Hacker News

I have mixed feelings. "Educating the masses" is important, at least to a certain baseline, otherwise we get failing democracies due to manipulation of uneducated voters.

But it's important to still have a separate track for the best students. Those will grow up to do the important work and move the society forward. If you put them into a mediocre class it will waste their potential.

The practical issue which so many people don't seem to want to acknowledge is that students are different. I have taught and there are some students that simply lack either the intelligence, discipline, interest, or some other aspect that makes it literally impossible for them to ever receive anything beyond a basic education. You could give them 10 on 1 specialized instruction from the the most competent/interesting/engaging teachers and tutors imaginable, and they're still just not going to excel.

And then on the other end of the spectrum there are kids who will proactively read, on their own, through e.g. their math textbook, understand everything with no difficulty, and basically get nothing academic out of their education (beyond that which they'd get from simply having the books) unless one engages in extreme 'differentiation' which is an educational buzzword that is basically just glorified in-class 'filtering' that imposes a massive workload on teachers, creates inequity within the classroom itself, and is really just quite dysfunctional.

And so the typical results of trying to give an advanced education to everyone is that you end up pulling the top down, rather than lifting the bottom up. This is even more true because the bottom is also often disproportionately filled with students who have extreme behavioral problems often alongside families who just don't particularly care about their education, while the top is rarely disruptive except for the smart-ass type who's generally just trying to get some giggles rather than being actively hostile.

---

I think seeing things as a teacher makes you view things radically different than you do as a student. You're probably one of those overachiever types given your comment, and perhaps you feel that you worked a bit harder, maybe were a bit interested in the material then your peers or whatever. But I can assure you - that's generally not it. There are kids that try hard, even some that get things like multiple in-home tutors, and they still just can't excel no matter how hard their parents, or they, try.

---

Edit: Just found this [1] interesting Wiki page. You can see the list of countries, by gold medals in the last 10 Olympiads. In order of medals: USA, South Korea, Thailand, Russia, Vietnam, UK, Iran, Canada, Singapore, China.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_medal_cou...

Here's one issue. Romania has a really lousy motorway system, what there is of it. I gather that corruption has much to do with this apart from construction difficulties involving the Carpathians. As an example there isn't even a motorway between Bucharest and Brasov (88 miles or 141 km apart), the latter being a favorite destination for tourists and wealthy and not-so wealthy second home owners alike. The trip by car either way is usually a nightmare. I should add that Brasov is one of the major towns of Romania not just a tourist attraction.

To the point! The plight of innumerable isolated rural communities trying to attract decent teachers and conditions for their kids is clear to see. Trains don't cut it. General poverty results with knock-on effects.

Sure, but that's not why he was elected president. Well, not directly.

His Olympiad results led to him getting a doctorate at Sorbonne, which led to him speaking french, which led to impressing Macron who threw France's weight into supporting Dan.

It was a power move to replace the German influence with French influence (previous praesident was ethnic German)

That is roughly equivalent to what I did in honors math in the 90s in the US.

Looking over the math curriculum in the same school district today, the current level of instruction doesn't even come close. Standards have sadly fallen.

My grade school education in the US was similar to this (although you needed to qualify for "accelerated" math). There were maybe 90 people every year in this. Those who did well did not make it much past CML or AMC, maybe out of lack of interest. You had to be excellent to move on to Olympiad level maths.

Side note: I have many objections with the competition-ifaction of these things. Not everyone finds their best performance in a competition environment. In CS, maybe we would look at competitive programming and CTFs (arguably CP can be very mathematical). Nonetheless, we use competitions to measure performance, which in some way selects out people who are talented in a setting that isn't a competition, and glorifies people who do play the game.

Having seen what children are capable of, it’s neither overwhelming nor brutal.

What’s truly brutal is acquiescing to children droning away their youth mindlessly clicking meaningless games or watching vacuous streaming content. We live in what could be a golden age of thought but for the average kid it’s anything but.

Well, a lot of countries aren't worth leaving. Taking my home of the UK as an example, Wikipedia lists 19 countries with higher GDP per capita, but if I don't want to learn a new language, overcome bureaucratic obstacles and leave my family behind, there is nowhere to go and this criteria describes almost everybody who gets an education here, even the smart ones. Romania is #53 on the list and their EU membership means they can emigrate easily.

I think it's the other way round. There were special schools or special groups in regular schools that prepared Soviet children to STEM careers by making them solve a lot of puzzles. Then IMO appeared on top of that to celebrate highest achievers

Just like the physical Olympiads :)

This!

The EU echoes the SU, sadly. Central government, central planning, central banks, mix people, no local culture, blur national and ethnic identities, flatten the social structures, and most importantly, destroy the family unit. Young couples can't buy a house and can't afford to raise kids. And young Europeans face high unemployment and low wages for life-consuming jobs with not much career prospects.

