I assume because they had not adopted the "dumb everything down to reduce variance in outcomes" educational ideology that has taken hold in most of the west over the past 50 years.
Its impossible to do so at the lower end, without massive redistribution.
So the next possible action is to paper over the giant hole in the wall with plaster and pain and pretend that "everything is ok, according to standards"
The truth is that most voters don't care about education. People who run for school boards don't do so with policy recommendations backed by research. They do so solely on backgrounds as mediators between teachers, parents, and administrators. Yes, people skills are needed for the job, but people skills are needed for any job. Making people happy is not the same as getting things done, and you need someone who can do both in any job you are hiring for.
> Its impossible to do so at the lower end, without massive redistribution.
Korea and China have shown that it is possible with the political will. Jaime Escalante has shown that even instilling only student will is sufficient.
PISA result distributions are completely different
From what I understand, a reliable "America vs. China" IQ comparison is mostly hopeless.
But also, look at where almost all technological innovation has happened in the last 50 years
From my personal experience, people who are successful usually come from highly educated and/or wealthy families. I don't think school plays that much of a role in the grand scheme of things compared to family influences. There's a lot of inertia to society in general.
However, what we lost is that modern educational systems are really bad at identifying and "pulling up" talented kids from poor / under-educated families, because the standards and expectations are so low that you can't differentiate them from their peers.
Kids obviously vary in aptitude but the ones that actually get the chance to excel are usually the ones that are getting an extra push at home. Some kids you just can't stop though and excel regardless.
The issue is that when all of these AP/Honors Calc people get to college they don't even make it to Simpson's rule before they're weeded out. That's the problem that most college professors are talking about. How are we creating more and more and more AP/Honors/"Gifted" kids every year, yet the performance of all of these kids when they enter university is abysmal? How is first semester calculus a "weed-out" course when so many of these kids enter with transcripts indicating they've already taken calculus?
I mean, I can totally see where the professors are coming from. We send every state flagship university what all of these very good high schools claim are the cream of the crop, and many of the students sent are just not up to the task. It has to be the school system at some point?
German universities have a simple solution: students who believe that they have already "learned" calculus in school (in a sense every pupil with an Abitur school diploma (the kind of school diploma that you need in Germany to study at a university) had to learn) should hold to this belief at their own peril. :-)
Hint: After one week, these kids will hopefully have realized that the level of calculus that they learned in school was very shallow. :-)
Frankly if you threw a simple derivative or integration at me these days I'd be staring at you like and idiot.
I remember snidely telling people I didnt care because it didnt need calculus to develop software. I do regret it.
As someone acquainted with the insides of AI labs, and who has worked with NIWs in the past, I can tell you the extent to which our advances are dependent on migrant brainpower long ago crossed the "we're able to deny it" threshold.
Most people think of skilled immigration as H1Bs. It's not. H1B is to NIW as TF/PyTorch monkey is to real AI expert. They're just not, at all, the same thing.
Which companies are employing H-1B labor to work on presumably ITAR/EAR-regulated articles?
Simple cybersecurity (offensive or defensive) qualifies for NIW, as well as other fields
Or to put it more generally: motivation.
Free market, capital, open borders etc.
During soviet times you research whatever party sees interesting (an exaggeration here) and produce whatever and however Gosplan dictates.
If you don't have to pay for your oil, for example, there is no need to innovate in motors and if all stores are state owned - there is no need in better management, digital goods or networks.
Nobody is fighting for their customers - people just stand in line and at the end of the month you send your books to Gosplan, Statistics etc.
Then 90s. People leaving. Then Putin and Co. People living and while there is a market now - they've managed to recreate old problems still.
Also notice that the educational system getting dumbed down operates on a generational timescale. If you screw it up for the 10 year olds, it'll still be decades before they're the ones in charge.
There are innovations and discoveries made and exploited everywhere. How much things seem to be going on relative to your cognitive capacity has not much to do with the reality.
American elites abandoned Americans after the Soviet Union fell. Only useful as a servant class. They also encouraged parents to abandon their children. Immigrant parents come here and work like mules, spoil and dominate their children, and would never imagine that kicking them to the wolves was a virtue. In the US (and in the West in general), we teach working people to have contempt for their own offspring; it's counter-evolutionary. Meanwhile Western elites spare nothing for their dimwitted failchildren.
The default I expect from any intellectual or technical achievement is a truly challenging last name.
I take this to mean:
1) Communism obliterated the Soviet Union's ability to fund science (or anything else for that matter)
2) The people driving science forward in the West are educated some other way than strictly according to a "Common Core" quality curriculumThe poster above that mentioned commercialization has it right - while the soviet science was often top-notch, the skills in commercialization and getting the finances to get things done were simply not there, severely eroded by the decades of Soviet time.
And they always have been, in addition to just being more intelligent, curious, and motivated than average.
More like "commercialize" rather then fund.
No government spending, no nice things.
For the top talented "the west" has the approach to do individual focus, with focus classes and prodigies and all that. It may not hit everybody whom it should and may waste some potential here and there, but it's less scary too and I don't see that it's an obviously worse approach to this skill bracket. (Two data points from top of my head: Terence Tao and Magnus Carlsen, both widely regarded as absolute top in their field, grew up in "the west".)
For the average person, trying to make math approachable and following peoples instincts and interests could be helpful too. I know lots of folks "in the west" for whom even basic math goes over their heads, but I also have quite a few acquaintances from the soviet era who were beaten so hard with advanced math that nothing stuck and they have equal much trouble with very basic math. The conclusion isn't obvious either, to me.
It relates to whether the most competent mathematician is also the best suited person to teach. I'd argue, no. Deep competency in math is a requirement, sure. But so is a firm grasp on pedagogy. I've had my share of excellent math researchers as professors who were utterly incompetent when it came to teaching. Similar with text books.
I still think there would be benefits to making education in the west a bit harder, if for anything to build the taste for intellectual effort in young kids. But especially to identify talent who could not be identified otherwise.
It's interesting that you mentioned Tao and Carlsen. Would they have been identified by the educational system had Tao's mom not been a mathematician, and Carlsen's dad a chess enthusiast?
More controversially, assuming "normal" parents, would Carlsen and Tao have had more chance of being identified and pushed towards excellence had they been born in the USSR in the 1950s or in the west today?
I don't know enough about Tao to comment, but the story of how Carlsen learned chess suggests that he'd not become the world's top player in a soviet style chess education program, in contrast to how he self-taught in an environment in Norway that let him follow his interest pretty much freestyle.