Russians are best coders in the world

[nonsequitur]

In the context of what happened with the American election...

Best universities in the world for learning to code | Times Higher Education (THE)

Best universities in the world for learning to code

A worldwide coding competition reveals the universities producing the very best coders
December 9 2016

The universities with the best computer programmers are not the big names you might expect.

After a worldwide coding competition, HackerRank has produced a ranking of the 50 universities or schools producing the best coders in the world – and the results are surprising.

The top three institutions for coding are in Russia, China and Vietnam, while the top US university – the University of California, Berkeley – comes in fourth.

More than 5,500 students from 126 institutions around the world took part in the coding competition, and universities in the ranking are scored based both on the number of participants and their competition scores.

Only universities with at least 10 participants are included in the ranking.

The top 10 universities cover Canada, Russia, Ukraine, India, Sweden, Vietnam, China and the United States.

India is the best represented country in the ranking, with 22 individual institutions recognised for producing world-leading coders – making up almost half of the ranking. The US has only eight colleges in the ranking.

Chinese student Wentao Weng, who ranked as the 13th best coder in the world, started learning when he was just 11 years old. He now practises for about four hours a day during the week and most of the day on weekends.

Even though computer science isn’t on the curriculum at his school, he says: “We try to become one of the best coders among high school students to [get admission] into a good university.”

 

[Abendrot]

Yeah well, this is not surprising given that North American universities dominate world rankings for their research output, not their selectivity or education.
Even Harvard's selectivity pales in comparison to say, the University of Tokyo's.

 

[ThaumaturgicTheorist]

Even Harvard's selectivity pales in comparison to say, the University of Tokyo's.

I'm curious, do you have any details about the differences?

 

[Abendrot]

I'm curious, do you have any details about the differences?

Though the following is regarding Japan, most of what is said is generally true of the rest of East Asia as well (especially South Korea):

At first glance, Harvard University seems much more selectivity with its acceptance rate is 5.4%, compared to the University of Tokyo's 34.2%. In reality, this number is almost meaningless.

In Japanese society, universities are used primarily as a means of social stratification, with education and research being strictly a secondary purpose.
Thus, universities are judged primarily by their standard of selectivity.
This fact, combined with a complete indifference toward extra-curriculars, and the usage of the NCUEE, a national standardized examination (which allows an objective measure of a University's selectivity), results in a much more stratified hierarchy of universities than there is in the West. In Japan, the University of Tokyo is the undisputed paragon among universities, and hence features unrivaled selectivity.

University Rankings: Japan - WENR (ranking of Japanese universities based acceptance scores on the NCUEE exam)
Brand rankings of Japanese universities - Wikipedia (ranking of universities by prestige)

What this means is that a significant portion (if not the majority) of the 600,000 people who write the standardized NCUEE exam annually in Japan would identify the University of Tokyo as their ideal university. (which only accepts a paltry 3000 people each year).

In Japan, there are two exams for university: A national standardized exam (NCUEE) and an exam unique to each university. Your scores on these two exams are essentially the only things considered in the selection process. The quoted acceptance average (34.2%) for the University of Tokyo is the percentage of people who passed that university's specific entrance exam. The people who decided to write this exam, naturally, are people who did well enough on the NCUEE that they believe that they can get into the University of Tokyo.

Another factor must be considered: Much greater significance is placed upon your alma mater in Japan than it is in the West.
Graduating from the University of Tokyo is essentially a ticket to the ruling class.
To illustrate:
- higher level government positions and prestigious corporations will generally only accept applicants from elite universities.
- a quarter of Japan's prime ministers were the graduates of this university
- over half the employees of Japanese government agencies are from this university

As you'd expect, there is very fierce competition to get into the best university possible. There are an abundance of cram schools, which are basically essential for being admitted to a prestigious university. These schools teach additional material, as the material taught in class is insufficient to do well on the exam. Furthermore, this competition begins very early; even within elementary school, there is fierce competition to get into high schools with a record for getting the most people into prestigious universities.

 

[nonsequitur]

Yeah well, this is not surprising given that North American universities dominate world rankings for their research output, not their selectivity or education.
Even Harvard's selectivity pales in comparison to say, the University of Tokyo's.