Remote work would've lessen that. But it seems they didn't like it so they quickly rolled it back after the pandemic.

I wonder if national averages actually matter very much beyond being a vanity statistic? While it's good to have a generally more mathematically capable population, you would expect most actual "progress" (papers, discoveries, things built) to be made by the outliers.

I guess there's another layer tho in 2025 where, assuming they are rational, you wouldn't necessarily expect their efforts to benefit Romania.

Idiot author aside, even if the students were outliers being sent to the Olympiad, that would not explain the consistent performance over decades. Relative to the size of the country, and compared to the other dominant nations, the outliers seem disproportionate.

> The system acts to identify and foster them, but to the detriment of national averages.

This is the usual argument against stratified education systems but is it proven in any way? My experience with stratified systems is that they increase both high quantiles and the average. Maybe (even if not established), maybe they reduce low quantiles like the 0.1th, but very unlikely they damage the average. Quite the opposite.

It's kind of like this idea that communism makes an average citizen richer which sounds logical, but in the end everyone's poorer. Remove the stratification and there's no incentive to do anything.

One of the unintended but hard to avoid consequences of a high competition education environment is a lot of broken kids. Dealing with constant pressure and failure is hard even for adults, for some children it's literally fatal. Don't forget to consider this as well

After looking into the author a bit. Ugh

What is the answer that you found? All I see is a marginally defensible claim in the 24th paragraph. I stopped reading after that, although there were only a few paragraphs left.

The way he investigates how many of the winners from Romania are "Jews" (because apparently you can tell that by looking at their name and picture or whatever) is also very sus.

Are his arguments sound, though?

It says "effect" of school sorting. So the "graduation score percentile" must be the change in percentile due to school sorting.

> That can't possibly be true

It tracks with spatial inequality.

A 1 school town is highly likely to be a small rural town with limited economic prospects. Like plenty of CEE countries, the overwhelming majority of opportunities have historically been clustered in the capital and a couple regional cities.

The kind of town or village with only a single school is going to have fewer social benefits or services compared to an urban school.

Basically, what it is saying is students in those kinds of towns are s** out of luck statistically speaking compared to their urban peers.

There's a reason Romania's HDI has remained lower than Russia's until recently thanks to EU funding to help develop Romania (which is now on track to become a major economic pole in the CEE)

Edit: can't reply

> A lot turns on this. (I suppose I could read the underlying paper, but I'm lazy.)

I recommend checking it out. It explains the methodology and some potential wonkiness. It's always good to read the docs

And then there is China - remember that IOI for instance accepts 4 people from each country.

After all it all comes down to individuals. In Poland, there is famous informatics high school teacher who is credited for producing most IOI/IOM medalist per high school pupil in the world I believe.

They have special training program there. Another thing is to actually find geniuses, obviously. And if you don’t believe in geniuses, meet Jake - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OR36jrx_L44

For example, Jakub Pachocki (director of engineering of OpenAI) who graduated this high school, actually was on the verge of getting F from maths in his previous high school, because of problems being to easy I believe. Then they made the transfer where he could finally thrive. Interestingly, he wanted to do phd in 2 years in University of Warsaw, but people there didn’t want to allow it just because so they lost him - he went to do his PhD at Carnegie Mellon.

To summarise, from what I understand formula would be something like genius + great, inspiring and allowing teacher(s) + special personalised teaching programs + supportive environment.

Also don’t assume that these outliers are testament to the level of education of general population.

> it's questionable whether this is a net benefit for Romania as a whole.

it depends what's most beneficial: having a few percents of very mathematically experts people in maths-heavy professions? Or having everyone somewhat decent at maths, even when it doesn't affect their productivity in their jobs?

I don't have any hard data about this, but instinctively I'd bet on the former: I'd rather have a few hundreds more Sutskevers, than most of the country's bakers know their way around PDE.

> Ik people tend to point to Russian, Chinese, and Indian Olympiad students as being examples of success, but most of them also attended top universities due to their Olympiad attendance, so I doubt the Olympiad itself had an impact compared to attending a Tsinghua, FyzTech (Citadel still hires from there for the London office at least circa 2023 despite the war in Ukraine and sanctions on Russia), or IIT Delhi.

Path to FyzTech lies through FMSHs which accept high school students largely via regional-level Olympiads. And path to that lies through the Olympiad "circle" in your local school.

You probably can build a stratified education system without Olympiads, but as a matter of fact in Russia they do actually play an important role in the overall structure.

I don’t necessarily see a problem with enabling like talented groups to be mingled together, that said it depends on the metrics. A friend who had a 3.2 in HS did way better in life than several 4.0+ students.

