokes "with some forward progress" (but I wasn't able to find a RS for this). It is pretty common to hear people ask why they need to know how to swim in order to dive, given that they will "have a tank to breathe from and a vest to keep them afloat". Perhaps my worst-case-scenario above was a bit extreme, but it is remotely possible that you could find yourself without your gear at the end of a dive. More importantly, swimming proficiency and its associated comfort in the water will help keep a student from panicking in more common situations when there's really nothing wrong, such as being splashed in the face while waiting to be picked up on the surface in a chop, or in between the two extremes, when a mask gets knocked off underwater -- something that will perturb many experienced divers. -- ToE 17:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The fault was on my part. I put that I don't agree because I thought a short talk before a dive was not sufficient to prepare someone. Sorry, I hope I didn't perplex you too much. Thanks and have a great Saturday! --Ouro (blah blah) 06:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I did an elementary diver training course paired up with someone who couldn't swim well. He sputtered and coughed water once and I had to lift him out of the water to recover. Not recommended, also the dangers in diving seemed far less intuitive and predictable than other "classical" dangerous activities. Polypipe Wrangler (talk) 20:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I was PADI-certified ~15 years ago, and if memory serves -- which it doesn't always at my age -- I'd say 25% of the course- and pool-work was bouyancy control, 25% was other safety stuff, 20% was computations using the dive tables, and 30% was swimming skills. So, my opinion is that our OP is good with 30% of what he actually needs, can skip the dive table stuff if he goes in a group, and has zero preparation for 50% of dive skills.

Not trying to be DaHorsesAss here, but would you think yourself competent to drive on the highway if all you know about it is how to start a car and steer it?

--DaHorsesMouth (talk) 00:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Why did Rousseau, Dewey and Bandaur decided to observe children?

I have a paper to write, and have chosen the topic of observing children. I have to link it to theorists and have chosen Bandaur, Dewey and Rousseau. I have researched and understand their actual theories, but can find no information as to why they actually decided to observe children in the first place! Please can someone help, I'm desperate!

Have you looked for articles on those folks here at wikipedia? "Dewey", for one, is a fairly common name. Which Dewey? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, yes Its John Dewey the theorist I'm refering to.--

Maybe the OP is referring to John Dewey-Meerkatakreem (talk) 11:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The question of upbringing and education has always been of primary interest for philosophers. It is because this subject is at the center of important philosophical questions like the relationship between nature and culture (inherent instincts as opposed to influences from upbringing and society) and education as a factor in changing society (influence or enlighten children and they will grow up to make an elightened society). Especially the philosophers of the Age of Enlightenment were interested in education, and just about every philosopher of that age wrote tracts about it, as can be seen for example with John Lockes theory about newborn children being a tabula rasa (clean slate), completely blank minds that could me molded through education and that the contemporary poor state of education was the cause of most of the ills in society. Of course this view changed somewhat, even during the 18th century, not least because of Rousseaus claims about inherent natural instincts in children being corrupted by an ignorant and decadent upbringing and how a more "natural" education would encourage these instincts to flourish and create a more "natural" society. Thus creating strands to a more modern view of education, which takes both concepts of influence from biology and society into consideration. I hope these examples are sufficient to give a little insight into why education and upbringing always has been and still are of interest to philosophers. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I'll be using this information! Thanks again --

