Hacker News Reader

Doing well in the Physics Olympiad is not the same as doing well in physics.

In the Physics Olympiad, you solve simple problems based on well-understood formulae. In physics, you create new knowledge. It may be telling that China has won only three physics Nobel prizes, and all three of the winners got their PhDs in the US.

I admire your dedication to working hard on physics, but I think that creative, effortful practice is the key, not relentless drill.

Thank you wwalker3 for your keen response; however, I going to have to both agree and disagree - cliché through it is.

Doing well in the Physics Olympiad is a prerequisite to doing well in physics. Yes, I agree, creating knowledge requires a creative flare; however, I don't believe such heights can be achieved without first going through "the relentless drill". I'll use to example of literature to better illustrate my point. No doubt Hemingway's precision and restrain in writing was a creative leap; but that was founded on years of drilling; years of practicing alternative styles; years of relentless practice. Only then are creative insights possible.

First comes the drill; then comes the "creative, effortful practice".

Your point is well taken, but "creative, effortful practice" also requires a foundation of creative and critical thinking. Like physics, critical thinking is a skill that should be learned and practiced, preferably from a young age and alongside your other training.

One of the deficiencies in the Chinese educational system is that critical thinking simply isn't taught. The SOLE focus is consumption and rote regurgitation of material. I'm currently attending a top university in Beijing, and one thing I find strange is the incurious nature of many of the Chinese students. They've simply never been taught how to question things or contextualize knowledge.

Sure, there are a few highly creative thinkers, but they've had to be entirely autodidactic.

and one thing I find strange is the incurious nature of many of the ... students. They've simply never been taught how to question things or contextualize knowledge.

Sure, there are a few highly creative thinkers, but they've had to be entirely autodidactic.

This sounds like every student body I've ever encountered anywhere in the world. Do you think the problem is worse in Beijing (what university?) than at Berkeley or Stanford?

Full disclosure: I'm an American attending Beijing Normal University, but I have friends (both foreign and Chinese) at Tsinghua and Beida (Beijing University).

I'll agree with you that most people, everywhere, are incurious. That's not a China problem, it's a human problem. It's particularly striking, though, at schools like Beida, Tsinghua, and BNU.

The students at those schools are, quite literally, the best and the brightest that China has to offer. The selectivity for those schools is astounding, and your exam scores have to be off the charts. EVERYBODY wants to attend those schools, so every person at those schools had to beat out tens of thousands of competitors. They're wicked smart, definitely smarter than me and probably smarter than you. Driven, too. Think MIT, CalTech, Stanford, Harvard, and then turn it up a notch.

Despite the aggressive intellect of these students, I often get a feeling of... intellectual passiveness. I've got to be careful here, because I don't want to give the impression that people here are stupid or inferior. They're not. It's just that in conversation I often feel like I'm talking to someone who's never properly learned how to question things. That's surprising, especially when I'm talking to someone who is obviously both brilliant and ambitious.

There's always exceptions, and the cream will always naturally rise to the top. I'm sure people can produce a ton of counter-examples. Things are also (slowly) changing, as the internet is producing a new and vibrant intellectual forum. However, I think that any intellectual "spark" still has to be self-produced. The Chinese educational system is hostile to it, even at the higher levels.

I agree that there should be sufficient drill, but it sounds like the Chinese have taken it too far, and are eating up time that might be more profitably spent learning more advanced theories.

I could spend a year practicing simple dynamics problems using F=ma and force diagrams if my goal is to do well in the Physics Olympiad. But if I want to be a physicist, most of that time would be better spent going on to Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics once I've got the basics solid.

Even if China's universities had developed first-class physics departments 30 years ago, you wouldn't see the effect in Nobel prizes yet.

I guess you're referring to Daniel C. Tsui, Yáng Zhènníng, and Lǐ Zhèngdào. Yáng and Lǐ won their Nobel in 1957. Lǐ got his Ph.D. in the late 1940s; Yáng got his in 1942. China in the 1930s and 1940s was not only a desperately poor undeveloped country; it was also being invaded by Japan. Nobody will argue with you if you say studying physics in China in the 1930s and 1940s was a bad bet.

