Hacker News Reader

Comment by babyent | Hacker News Reader

That was a fun read.

What really stuck out to me was how R failed in a bunch of other subjects except math because he wasn’t interested in them.

I know society and norms expect students to learn all these other subjects.

But what if those just aren’t interesting to someone?

I wonder how many geniuses we skip on because doing the chores of homework and getting through boring classes is busywork and memorization for the sake of getting an A.

Meanwhile, hardly anyone actually remembers anything about those topics and even the best students mostly go on to achieve only above average things.

My class valedictorian went on to become a doctor and while that is certainly impressive to me, there are many doctors and he practices (like almost every other doctor) and isn’t pushing the boundaries of medical science. I feel terrible writing that because I’m certainly not as smart as him, but R is just so impressive and I’m glad he got his lucky break.

People like R would be lost in the sea of averages because their genius would be kept shut by norms.

Almost every extraordinary person I read about seems like they were 1 step away from being forgotten, and got some huge universal break that boosted them.

View on HN

IMO, you're thinking about this backwards.

It's good that public school exposes children to many subjects - hopefully most of them. So that they can discover if they click with one of them. The real danger is that someone never gets exposed to a subject at all. College is the place to specialize in a subject.

Most colleges now inundate students with painful core classes that go on into senior year. It's getting ridiculous.

College is not trade school. College exists not to generate people who are masters of Framework v3.0, but to generate people who can quickly learn to use whatever tool they're given and who can connect the dots to solve generic problems. Part of that is exposure to a broad range of ideas. Part of that is showing that you can learn about and deliver results on things you're not necessarily excited about.

I don't think college teaches people how to learn, and if they do it's only by accident. There's a body of knowledge on how to teach and how to self educate and it takes a long time for systems to incorporate these knowledge.

Isn't that what high school is for? What's the difference then?

High school has been dumbed down and is mostly a waste of time.

Most of school is primarily baby sitting these days, if were being really real.

That is what high school is, for families where parents want their kids to learn to learn and are well-resourced enough to teach the kids themselves or pay someone to teach.

> Part of that is showing that you can learn about and deliver results on things you're not necessarily excited about.

Why is that useful besides for the employer trying to impose Framework v3.0 onto their subjects?

To me at least, learning things one is not excited about is only useful to capitalist society that views human beings as replaceable resources.

I wasn't particularly excited to learn philosophy or economics, but that gave me the foundation to understand Marx and Engels. Learning "things you're not necessarily excited about" makes you well-rounded. That's a _good thing_.

Let's use another example. Communicating with other people is a very important part of my job as a software engineer. I'd say that at this point in my career, writing good proposals, documentation, project charters, task orders, change requests, etc. is vital to my individual and collective success, so I'm glad I was taught lots of rhetoric and literature and writing and all that artsy stuff my younger self spent too much time disdaining.

Or another example. I have written precisely zero lines of Lisp or ML for work, and I flunked the first computer science class I took that used Lisp (good old _Essentials of Programming Languages_). And yet I use the concepts I learned in those classes _all the time_. Heck, I was just talking about side effects the other day in the context of 21 CFR Part 11 computer system validation.

My last metaphor. Brushing one's teeth or taking a shower isn't particularly exciting, but that kind of routine maintenance work is a vital part of your physical health. So it goes for mental exercise. Reading something challenging, learning the work's historical context, and writing a critical response well all helps keep you mentally healthy. That's good no matter what socioeconomic system you live in.

This is true, but college general education requirements don't fulfill that role. They're classes of 250 people listening to a professor say "write this down because it'll be on the exam". Then the questions on the exam are what the professor said verbatim.

My university didn't allow any classes above the most introductory ones to be considered as fulfilling the general education requirement. I signed up for a history class that would involve doing research and having weekly discussions with a small group. I was stoked. Then the professor made a note that it didn't fulfill the general education requirements. I had to drop it and switch to a huge-ass mindless lecture of hundreds of people. I would've liked to still take the more in-depth history class even if it didn't fit the gen ed requirement, but so many of those BS classes are required that my schedule was completely packed all 4 years with zero leeway.

I feel your pain. What a dumb system.

You can get exceptions. My social science degree had math requirements, but the lowest math class I took was too high level to count for them. I had to fill out a sheet of paper and submit it to the dean, but other than an hour split between talking to my academic advisor, filling out a form, and talking to the dean it wasn't a problem.

I still find it funny and informative that multivariable calculus, linear algebra, and high level math classes did not automatically fulfill the math requirement because no one ever tried to use them to satisfy it.

It's probably because secondary school has become mostly worthless in the US, so college is taking its place.

Specific citation needed.

At Big US Engineering School, many people are done with their prerequisites in a year.

Unless you're talking about painful core classes like "compiler design" and "networking", which I would say is a different conversation.

Prerequisites are different from core stuff, like say you study computer science but hey take this English class as well for your W credits. I gamed my university on these, taking easy courses that I wouldn’t have bothered with, I think it was one or two quarters of BS (dual acronym meaning) classes.

I used to shit on English class to anyone who would listen, but lately (at age 40) I realize (and grow frustrated at) how poorly most people around me communicate. But then again, I recall my English classes throughout highschool and college and very little time was spent on how to be clear, how to be precise, or how to revise. That definitely wasn't the parameter the curriculum was optimizing for. Sure, there was writing but the grade you got back was simply how much the instructor liked what you had to say.

Exposure is good, but success in school requires you to be successful in these subjects as well. I have had similar thoughts recently as OP thinking about what I want for my young kids and what my experiences in school were. Being _really_ good in one thing should allow you to make up for being subpar in other areas, but it doesn't. You can only get an A (or A+) in math for example, even if your a genius. But maybe you should be able to get an A++++ that makes up for D's or F's in English for example and still get accepted into top universities. We need a system that accommodates spiky people better.

> Exposure is good, but success in school requires you to be successful in these subjects as well.

Being specific, it's not school, it's what school grants you i.e. a paying job. The higher paying, thusly more coveted jobs, generally filter against good grades which then the requirement pushes downwards into schools because, at scale, it's a decent system; leveraging the schools to help decide who is good.

> Being _really_ good in one thing should allow you to make up for being subpar in other areas, but it doesn't.

I counter with, if you are "_really_" good, it shows because you truly are a genius and you get fast tracked on that subject, but I think your "_really_" is actually just "_pretty_" and you're trying to include more than the 1 in 100 million.

To directly answer your point, for the "slightly smarter than everyone else" my middle school allowed kids to attend highschool in specific subjects and then highschool into the nearby community college and considered "harder/more prestigious" than the AP programs - admittedly only in math for this latter part. The school was in a more affluent neighborhood so I recognize the privilege.

> but I think your "_really_" is actually just "_pretty_" and you're trying to include more than the 1 in 100 million.

I don't quite understand your point. Pretty good still puts you far ahead of the average. I could easily handle second year college maths and computer science while in high school. And I couldn't hold a candle to Ramanujan.

I still needed to do well in my other courses in order to be able to get into my chosen college.

I think that's the point - "pretty good" isn't good enough for a top school to want to admit you. Second year college/CS is pretty good but I went to a great high school where there were 50+ kids at that level. That's not enough to stand out in a meaningful way.

Whereas if someone was Ramanujan-level, their raw talent would be so apparent they wouldn't have this issue and would clearly stand out.

> Second year college/CS is pretty good but I went to a great high school where there were 50+ kids at that level. That's not enough to stand out in a meaningful way.

It is not enough to stand out in the current system.

The parent was saying selecting the 50 kids who can handle it is a much better approach than just taking the highest overall grades.

The average A's across the board high school student can't handle second year college maths. Yet they will be placed ahead of the observably better at math kids.

Imagine if jobs worked like this - "Yes, we know you are a great developer but you don't really understand economics. Sorry".

Being well-rounded and having exposure to a bunch of topics is valuable to an extent. However, in my experience most of the people making a real difference in the workplace and academia are not particularly well rounded.

Thankfully in tech there are alternative pathways. However, for many professions there aren't and these high performers are simply excluded to societies detriment.

> Imagine if jobs worked like this - "Yes, we know you are a great developer but you don't really understand economics. Sorry".

This is exactly the route to exploitation by MBA managers.

Great developer, loyal, doesn't understand the need to change companies to get paid a competitive salary. Perfect hire.

The person who doesn't understand economics pays the price themselves.

You can only progress so much in a field of expertise before hitting diminishing return.

At some point it makes sense to broaden your knowledge and skillset.

>You can only progress so much in a field of expertise before hitting diminishing return.

I suppose how long you can progress for and how far you can progress depends somewhat on the breadth and depth of the field of expertise.

Many fields of expertise are so broad and deep that they have their own sub-fields just to make them manageable.

So you would probably be in a sub-field and then broaden your knowledge and skill-set in a related sub-field of the overall field that you are well suited to.

I'm betting it's likely you can see how your own particular field, as you are on HN, replicates this pattern.

> It is not enough to stand out in the current system.

What I'm saying is in some hypothetical system which places a great emphasis on specialization, people who are a few years ahead of curriculum are a dime a dozen and will not stand out. There were 50 kids in my high school, so how many is that nationwide?