The world rankings (e.g. THE, QS, Shanghai Jiaotong) typically do factor education in student:staff ratio, employability and multi-culturalism in addition to research output. I would also say that having experienced higher education in Singapore (as a tutor), Australia (undergrad+postgrad) and the US (as an undergrad), that each has its own strengths and weaknesses. Then again, computer science isn't my field.

Though the following is regarding Japan, most of what is said is generally true of the rest of East Asia as well (especially South Korea):

At first glance, Harvard University seems much more selectivity with its acceptance rate is 5.4%, compared to the University of Tokyo's 34.2%. In reality, this number is almost meaningless.

In Japanese society, universities are used primarily as a means of social stratification, with education and research being strictly a secondary purpose.
Thus, universities are judged primarily by their standard of selectivity.
This fact, combined with a complete indifference toward extra-curriculars, and the usage of the NCUEE, a national standardized examination (which allows an objective measure of a University's selectivity), results in a much more stratified hierarchy of universities than there is in the West. In Japan, the University of Tokyo is the undisputed paragon among universities, and hence features unrivaled selectivity.

University Rankings: Japan - WENR (ranking of Japanese universities based acceptance scores on the NCUEE exam)
Brand rankings of Japanese universities - Wikipedia (ranking of universities by prestige)

What this means is that a significant portion (if not the majority) of the 600,000 people who write the standardized NCUEE exam annually in Japan would identify the University of Tokyo as their ideal university. (which only accepts a paltry 3000 people each year).

In Japan, there are two exams for university: A national standardized exam (NCUEE) and an exam unique to each university. Your scores on these two exams are essentially the only things considered in the selection process. The quoted acceptance average (34.2%) for the University of Tokyo is the percentage of people who passed that university's specific entrance exam. The people who decided to write this exam, naturally, are people who did well enough on the NCUEE that they believe that they can get into the University of Tokyo.

Another factor must be considered: Much greater significance is placed upon your alma mater in Japan than it is in the West.
Graduating from this university is essentially a ticket to the ruling class.
To illustrate:
- higher level government positions and prestigious corporations will generally only accept applicants from elite universities.
- a quarter of Japan's prime ministers were the graduates of this university
- over half the employees of Japanese government agencies are from this university

As you'd expect, there is very fierce competition to get into the best university possible. There are an abundance of cram schools, which are basically essential for being admitted to a prestigious university. These schools teach additional material, as the material taught in class is insufficient to do well on the exam. Furthermore, this competition begins very early; even within elementary school, there is fierce competition to get into high schools with a record for getting the most people into prestigious universities.

It's pretty much the same in Singapore, stratification begins at primary school. Because our secondary/high schools are already selective (based on national exams ranking all students at grades 6 and 10), typically anyone who can afford it starts going to cram schools at an early age. The level of knowledge that's taught in cram schools on top of our own schools (which already goes above and beyond the national syllabus) is pretty ridiculous. The expectations are also ridiculous. In my high school, which takes the top 1% of students, the median grade for most school exams (we had them 4 times a year) was just short of a passing mark. i.e. most of us failed. At the end of high school, this translates into >80% getting A on international/national university exams. I was also able to slack off most of the first 2 years of university for hard science subjects because we'd already learned it in high school. I'm wondering if this is where the gap in performance lies. Neither Singapore nor Japan ranked above. Is this failing in higher ed? What I was told (early on in uni) was that we needed to start at the same level for everyone because very few went to a high school like mine.

What I wanted to come back to is the gap between tech skills training in highly-competitive developing nations like India, China, and Russia vs those in developed nations. The future is going to be highly automated and reliant on people who can creatively integrate technologies from different fields. If the first world is already playing catch-up with education and stops immigration from filling this competitive gap, how long can this historical advantage exist for? And will it be able to defend itself against political, military and economic attacks?

