Meanwhile in China and India...

[Kamikaze Pilot]

Speaking of which, Modi's degree is fake.

@CriticalThought Report off-topic post quoted above.

By the way, @El Sidd's inputs would be valuable to this thread.

- PRTP GWD

 

[peagle]

The tricky thing about math and science is that we tend to lump two distinct groups of people into one, and then try educating them as if they're the same type.

In my experience, there are 2 types of almost everything: a trailblazer and a worker.

The trailblazer is generally really good at the thing they're learning or doing, and they tend to be the ones who pick things up the quickest. Basically, the teacher's pet.

The worker is someone who's trying to learn the thing for the sake of a livelihood, and while they can do better with studying, they'll never be as comfortable as a trailblazer.

At some point, a worker can't do the 'advanced' stuff.

This distinction matters because I don't think every math student is going to be a good engineering candidate, for example. However, they might make for a good pharmacist or economist if they have good work ethic and study habits.

I think the optimal education system has to filter and segregate students at a granular level so that it isolates and propels the geniuses, while ensuring every kid underneath grows to their maximum potential. You might need to break levels by a dozen or even a couple dozen to reach the optimal point.

However, by doing so, you'll ensure that kids don't give up on learning subjects they're not trailblazers in. So, the math geniuses could still continue with communications or liberal arts at a less intense level, and as a result, become good communicators.

Likewise, a political science major could still take post-secondary mathematics, and as a result, spend time analyzing things using data.

Some might even be trailblazers in multiple, but very different fields -- e.g., similar to the Islamic scholars of the middle ages, or even early Renaissance European figures.

I think education around the world has become too much of a farm system for simply creating employees, not a genuine growth environment.

While the two categories seem a little simplistic because broader categories exist especially in the intellectual capacities. If we had to limit ourselves to recognizing two categories, the academically minded and vocationally minded would be more suitable.

But, I do agree with the rest of your argument/statement in its entirety, one or two-dimensional systems/individuals can rarely contribute in an effective manner effectively. In order to develop multi-dimensional individuals, an approach such as yours would certainly help and be more useful than the one in place now.

I was very good at maths and received the top grades, even now I am better in maths than my accountant friends, its the theoretical side of maths, the formulas etc, that I am not strong in, purely because i did not pursue that route. But being confident in those extra skills helps in manners unknown.

We certainly need a structured system that is updated every decade or so, with the right mindset, which will go a long way in resolving the issues highlighted by the OP.

 

[Goenitz]

We are only behind any nation by one generation, heavy investment in education and the correct supporting approach by investing in core industries, that would allow those qualified to use the skills and knowledge effectively

Yeah.. That can be true too. Lets say 2 generation so 50 years.

Japan and Germany did the same after the second world war when they were thought of as a spent force. And just twenty years ago, most people did not take China seriously, no one envisioned a superpower status for China by 2020

Good examples. As they not only built industries but scientific institutions from scratch.

The original OPs intention I think is to highlight the shortcomings and find solutions

The OP is actually interested in invoking critical thinking and problem solving in oneself. He argued later that with such abilities, his fellow programmers are doing wonders.

So my takes was bcz they are good at math. So they can first model a problem, and then solve it.
Then I added that we Pakistanis are good at Math but not its application (physics, thermodynamics, etc)
Such as you know that accounting math/statistics is not difficult but its identification of variables. So math is just a tool.

Then I transgressed that why our society has stopped producing scientists/physicists/mathematicians.
However, then I added that trend is general as we are not producing quality poets/novelists either.

P.S. So I guess, yes OP is right as Math is the language of the Universe. If you are good at it, then you can be a good programmer/engineer/CA etc., unless you are not taught about problem solving/critical thinking of open ended problems/projects. Mere rote learning or learning arithmetic operations would not make you good at Math.

However, I blame the examinations too. As O/A levels exams contain entire book (no selective preparation) and are random, so this surety and uncertainty, respectively, push a students to prepare to his fullest.

 

[peagle]

Yeah.. That can be true too. Lets say 2 generation so 50 years.

Good examples. As they not only built industries but scientific institutions from scratch.

The OP is actually interested in invoking critical thinking and problem solving in oneself. He argued later that with such abilities, his fellow programmers are doing wonders.

So my takes was bcz they are good at math. So they can first model a problem, and then solve it.
Then I added that we Pakistanis are good at Math but not its application (physics, thermodynamics, etc)
Such as you know that accounting math/statistics is not difficult but its identification of variables. So math is just a tool.