Particularly in math, it is straightforward for an exceptional talent to stand out. Competitive math is a clear pathway/credential. If someone is not able to achieve meaningful results then it's probably just the case that they aren't as talented as they believe

> Imagine if jobs worked like this - "Yes, we know you are a great developer but you don't really understand economics. Sorry".

There are plenty of software devs who are not getting hired to the potential of their raw development skills because they cannot communicate or collaborate productively. There are also plenty of software devs who are not getting hired to the potential of their raw development skills because they don't have as much domain knowledge as other devs.

> people who are a few years ahead of curriculum are a dime a dozen and will not stand out.

I'm not sure what you mean.

High school has a much lower, but broader, bar.

The number who can handle second year college math are a small fraction of those who can get straight A's at high school.

> There are plenty of software devs who are not getting hired to the potential of their raw development skills because they cannot communicate or collaborate productively.

These are behavioural issues and not knowledge issues. We do not address these kinds of issues at high school at all.

Getting an A in English doesn't prepare you in any way to be a team player.

In my ~15 year career the only people I've seen not hired because of a knowledge gap in this space have been non-native speakers.

Maybe, but TFA says at least in Ramanujan's case:

But he ignored all subjects besides math and lost his scholarship within a year. He later enrolled in another university, this time in Madras (now Chennai), the provincial capital some 250 kilometers north. Again he flunked out.

Maybe it would be different now?

If you get into the IMO team you'll be accepted anywhere good for maths. Probably a high position in the local competition would be enough. (YMMV as my understanding is coloured by a little knowledge of the system in the UK)

The admissions process to universities in the province of Ontario in Canada has a direct solution for this, which applies to well-known universities in the global technology industry, such as the University of Toronto and the University of Waterloo.

Most of these universities look at an applicant's grades for just six courses. After looking at the courses required for certain programs (such as calculus and physics for certain programs), the remainder of the six courses comprise the student's top grades for any courses at the Grade 12 (final year) level.

So, a high school student aiming for a top engineering or mathematics program will not be hamstrung by a poor grade in Grade 12 English, nor will a student aiming for a top international relations program be hamstrung by a poor grade in Calculus. At the same time, the student going into a STEM program will have an exposure to Shakespeare, which can provide inspiration and a rich set of works to explore later in life. The student going into international relations may later be inspired some years later to study mathematics for its beauty as a hobby, some years later.

I remember the feeling that I was wasting time with many of my courses in those years, despite having good teachers for many of them—I thought my time spent on mandatory humanities courses like music took time away from more practical subjects, and I wish I took a programming course (though I did love my English classes). Perhaps this remains true for many students, but I personally took an interest in music performance as a hobby years later in life, and the years-old lessons in music theory came back to me. My English classes also introduced me to literature, which has remained a very important part of my life that has guided me through highly consequential life decisions for the better. It is unlikely that I would have taken an interest in literary works without my exposure to English in school.

To add to this I feel the need to point out that the writing skill demonstrated by the average mid-length Hacker News comment is above the level you’d need to pass grade 12 English in Ontario. It’s an extremely low bar!

Of course, if English is not your first language then you’re not required to take this course. You have an alternate path which may be a lot more work for an English-language-learner but it doesn’t demand the critical reading and writing skills you would need for grade 12 English.

I don't know how things work across the ocean, but here in Greece essay grading is a veritable mystery. The highest grade I ever got in a school essay was 16/20 and I had thought that was my masterpiece. Feedback always seemed cryptic (your essay contains platitudes, you are not developing your point enough etc.) and when I tried asking for specifics I got shrugs and you-still-don't-get-it groans. There are people who get 20/20 on essays consistently, so there must be some method to the grading madness; but I could not crack that method in my school years :(

The usual method to scoring top grades on an essay/paper is to flatter the professor. Not with literal platitudes but with a paper you think they’ll agree with, incorporating arguments similar to the ones they made in class, etc.

However, what I found is that even if the professor disagrees with your paper you’ll usually get an 80% if it’s well-written, well-researched, and well-argued. To get above that on something they disagree with requires both a highly open-minded professor and an argument they can’t find fault with.

I like the first reply immediately try to scoff you :) Maybe oop is right, but the real problem is people always try to do this.

6 courses in your senior year doesn't seem like a great solution. If you figure you take Math, Science, History, English in your senior year, Then take 2 electives, that is basically a full schedule already. Short of replacing one of the poor grades with a freebie like Gym, I am not seeing where that solves the issue. This might be a difference in US and Canadian education, so maybe 6 courses means something different.

A mathematics-focused student in Ontario could take Calculus & Vectors, Advanced Functions [1], Computer Science, and Physics—the first two courses should be straightforward for this student.

Though Computer Science and Physics are distinctly different from the mathematics courses, these are still directly useful for a mathematics student to learn—the problem-solving skills should also carry over. Key mathematical discoveries have been inspired by problems in computer science and physics, and many rigorous university-level mathematics books still draw from problems in these fields to motivate certain problems. At the least, they are less laboratory-heavy than Biology and Chemistry (the student could still attempt these subjects, though, and choose to omit the grades for university admissions).

That leaves a couple of other classes—or just one if English is required, as noted by another commenter. My school offered subjects like Grade 12 Drama, Visual Arts, and Music, where much of the grading was effort-based. In my school, most students in my classes saw these courses as a break from other intensive courses, with grades not being as much of a concern. This would allow the student to avoid using a grade for History, Economics, French (or another foreign language), or another subject.

The English requirement would then be a difficult challenge for the mathematics-focused student. I wish I could speak more about what it was like for most of my classmates who went on to study engineering, as many of them took the standard English course (I took a more demanding version of the course, due to personal interest). My classmates at the time did not seem to have an issue with university admissions to competitive programs despite not enjoying the subject at the time, but the other commenter makes a good point that minimum grades for admission standards have increased greatly since then.

[1] As an aside: a past classmate—who was brilliant at mathematics and also great with people—later poked fun some years later about the Ontario government's naming for math courses. He said, "there's Grade 11 Functions... and then in Grade 12, there's Advanced (!) Functions." The last I heard, he went on to work as an investment banker at a top hedge fund by profitability in the United States.

> then in Grade 12, there's Advanced (!) Functions."

Then in university, there’s Elementary Functional Analysis!

The first math course as math major in university involved proving that a+b=b+a and that a+(b+c)=(a+b)+c. It's quite fun to go from 'advanced' calculus during the final classes of high school, to "OK, let's consider the expression 1+1=2. What does it actually mean and why is it true?"

> The first math course as math major in university involved proving that a+b=b+a and that a+(b+c)=(a+b)+c.

Really? What were the axioms?

Basically the Peano axioms

How did that proof work for rational numbers?

It's been 20+ years, and I don't remember the exact steps the course went thought. But basically we started with defining N using the Peano axioms (although I don't recall the name 'Peano' being mentioned) and proving some basic rules of addition and equality. Then we defined subtraction, multiplication and inverse elements, and constructed Z and Q. From there you get to algebraic groups, and from there you can hand wave a lot of details.

As I said it was literally one of the first math courses we did, so it wasn't super rigorous with all the technical and logical details.

Interesting. So it seems that from reading this, Canada, or at least Ontario, has a lot more electives at grade 12 than the US. So this might be more like the UK with their A-levels. In the US a highly motivated student might take say 4-5 AP courses, which would essentially count as their freshman year at university. But they would be unlikely (short of going to a few dedicate highschools) of having more than maybe 2 math courses in a single year.

You can get tested into qualification, by most colleges. Colleges (which includes Universities, State schools, etc) aren't robotic. This is part of the responsibility of the administration. You may get delayed a semester or a year, with a little community college gatekeeping. Dedicated students can always get into a University.

Note here, in the current years, grades / competition has exploded so for the more competitive programs it is nearly impossible to get in without high 90s in all the required courses (English is required for all programs).

So responding to OP, you indeed must be an expert in all subjects to have a chance to study in your field of expertise.

Although I agree with the sentiment, the Ontario university system doesn't actually work that way. For example for Software Engineering at Waterloo, the admission average is calculated using the five required courses plus whatever your highest course is excluding the former[0].

In practice, I believe every single Ontario university program lists English one of the required courses so it will always be included in your top six average.

[0]: https://uwaterloo.ca/undergraduate-admissions/admissions/adm...

And it should always be included as one of the important courses in Canada. If you can't communicate your thoughts clearly then your thoughts never really translate into the real world.

From what I remember, the later years of English class (in Ontario) are more focused on literary criticism than effective communication. This was a frustration for me personally, and my lowest mark in High School. The high 80 dragged my average down enough that I didn't make the cut for Waterloo.

As a (lapsed) English teacher, I must point out that critically examining how others communicate is essential to improving one's own ability.

(Mind you, your teachers might not have approached your classes in that way, and high-end literary criticism tends towards performative nonsense°, so I can understand and sympathize if they were a waste of time, but they didn't have to be.)

°It's exactly analogous to Brain Fuck: huge fun if you have the background, intellectual ability, and are in on the joke. Both are mostly pursued for the opportunities they provide to show off How Smart™ you are.