 

[Abendrot]

It's pretty much the same in Singapore, stratification begins at primary school. Because our secondary/high schools are already selective (based on national exams ranking all students at grades 6 and 10), typically anyone who can afford it starts going to cram schools at an early age. The level of knowledge that's taught in cram schools on top of our own schools (which already goes above and beyond the national syllabus) is pretty ridiculous. The expectations are also ridiculous. In my high school, which takes the top 1% of students, the median grade for most school exams (we had them 4 times a year) was just short of a passing mark. i.e. most of us failed. At the end of high school, this translates into >80% getting A on international/national university exams. I was also able to slack off most of the first 2 years of university for hard science subjects because we'd already learned it in high school. I'm wondering if this is where the gap in performance lies. Neither Singapore nor Japan ranked above. Is this failing in higher ed? What I was told (early on in uni) was that we needed to start at the same level for everyone because very few went to a high school like mine.

Sounds like you've had one hell of a childhood. I don't know whether I should admire you or pity you . I've heard it's quite brutal in Singapore as well. Incidentally, I knew a girl from Singapore, and she learned calculus when she was in grade 5. I think this mentality of using test-taking to stratify society has trickled down from the Imperial examinations from Asia's past. Interestingly enough, the UK had such a system at one point (Cambridge's Mathematical Tripos exam). It was a highly competitive exam, and I believe it was one of the qualifications necessary to enter high government positions.

What I wanted to come back to is the gap between tech skills training in highly-competitive developing nations like India, China, and Russia vs those in developed nations. The future is going to be highly automated and reliant on people who can creatively integrate technologies from different fields. If the first world is already playing catch-up with education and stops immigration from filling this competitive gap, how long can this historical advantage exist for? And will it be able to defend itself against political, military and economic attacks?

The Western world knows that it cannot compete fairly with regions like India, Russia and the Far East in tech fields, given their mediocre STEM education standards and their vastly higher wages. Thus, their strategy is to fill high level STEM positions by taking the cream of the crop domestically and by enticing top talent from the aforementioned regions. As for the rest of the jobs, they outsource as much as they can.

The Western world's survival strategy is to exploit creativity, capital and investment, and to exploit niche manufacturing markets in which people are willing to pay through the nose for quality, markets involving high barriers of entry (eg. Nuclear technology), or markets involving secretive technologies (eg. defence). This won't work forever though, as these markets are gradually being penetrated.

A rule of thumb of mine is that if it can't be automated, there's a good chance it can be outsourced. If this assumption is correct, excepting management and high paying STEM positions, the only jobs that will remain in the first world are those involving customer-service (cannot be automated) and on-site presence (cannot be outsourced), ideally both. Protected professions (eg. Law, medicine) will also survive, although they will become increasingly difficult to enter. To be fair, I don't think a strong STEM education system is going to be much help in this context.

 

[ThaumaturgicTheorist]

The world rankings (e.g. THE, QS, Shanghai Jiaotong) typically do factor education in student:staff ratio, employability and multi-culturalism in addition to research output. I would also say that having experienced higher education in Singapore (as a tutor), Australia (undergrad+postgrad) and the US (as an undergrad), that each has its own strengths and weaknesses. Then again, computer science isn't my field.



It's pretty much the same in Singapore, stratification begins at primary school. Because our secondary/high schools are already selective (based on national exams ranking all students at grades 6 and 10), typically anyone who can afford it starts going to cram schools at an early age. The level of knowledge that's taught in cram schools on top of our own schools (which already goes above and beyond the national syllabus) is pretty ridiculous. The expectations are also ridiculous. In my high school, which takes the top 1% of students, the median grade for most school exams (we had them 4 times a year) was just short of a passing mark. i.e. most of us failed. At the end of high school, this translates into >80% getting A on international/national university exams. I was also able to slack off most of the first 2 years of university for hard science subjects because we'd already learned it in high school. I'm wondering if this is where the gap in performance lies. Neither Singapore nor Japan ranked above. Is this failing in higher ed? What I was told (early on in uni) was that we needed to start at the same level for everyone because very few went to a high school like mine.

And, see, I was just trying to determine what the US should adopt, since it's pretty clear our educational system is the worst. That was the whole reason I asked, hoping to find things we can pick out that we should start demanding of American students.

Yet, I recall reading one account of a Canadian who worked in Singapore for a while, and he had some comments about the stratified, memorization-based education that, in turn, lacks education in things like time management or how to actually do research (not that we're much better in the US these days). That much of the "work ethic" of far Asian countries is more of a lack of proper planning or organization resulting in a lot of busywork. But that's a little off-topic.