At least with John Dewey, he was something of a practical philosopher, and tried specifically to be more than just a "ivory tower" academic. His practice of philosophy fits into the school known as pragmatism, and he saw philosophy not as a means to study the human condition, but to better it. While he's often described as a philosopher, he made a bigger impact as an educational reformer and educational theorist; his ideas on the actual practice of education and pedagogy were (and continue to be) rather important. Being someone who was interested in reforming schools, Dewey obviously saw the need to study children. His most important works in this field come from the middle period of his writing, and Democracy and Education remains a classic work, many future teachers use it as part of their studies. You can find more works of his at John_Dewey#Publications, and you'll note that most of what he wrote between 1897-1930 are books on education and pedagogy. At other times in his career he focused on other issues (early on his works focused on psychology, and later works become more esoteric in their philosophy) but his core works are about how to properly educate children. --Jayron32 15:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that a lot of thinkers in the Age of Enlightenment was likewise preoccupied with the practical application of their ideas and numerous experimental schools appeared in that period, most notably the German thinker Johann Bernhard Basedow who founded the school by the name of the Philanthropinum, which since inspired many similar schools all over Europe. The ideas of Rousseau was a bit more difficult to apply, since many of them were based on a rather utopian ideal of a child completely isolated from society. But bits and pieces caught on, not least his ideas of removing the swaddling of the infant and that the mothers themselves should breastfeed their children, although he was not the only one to promote those ideas (but probably the most popular). --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Not sure how much it influenced him, but I believe that Rousseau was responsible for several children over the years who were all placed into orphanages. If I had five children and didn't know where any of them were, that might influence me to look at children in general differently. Then again, maybe not for Rousseau. I don't know, but just throwing it out there as a potential idea. Falconus^{p t c} 17:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

His hypocritical stance in his writings as opposed to how he brought up his own children (which, as you have already mentioned, he didn't as he placed them all in orphanages or at foster parents) is quite famous, so I think we can safely categorise him as an "ivory tower" philosopher in that regard. He was more practical in his writings on music. And of course some of his ideas had an immense influence on the world, as they were unfortunately taken quite literally by some influental personages during the French Revolution (Jonathan Israel argues that it would have been very different if Diderots idea of General Will had been taken literally during that period instead). --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Laundry

Why do brightly colored new items, such as towels and T-shirts, frequently fade badly in small circles to larger steaks? I have asked others who experience the same thing. We have tried different washers, detergents And temperatures etc. Can you please help and teach me how to prevent this from continuing? Thank you, Lin Parker

, , , — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.174.54.246 (talk) 10:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

"Steaks"? Do you mean "streaks"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't comment on the pattern of fading, but when you buy anything that is brightly coloured, it has been dyed. When you wash it, you will inevitably remove some excess dye as well as dirt. My advice is to wash using a powder specially formulated for colour preservation, to use only the amount of powder recommended by the makers of the powder, to wash using the procedure recommended by the maker of the garment/product at the temperature they recommend. Often hard water can cause streaking of powder so you may wish to use a proprietary water softener (in the UK it's called Calgon). Actually I find black garments are the worst affected by colour loss, and if that happens and I'm fond of the garment, I will re-dye the garment myself. Possibly the only way to avoid fading is to dry clean such items. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Some suggestions:

1) Use liquid detergents instead of powdered, since they are already more diluted.

2) Further dilute them by adding detergent and water first, then add clothes, right before you start the machine.

3) Don't let the machine pre-soak. This will allow detergents to oxidize fabrics more at the waterline. StuRat (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

2 is only going to work with a top-loader. And then only with one that doesn't automatically start after it's full of water. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 01:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it must be a top-loader, but if it starts before you put the clothes in, just stop it, add the clothes and restart. I can't believe there's any washing machine which lacks a way to stop it. (If nothing else, you could unplug it.) StuRat (talk) 05:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, front-loading washing-machine designers are not as intelligent as you, StuRat, and they assume that users are as unintelligent as they are, so they design the machines to re-start from the default of pumping out any remaining water (with detergent) when first switched on. I couldn't believe it either, but it seems to be true. I haven't found a way round the peculiar programming. Dbfirs 09:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

There seem to be some "high efficiency" washing machines which achieve that efficiency by storing the old water in a reservoir and reusing it. You can tell if you put in a load without any detergent and it still suds up, from the water reused from the previous load. Not sure I want my wash clothes washed in the same water just used to wash a bunch of dirty diapers, though. StuRat (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh? I've never seen those. I suppose they might be OK if you wash the cleaner garments first. That was the way some people used the old "twin tubs". Dbfirs 16:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It might work if they had a "purge" button to dump the old water after washing something gross, but, unfortunately, the model I saw didn't have this. StuRat (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Continuing protests and such like

I have been seeing these Black March posters around the internet: http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/9573/mzida.jpg and I wondering a few things. Obviously firstly will it make any sort of difference at all, and secondly whether it would be worth doing it in England or would it just be the USA that can change anything here.