In 2024 you are not getting into Waterloo CS with anything less than a 99% in your top6. And that's the entry level. If you really want to get in, you have to grind math competitions, clubs, etc.

I go to a mid-tier university (Toronto Metropolitan University) and the admissions average for CS was 97% last year.

The admissions process for universities in Ontario is a joke at this point. Imagine if students going to Harvard instead of SUNY Plattsburgh differed by 2 percentage points in their high school averages.

This means you must be absolutely perfect to have a shot of getting into a good school. In reality, teachers overlook mistakes and just give you the marks needed to get into top school if they think you deserve it. But because everyone does that, you also need to farm extracurriculars.

Maybe I'll write a blog post about this since it sounds like people are interested.

This is the same reason why STEM admission became so competitive in UCs in California.

UCs historically admitted using a mix of class rank, GPA, and test scores, but the number of seats at UCs didn't really increase in the past decade+ despite a small baby boom in the 2000s, and the growing prominence of STEM in the 2010s, so the average GPAs and SAT scores for UC admissions skyrocketed.

Plenty of Californians have anecdotes of getting rejected from mid-tier UCs but getting into MIT or Stanford. It's had a downstream impact out-of-state as well, as plenty of Californians now attend out-of-state STEM programs for that reason (played a major role in upleveling UT Austin/UW/UIUC/GT/UW Madison's reputations among STEM-targeting HSers ime) and make STEM admissions harder in out-of-state colleges as well.

That said, education quality for STEM majors is consistent across all UCs so the UC you go to doesn't matter as much academic quality wise.

I'm convinced good students don't need good universities as much as good universities need good students. I get the same internships and job opportunities as someone that went to UofT and I'm studying much of the same curriculum.

A degree from a good university signifies a smart and dedicated student primarily because the school selects the best students for graduation. That occurs during acceptance and by making the program difficult, causing bad students to leave.

The higher level of competitiveness is hurting the best universities during that acceptance phase. Ontario universities are no longer able to differentiate between the best and average. Waterloo is an exception because it has introduced math competitions across the province as a way to identify "A+++" students, but only Waterloo benefits from that.

I'm noticing that many Ontario schools are now ignoring the acceptance phase and focusing on the weed-out phase. UofT accepts students into a common math/CS program, then only accepts the best students into CS for second year onwards. Queen's University has a common first year for all engineering majors.

Even so, because the acceptance phase no longer differentiates, a lot of good students that would beat the second phase are caught in the first filter.

> I'm convinced good students don't need good universities as much as good universities need good students. I get the same internships and job opportunities as someone that went to UofT and I'm studying much of the same curriculum.

In Engineering+Accounting+Actuary+Nursing I agree.

> The higher level of competitiveness is hurting the best universities during that acceptance phase. Ontario universities are no longer able to differentiate between the best and average.

Same thing in California, and that's largely because faculty hiring and infrastructure just didn't keep pace with the amount of students declaring Engineering+Accounting+Actuary+Nursing majors (Accounting+Actuary+Nursing face the same problems as STEM fields), which meant admissions need to be much more competitive because you can only teach so many students.

I assume it's a similar story in Ontario due to decades of austerity in the province.

> Even so, because the acceptance phase no longer differentiates, a lot of good students that would beat the second phase are caught in the first filter.

Yep. Because infrastructure didn't scale.

> Waterloo is an exception because it has introduced math competitions across the province as a way to identify "A+++" students, but only Waterloo benefits from that

Yep, the Euclid is basically a soft requirement now for Waterloo CS admissions.

Honestly, Ontario should just ditch "autonomous" universities and merge them under a single "University of Ontario" system and simplifying cross-system course transfers.

Ontario should also force Colleges to stop giving Bachelors degrees and convert them either into Community Colleges to transfer to a University or convert larger Colleges into Universities.

This is what Quebec does, and most state systems in the US (California, Texas, New York, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, etc).

There is no reason for UWaterloo or Wilfrid Laurier to be two different universities despite being a couple blocks away from each other.

Same for UT, UT Scarborough, York, TMU/Ryerson, etc all in GTA

To add on, I’ve worked with a lot of current and past Toronto Metropolitan University (TMU) students at an aerospace industry non-profit. I do not see a difference with their quality of work and dedication between them and University of Toronto (UofT) students. Several of these students went on to land engineering and research internships at the Canadian Space Agency or work at a well-known aerospace company.

The main advantage that UofT has for its undergraduates is related to funding. UofT’s engineering design teams tend to be better-funded than TMU’s, though TMU’s engineering design teams still perform very well—proudly outperforming UofT’s teams in certain years despite the funding gaps. In addition, some TMU students I’ve spoken with mentioned that UofT has more research opportunities. The name of the university also has a positive impact on admissions for students applying to graduate school. These advantages are not a reflection of the students who attend, but rather UofT’s ability to raise funds.

There is also a disadvantage I’ve seen at UofT. The TMU engineering students I’ve known have mentioned getting extensions approved easily for assignments and homework, to pursue professional opportunities such as hackathons and conferences. That is generally unheard of, from my experience in a STEM program at UofT. Policies are strictly outlined (with some leniency in many courses, such as dropping the lowest assignment mark), and I generally have not seen professors grant exceptions to these.

But the main difference I’ve seen between TMU people and UofT people is university pride. I’ve met several people who were proud to go to TMU and succeed, whereas I haven’t seen that at UofT (with the exception of UofT’s engineering department). I’m satisfied with the opportunities I’ve gotten due to attending UofT—especially as I was involved with its on-campus work program and an engineering design team there—but I haven’t met many UofT people fiercely proud of their school, in contrast to the TMU people I’ve met.

In any case, I am happy to work with people from either school. Work experience and personality has mattered more to me than the name of the university that a person went to, and both TMU and UofT offer great opportunities for students to gain relevant experience—though these are up to the students to pursue, outside of their required classes.

Imo school grades should be disregarded entirely. We should bring back standardized testing, but make the ceiling much higher. Most people should score fairly low on it. This way, you can really see how good people are. At this point, people just get weeded out in university.

This would also help the case of people like Ramanujan, he might score perfectly on the math portion of the standardized tests, and despite poor scores on everything else, he'd be distinguished.

He might also fail the standardized test entirely.

Perhaps, though imo standardized testing is the lesser of two evils.

There's major inequity with the lack of standardized testing.

I am from country which has these standardized tests for all engineering, medicine, management and other competitive fields. The result is there is sprawling industry of "coaching institutes" which train kids for college admission exams. Those who are getting in through this system now are people whose parents can afford this increasingly expensive coaching.

So all mediocre kids with money have better chance than a brighter kid who couldn't afford coaching. Of course genius could still make it through this system but genius can also make it thru school grading system. There are enough programs to help out them.

Problem here is that barely above average students who wouldn't want to study all subjects per curriculum start to think of themselves as ignored geniuses crushed by the system.

That's always going to be true regardless of whether there's standardized testing or not. Also, it still gives poor children a better chance. Do you think poor kids can afford to "polish" their application with a bunch of extra curricular activities that's typically required for top-tier schools? I think a truly difficult standardized test is still more fair than any other alternative.

The fact that there are a bunch of asian kids from poor socioeconomic backgrounds who make it into stuyvesant https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2019/05/233354/stuyvesant-a... is one example of how standardized testing can make it so that hard work can make the difference. I'm not saying that rich kids don't have an automatic leg up, but that's always going to be true regardless. Standardized testing (if anything) gives everyone a shot.

We have no standardized tests in Ontario. You just pay for expensive sports, extracurricular competitions, or private schools that provide the two.

Realistically, it's much easier for a person of average means to study for a standardized test than it is to buy the transport necessary to an international math/science/business/water polo competition.

It's fundamentally impossible for a person to do well in ice hockey if they cannot afford the hundreds of dollars in skates and protective equipment needed to play the game. Taking a standardized test is usually free. Does money give an advantage in both scenarios? Yes, but at least it's not an absolute barrier in the second.

Are there not standardized exams in Ontario high school? When I grew up in Alberta standardized exams took up half your grade and those could not be fudged by your teacher.

The exams were made by a small panel of teachers and nobody else knew the exam contents until the day of the exam. Everyone across the province takes the exam on the same day and time. Exams were proctored by people external to the school. Exams are again marked by a panel of teachers outside of your school.

Cheating is nearly impossible outside of someone leaking the exam early.

Nope.

This is basically what Waterloo math competitions are, though. Except only Waterloo can see the results.

That seems like the real failing of the Ontario education system. Standardized testing is needed otherwise there is nothing stopping teachers from gaming the system. It also gives a good way to determine underserved/underperforming schools in order to direct improvement there.

So in grade 5 you maths is A++++ (like college entry level), you're excused from English, Civics and what not, and when by the time of graduation you've fizzled out (which most prodigies do) you're just an unemployable nerd.

School education standards are the barest minimum and anyone of IQ > 85 can make them.

Personally I can’t say I learned anything professionally useful in english or civics. An actually decent math class in just one of my years of k-12 would have been much more useful.