Then I transgressed that why our society has stopped producing scientists/physicists/mathematicians.
However, then I added that trend is general as we are not producing quality poets/novelists either.

I thought we were having a discussion about my original post lol, as you had replied. Regarding your original post, I agree with it totally, I am sure I pressed like.
You have an interesting take on things and that's a good thing, it's the interesting aspects that take us to innovative solutions.

 

[CriticalThought]

People have discussed the philosophy of testing and measuring intelligence, and whether the same techniques can be applied to everyone.

Some others have questioned the need for unnecessarily difficult questions about something that is very simple. This has been supported through the example of the American education system.

I want to clarify these points. First, as I posted previously, by increasing the difficulty level, you are training students to independently apply simple techniques to complicated problems. Real life problems are complicated, with no known solutions in many cases. If students never encounter difficult problems during training, they will not develop the self-confidence to tackle difficult problems in real life.

Second, the American system is actually abysmal. America relies on bright, young students from China, India, Pakistan and many other countries to live in poverty, do menial jobs, and solve difficult problems to earn the coveted degree. Most of their Black and Hispanic population is deprived of decent education, and poverty and cultural pressures create an environment that is not conducive to learning.

But one thing which the American and British systems do right is to provide avenues for those kids who do not have the aptitude for difficult maths. In A levels, you have the option to take Ad Maths. Similarly in the American system. And make no mistakes, the A levels Ad Maths is equivalent to half of Pakistani Bachelors. In the days when there was a 2 year Bachelors degree, I saw an equivalence table at the British Council in Karachi that equated A-levels with half of Pakistani Bachelors. I also looked at the Ad Maths textbook in British Council, and I know first hand that this is indeed true.

In this thread, I am lamenting the fact that there is no testing and training in Pakistan for kids who do have the aptitude. Their abilities get wasted and Pakistan is deprived of the services of these bright minds. I would like to see the following:

1. No matter what the level, testing in science and maths should not be on rote learning.
2. There should be options for advanced maths/physics/chemistry in grade 12/intermediate.
3. A national effort should be made to start attending International Math Olympiad with the goal of eventually winning it.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

While the two categories seem a little simplistic because broader categories exist especially in the intellectual capacities. If we had to limit ourselves to recognizing two categories, the academically minded and vocationally minded would be more suitable.

But, I do agree with the rest of your argument/statement in its entirety, one or two-dimensional systems/individuals can rarely contribute in an effective manner effectively. In order to develop multi-dimensional individuals, an approach such as yours would certainly help and be more useful than the one in place now.

I was very good at maths and received the top grades, even now I am better in maths than my accountant friends, its the theoretical side of maths, the formulas etc, that I am not strong in, purely because i did not pursue that route. But being confident in those extra skills helps in manners unknown.

We certainly need a structured system that is updated every decade or so, with the right mindset, which will go a long way in resolving the issues highlighted by the OP.

I was good in math if I studied, but even with that, I left with 70% in the advanced course with a ridiculous amount of studying. It was above the class average, but no where near the kids who were smart at it (and who did it with much less effort). However, I didn't learn the kind of math I needed for economics and policy (i.e., the areas I ultimately went into), the course was more geared to STEM.

I agree, there are way more gradients than academically and vocationally minded. Even within math, you have at least 6-12 routes, i.e., STEM, medical workers (nurses, pharma-doctors, etc), business and finance, economics and policy, architecture, etc.

However, the education system needs a revamp. We need to move towards small (5-7 kid) class sizes, expose children to specialized teachers at an earlier age (like 5-6 instead of age 12-13), more aggressive filtering and batching (e.g., find the genius kids early, make sure kids are in the "right" environment for each subject type based on aptitude, interests and goals), and build good study and health habits very early on.

 

[CriticalThought]

I was good in math if I studied, but even with that, I left with 70% in the advanced course with a ridiculous amount of studying. It was above the class average, but no where near the kids who were smart at it (and who did it with much less effort). However, I didn't learn the kind of math I needed for economics and policy (i.e., the areas I ultimately went into), the course was more geared to STEM.

I agree, there are way more gradients than academically and vocationally minded. Even within math, you have at least 6-12 routes, i.e., STEM, medical workers (nurses, pharma-doctors, etc), business and finance, economics and policy, architecture, etc.