Also, I seem to be getting a lot of contradictory news here, they've given up on this censorship thing, no they haven't, it was unlike to go through anyway, it isn't going to change anything, the whole internet will shut down, they don't need this they can close any website they want anyway... So, once and for all, what actually would be the final result if this new Act is passed, and does anyone know the current state of how likely that is?

148.197.81.179 (talk) 12:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Obviously we can't predict the future. But the number of US congresspeople who have changed their position on SOPA/PIPA after January 18th has been fairly dramatic. See this article and its rather dramatic graphic that has been making the rounds. At the moment it's still unclear what the future of these bills will be (and the majority of Congressfolk haven't stated a position), and nobody is really sure what the final bills that will be brought to vote will be, if they are brought to vote at all. It's very much in flux at this particular moment. There are rather strong forces rallied in support of the bill, and there are rather strong forces rallied against it. And it is still one of the most dysfunctional and unpopular US Congresses in history we're talking about. So it's still anybody's guess.

Separately, it's not clear to me that the January 18th blackout and the "black March" are at all the same types of events. Boycotting is not the same thing as blacking out, and interpreting sales numbers is difficult even in a robust economic moment. It would probably be very hard to distinguish the signal from the noise in the latter form of protest, and I'm also not sure that there's as much genuinely popular support behind the anti-SOPA/PIPA movement as that sort of act implies. (I believe that those who are heavily invested in the tech industry and its byproducts are strongly against SOPA. But the market of consumers more generally is much larger than that.) --Mr.98 (talk) 13:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Update: apparently SOPA and PIPA have been formally dropped — for now. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Doctors and Nurses

I often see in TV programs workers in hospitals refer to each other by their titles. "Here's his chart Doctor", "Thank you nurse, could you leave us alone" etc. Sometimes it's because they are shouting for any doctor or nurse, but often they are talking to people they work with regularly, on a ward they work on daily. Is there any truth in this happening in real life, or is it just a TV thing? It doesn't seem to occur (even on TV) in other professions. You don't hear any "Take a look at these numbers accountant". Prokhorovka (talk) 16:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

In a few professions, the title for some reason is used as if it were a name. A receptionist says "Doctor is running late, but he will see you next." In British novels, "Sister" is similarly used as if it were the name of a nurse. It does not seem to be limited to medical professions, since one might say "Judge," "Father (to a Priest)," "Sheriff," "Guard," "Officer," "Waiter," "Coach," or "Driver." It would not seem natural to say "Lawyer," "Plumber," "Janitor," "Cashier," "Salesman," "Maid," "Bellhop" or "Electrician." One might hear a student say "Teacher," but it would seem a bit rude. Edison (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

"Sister" in a British and Commomwealth nursing context is a female charge nurse (ie a nurse in charge of a shift). See Nursing management#Roles. Alansplodge (talk) 23:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

It depends on the job - sometimes they're descriptions, sometimes they're titles. To take an example in British local government, whilst an officer might frequently say "Good morning Councillor" (their description and title), it would be entirely wrong for them to reply "Good morning Officer" (a word reserved for police officers). In your example, you wouldn't say "Take a look at these numbers, accountant" (description), but if you stick a few zeros on the end, you would say "Take a look at these numbers, Congressman" (title). There's little rhyme or reason I can immediately think of as to whether or not you can guess if, say, English isn't your first language (e.g. the British equivalent of 'Congressman' is a post-nominal description, Congressman Bob Jones would be Bob Jones MP) --Saalstin (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