It's weird to say that about English when good communication is essential for success in any engineering field. Even if all English does is force you to read more, it's probably a win in this regard.

> It's weird to say that about English when good communication is essential for success in any engineering field

Some of what's taught in English classes is about clear communication, and some of it isn't.

I think learning the 5 paragraph essay structure was very useful. But that's maybe 3 months worth of learning. The rest was English major stuff. Which is fine, but please don't pretend that it has a lot to do with "good communication".

> Even if all English does is force you to read more, it's probably a win in this regard.

It's not enough to say people had to read for English classes. You have to compare it to the counterfactual. In that regard, I don't think it stood up well.

1. I was already reading a lot. I just read different things.

2. I came to hate pretty much everything I read in class. It's only decades later that I've been able to appreciate some of the classics that we read.

On this point, I think English class was a net harm, at least for me. Of course, everyone has different circumstances; I'm sure there are people for whom a similar program as what I went through would have been a benefit.

This is a very immature take.

Of course you can BELIEVE that English classes didn't help you learn how to read and write more effectively or how to better understand what was left unsaid or unwritten, but believing something doesn't make it so.

And yes, as a student reading the classics often sucks. After all, you're not reading them for pleasure - you're reading them to learn how to identify and discuss their themes. But more than that, you see how themes are repeated throughout history, and how the author's experiences changed how they illustrated those themes. English classes taught you plenty of history - not so much in rote facts, but rather by illustrating parts of the cultural zeitgeist of different eras and how authors reinforced, protested, or recorded what was happening at the time.

I doubt many children appreciate education while they're learning, but adults certainly can be thankful that they weren't left in the dark.

It's very impolite to label lived experience of another educated and probably somewhat accomplished adult as immature.

At 45 years old I can confidently say that anything I've "learned" on my native language classes through 12 years of having them was totally useless garbage and I'm using none of it in my writing, reading and culturural appreciation or understanding of the world. Everything I use was self-acquired in the time I had that was not spent in native language classes. Ideas of education are great, but the implementation is terrible to the point of being useless.

On the other hand math, physics and chemistry I learned at school has been immensely practically and culturally useful and I wouldn't know a fraction of it if I wasn't taught it in school.

40, and I concur.

Even if the goal is a cultural appreciation, Shakespeare's plays will tell you as much about England in 1585-1613 as Terry Gilliam's filmography does about the Anglosphere in 1971-present.

It's more than zero, but it's also missing the overwhelming majority of the context and the world in which it exists.

Modern readings treat Shakespeare with excessive reverence: not just "a playwright" but "The Bard".

Those plays were made to be performed with very short rehearsal time before performing, outside, with no lights (at most fire, but it was wood and thatched and burned down from a theatrical cannon), in a crowded venue where audiences would be expected to jeer and cheer, whereas today it's a finely rehearsed performance by people who take it seriously performed for an audience who consider it high culture.

Monty Python's Gumbies aren't well understood by new viewer today, as modern news treats "the man on the street" somewhat differently than in the 70s. How wrong do modern viewers comprehend Shakespeare's characters, considering that "The Taming of the Shrew" is classified as a comedy?

That said, I was also busy teaching myself a lot of maths and science ahead of the classes; what I learned from school but would not have taught myself was the basics of German and French (though only the former stuck with me), the absolute basics of music notation, some metalworking and woodworking, and PE.

Oh, and the practical experiences in the chemistry lab, though I'd have still done the theory myself without that.

> Shakespeare's plays will tell you as much about England in 1585-1613 as Terry Gilliam's filmography does about the Anglosphere in 1971-present.

Why, given the vast ocean of possible knowledge, would you assume I or most people would have any interest or benefit in that? Over something like geometric algebra, soldering or solving quadratic equations?

Human creations can be roughly divided in two categories, tools and content. Teaching content is pointless. Its selection is arbitrary and its value is roughly same and miniscule. Millions will choose Frotnite streamer over Shakespeare any day of the week. Math, physics, chemistry, foreign language are tools. Tools that the knowledge of can help you create whatever you desire, both content and whats more important and rare new tools. Native language classes, history, geography, even biology are very content heavy and very poor on tools. Thus they are mostly useless.

I was agreeing with you about these points, sorry if that didn't come across, I was rather tired while writing that.

I was also saying that even though the lens of culture, the generally mandatory Shakespeare is overrated.

It's my fault that it didn't come across. English is not my native language. Most of it maps to my brain really well, but there are some phrases that my brain just refuses to properly assimilate. "I concur" is the one. Somehow my brain intuitively maps it rather to "I object" than "I agree" like it should.

Ah, interesting. I would never have guessed from the username. :)

I have a similar problem with a few words in German, despite being in Berlin for 6 years now — "Es war krass" sounds like it should be a bad thing.

When you're a scientist, you'd assume the calculus is the most useful thing you learn in high school, but actually its the 10 page essay on deadline for grant writing.

I learned anything professionally useful in English

Even as someone who went full 'STEM' for both my education and career, English is probably among the most professionally useful courses I did in high school. A surprisingly large part of my job involves reading things, understanding them, and then writing a clear and reasoned response to them, all skills I first learned and really got to practice in English class.

Reading and writing is a huge part of software development. But I didn't learn these skills at school. If anything, school soured them for me, by making me read things I didn't want to read and writing things I didn't want to write. School should let you read what you want. Today that you read it could be checked with AI prepared quiz. And writing should be mostly focused on communication not essays. Very small fraction of people ends up getting significant utility writing their ramblings into the void.

> making me read things I didn't want to read and writing things I didn't want to write

How to do things you don't want to do is a fundamental requirement for adulthood, and probably the most important skill anyone learns in school

I absolutely disagree. Adulthood is freedom. It's when you decide what you choose to do. Sometimes things feel like you have to do them but that's just remnants of the conditioning you were moulded by as a child. When you are pressed to the wall you are eventually forced to understand that you don't really have to do them, you just choose to, because however hard they may be it's easier for you than the available alternative. You don't have that level of agency as a child when you are constantly exposed to indoctrination from everybody more powerful than you (which at this stage is pretty much everybody).

> Adulthood is freedom.

Freedom? That has not been my experience of adulthood. To me adulthood is about making responsible choices based on their consequences for you and the people around you ... which means that the majority of my time is spent doing things that other people need rather than because I want to do them

> To me adulthood is about making responsible choices based on their consequences

What is freedom, if not the ability to make those choices?

"Freedom is the recognition of necessity"

That may be your experience. In such case I feel for you. For me doing things I don't want to do take less than an hour a day for my whole adult life. During school it was more like 11 (including going there, homework, other related chores). I hate school system with passion and I feel it was the worst thing that happened to me. I would be better off wandering the streets and getting access to a library.

If you suddenly got a passive source of income matching your best possible salary progression on the condition that you don't work, would you forgo it and keep your work as it is?

If your answer is no, you're currently doing things you'd rather not.

> but success in school requires you to be successful in these subjects as well.

It requires a very small success on a very basic level. It is not good to be a super math genius and know nothing about geography and history.

The school should form decent individuals before than useful workers, and for that it's necessary to have a passing level of culture. For example, everyone should have a basic grasp of ethics (and know a bit of history), even those of us working in technology or science. Geniuses like Ramanunjan or John von Neumann are such a rare occurrence that the school system can not and should not optimize for them (and my very personal view is also that we'll have even less geniuses in the future, as our distraction-based society is not conducive anymore to cognitive development).

Something about this sniffs as elitist to me. A person who’s intelligent is curious and a person who’s curious should be curious about all things, not just some limited set.

Now, that’s not to say the only issue is someone’s curiosity. Traditional teaching methods make it very hard to be interested in some topics (history and language comes to mind), but barring that, I’m not sure I accept “it’s not interesting” as a reason not to explore a subject.

The only intelligence on earth capable of being equally curious about all things, of not needing to discriminate and focus only on preferred subjects, is the artificial kind of intelligence.

The rest of us don't live long enough compared to our reading speed.

A few points on this:

- How and when would you know a subject doesn't click? In my case German (my first language) and English sucked for roughly 8 years. I ended school with A in both and was the only student in my school without a single mistake in my exam.

- School gives you good grades if you managed to learn the topics at hand. Being able to learn what is needed or what you are bad at — not what you want and are good at is a skill in itself that can be important in life. I'd argue unless you are an exceptional genius (unlike 99,999% of pupils) you gain more from pulling through than you would if you called yourself a genius and focused on a single topic. Schools goal is to educate the majority

- pupils (and often also their parents) are utterly unable to judge which bits of school will be essential to their later life. I had many collegues who utterly hated every second of a multitude of subjects, only to years later tell me how glad they are now to have had been subjected to it (which brings me back to my first point)

We could (and should!) argue on how school works as a system of grades, teachers and pupils — ideally teachers would motivate students to become curious about and proficient in subjects without the motivation of good or the threat of bad grades. But if my experience as an educator at the university levels (without grades in mh case) shows one thing it is that those first semester students who are really able to judge what will be useful to them later on are not many. Many of them are more like the dog in the meme: "Only stick, no take" — they want to be able to do the cool thing without knowing what is needed to do the cool thing.