What I wanted to come back to is the gap between tech skills training in highly-competitive developing nations like India, China, and Russia vs those in developed nations. The future is going to be highly automated and reliant on people who can creatively integrate technologies from different fields. If the first world is already playing catch-up with education and stops immigration from filling this competitive gap, how long can this historical advantage exist for? And will it be able to defend itself against political, military and economic attacks?

Agreed, sort of. This is huge, though I'm not sure I agree that the future will be reliant on "creative" people. More like simply hyperintelligent people. I have this hypothesis we're going to be a technocracy for a while, for that transition between "partially automated" and "no more need for human minds". Society will basically revere those intelligent enough to actually perform the few jobs left, they'll be the ones with all the money, all the status, and who basically run the world (whereas most of those labels would now go to businesspeople of some sort, at least in the US).

One last thing about "stopping immigration from filling the gap" of competent STEM people...since when? I know everyone goes nuts about immigration, but I had no idea there was any issue with people from India or parts of Asia. I thought people only get up in arms about illegal immigration from Mexico?

 

[nonsequitur]

Sounds like you've had one hell of a childhood. I don't know whether I should admire you or pity you . I've heard it's quite brutal in Singapore as well. Incidentally, I knew a girl from Singapore, and she learned calculus when she was in grade 5. I think this mentality of using test-taking to stratify society has trickled down from the Imperial examinations from Asia's past. Interestingly enough, the UK had such a system at one point (Cambridge's Mathematical Tripos exam). It was a highly competitive exam, and I believe it was one of the qualifications necessary to enter high government positions.

I used to be bitter about not having a childhood but I have never known anything else, and I can see how it's shaped my perspective on life and economics. We enter the rat race once we're born, and sure, there's more to life than survival but survival is the bottom line. Yes, our primary school students have basic calculus in their syllabus and if you speak to current "elite" high school students, they're learning about the principles of new technology like CRISPR. In my high school, we learned about cloning and how to do genetic manipulation in 11th grade. It was re-taught back to me in 2nd year of undergraduate studies.

As a researcher, I'm well aware that my field has advanced more in the last 10 years than in the 90 preceding that. Singapore's core syllabus gets upgraded once every 4-5 years, but those at the top - they're constantly getting the "new" information, even if they're not being tested on it in national exams. Elite schools have also moved towards becoming more project/problem-based and integrative in recognition of the fact that simply memorising can't take you far in the next 10-20 years. But I do see people who come into university with stellar grades who can't reason their way out of a paper bag. You can tell these individuals apart quite easily though. Those who only have the work ethic, and those who have the work ethic and the flexibility/drive to work stuff out on their own.

The Western world knows that it cannot compete fairly with regions like India, Russia and the Far East in tech fields, given their mediocre STEM education standards and their vastly higher wages. Thus, their strategy is to fill high level STEM positions by taking the cream of the crop domestically and by enticing top talent from the aforementioned regions. As for the rest of the jobs, they outsource as much as they can.

The Western world's survival strategy is to exploit creativity, capital and investment, and to exploit niche manufacturing markets in which people are willing to pay through the nose for quality, markets involving high barriers of entry (eg. Nuclear technology), or markets involving secretive technologies (eg. defence). This won't work forever though, as these markets are gradually being penetrated.

A rule of thumb of mine is that if it can't be automated, there's a good chance it can be outsourced. If this assumption is correct, excepting management and high paying STEM positions, the only jobs that will remain in the first world are those involving customer-service (cannot be automated) and on-site presence (cannot be outsourced), ideally both. Protected professions (eg. Law, medicine) will also survive, although they will become increasingly difficult to enter. To be fair, I don't think a strong STEM education system is going to be much help in this context.

