International Mathematical Olympiad 2013 results

[Dem!god]

Making such empty statement is an admission you're sore that I was right. And you have nothing to encounter me.

buddy currently I am not in the mood to argue with you may be tomorrow.....
let me find you some one, if they are willing
@Roybot @INDIC

 

[Fattyacids]

OECD coming to rescue of their reputation , OMG LOL

even in the article they said the chinese said this and the students said that... we all know how censorship and sheep mentality works there. In other countries students are free to opine, without govt. minders over their shoulders.

Truth is evident and well documented in what we see in the real world- the chinese are not considered innovators.

So OECD put its reputation at stake, allowing cheating year after year??? Then come to rescue each and every time??? How retarded can you logic get?? OECD is not India, it is an international organization run by various nationalities and it is professionally audited.

Censorship or not, is irrelevant to the fact that China top PISA fair and square, as validated by OECD director. He is not Chinese.

Facts are facts, you can't argue against facts.

 

[JayAtl]

So OECD put its reputation at stake, allowing cheating year after year??? Then come to rescue each and every time??? How retarded can you logic get?? OECD is not India, it is an international organization run by various nationalities and it is professionally audited.

Censorship or not, is irrelevant to the fact that China top PISA fair and square, as validated by OECD director. He is not Chinese.

Facts are facts, you can't argue against facts.

maybe it is a foreign concept to you, but organizations put a PR twist when they come under fire. Show us some independent unbiased challenge to the assertions made ( China only shares Shanghai’s score with PISA. (Hong Kong, a Special Autonomous Region of China, sends its own data.) unlike the U.S., Russia, Germany, Australia and other nations judged on the basis of their country-wide performances. EVEN OECD did not dispute this!

As I also said, facts are that we see no such translation into the real world. chinese are woefully lacking as innovators... it does not add up.

 

[Fattyacids]

buddy currently I am not in the mood to argue with you may be tomorrow.....
let me find you some one, if they are willing
@Roybot @INDIC

Buddy, if you know the history of maths, you'll know. there's no much to argue.

maybe it is a foreign concept to you, but organizations put a PR twist when they come under fire. Show us some independent unbiased challenge to the assertions made ( China only shares Shanghai’s score with PISA. (Hong Kong, a Special Autonomous Region of China, sends its own data.) unlike the U.S., Russia, Germany, Australia and other nations judged on the basis of their country-wide performances.

As I also said, facts are that we see no such translation into the real world. chinese are woefully lacking as innovators... it does not add up.

No huge country is fully represented. US is represented by Massachusetts and Connecticut. Why not southern states like Mississippi When India last participated, it sent the top two states with highest GRE enrollment, why not poorer ones?

Facts are facts, you are a sore loser, butt hurting indian!

Indian IQ strikes again, There's no direct correlation between PISA and Innovation, coz PISA measures general education standard at upper primary and mid secondary level

 

[tranquilium]

How does all that counter my point that the data collected from 4 Urban centers in China does not represent the Chinese population?

Err, Walmart is also their customer. Not really an expensive fashion label, ey?

According to the latest stats, over 50 % of China's population are urban, which means that at least 50 % of Chinese are on average taller than Indians. In addition to that the stats from other sources such as WHO, which certainly include the rural population also show that Chinese are taller than Indians.

You have yet to show sources that Indians are taller than Chinese!

My data is collected by national consensus bureau, which is over the entire population, which confirms Götterdämmerung's data.

 

[Roybot]

My data is collected by national consensus bureau, which is over the entire population.

Where's your data?

 

[tranquilium]

Where's your data?

post #52. The data is divided into provinces.

 

[Roybot]

post #52. The data is divided into provinces.

Hasn't changed much since 2005 has it Read my post # 143 International Mathematical Olympiad 2013 results | Page 10

 

[Aarush]

About India I must say that 29 is one horrible rank. Its depresses me that a nation of 1.3 billion is beaten by South korea and Singapore. Well reasons are simple. We have to start investing in out human capital else we will always be losers when it comes to international events like Olympiads, Olympics, Asian games etc etc.
We have the biggest human resource in the world, but without investing to develop it, its a waste and it infact catastrophic for our country.

last year <2012> our rank was 11....