I mean, just as a counter-note: I utterly hated every second of a multitude of subjects, and indeed now I am 37 and I never needed them and was entirely correct about what I would require later.

Personally I loved history, social science and geography, but none of that has been useful in working life. Being good at mathematics is prerequisite for nearly all well-paying jobs, humanities are not of much use except for being able to write and read well.

Remember that school isn't only about acquiring skills to leverage your lifetime earnings. Education is about understanding and learning the world as a whole. So understanding humanities history the land that we live in and everything else under the sun is important.

Imagine that all we were was measured by the salary that we make and not humans and human civilization. Might as well just hand over our lives to the robots now.

Hindsight bias?

This is also part of my point, e.g. having learned Italian for years was exhausting and mostly pointless when I did it, and nowadays I can somewhat understand it whenever I am in Italy, which is maybe every two years. Was that worth it for the level of skill I gained: probably not.

But I wouldn't be able to tell if some of the mental agility I have today (beyond languages) could be attributed to the fact that I was exposed to this language which differs from my first languages in multiple ways. The lessons you may take away from any given subject is not necessarily limited to its raw content.

This is a quite known topic in educational sciences, e.g. when answering the question why it still makes sense to teach kids how to do maths without a calculator in an age where you have it always in your pocket — that is because it (A) forms an intuition about mathematical correctness and (B) logical and numerical thinking gets trained as an side effect.

Ofc all of that doesn't happen when you are unlucky enough to have had bad teachers, but that wasn't the argument.

In my very limited experience as an educator (I worked as a teacher for two years at the trade school level), I completely agree with your excellent comment.

I would argue that sometimes students are right when they complaint about a subject being useless or obsolete (e.g. our network professor told us everything about the OSI protocol stack in great detail, and barely touched TCP/IP), but most of the time they don't know what will be useful later in life.

Yeah I mean, I can come up with 1000 lessons that would be utterly usless to 999 out of 1000 students in practise — but that wouldn't stop me from teaching those 1000 lessons in a way that really hooks those students to the topics discussed.

On the flipside you can take the most essential, practical and important topic and deliver it with such dullness that everybody falls asleep.

The first step in teaching (IMO) is to make people interested to hear what is being said. If your subject is useless and boring to most people you have to find a way to make it useful and interesting to them. This requires rethorical and social skills, good presentation skills and a deep understandingnand interest for the subjects to be thought.

In reality most subjects have interesting bits, but is the task of the teacher to make them relate to the world. If your prof thougth you about the OSI protocol stack so long everybody forgot its practical applications and how it binds together with higher level stuff, that is certainly knowledge, but it doesn't help you making it part of your understanding of the world.

Yeah, these are definitely points worth noting. Especially as in many cases, the way something is taught can have a huge effect on how well you do in it/understand it, and students will end up not liking subjects that they could have liked in university or the workplace.

So you also have to wonder how many potential math prodigies we've missed out on, simply because they had a bad maths education at school.

In my experience, people who are really good at something usually are at least average on many others. Thus they can do the minimum in other courses to pass, it's just a matter of working enough.

In my country, there are several students (12-18 years old) who can mix sport at high level (national championship) and a lighter school activity. They work like mad but they do it. But they have to prove there are good enough to get it, which is OK to me.

Being really good is not something you appreciate yourself, it's the others that notice.

In my country there is a system where a kid applying to high school gets accepted based on a standard test, or can skip the line by performing well on a contest organized by the ministry of education. In my class something like 80% of kids were admitted through contests. When applying to the university there's a similar thing, except it's much harder to skip the line, but universities are free to set up their own admission rules as long as the rules are based on the national standard test. In my case, the final admission score was calculated something like "90% maths 10% everything else"

That is an advantage of the British system. You have a wide education until 16 and sit a broad range of exams at that age (GCSEs) and then specialise in a few (most often three) subjects from 16 to 18.

You usually need to pass English and maths GCSEs, but universities mostly care about the subjects you do in the last two years (except for very competitive courses).

This can be a problem for those who want to keep options open until they are 18 (like my younger daughter).

Even the system up to 16 is pretty flexible. There is a huge range of available subjects - although most schools offer only a limited selection (my kids were out of school by secondary school age so we had a huge choice and did some less usual subjects like astronomy and Latin).

As someone who did my GCSE's but then moved abroad before my A Levels and ended up taking the International Baccalaureate, I'm in hindsight really glad I didn't do A Levels. Had I stayed in England I would have studied just maths, physics and chemistry. Being forced by the IB program to also study english, philosophy and economics really expanded my horizons and has been huge boon to me in my life and I'm really happy I was afforded the opportunity to do so.

I did IGCSE's (the international version as I lived in Indonesia) and AS/A levels myself, while a lot of my friends who went to a different school did IB and I generally disagree. My most hated school years were the IGCSE times, exactly because I was forced into learning about crap I didn't care about in the slightest, like English Literature when all I wanted to do was the various sciences and especially mathematics.

I feel like the IGCSE times were more than enough exposure to those other subjects to give me a reasonably well-rounded image of those subjects. Now, a decade later, I'm definitely glad I went the STEM route rather than ever touching on any humanities subjects in any amount of detail.

IGCSEs per se are a lot more flexible about that. You can do any subjects in any combination you like. Its a decision by the school to make English literature compulsory. Home educated kids often do not do it, on the other hand there are are huge number of subjects they can pick from: https://he-exams.fandom.com/wiki/Category:Subjects

British universities do often (usually?) require English language (or an equivalent) and maths (I)GCSEs, as do British employers and further education colleges etc. so its a really bad idea to skip those.

I do think its good to give kids a broad education, and for some it would be good to continue that for longer. For others (like you) its just boring.

I also think there should be more opportunities for adult education, so if you decide later in life that you would like to learn about English literature or physics or whatever you should have a chance to do it. AT the moment in the UK things seem to be going the other way, with an over expansion of universities sucking up money, and further education colleges that used to offer adult education putting the resources into "16 to 18" courses.

Same in the Netherlands, it's become more flexible even since I went through school. It sucks until about age 16 (or 17/18 if you take a higher level education that includes e.g. Latin / Greek), then you get to go to vocational education and either do a work/school combo (1 day a week of school), or continue fulltime school for 3-10 years (3 years for most associate's degrees, 4 for bachelor's, more for a master's, and often you can go from the one to a higher level if you choose to).

But yeah, until that age it sucks and a lot of people struggle because they have to do classes they aren't at all interested in.

> maybe you should be able to get an A++++

What does an A++++ mean? I guess it's equivalent of publishing a novel result/idea, solving a long standing conjecture sort of ability? If yes then I'd say the system does accommodate them. Terrance Tao for example was fast tracked and didn't get lost in the system.

Though it probably requires some effort from parents to figure out the right path for their prodigies.

>but success in school requires you to be successful in these subjects as well

It doesnt, at least in my country.

Here you have a few school leaving exams that you need to perform at

Math, native lang and english.

And one at advanced level, but its your choice when it comes to subject.

What you are talking about is GPA and GPA is meaningless tbf

That’s irrelevant to 99.99% of people. An A in math is not especially difficult to achieve.

To actually be meaningfully better at math you need to go far, far further than the coursework presented in schools, at which point it becomes an extra curricular which is already considered. If you’re a math savant proving novel theorems, they will notice that.

But nobody gives a shit if you’re just really, really good at factoring polynomials from Algebra 2 tests.

I was put into the "advanced" class in grade school, only to hate the increased homework load, and I missed my friends in the non-advanced class, so I intentionally refused to do the work so that I would be put back in the "regular" grade school classes. I was great at math, I taught myself fractions and algebra at a young age. I just didn't like spending so much time on the other subjects, they seemed too easy or too boring and took up too much school time. They wouldn't let me into the computer programming class in High School because I hadn't passed geometry, and the teacher was a total asshole - I failed his class, but I got an A in the make-up class with a different teacher. I got kicked out of electronics class because some other students stole stuff and blamed me for it - I had nothing to do with the theft, I was the teacher's favorite and had access to everything, I didn't need to steal anything, he gave me anything I wanted. God I hated High School so much.

After graduating High School, I couldn't really see myself sitting through 4 more years of basically the same subject material - history, English, social studies, etc... when all I really wanted to do is use my talent in electronics and computers that I'd been accumulating since I was 5 years old. So I went to a trade school for electronics and computers instead of a college, this was back in the late 80's.

I can't say that not going to college hurt my job prospects at all, I've been highly paid for many years for doing something I love. Jobs hired me based on experience, not because I went to a college. That may have changed a bit now, since some tech companies favor college graduates, but I've worked with some college graduates that are just dumb as shit and couldn't get anything done - not all are like that, but going to college isn't an indicator of success at all.

If you’re sufficiently good or accomplished at one thing then you’ll be fine. But most students aren’t. Most students who are good at math are just good at math. But if you win two golds at Math Olympiad while in high school or publish a groundbreaking result then your mediocre grades in history will be ignored.

But a 780 on the math SAT isn’t likely to put you in the company of people whose math is sufficient to ignore poor grades otherwise.

But if their overall SAT scores aren't good enough to get into the elite colleges, won't we just be denying the eccentric geniuses?