Maybe it's because I'm a 5 - I'm constantly thinking in terms of allocation of resources. I don't think that Western education is innately mediocre, especially at the top (which we're comparing right now). Having experienced education in the west and in the east, both have their strengths and weaknesses. In the west, which is more egalitarian, even those at the bottom get resources/help. It's also a system that allows failure without punishment, which fosters creativity and collaboration. In the east, it's "this is the good crop, so we need to focus on them. Those at the bottom need to work themselves to the top if they want resources. Those who fail are failures in themselves.". This ignores systematic inequality (people who can't afford cram schools, don't live in good school districts that would give them access to good primary schools etc) and entrenches a ruling class that can't relate to anything outside of our experiences. Those in elite schools (and I count myself in this group) are out-of-touch, generally only associate with Chinese people of a certain class and end up becoming the people who make policy. We are generally limited by consciousness of hierarchy and are very rule-bound as well, because the rules that we made work for us. If you look at the breakdown of student scores for the recent TIMMs and PISA rankings (both of which Singapore topped), you'll realise that the spread of scores is very large, i.e. the top students do really well and those at the bottom do really badly.

Having known the "cream" in Asia and the "cream" in Australia and the US, if I were an employer seeking someone to engineer a solution to a new problem I would go to the West. The "cream" in Asia solve problems with known solutions a lot more quickly and are willing to sacrifice a lot personally for work. The "cream" in the West have a work ethic but recognise that sometimes a new approach needs to be taken. This can't be done if you're constantly working and live in a narrow paradigm of the problem.

A large amount of customer service is already automated, and even responds to human emotions: If You Swear at Apple's Automated Customer Service, They'll Put You Through to a Human | Motherboard . On-site maintenance/services are trades jobs that are hard to automate.. But they carry stigma and don't pay very well right now. I anticipate that demand for plumbing/heating/electricians will drive pay upwards - it's already happened in Australia. I also disagree that medical and law fields aren't going to be affected by automation. Taking the medical field right now, certain surgical procedures are already being carried out robotically because there are fewer risks involved and it's less invasive. I can envision fields like radiology and pathology being replaced entirely by AI. Artificial Intelligence: Radiologists and Pathologists as Information Specialists | Radiology | JAMA | The JAMA Network This is not the future, it's right here, right now, because of machine learning neural network technologies that are already available in combination with big data. There's also been discussion about the automation of law (Originally discussed in WSJ Let’s Automate All the Lawyers? - CIO Journal. - WSJ and pdf available here: http://www.tomdavenport.com/wp-content/uploads/Let’s-Automate-All-the-Lawyers.pdf).

We're very dependent on a lot of these technologies already. Whether it's automatic dispensaries at hospitals/pharmacies, or biometrics at immigration, or personal security and buying stuff online. It's a major point of weakness in the developed world, and the last few years have shown that malicious interests can very easily get past electronic monitoring. I think it's not so much mass STEM education that will help in defending against attacks and designing secure systems, but very specific, very specialised training of people in technical institutes. That's what Russia, China and Vietnam are currently doing with these "universities".

Yet, I recall reading one account of a Canadian who worked in Singapore for a while, and he had some comments about the stratified, memorization-based education that, in turn, lacks education in things like time management or how to actually do research (not that we're much better in the US these days). That much of the "work ethic" of far Asian countries is more of a lack of proper planning or organization resulting in a lot of busywork. But that's a little off-topic.

Yeah that happens in bureaucratic jobs and comes with our history. Our education system has shifted a lot in the last few years. There is a tonne of memorisation, but also (because Singapore just adds to the syllabus and doesn't remove stuff) a shift towards project/problem-based learning and research. In the elite schools I talked about, most have year-long research programs in collaboration with local/Chinese/Australian universities and weeks off from a structured syllabus where they work on their projects (known as 'going on sabbatical', which I find hilarious considering that as a researcher, I've never been on sabbatical and the system here punishes professional researchers who take time off). So as I see these systems that keep changing in an effort to be competitive, I look at my alma mater in Australia and the US and wonder how they're keeping up.

Agreed, sort of. This is huge, though I'm not sure I agree that the future will be reliant on "creative" people. More like simply hyperintelligent people. I have this hypothesis we're going to be a technocracy for a while, for that transition between "partially automated" and "no more need for human minds". Society will basically revere those intelligent enough to actually perform the few jobs left, they'll be the ones with all the money, all the status, and who basically run the world (whereas most of those labels would now go to businesspeople of some sort, at least in the US).

One last thing about "stopping immigration from filling the gap" of competent STEM people...since when? I know everyone goes nuts about immigration, but I had no idea there was any issue with people from India or parts of Asia. I thought people only get up in arms about illegal immigration from Mexico?