 

[tranquilium]

Hasn't changed much since 2005 has it Read my post # 143 International Mathematical Olympiad 2013 results | Page 10

Hmm, that data appears to be very different from Secular trends in height in different states ... [Food Nutr Bull. 2011] - PubMed - NCBI

I have a hypothesis why the two papers give such different results. In Marwaha et al, the abstract states that "We aimed to assess the height, weight and body mass index (BMI) of Indian schoolchildren in order to develop genderappropriate growth charts for children 5-18 years of age. METHODS."

I do not currently have specific data on India's school enrollment rate. However, considering that the overall literacy rate of India is 74% as well as the judgement standard of literacy for India, it stands to reason that a significant portion of population do not attend school and as a result, is excluded from the sample pool. This is on top of the fact that Marwaha's study has a pool of 106,843 individuals. While this is a bigger pool than Götterdämmerung's example, it is still quite small comparing to the overall India population. This is why I favor Mamidi's paper, since it has a population coverge rate of 63.7%.

This is hypothesis is farther supported by the 2007 WHO study referenced by Marwaha (http://imsear.hellis.org/bitstream/123456789/144054/1/ip2009v46n6p477.pdf). The average height in 2007 WHO study is consistent with Marsaha's result, however, the title of the WHO study is "Cross-sectional Growth Curves for Height, Weight and BodyMass Index for Affluent Indian Children, 200".

In fact, in the WHO study "...The study staff identified the nutritionally well-off areas in their cities and made a list of schools catering to children of socioeconomically well-off families. The nutritionally well off areas were identified based on per capita income of cities (from IAP zones). Within the specified cities, affluent areas (i.e. areas without slum clusters, low income housing schemes and those with high land prices as published by Government agencies (Ministry of Urban Development, Lands Division) were selected(15). Three schools were selected from those chosen by generating random numbers."

This supports my hypothesis that the data pool from Marsaha et al, does not reflect the overall Indian nation.

 

[Roybot]

Hmm, that data appears to be very different from Secular trends in height in different states ... [Food Nutr Bull. 2011] - PubMed - NCBI

I have a hypothesis why the two papers give such different results. In Marwaha et al, the abstract states that "We aimed to assess the height, weight and body mass index (BMI) of Indian schoolchildren in order to develop genderappropriate growth charts for children 5-18 years of age. METHODS."

I do not currently have specific data on India's school enrollment rate. However, considering that the overall literacy rate of India is 74% as well as the judgement standard of literacy for India, it stands to reason that a significant portion of population do not attend school and as a result, is excluded from the sample pool. This is on top of the fact that Marwaha's study has a pool of 106,843 individuals. While this is a bigger pool than Götterdämmerung's example, it is still quite small comparing to the overall India population. This is why I favor Mamidi's paper, since it has a population coverge rate of 63.7%.

This is hypothesis is farther supported by the 2007 WHO study referenced by Marwaha (http://imsear.hellis.org/bitstream/123456789/144054/1/ip2009v46n6p477.pdf). The average height in 2007 WHO study is consistent with Marsaha's result, however, the title of the WHO study is "Cross-sectional Growth Curves for Height, Weight and BodyMass Index for Affluent Indian Children, 200".

In fact, in the WHO study "...The study staff identified the nutritionally well-off areas in their cities and made a list of schools catering to children of socioeconomically well-off families. The nutritionally well off areas were identified based on per capita income of cities (from IAP zones). Within the specified cities, affluent areas (i.e. areas without slum clusters, low income housing schemes and those with high land prices by published by Government agencies (Ministry of Urban Development, Lands Division) were selected(15). Three schools were selected from those chosen by generating random numbers."

This supports my hypothesis that the data pool from Marsaha et al, does not reflect the overall Indian nation.