The other end of the spectrum is the way most of the US handles high school. Long gone are gifted and talented programs before high school and in many cases, for instance those with an ability for math are stuck in classes with those that will top out before algebra.

I understand your point, but the catering to the mediocre that happens these days in US grade schools isn’t the right answer either.

>Edit: cannot reply

What do you mean you cannot reply?

> Ik people tend to point to Russian, Chinese, and Indian Olympiad students as being examples of success, but most of them also attended top universities due to their Olympiad attendance, so I doubt the Olympiad itself had an impact compared to attending a Tsinghua, FyzTech (Citadel still hires from there for the London office at least circa 2023 despite the war in Ukraine and sanctions on Russia), or IIT Delhi.

First, if you remove the Olympiad-based admission, there's no guarantee that these students could _get_ into the top-level universities.

Second, people in the US _love_ to point out that athletics "builds the character" and sets people up for success later in life. Well, do you think that training for Olympiads and competing in high-stakes academic tournaments also does nothing?

> Neighboring Poland

they aren't neighbors.

What's HDI ?

You get excellence in a tiny number of individuals who don't budge the statistics. The national averages are poor, and the excelling individuals are not even numerous enough to create a "fat right tail".

IMHO there should be challenges but also opportunities for self correction and movement. The problem with test score stratification is that you start treating kids as unchanging objects being measured by an infallible yardstick, when neither assumption is true.

It's not racism it's essentialism and poor education. An ideal educational system would tailor material and projects to an individual student and adjust at the rate they improve.

"When a metric becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure" is known as Goodhart's Law

He should also be derided for terrible writing. It's not until the 24th paragraph (of 30 total) that we encounter something resembling a thesis.

> With all the pieces on the board, the key to Romania’s Olympiad success is three-fold: put the best students in the same classrooms, put the best teachers with the best students, and then incentivize schools, teachers, and students each to win Olympiads.

This could have been much shorter, but then the reader might notice the abject lack of supporting evidence for these central claims. I don't blame the author for burying them at the end.

NB: None of what you are saying is confirmed by the WP page you are citing.

This definitely adds a grain of salt, but as far as I can tell, none of that shows in the article, especially in the final paragraphs explaining how the elitist system is overall bad for the country. But it does make me wonder about possible hidden flaws in the methodology (I'm still confused at some of the earlier statistics contradicting the claims made later)

Shouldn't everyone be read cautiously?

[flagged]

> neo-fascist works that are clothed in techno-libertarian garb. Take this article [1]. Highlights include fawning homages to Werner von Braun while failing to mention his ardent pro-Nazi views, support for Cortes’ conquest of the new world, and a general vibe supporting the ubermensch/great man theory of history (as here).

I like how you imply that celebrating the space program, the Age of Discovery and math Olympiads is neo-fascist. Tells a lot about what neo-fascism apparently is.

That's a problem with the opportunity in the country rather with the schools. Being able to produce exceptional students is an advantage, now figure out how to make them stay.

I would downvote you, but I won't, and instead I will leave a reply.

I was one of those students who left. Romania did not waste any more taxpayer money on me than on other students, and that money that it spent was really meager by any Western standards.

My kids now go to public school in NYC. The city spends north of $30k for each of them [1]. Yet, if they decide to leave the US nobody will complain that they were groomed with precious taxpayer money, and they betrayed the trust placed in them. It is understood that every person has the right pursue their own happiness the best way they can.

[1] https://www.schools.nyc.gov/about-us/funding/funding-our-sch...

The usual calculus here is that they don't capture ALL the upside of that training, but they capture plenty of it.

USA wastes 1076x more money and us that have to live here could only hope most US-educated kids would please go elsewhere :)

Absolutely. That whole region (let's say Balkans+) has several different groups of people who are very different culturally and ethnically. And for some reason the press would blame whole countries for the crimes of specific minority groups. "Bulgarian gangs stealing cars", "Romanian gangs exploiting the UK benefits system", and so on.

I lost count of how many times I had to clarify to friends and family: "No, that's not representative of that country at all. I have friends and coworkers from there who are very well educated, hard workers, and good people. And you couldn't tell them apart from the rest of Europeans. Many of them won math/programming competitions and are smarter than me."

While most companies have a negative image of those countries due to media portrayals, investment banks in London figured it out so they fly whole recruiting teams there to hire graduates, _every year_. Some Big Tech companies figured this out, too. I've seen it first hand.

When people say groups are different, such as one ethnic group from another, they are looking at averages. It has very little relevance to looking at the top performers in a field. Each country only brings six people to IMO.

I disagree that there are cognitive differences between large ethnicities of people. Almost always, what we attribute as cognitive differences is differences in opportunity and societal power structures