I disagree about hyperintelligent people driving progress. Often, it's not about intelligence, but having the right exposure/perspective at the right place in the right moment to create a niche that serves either a wide range of people (self-driving cars for uber) or a few people with loads of resources. This is something that AI cannot do. Rich people and companies are sourcing data science and AI to funnel yet more money to the top. Rogue Machine Intelligence and A New Kind of Hedge Fund https://www.wired.com/2016/01/the-rise-of-the-artificially-intelligent-hedge-fund/ This malevolent use of AI goes beyond a complete restructuring of the economy and is legal. The people poised to "make it" in such a world? Those who spot the opportunity and go in, regardless of ethics.

As a "highly trained" immigrant (Australia), I take note of the rhetoric. It's not just illegal immigrants. There are complaints that because funding for research is limited and people like me come in to compete, locals can't get funding. There's been talk about cutting down graduate visas (485s) that allow people to stay for two years to work after completion of their degrees, and exploitation of legal, skilled foreign workers (457s). There are complaints about Indians in the tech industry, and east Asians in science. It's never "just" illegal immigration. There's exactly the same rhetoric about legal Chinese migrants studying/working in Singapore and "out-competing" locals. This kind of talk is everywhere.

 

[Firebird 8118]

When I saw the title, I was tempted to add "... all other programmers code like little girls." But then, I'm a young woman who has a degree in computer science.

Anyway, setting aside the disturbing fact that anyone hacking at this level can affect a country's supposedly democratic process of elections, I'm amazed that the Russian coders are so advanced in their skills. Perhaps we could learn a thing or two from them, if only we weren't at odds with each other.

 

[ThaumaturgicTheorist]

I used to be bitter about not having a childhood but I have never known anything else, and I can see how it's shaped my perspective on life and economics. We enter the rat race once we're born, and sure, there's more to life than survival but survival is the bottom line. Yes, our primary school students have basic calculus in their syllabus and if you speak to current "elite" high school students, they're learning about the principles of new technology like CRISPR. In my high school, we learned about cloning and how to do genetic manipulation in 11th grade. It was re-taught back to me in 2nd year of undergraduate studies.

I wish I had your effing life. Childhood is overrated. How can you believe Western education isn't inferior (or even that Westerners themselves are inferior) when you basically had a graduate-level education before high school? How is anyone supposed to compete and keep up with that - maybe we should just give up now. Our students aren't smart enough for a curriculum like that - the only ones who are, we label as "gifted".

Also, if that's the high school curriculum, what's left to teach in university?

Having known the "cream" in Asia and the "cream" in Australia and the US, if I were an employer seeking someone to engineer a solution to a new problem I would go to the West. The "cream" in Asia solve problems with known solutions a lot more quickly and are willing to sacrifice a lot personally for work. The "cream" in the West have a work ethic but recognise that sometimes a new approach needs to be taken. This can't be done if you're constantly working and live in a narrow paradigm of the problem.

This honestly surprises me, considering you just explained how even the average people in Asia are a thousand times smarter and more competent than the "cream" of the West...one would think all the new approaches are coming from there.

I disagree about hyperintelligent people driving progress. Often, it's not about intelligence, but having the right exposure/perspective at the right place in the right moment to create a niche that serves either a wide range of people (self-driving cars for uber) or a few people with loads of resources. This is something that AI cannot do. Rich people and companies are sourcing data science and AI to funnel yet more money to the top. Rogue Machine Intelligence and A New Kind of Hedge Fund The Rise of the Artificially Intelligent Hedge Fund | WIRED This malevolent use of AI goes beyond a complete restructuring of the economy and is legal. The people poised to "make it" in such a world? Those who spot the opportunity and go in, regardless of ethics.

See above, plus, everything can be traced to intelligence. Including the capacity to do what you outline here.

 

[Coriolis]

And, see, I was just trying to determine what the US should adopt, since it's pretty clear our educational system is the worst. That was the whole reason I asked, hoping to find things we can pick out that we should start demanding of American students.