Well, the eccentric geniuses have already left the system... Frankly, if you go through the last 30 years, how many such geniuses you can find in American universities? I only see a little bit higher than average, so it seems that the system has already eliminated the geniuses.

> I only see a little bit higher than average

Could you share your source for statistics on "eccentric geniuses"?

I like to look at the backgrounds of the people who win the Nobel prize. Everyone is interdisciplinary.

For college and life in general, I think main skill needed is emotional regulation. Everything else flows from that.

The eccentric geniuses at these elite schools will end up doing stupid shit for a bank.

I'm honestly no genius but I can relate to R in that one way.

As a child I used to get all As and even got into a Stanford pre-collegiate program as a kid where I learned C++ and geometry.

Unfortunately after a surgery in 9th grade that left me unable to attend school for 3-4 months and just terrible QOL for about a year my grades slipped (went from A+ studen to C grade student) and I basically became average. I lost all interest in most subjects at school due to depression and other things.

My goal as a child was to get a Stanford JD/MD MBA (lol I know..), and today I have only a bachelors from a low ranked state college in business.

I enjoyed programming so much as a kid that one summer, so later in life I ended up going back to it. Taught myself enough in a month to get on some projects as a swe. Later I got lucky working at a unicorn company that IPO'd.

Now I am trying to build my own company and see how far I can get as a solo founder. Sometimes I wonder how my life would have turned out if it wasn't for that injury, but oh well. Shit happens, right?

Jeez sorry for the sob story but it feels good to get it off.

Another student at a martial arts gym unexpectedly gave me some advice that is somewhat common, but had an impact because the words came at the right time and from the right person: he kindly told me to never judge myself based on the person that I might have been, and to instead compare myself now to how I was a month ago.

I believe that any person here with an inkling of relatable technical experience can greatly appreciate the work you've been doing. Software development can be complicated and frustrating, especially when things don't work as you expect them to (but then, you learn and become better). Leading a business is very difficult, often due to sources of problems you don't expect (such as regulatory and legal requirements, accounting, and publicity).

Some people cruise on to great careers without facing many barriers. But many others face unexpected setbacks and have to manage them. A close friend of mine was living an overall good life until it was profoundly disrupted by a civil war in his home country. But he made it to my country where he began his undergraduate degree at a great university that he loves. A past colleague of mine spent much of her early twenties managing physical disability, but successfully received treatment and went on to graduate with an engineering degree. She has since landed a position at a top aerospace company that she really wanted to work at.

You are setting up a good life for yourself. Many people lack that kind of drive or struggle with executing ideas; several people I personally know would be very proud to one day experience just a small part of your successes so far.

Thank you for your kind response. I am happy for your friends and also the message you received at your gym.

Life is truly a journey unique to each one of us.

I’ve found peace and I carry a signed index card in my wallet on which I’ve written my “ethos”. It took me a long time to come up with it and I’m sure it’s common, but those 5 points are something I try to remain true towards.

Cheers mate, best.

yep ... we are all running our own individual races ... instead of reminiscing and thinking what coulda been ... better to look forward and look at what we can do now.

I missed out on theater and improvisational comedy only because I pigeonholed myself as a computer nerd and engineering type and almost nothing else.

I found that I have a certain knack for it and really enjoyed performing.

It is good to expose them. But that doesn't mean the previous point is backwards.

> College is the place to specialize in a subject.

In Europe maybe, but in America a lot of students receive their general purpose liberal arts education in College, and will then specialize later with a post graduate degree.

So what is high school for?

Also does the above apply also to the most selective and renowned institutions, or only to community colleges?

High school is preparing to be able to do a college education? A bachelor's isn't that trivial most of the time.

I'd say applies to most colleges, of any size. Community colleges tend to be more like trade schools

In Europe high school is when you get a generic education, and in college you choose your topic. So if you are a languages major you'll have no more math, if you're a STEM major you'll have no more history, if you're a philosophy major you might have logic and some history but no physics or linear algebra, and so on.

I studied computer science (M.Eng.) and I had to provide an English certification as a foreign language, but that was it. The only non-computer science, non-math, non-electronics courses were one semester of chemistry, one of economics and three of physics (which you could say is related to electronics though). So basically 15-20%.

Having to study more history or biology would have been a huge waste of time in a CS university, and I say that as someone who did more Latin and Greek than math and physics in high school.

To quote an artist friend: exposure is good until you die from it.

Being forced to do subjects that you hate is not exposure, it is being forced to do things which you are completely unsuited for.

I would go so far as saying that being forced to take music until 7th grade put me off any musical pursuits for the next 20 years. The less said about the torture disguised as education that is PE the better.

Yeah that's a common result of forced learning by lets be polite mediocre folks. Utter hate of the whole topic for easily 2 decades too. Then finding slowly my own personal way back to them, despite school.

If anything, current (and this is valid globally) school system is not designed at excellence at its core, its about raising an army of obedient but not too stupid citizens. And its not missed expectation, just look at what type of work they expect to fill in. Don't expect massive changes unless society changes itself.

Some narrow excellence is not what our society at large values, those few that made it through made it despite their environment.

Specialization does begin earlier than that. Most high schools in the US have advanced classes that students can opt in to, and there is the AP program.

Personally I think that we could do better by tailoring every student’s education to their abilities. Put in simplest possible terms, we could arrange classes by complexity rather than by year. Have one class for addition and subtraction, another for multiplication and division, then geometry, algebra, etc, etc. Then let students graduate from one to the next based on proven ability rather than by age. Do the same for language, history, etc. Let every student proceed through the courses at their own speed.

One such school:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AME_School

The kids that went there … some succeeded, some really struggled to adjust to other schools and environments.

> In 1992, there was a proposal to fully integrate the AME school with the ACT Government school system. However the idea floundered after the ACT Teachers Union amongst other things, knocked the idea on the head, due to compatibility issues. It felt the idea of having a school principal having selection over teaching staff was outside the scope of the Unions control. It came out fighting against the proposal.

Now there’s a depressing thing to read. Teacher’s unions are the worst.

A bit too late if you are comparing to football level of specialization to produce people like messi

"Exposure" would be spending much much less time on those subjects, especially the free home time. Then the number of subjects is practically infinite, so expecting "most" is just as unrealistic (and colleges also continue this "exposure")

It's good that public school exposes children to many subjects - hopefully most of them. So that they can discover if they click with one of them. The real danger is that someone never gets exposed to a subject at all. College is the place to specialize in a subject.

then why does this 'discovery process' have to continue into college? That was the OP's point. When money and time is on the line, let adults decide what they want to study. An 18-year-old is no longer a child.

The exposure to subjects isn't the problem, this is the problem: https://paulgraham.com/lesson.html

> It's good that public school exposes children to many subjects - hopefully most of them. So that they can discover if they click with one of them. The real danger is that someone never gets exposed to a subject at all. College is the place to specialize in a subject.

While some exposure is probably better on average than none, in some instances bad experiences can trip the fuse on developing an interest.

The rote nature of canned education, bad teachers, bad parents, or bullies can turn kids off of subjects they might otherwise come to love.

Is it "good", certainly, but I don't think most of the stuff is worth it in the technological world. Let kids follow their interests, keep the general stuff to a minimum and you will have a lot more of happy kids with who excel more.

To overemphasize in a complex topic as good | bad is overly simplistic and doesn't help at all. Hardly anything is complete good or completely bad, it's meaningless to make a black or white point.

The problem is that there is too much of this general exposure and specialization happens way too late once the brain is not as good at learning anymore. People peak in competitive fields when they are in early 20s or even before that. In our education system we are not even allowed to do the job before we are like 25 or later. There is only so much you can learn sitting in a chair listening to a professor. It's a completely backwards system that limits potential of about anyone with average+ intelligence.

It's good that schools expose children to many subjects.

It's not good at all that school reward being OK in every subject more than being really good in a handful of them. The school system is a mediocrity factory.

A subject "clicking" is strongly dependent on the teacher.

The miss, which in my state has changed recently, was kicking kids out eventually who failed one subject but were succeeding in others. Sure, that kid isn't going to an Ivy League school, but there's value in finding ways to make up for what they aren't getting versus producing a high school dropout with bleak prospects in today's society.

Agreed. Given that most people are not exceptional at anything it makes more sense to give them a well rounded education by exposing them to a lot of subjects to see what takes. And all the exceptional people, well, they're just gonna have to use their gifts to push through the monotony of the things they don't like while still pursing their passion.

Unless they are born wealthy or find a benefactor so they can go to private school or a gifted person school, that caters to their specific needs, it's the best we can do to serve everyone.

Ramanujan was, what, a 1 in 100,000,000 level genius? The gap between Ramanujan and the average class valedictorian is much wider than the gap between the class valedictorian and the average student. I think if we optimize schooling for people like him, we are probably not going to do as well for the other 99,999,999 students.

We probably aren’t going to get it quite right for that 1, either. Extreme outlier geniuses are extreme outliers and there’s no easily generalizable pattern around them. The ideal education for a young Ramanujan is probably different from the ideal education for a young Von Neumann. Of course in an ideal world we would give an extremely individualized education to every child, but that’s much easier said than done. Failing that maybe we could identify and then invest in the extreme geniuses, but that’s what we already try to do.