See this famous clip. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for all the answers everyone. That clip in particular is priceless. Prokhorovka (talk) 09:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd say there's a fair element of doing this when one is trying emphasise the professionalism or status of the position. To use a separate example, naughty children at school may be told to "Go and see the Principal/Headmaster/whatever" even though all involved know the name of the Principal is Bill Smith, while a student who's not in trouble and is being sent about a positive matter would be more likely to be told to "Go and see Mr Smith". Similarly, I'd say in the medical situation the use of Doctor, Nurse, etc, would be far more typical in serious situations where the medico themself, other medical staff, or even the patient is trying to emphasise that this is a professional that knows what they're doing, even if they know their name. The other use for these terms is of course when people want to address a person in a particular position, but don't know their name - "Doc, can you help me", "Pull up here, Driver", "Waiter, I'll have the bill please", "Forgive me Father". And getting back to education, Edison noted that it would be uncommon for a student to simply say "Teacher...", which is true, but it's not uncommon for students to use other generic names, e.g., "Sir", "Miss", "Ma'am", and "Professor", especially in big institutions where again they may not know the actual name of the staff member. An accountant would very rarely be involved in either of these situations (having their professionalism emphasised, or where someone needs to anonymously address them) and thus simply naming them as their profession would not be necessary. --jjron (talk) 15:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Most of these words that can be used as titles on their own can also be used as titles, with names: for example "doctor", "nurse", professor" and "sergeant" can all be used with a name (Doctor Jones, Nurse Ledston, Sergeant Bilko); but "engineer" and "accountant", which are not used as titles with a name, and are also not used alone in addressing. All the counter-examples I can think of (a title used in address, but not with a name) title is not just a professional one but the holder of a significant post: headmaster, minister, prime minister. I'm sure there are a few cases that this suggestion doesn't cover but it mostly holds. --ColinFine (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Minister and Prime Minister are used to address the office-holder concerned (see Yes Minister- and note that there's no comma in the TV show's title, which does not reflect common external usage; but the sequel Yes, Prime Minister does have a comma). They haven't traditionally been used in conjunction with the surname, but that is changing. At an international meeting, one might distinguish between the PMs from different countries by referring to, say, "Prime Minister Cameron", "Prime Minister Rudd", etc. And within Australia, while it's been traditional to refer to the Minister for XYZ as "The Minister for XYZ", when a Prime Minister is talking about some program that this minister has been given responsibility for, she will often refer to him in terms such as "Minister Smith has carriage of this matter and future questions should be directed to him". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• Speaking as a lawyer, there is the formality of the courtroom, where I as a lawyer may be addressed "Mr. Wehwalt", but also as "counsel". However, I would never put "Counsel" before my name, and perhaps in some parts of the country, especially in the South, once you might have called someone "Lawyer Soandso", but I think that went out about the time of To Kill a Mockingbird. So all of these in the examples I see are very formal settings.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

No. 2 pencil

For the purpose of doing the SAT, is a No. 2 pencil equivalent to an HB pencil or to a B pencil? Widener (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

HB. See Number 2 pencil. Dismas|^(talk) 21:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