Yet, I recall reading one account of a Canadian who worked in Singapore for a while, and he had some comments about the stratified, memorization-based education that, in turn, lacks education in things like time management or how to actually do research (not that we're much better in the US these days). That much of the "work ethic" of far Asian countries is more of a lack of proper planning or organization resulting in a lot of busywork. But that's a little off-topic.

I'm not sure the US system does any better with things like time management or how to do research, at least below the university level. Below that, public education is far too process-bound to even come up with worthwhile goals, much less reach them. The idea of identifying who has aptitude and interest in STEM fields and actually engaging and encouraging them throughout their K-12 education escapes people, perhaps because it seems elitist. Children rise to the expectations we have for them, though, and these have been far too low.

 

[nonsequitur]

I wish I had your effing life. Childhood is overrated. How can you believe Western education isn't inferior (or even that Westerners themselves are inferior) when you basically had a graduate-level education before high school? How is anyone supposed to compete and keep up with that - maybe we should just give up now. Our students aren't smart enough for a curriculum like that - the only ones who are, we label as "gifted".

Also, if that's the high school curriculum, what's left to teach in university?

You don't wish that, not really. Part of the reason why schools can push kids like this is because of additional parental pressure at home. I am unable to have any relationship with my parents because they would hit me about grades through my childhood and shamed me constantly. The same intense pressure for social conformity and to obey authority is constant throughout school. I was constantly seen as a disappointment and only defined in terms of what my grades were. I continue to have issues with authority/hierarchical systems today and have zero drive to compete because of this. My cousin has been a shut-in for the last 12 years because he feels that he can never live up to these expectations and doesn't want to be judged. It's not about intelligence, being "smart" or being "gifted". It's about feeling that you have worth only within a very narrow definition of achievement and channeling everything in you to survive the system.

When you see your classmates committing/attempting suicide around you every single year and kids being constantly sick (mentally or physically), you either come to the conclusion that a) They're failures who can't hack it or b) This place is completely fucked up. It's a large part of why I decided to leave. Also, acceptance of specialised technical training as a system assumes that people who implement policy and drive kids towards certain subjects actually know what industry will want/require in the next 10 years. So many kids were driven towards studying IT here in the late '90s/early 00s and ended up unable to find a job after graduation from college. It's the same thing with the biotech sector right now, which is oversaturated. What you have is an ideal in your head, there are always costs to be paid.

The high school curriculum by and large is still geared towards examinations, but the kids among "elite" schools are exposed to the new stuff that the government/school thinks is important. It's definitely not all schools. I did research projects from middle school onwards in collaboration with different institutes, but there's very limited depth and no way to integrate it with different fields. You also don't design your research. That's what university is for, and something that I think Western higher ed does well. The collegial environment breeds discussion, collaboration and a sense of humility for the larger picture. In the east, everything runs by hierarchy, even when the boss/prof obviously has no idea what they're doing.

What Coriolis said is true:

Children rise to the expectations we have for them, though, and these have been far too low.

It is about expectations, and those who make it to the top strata have incredible expectations placed on them. Those at the bottom do not, are deemed hopeless, and are pretty much left to figure life out on their own. Ironically, some of those in the lower strata acquire the "street smarts" to make it in the corporate world and rise to higher levels than those of us in the rat race. But they never make it to policy-making positions, and don't become "technical experts".

Places like China/India/Vietnam look at your abilities and send you to specialised technical institutes to mould skills in what you're most suited for. The question is always about how to bring out the best in kids, and how to best serve their (and the country's) futures. There's always going to be a push-pull between exposing kids to a wide range of ideas/concepts/perspectives/experiences, and training them in specialised skills (within a single perspective) that will provide competency. The former gives the breadth necessary to integrate different fields and be flexible in their approach, and the latter a technical competency. But it's almost never possible to have your cake and eat it too in a large education system.

This honestly surprises me, considering you just explained how even the average people in Asia are a thousand times smarter and more competent than the "cream" of the West...one would think all the new approaches are coming from there.

See above, plus, everything can be traced to intelligence. Including the capacity to do what you outline here.

No. It's not surprising at all (as I've explained above).