> People like R would be lost in the sea of averages because their genius would be kept shut by norms.

Well norms were in place when R did his work. Even the most strict systems have made concessions for extraordinary people. It is just that mostly average people go around claiming they'd be genius, had system not smothered their creativity.

> I wonder how many geniuses we skip on because doing the chores of homework..

I think from not many to hardly any as I can't believe if kids who are really genius can just go on for more than a decade of primary schooling without ever finding outlet for their creativity.

If you are optimizing for finding geniuses like R, you may be right. Many probably fall through the cracks of the educational system. But I don't think this is what we are or should be optimizing for. The vast majority of people would end up unemployable if they weren't "forced" to study things they don't enjoy because some skills are just more employable than others. You're lucky if you enjoy engineering/science, but not so lucky if you only care about art literature.

Well, my solution would be this:

Instead of giving kids grades with a ceiling, each subject would have (unlimited number of) levels of proficiency, and to attain a level, kids would have to pass a test (demonstrate certain skill). The choice of subjects and levels to attain would be up to each kid, but they would have to choose to do something (working at getting next level of something would be mandatory). (Although perhaps they should be encouraged to explore different subjects and attain some minimum of levels.)

Also, I would group kids by subject, and not by age. So kids of slightly different levels would train together, and the higher level kids would be obligated to help kids on lower level to learn, while lower level kids were taught to be respectful of higher level kids.

>Also, I would group kids by subject, and not by age.

I would be cautious with this, they may have the same academic ability but a large gap in social skills.

Why is that worse than having large gaps in academic ability and social skills?

> My class valedictorian went on to become a doctor and while that is certainly impressive to me, there are many doctors and he practices (like almost every other doctor) and isn’t pushing the boundaries of medical science.

I think in this example you are vastly overestimating the “average genius”, in comparison to those rare few who truly push the boundaries. We tend to do this because of the way our brains estimate things of significant scale, like the fact that keeps floating around social media about how bad most of us are at having a concept of the difference between thousands, millions, and billions.

There are many valedictorians (of the order of some per thousand) but few Ramanujans (of the order of tens per billion?), and gearing an overall education system specifically for those few could do a disservice to a great many others at every level below. Ramanujan was not the result of an effective education system anyway: like a lot of other world changing minds he was largely self-taught. Perhaps there is room to encourage more investigation to the side of the curriculum a lot more than we currently do, but the problems that stop other "Ramanujan"s, that could so easily have scuppered Ramanujan himself, are usually not caused by the education system but by other societal problems (death & disease, racism, sexism, caste or class biases, etc.) not giving them a chance to explore & self-learn or have useful access to education & other resources at all. Addressing those problems will help a much wider chunk of the population, as well as reducing constraints for the truly exceptional geniuses¹ amongst them.

----

[1] And of course those non-geniuses who luck out and have that one brilliant idea. Their contribution is often vital for progress too, and I'd wager that there are orders of magnitude more of them than there are true geniuses!

You're applying the logic of "that someone" is "Ramanujan", but the system isn't designed around students at the extremes.

Generally I think: "Unless you're Ramanujan, then you should probably have some breadth to your knowledge rather than pure depth" is not a terrible policy.

I have always been only interested in the 'exact' sciences since I was a little kid; I did not do other things even if I had to. I just didn't turn up; I was doing 'more important stuff'. I graduated with a special letter from the queen; all aces for exact sciences and the rest massive fail. It turned out that this made me a good programmer and employer, so I made a shitload of money (in eu terms; pocket change compared to what usa peers did). But it was a big mistake; now I really want to learn languages and history, but I never had the basics as a kid so I struggle far more than my peers. My ability to memorize things is not very good as I never needed to in school; formulas and code is not really memorizing as such I found. It is a massive regret. There are no do overs, but I guess even if I could time travel, I would've not be able to explain this to myself enough for me to listen.

What we need to do is, make the subjects interesting to learn with tech.

It may now be possible with Videos, Games and VR.

Tech is not necessary. You just have to make the subjects interesting to learn. Good teachers are way more value than they are valued, and will make the classes interesting to learn.

No, the subjects are already interesting. What we need is to pay teachers a good, above-average wage, and to continuously invest in their professional development throughout their careers. Only a good, well-trained teacher can make a subject interesting and engaging.

Now think about the college admission process in the US, where kids are expected to take arbitrary number of AP courses and get 5 in all of them, and write world class essays about passion and solving world hunger while excelling at several extra curricular activities and showing leadership and so on and on…..

> I wonder how many geniuses we skip on because doing the chores of homework and getting through boring classes is busywork and memorization for the sake of getting an A.

Zero? If you qualify as a prodigy, it is apparent from a young age. Maths prodigies are especially easy to distinguish. Given a little time, they will self-learn, grok and innovate on anything you throw at them and will likely attend higher education early unlike "the brilliant kid"s who will struggle with advanced concepts all their lives.

It seems you are assuming that all child prodigies are polymaths (no pun intended).

There are children with exceptional mental abilities in a limited range of topics or even a single topic, such as math, music or drawing, They may struggle to various degrees with subjects or life skills that don't correspond closely with their specific topics of interest and ability.

The best way to learn is to play and come up with stuff yourself. But playing doesn't get you anywhere specific. People who play around a lot, clearly know much more and in depth than everyone else, but when you hand them a random checklist, chances are they won't know a few.

Standardized tests are screwing everything up. People who learn on their own might stumble upon the entire alphabet except for the letter "B," but standardized tests want only the first 5 letters. Hence the incredible efficiency of knowing the entire alphabet is thrown under the bus in favor of making sure none of the 5 are missing.

You can't teach someone to play, and there is no way to play systematically, at scale, and with guaranteed results. All the incredible people I know have some hole in "basic" knowledge, and if it is revealed nobody cares about them being miles ahead elsewhere. "Their basics seem lacking, in the name of stability and norm, throw them back to square one."

Following standards never produces something new, but the world is so afraid of failure and lack of definitions in "messing around" that they are willing to trade their souls for it.

Take any hacker here on HN, and ask how much they learned in CS class vs. how much they learned messing around with Perl on a weekend.

Standardized tests are tool for systems to be able to compare and work toward a uniformity of outcome. Expecting it to help anything beyond that is a foolish errand. Public schools need to educate million of people each years with differing deposition and life circumstances and do so with relative competency.

Excellence requires individual attention and cannot be so readily mass produced.

> and do so with relative competency

I dispute this on the grounds that students are going through American schools and many of them don't even know how to read.

92% of adults know how to read to varying level.[1]

The number, while high, is not satisfactory. Clearly, we also want adults to be functionally and not pass a super low bar of being able to read a sentence which 92% does not care to distinguish, but it is not fact true that "many of them don't even know how to read".

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_in_the_United_States

In terms of not being able to read, I would count 8% as "many"? Select a group of ten random Americans and you'd expect one of them to be illiterate - that's appalling.

Right there you have 8%. But it is worse because it says they're able to "read to varying level", which includes 2nd grade level, or barely at all.

Over 20% of American adults have a literacy proficiency at or below Level 1. This is defined as "difficulty using or understanding print materials" and "may struggle to understand texts beyond filling out basic forms." So 1 out of every 5 Americans is functionally illiterate. I would say that counts as "many of them don't even know how to read."

I was this person, also from India. I am interested in most topics under the sun, but was never interested in being an excellent student, apart from math where I was ranked in top 30 in my national olympiads.

I got mediocre marks in high school but thankfully did well in JEE. Now I have a decent PhD in math with an extremely mediocre school record.

Unfortunately, the purpose of the education system at this stage of human civilization development is not the realization of individual potential or the creation of geniuses. Geniuses, however cool they may be, are not necessarily the most effective increase in unit production efficiency per person that you can create. The point of the education system is essentially to create workers that make the economy productive.

I don’t think you can say, even all these years later, that Ramanujan, that mathematician, made the economy more productive, but he certainly increased the high watermark of human civilization and created an inspiring story for individual achievement, creative realization, and artistic and mathematical expression. There’s something sublime and transcendental—no pun intended—in the kind of truths that he was able to tease out and the unique, idiosyncratic way that he expressed them. Sort of like a Basquiat of mathematics, I suppose. Or probably better than that.

That aside, I think it’s unfortunate that he died of cholera or something, isn’t it? I mean, he apparently didn’t think it was unfortunate that he was going to die. And certainly, the formal education system didn’t necessarily fail him, in that a professor at a university recognized his genius and sponsored him to the UK.

But I think, in a sense that you identify, there is this general failure of the education systems in the human civilizations on this planet to foster perhaps the best thing that they could be fostering. They’re more like a manufacturing assembly line to produce cogs as part of the economic machine.

Not that there’s anything necessarily wrong with that. I think it’s good that people can have a role to play in the larger economy and that there are pathways to bring people to the level of capability where they can contribute like that. But the lack of pathways that these systems provide—those that could contribute to the creation of the full realization and expression of individual potential—I think is sad. And I think that’s what you’re kind of identifying.

a very clear analysis, that's also very well written

Thank you, kindly! I dictated it to ChatGPT which paragraphed but kept verbatim. I was on a roll! Hehehe :)

But if you notice the people who are in administrative positions are the people who are “well rounded” not those who are good at one thing.