Well let me start by saying that I never implied that the data from Marwaha et al. study reflected the overall Indian population. It it is good representative of the Urban Indian population however. Its takes into account both affluent( students who go to fee paying private schools), and the poor (students who go to the free government school), 18 year school students in the urban areas of India, taken from all four corners of the country. I compared the data from the Indian study to the average height of the 18 year old Urban Chinese male, and not the over all Chinese population, mind you. The sample size admittedly was not big enough and not as diverse as the Chinese one, but this is the most recent and comprehensive data that is available for India as of now.

As far as the WHO study is concerned, yes it only deals with the affluent kids, which is why I didn't use that study for the comparison. You ll notice that the WHO study found the average 18 year old urban Indian male height to be 176.1 cm, a good 5cm (2 inches) taller than the average height of urban Indian Male found in the Marwaha et al. study, which took into account both the affluent and the poor into account.

Lastly, you are right in saying that India's overall literacy rate is 74%, but the enrollment rate of school going kids is much higher than that. For example, in 2013 , 96% of Indian kids aged between 6-14 were attending schools. So a study of school kids is pretty much as close as you can get to a representative sample of the whole population, much more accurate and neutral than a survey done at some shopping mall.

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

29 is pretty decent for a poor country considering that many Eurpean countries are below us. I can totally understand some of our neighbouring haters but sometimes my own countrymen can be too harsh on themselves.

 

[tranquilium]

Well let me start by saying that I never implied that the data from Marwaha et al. study reflected the overall Indian population. It it is good representative of the Urban Indian population however. Its takes into account both affluent( students who go to fee paying private schools), and the poor (students who go to the free government school), 18 year school students in the urban areas of India, taken from all four corners of the country. I compared the data from the Indian study to the average height of the 18 year old Urban Chinese male, and not the over all Chinese population, mind you. The sample size admittedly was not big enough and not as diverse as the Chinese one, but this is the most recent and comprehensive data that is available for India as of now.

As far as the WHO study is concerned, yes it only deals with the affluent kids, which is why I didn't use that study for the comparison. You ll notice that the WHO study found the average 18 year old urban Indian male height to be 176.1 cm, a good 5cm (2 inches) taller than the average height of urban Indian Male found in the Marwaha et al. study, which took into account both the affluent and the poor into account.

Lastly, you are right in saying that India's overall literacy rate is 74%, but the enrollment rate of school going kids is much higher than that. For example, in 2013 , 96% of Indian kids aged between 6-14 were attending schools. So a study of school kids is pretty much as close as you can get to a representative sample of the whole population, much more accurate and neutral than a survey done at some shopping mall.

Erm, the 50 percentile height for WHO report is 170.4, not 176.1 cm.

Also, the 96% attendence rate is for primary school. Indian male has a secondary school attendance rate of 59%. (UNICEF - India - Statistics Since your previous posts are all based on 18 year-olds, the attendance rate of secondary school should be used. (This reminded me, my previous Chinese data is for anyone 15+. If you only look at 18 year-old individuals, the Chinese would be even taller since the nutrient intake at this bracket would be much better than their parents and grandparents)
All my posts between here and the start is aimed at countering typoerror's claim at post #47. In his post, he claimed that "You do realize that the average Indian is two inches taller than the average Chinese?". This is simply not true.

 

[American Pakistani]

Are those numbers actually scores? If yes then what a shameful score for Pakistan - 80.

 

[master_13]

maybe it is a foreign concept to you, but organizations put a PR twist when they come under fire. Show us some independent unbiased challenge to the assertions made ( China only shares Shanghai’s score with PISA. (Hong Kong, a Special Autonomous Region of China, sends its own data.) unlike the U.S., Russia, Germany, Australia and other nations judged on the basis of their country-wide performances. EVEN OECD did not dispute this!

As I also said, facts are that we see no such translation into the real world. chinese are woefully lacking as innovators... it does not add up.

like indians are good innovators, if chinese lack in innovation, indians lack in both intelligence AND innovation. bring any intelligence metric, i can assure you chinese is ALWAYS on top of your indians, and yes, that includes innovation, which you indians completely lacking.