HB is like #2, see pencil#Grading_and_classification. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I saw that article. It says that some manufacturers consider No. 2 to be equivalent to B. I want to make sure I use the correct pencil when taking the SAT. Widener (talk) 21:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The SAT is a US test. And #2 is mostly a US grading. And #2 is almost universally an HB in the US. Dismas|^(talk) 21:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems unlikely to me Optical mark recognition machines vary that much from country to country, the same manufacturers probably sell the same machines, particularly Scantron. (Particularly 2 or 3 decades ago.) I doubt there's something in the paper used in the Optical answer sheets varies much between countries either. However at least 2 NZ universities (who either use Scantron machines or use the term as a generacised trademark), recommend 2B (if they recommend a type at all, sometimes they just say pencil or dark pencil) [2] [3] [4] (2B or 3B) there. At least one Australian uni does likewise [5]. In Malaysia, 2B is recommended for government exams since at least 1993, and IIRC, for the Cambridge GCE Advanced Level which is sent to the UK (or maybe it was 2B or HB or 2B or B), and at least on private college for internal purposes. And apparently it's the same for Singapore [6]. There's even this 2B pencil which says it's 'exam standard' on the packaging and pencil and also claims to be OMR tested [7] from Malaysia. Meanwhile this Irish university recommends a 2B or HB [8] as do this UK one [9] and it was also the norm here [10] (in 1995). A quick search finds others recommending HB or B in the UK. Some brave (because it's not easily erasable) people have shown pen works fine [11]. In other words, it doesn't actually matter. HB, B, 2B will be fine. Even a softer/darker or harder/lighter pencil should be fine. Just use whatever you have and find works best (easy to erase and easy to fill the circles and doesn't smudge). The machines aren't that sensitiveflawed. Nil Einne (talk) 19:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit: Actually I see [12] says a pencil harder/lighter then HB may cause problems and is on the cusp of not be identified with their machines. Perhaps this is why the #2 is preferred in the US, it's the hardest pencil that works well with OMR. Nil Einne (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

When I was at school, in the UK, I'm sure we were told to use black pen. But then, my school had a lot of strict rules about when a pen or a pencil could be used, amongst other things. 148.197.81.179 (talk) 11:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I find that strange. As I mentioned, I'm not surprised it works. In fact it may work even better then pencil due to the darker, less reflective marks. But making you use pen means if you later realise you have the wrong answer, or even if you selected the right answer but screwed up when marking, you either have to start with a new sheet or try to erase the pen mark somehow. (I guess correction fluid or tape may work but it's fiddly and will make it difficult if you later want to change back.) Did your school have a 'you only get one chance' sort of attitude? Nil Einne (talk) 15:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I did multiple choice tests for O Level in the UK, and we used pencil. Since then, I have carried out surveys using optical marking, and the equipment copes with any kind of black or blue pen or pencil. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

When using the "<small>" tag, the closing tag should have a "/" (i.e. "</small>") in it. Otherwise, you'll make everything below small ;-). Also, why does this say that I am editing an archive? It's on the current reference desk. Falconus^{p t c} 17:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

If you make a mistake you have to cross it through and try again. Back in my day, schools discouraged rubbing out mistakes as though they had never happened. 148.197.81.179 (talk) 10:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure you aren't referring to written answers intended to be marked by a human rather then multiple choice question answers in an optical answer sheet (which is the subject of discussion here) which are generally intended to be marked by a machine or at least in an automated fashion*? If you are referring to MCQ answers in an optical answer sheet, I don't get how you cross out a mistake and try again. The whole point of an optical answer sheet is that the scanner picks up which single item is shaded. You can't simply cross it out since the machine will then just pick out two bubbles as shaded and so mark you as answering incorrectly. (Or perhaps it will either tag your sheet for manual review or pick the answer which it perceives as darker as the intended answer and mark you based on that.) You can't put the answer in another place because the machine expects to find each answer in its defined place in the sheet.

* In my primary and secondary schools in Malaysia, they didn't have a scanner. We still used sheets similar to an optical answer sheet but they were marked by hand. The teacher overlayed a template with the correct answers cut out over your answer sheet. From this the incorrect answers could be counted as unshaded bubbles (representing the correct answer) which were usually ticked by the teacher. I presume teachers also briefly looked at the sheet to ensure there was no case were two or more bubbles were shaded.

Nil Einne (talk) 10:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

In the days before cheap OMR readers, I used to have two templates — one on which I counted the correct answers, and the other on which I counted the wrong answers. If these did not add up to the total number of questions, then a closer look was needed because students were advised not to leave any blank lines. I allowed any pen or pencil, with a cross cancelling an answer that needed to be changed. The correct answer was indicated by making a straight line joining dots, as it is on (most?) British OMR sheets. Marking these was a simple task that could be undertaken by any monkey that could count, or whilst watching TV. Dbfirs 09:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)