In the east, we know that yes, intelligence makes a difference but if you can't make it on raw intelligence, the most important thing is work ethic and technical competency. We often emphasise that raw intelligence means absolutely nothing if it isn't directed towards a purpose and guided by work ethic. I never said that average people in Asia are smarter or more competent. In fact, I said:

I don't think that Western education is innately mediocre, especially at the top (which we're comparing right now). Having experienced education in the west and in the east, both have their strengths and weaknesses. In the west, which is more egalitarian, even those at the bottom get resources/help. It's also a system that allows failure without punishment, which fosters creativity and collaboration. In the east, it's "this is the good crop, so we need to focus on them. Those at the bottom need to work themselves to the top if they want resources. Those who fail are failures in themselves.". This ignores systematic inequality (people who can't afford cram schools, don't live in good school districts that would give them access to good primary schools etc) and entrenches a ruling class that can't relate to anything outside of our experiences. Those in elite schools (and I count myself in this group) are out-of-touch, generally only associate with Chinese people of a certain class and end up becoming the people who make policy. We are generally limited by consciousness of hierarchy and are very rule-bound as well, because the rules that we made work for us.

Having known the "cream" in Asia and the "cream" in Australia and the US, if I were an employer seeking someone to engineer a solution to a new problem I would go to the West. The "cream" in Asia solve problems with known solutions a lot more quickly and are willing to sacrifice a lot personally for work. The "cream" in the West have a work ethic but recognise that sometimes a new approach needs to be taken. This can't be done if you're constantly working and live in a narrow paradigm of the problem.

There are sacrifices that are made in both systems and idealising one or the other does no one any good. But I do believe that the world does need western strength and perspective, and for that, specialised technical training that starts young (at least for those with the interest) would be helpful.

 

[Vasilisa]

Конечно!

конечно!

 

[1487610420]

 

[Abendrot]

You don't wish that, not really. Part of the reason why schools can push kids like this is because of additional parental pressure at home. I am unable to have any relationship with my parents because they would hit me about grades through my childhood and shamed me constantly. The same intense pressure for social conformity and to obey authority is constant throughout school. I was constantly seen as a disappointment and only defined in terms of what my grades were. I continue to have issues with authority/hierarchical systems today and have zero drive to compete because of this. My cousin has been a shut-in for the last 12 years because he feels that he can never live up to these expectations and doesn't want to be judged. It's not about intelligence, being "smart" or being "gifted". It's about feeling that you have worth only within a very narrow definition of achievement and channeling everything in you to survive the system.

I've also experienced my share of the academic rat race first hand (though not to the degree that you have) and I understand truly how demotivating and futile it is. I believe that your family dynamic is all too typical for Asian families, as Asian parents tend to subconsciously perceive their children to be their property, or as extensions of their selves. This, I believe, is the true nature of that "love" which is said to be "so profound that it does not need expression." Even so, given the atrocious results of Western parenting these days, I can't say which style of parenting is worse.

 

[nonsequitur]

I've also experienced my share of the academic rat race first hand (though not to the degree that you have) and I understand truly how demotivating and futile it is. I believe that your family dynamic is all too typical for Asian families, as Asian parents tend to subconsciously perceive their children to be their property, or as extensions of their selves. This, I believe, is the true nature of that "love" which is said to be "so profound that it does not need expression." Even so, given the atrocious results of Western parenting these days, I can't say which style of parenting is worse.

It is what it is - system works for some, doesn't work for some. My sister and brother were fine with that, I was always the black sheep. This system has served a purpose and its results are hard to argue against in a knowledge/skills based 20th century economy. I just think it gets over-idealised and is myopic for the needs of the future. Thinking of children/people in terms of their stats/earning potential and as property isn't the sole domain of Asians, and I'm pretty philosophical about that, even as I refuse to be treated as property of the state or of my parents. In general, parents taking an interest in their kid's education and trying to give them every advantage is a good thing. Kids with potential being picked early to be trained outside of the "standard curriculum" is also something that should be encouraged.

 

[Tater]

I honestly thought China was at the top, given their confidence in defeating the U.S. in matters of cyberwar. But this doesn't surprise me either.

 

[Poki]

Must see code, i dont like our typical offshore we use. Its like rotating door coders. I have to rewrite there stuff all the time. Its like we use them to meet a deadline to fix it later

All our offshore are from india area.