However, the education system needs a revamp. We need to move towards small (5-7 kid) class sizes, expose children to specialized teachers at an earlier age (like 5-6 instead of age 12-13), more aggressive filtering and batching (e.g., find the genius kids early, make sure kids are in the "right" environment for each subject type based on aptitude, interests and goals), and build good study and health habits very early on.

If you haven't encountered STEM like mathematics in economics, medical sciences, policy formulation, and finance, then you haven't taken advanced enough courses.

Economics: Application of Markov Models for solving various problems
Medicine: Modelling neural networks as RLC circuits, use of tensors for structural mechanics and finite element analysis for non-rigid deformations
Finance: Ito's calculus for Black-Scholes model, use of differentials in the study of fixed income securities.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Difficulty in Chinese and Indian exams primarily stem from limited educational resources for huge populations. When you only have so many openings available in top Universities, you make entrance difficult so only the best candidates get selected. As educational resources become more plentiful, the difficulty of college entrance exams will go down as well. As a matter of fact anecdotal evidence indicate that Chinese exams aren’t as difficult as they were a decade ago.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

If you haven't encountered STEM like mathematics in economics, medical sciences, policy formulation, and finance, then you haven't taken advanced enough courses.

Economics: Application of Markov Models for solving various problems
Medicine: Modelling neural networks as RLC circuits, use of tensors for structural mechanics and finite element analysis for non-rigid deformations
Finance: Ito's calculus for Black-Scholes model, use of differentials in the study of fixed income securities.

Obviously, but that's my point, not everyone's going to dig into those fields deep enough to warrant advanced mathematical modeling. We need to filter the ones who are capable of it so that they get a great education.

But the worker-bees - such as myself - shouldn't have to choose between only the most difficult and the most trivial stuff, there should be many middle zones (like a very granular spectrum) in between.

The country needs engineers, economists, scientists, public finance experts, etc who can man the middle and competently get things done. There's a way to educate such people, but we are losing them to the liberal arts and business administration because there's not enough of a system for them.

Education, in general, is bifurcated between the extremes:

(1) the very top and
(2) the very bottom.

Folks such as myself will study and work for (1), but literally forget everything by the time we start working because, surprise, our day-to-day jobs did not need us to do most of the stuff we learned under (1).

The issue with this approach is that folks like me are at risk of not being good at our jobs because we didn't learn enough in the middle area between (1) and (2). Thankfully I did in university, but we have seen folks who were totally "gol" and I had to train them myself (e.g., teach statistics using my 2nd and 3rd year course material Lol)

Anyways, I think the IT and tech industries took off as well as they did because of the emphasis on "the middle." Without a real education system, these industries managed to create a spectrum -- i.e., programming geniuses all the way down to grunt coder debuggers - where every type of individual can fit and do well.

 

[CriticalThought]

Obviously, but that's my point, not everyone's going to dig into those fields deep enough to warrant advanced mathematical modeling. We need to filter the ones who are capable of it so that they get a great education.

But the worker-bees - such as myself - shouldn't have to choose between only the most difficult and the most trivial stuff, there should be many middle zones (like a very granular spectrum) in between.

The country needs engineers, economists, scientists, public finance experts, etc who can man the middle and competently get things done. There's a way to educate such people, but we are losing them to the liberal arts and business administration because there's not enough of a system for them.

Education, in general, is bifurcated between the extremes:

(1) the very top and
(2) the very bottom.

Folks such as myself will study and work for (1), but literally forget everything by the time we start working because, surprise, our day-to-day jobs did not need us to do most of the stuff we learned under (1).

The issue with this approach is that folks like me are at risk of not being good at our jobs because we didn't learn enough in the middle area between (1) and (2). Thankfully I did in university, but we have seen folks who were totally "gol" and I had to train them myself (e.g., teach statistics using my 2nd and 3rd year course material Lol)

Anyways, I think the IT and tech industries took off as well as they did because of the emphasis on "the middle." Without a real education system, these industries managed to create a spectrum -- i.e., programming geniuses all the way down to grunt coder debuggers - where every type of individual can fit and do well.

This is the reality of the situation. The Java team in the company where I worked in Pakistan, produced rubbish, buggy software that had a continuous stream of bugs identified by the testers in a top American bank. Yet, the American bank never terminated the contract. The employer just kept hiring more programmers. So one day, I asked him why attention is not being payed to quality? His reply: Do you know what my profit margins are? I get 100 Rs for 1 dollar I make. I can hire 12 more teams if I want.