Even within academic stem fields you have people who know how to promote and speak and they have the most influence.

I guess what I’m trying to say is the system is mostly selecting for what it wants.

> People like R would be lost in the sea of averages because their genius would be kept shut by norms.

I have a family member who scored perfectly in math on the final exam of middle school but failed other subjects so badly that he couldn't advance to high school. What frustrated us even more was that the next year, he achieved a perfect score in math again but still failed overall, leaving him no choice but to drop out of school.

This story has stuck with me for years, highlighting how our education system focuses solely on maintaining an overall average score above a certain threshold without considering how individual subjects are mastered.

I can’t help but think that if he had been allowed to pursue mathematics, he might have accomplished something great. It’s really disheartening.

> But what if those just aren’t interesting to someone?

That doesn't matter. A student is unable to evaluate the value of unknown subjects and the synergy between subjects. People are often unmotivated to do important things, because we are just lazy s**.

> I wonder how many geniuses we skip on because doing the chores of homework and getting through boring classes is busywork and memorization for the sake of getting an A.

And how many lunatics making wrong decisions did we prevented by forcing them to learn necessary things?

> Meanwhile, hardly anyone actually remembers anything about those topics

They are engraved in your mind. Even when you don't remember every little detail, they still helped you in forming your understanding of the world.

You seem like someone who thinks things through, so I suspect you’ll know what I’m about to say, but given the sentiment of your comment, I think it’s worth explicitly sharing this:

The fact that your class valedictorian went on to be a doctor is great. Not everyone needs to push the boundaries. Your classmate may end up saving/helping countless lives.

He isn't saying that being a doctor isn't great.

He is saying that the people who add most value to science isn't always the ones who are at the top of the hierarchy in the school system.

Performing well in school is like a F1 racing car: very fast, but can only go on paths very well trodden already, i.e. paved road.

Please excuse my misinterpreting OP’s comment, and thank you for clarifying.

There is an Isaiah Berlin essay called The Hedgehog and the Fox. In it he divides artists/philosophers into two categories: foxes and hedgehogs. It is inspired by a fragment of ancient Greek poetry which reads, "the fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one great thing." In other words, some great thinkers looked at the world through the lens of one big idea, and others can't be easily reduced.

Two major caveats. The first is that Berlin never wanted the essay to be taken all that seriously. To him, it was an intellectually parlor game. But if TvTropes is any indication, people are addicted to classifying things into simplistic categories, so the fox and hedgehog game took off.

Second, the rest of the essay actually challenges the binary by focusing on Leo Tolstoy, an unimaginably creative thinker and writer who, according to Berlin, was a fox by nature but wanted to be a hedgehog.

Why did I share all of that? Well, without taking the categories too seriously I do think some people are more foxy by nature and others are more hedgehog-esque. I've always thought of myself as a fox (which to be honest, might limit me), and I had no interest in focusing on a single subject in school. At worst, I'm a dilettante who can have a surface level conversation about any intellectual topic at a party. At best, I can muster up a real enthusiasm about trying something entirely new.

I say all this not just because I'm running on 4 hours of sleep, but also because I think foxes get a bad rap. Not everybody should strive to be Ramanujan, because it isn't in everybody's temperament.

You’re absolutely right. The education system was meant to be a factory of production line workers, at the cost of missing out on geniuses who don’t care about other subjects.

This system is meant for a worker that no longer exists. If someone wants to specialize at the age of 13 and has shown reasonable aptitude in that subject, then let them do it. Sure, give them a well rounded education, but don’t weight those grades anywhere close to equally.

What better system do you propose to identify and nurture the one-in-a-million genius (the productive genius, not the crazy genius) while also serving tens of thousands of smart strivers, as well as the vast majority of the rest?

I don't think we can or should design a system optimized for that one-in-a-million genius. It would be worse for everyone else, and ultimately for society.

I'm pretty sure I only have a successful career because I deeply enjoy programming and have a slightly neurotic obsession with code quality and ergonomics. I can't fathom giving enough of a shit about anything I don't enjoy for long enough to be successful otherwise.

These people are still out there. When I was in high school we had the normal people, then people who took advanced placement stuff, then the "super nerds" who were at the top of all the advanced placement stuff with perfect grades, and then there was this one guy who was most of the way through all the advanced math classes at the nearby university. Same guy was in one of my English classes, and was failing. More or less he couldn't be bothered.

Sadly the later part of your comment may hold - I don't remember what ended up happening with him, whether he graduated high school or what. Hopefully at that level you just disappear into academia and not off the face of the earth in general.

> every extraordinary person [was] 1 step away from being forgotten, and got some huge universal break

Being a genius is a phenomenon of the individual, but being able to pursue one's talent is a social aspect of the phenomenon of civilisation.

I agree. That's also why I just don't believe at all when people say we have a shortage of talent (as in we need stuff like H1B) there is a ton of talent wasted. Everyone know that smart person who is working a menial job.

In my experience it’s not talent but opportunity that is in short supply. One of the smartest people I know is an electrician, simply because he grew up in a rural area and couldn’t afford to leave for college.

Everyone here seems to have missed the significance of L.J. Rogers in this story.

Exposing students to other subjects is what make them discover what they like. I think the optimal balance would be studying a wide number of subjects, but being able to select for an even larger set.

"...they weren't interesting to him". That’s how I felt about mathematics. History, literature and language were the areas I was interested in, for example. It seems to me that an individual’s strengths aren’t necessarily indicative of an all-encompassing genius. Rather, they are often more focused, tied to specific subjects or fields in which that person naturally excels. That's not to say an individual can't have a wide range of strengths.

Meanwhile, I'd be working a backhoe in the middle of nowhere Louisiana if someone hadn't put books in my hands and forced me to read them under penalty of failure. Standards aren't standards because they're fun. They're standards because you need them to have fully functioning, working societies.

The US political system is currently in a state of utter dysfunction because people have decided that facts "just aren't interesting."

Education is optimized for average citizen who must work through boring tasks every day. I feel like geniuses probably more like survive in school rather than being supported.

> But what if those just aren’t interesting to someone?

The school I went to grades 1--12 tried to be especially good so taught Latin, French. Some of the girls were in ballet. MIT came recruiting. The year before me two guys went to Princeton and ran against each other for President of the Freshman Class (whatever that meant!). In my class, one guy (did nearly as well on the SAT Math as I did!!!) went to MIT.

In one of the early grades, I got dumped on (adenoids, couldn't hear well until that got fixed). Apparently the teachers talked to each other and had me with a dunce cap until I proved otherwise. In 1st algebra, discovered math: I liked it, was good at it, was the best in the class, proved myself, got sent to a math tournament, couldn't get dumped on, etc. Continued that way: Was so good at math that I got an unspoken but powerful by in any subject, e.g., English literature, I didn't like.

Got sent to summer math/physics enrichment programs.

So, for that example, for

> But what if those just aren’t interesting to someone?

some schools will let a student who is good at some one subject get a by in other subjects.

Really, schools, K-Ph.D., have a tough time finding any students really good in even just one subject, are thrilled when they find one that is, and don't want to block him/her because he viewed fictional literature as a not very credible presentation of common reality?

That by pattern continued: In grad school, they insisted that I take their computer science course. My background in computing was already nicely above that course, and I'd already taught a similar course at Georgetown. Soooo, mostly laughed at the course: E.g., they had a test question about Quicksort (very common topic then), and I answered with material they didn't know.

The best case of by: Took a reading course; decided to address a question in the pure math of optimization; two weeks later had a surprising theorem and from that an answer to the question. The work, clearly publishable, was instant news all over the department, some profs angry that I had done well, others pleased. Angry/pleased, the work got me a general purpose by, a gold crown, immunity from any criticism, and an unspoken, implicit, easy path to the rest of the Ph.D.

your thought reminded me of the radio program about Jean Shepherd getting his Class A radio license.

https://www.rfcafe.com/miscellany/factoids/Jean-Shepherd-Cla...

on youtube as well

Thanks a lot for writing that. I agree 100% with you.

But I always wondered how polymath like Leonard davinci and Isaac newton that are excellent in many area are possible.

Agreed.

It's the crazy ones that push humanity forward. We lose far more than we can imagine by not enabling even just one of them. This is one of the most important problems for us to fix.

We shouldn't need crazy people to push the boundary. Rather, the crazier you are, the more likely you will flame out.

People who are "weird" and yet are entirely functional are the best of both world and a much rarer combination.

You're assuming it's luck. But maybe we're actually good at identifying boundary-pushing geniuses? There are huge, huge incentives for being good at that.

School is for training good test-takers, not finding geniuses.

you can't serve two masters.

How would you characterize R's master and the "normie" master?

Honestly I suspect a lot of potentially able people get left by the wayside in our lowest cost educational system. It's particularly tough on neurodiverse people, which one has to suspect included Ramanujan.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com