In Australia, the recruitment agent who placed me into my first job asked my salary back home in Pakistan, did some computation and said, "You are being paid 7 times as much here. That doesn't mean you have to work 7 times as much, but you need to be 7 times as efficient". After coming to Australia I have realized what it means to be a citizen of the first world. Above all, you treat your own self, and your fellows with dignity and respect. And this isn't some superfluous, pretentious dignity. This is dignity that is earned by being genuinely interested in your job and digging deep into your field of expertise.

Now, make no mistakes. Even here we find examples similar to that Java team from hell I described above. And this dodgy quality has become normalized to such an extent, that well educated, rational minded senior managers from the buying and selling firm discuss failed projects, and with a straight face agree to invest more time and money.

Those middle of the road worker bees you are describing will only achieve so much, and you can only earn so much by being average. We need a change of mindset so we start respecting ourselves by arming ourselves with extremely deep knowledge. This is the Pakistan we should be aspiring for.

 

[GHALIB]

While we fret over closing schools, and syllabus being too difficult for children, the world is recognizing India and China for the difficulty of their maths tests:

Having studied from the Sindh Textbook Board in Matric and Intermediate, I can testify that these particular questions employ concepts that are taught in grade 12. But, those concepts are not combined in complicated ways like in Chinese/Indian tests. Instead, questions from the textbook are replicated verbatim during final exams. We are not challenging our students into applying the concepts they learn in new and complicated scenarios. And thus, we are creating generation upon generation of mental slaves. This needs to be dealt with on a crisis basis. A national emergency needs to declared to lift the level of our education across the entire country.

DISCLAIMER: My experience of Sindh Textbook Board dates almost a quarter of a century in the past. I have no idea if things have become even worse since then.

very good video , in india IIT JEE is toughest exam .

 

[magra]

very good video , in india IIT JEE is toughest exam .

For engineering yes. Overall, I think UPSC exams are toughest in India.

 

[GHALIB]

For engineering yes. Overall, I think UPSC exams are toughest in India.

upsc is not toughest , because a single exam tests students from all subjects . on the other hand in IIT all students are tested on common and toughest platform.

 

[StraightEdge]

I think which exam is toughest should not be the defining criteria - it's a competitive exam, always relative marks will come into play. I think as society we should remove the fear of maths from many students, make STEM more interesting. The countries which make STEM more interesting and have more graduates will ultimately lead technologically and economically.
In India we have been producing a fair number of STEM grads but most of the cream have been going out and not contributing much to the nation.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

This is the reality of the situation. The Java team in the company where I worked in Pakistan, produced rubbish, buggy software that had a continuous stream of bugs identified by the testers in a top American bank. Yet, the American bank never terminated the contract. The employer just kept hiring more programmers. So one day, I asked him why attention is not being payed to quality? His reply: Do you know what my profit margins are? I get 100 Rs for 1 dollar I make. I can hire 12 more teams if I want.

In Australia, the recruitment agent who placed me into my first job asked my salary back home in Pakistan, did some computation and said, "You are being paid 7 times as much here. That doesn't mean you have to work 7 times as much, but you need to be 7 times as efficient". After coming to Australia I have realized what it means to be a citizen of the first world. Above all, you treat your own self, and your fellows with dignity and respect. And this isn't some superfluous, pretentious dignity. This is dignity that is earned by being genuinely interested in your job and digging deep into your field of expertise.

Now, make no mistakes. Even here we find examples similar to that Java team from hell I described above. And this dodgy quality has become normalized to such an extent, that well educated, rational minded senior managers from the buying and selling firm discuss failed projects, and with a straight face agree to invest more time and money.

Those middle of the road worker bees you are describing will only achieve so much, and you can only earn so much by being average. We need a change of mindset so we start respecting ourselves by arming ourselves with extremely deep knowledge. This is the Pakistan we should be aspiring for.

Those folks are all products of farm-type education. Sadly, even the IT and technology sectors have moved into farming workers for the reasons you described above.

That all being said, individuals aren't amazing at everything, but they're usually amazing at a few things. We need an education system that can identify those aptitudes (apparent or latent), and amplify them with an education experienced suited to that individual.

There's nothing wrong with deep-diving into the areas you're really good at, but have an opportunity to still learn other areas without climbing a mountain.

TLDR: Everyone should have deep knowledge in a field they're good at, but there are layers to how far each individual can go. Limited persons should still have avenues to grow.