The physics Nobelists in 2006, 2007, and 2008 got their Ph.D.s in 1974 (Mather), 1970 (Smoot), 1970 (Fert), 1969 (Grünberg), 1972 (Kobayashi), 1967 (Masukawa), and 1952 (Nambu, D.Sc. rather than Ph.D.). So really what we learn from China's lack of physics Nobel prizes in recent years is that China's physics schools were terrible in the 1950s and 1960s. The Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution were happening there in the 1960s, and the problems with Chinese educational outcomes included things like "widespread illiteracy" and "professors sent to prison camps because students thought they were unpatriotic", not problems like "too much time spent on rote learning".

I agree that the Physics Olympiad is not the same as doing physics research; but people who can't do well in things like the Physics Olympiad (as it's been described here) lack the foundation to do physics research.

In computer science, there have recently been some very substantial results out of Chinese universities; Wang Xiaoyun et al.'s breaks of MD5 and SHA-0 and attack on SHA-1 in 2004 and 2005 come to mind. She got her Ph.D. at Shandong in 1993. So I am optimistic that in the coming years there will be many significant results from Chinese universities.

>> The Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution were happening there in the 1960s, and the problems with Chinese educational outcomes included things like "widespread illiteracy" and "professors sent to prison camps because students thought they were unpatriotic", not problems like "too much time spent on rote learning".

Mao, of course, hated patriotism and China's past with a passion and did everything in his power to destroy its history. Shrines, historical landmarks (except ones dedicated to him), books about China's history -- all destroyed, all because they gave the Chinese a sense that there was more to China than Mao Tse Tung, something he couldn't tolerate. The students who tortured and murdered schoolteachers during the late sixties were from the Maoist (left-wing) of the Chinese Communist Party. They were the Red Guards, the vanguard of those carrying out Mao's orders to destroy the past.

My father-in-law was one of those people sent to the aforementioned prison camps, and it wasn't for being "unpatriotic". It was because he (a Communist most of his adult life) was branded a "right-winger" because he started becoming concerned with some of the small things wrought by the local socialism, like millions starving to death. His best friend was forced by the Maoists to inform on him, which (in different ways) destroyed both of them.

As for being "unpatriotic", my father-in-law (as I discovered during a recent trip there) is still remembered in Hubei province as a leader in the fight against the Japanese. A fight where he was wounded so badly he was literally left for dead and taken to the morgue area of a field hospital before someone noticed he was still breathing.

After his (guaranteed) conviction as a right-winger during the Cultural Revolution, he spent ten years having his health destroyed in the camps. He was allowed one egg a week for protein, often cooked in used motor oil.

My wife (born 1951) spent much of her childhood hungry all the time. For years. She, of course, was one of the lucky ones. Lucky, even though she got stung by bees a lot. This happened because she and her friends wanted, just occasionally, to taste something sweet. So they would catch bees and remove the stingers from them and squeeze tiny drops of sweetness into their mouths. This didn't get rid of the hunger pangs of course, but it gave them a small bit of pleasure.

A few months ago my wife had a intense nightmare. I comforted her for a bit and then, when she had calmed down, asked her what was wrong. She was deeply ashamed and refused to tell me at first, but I eventually convinced her that by describing the problem she would lessen its power. So she told me. And since there's some anonymity here, I'll tell you.

One day, when she was about nine years old, the hunger pains became too great for her and another little boy. So the boy caught the neighbor's cat and killed it. My wife helped him cook it and eat it. This was how my wife, as gentle a soul as you'll ever meet and a lover of animals, spent her girlhood. I wish that I could indulge, as kragen does, in a bit of historical revisionism and change her nightmares. I can't. She may go to her grave with her nightmares.

For those interested, I recommend the bestselling book _Mao: The Unknown Story_ by Jung Chang and historian Jon Halliday, a result of a decade of intense research. Chang's earlier bestseller _Wild Swans_ is also a great read. Based on many discussions with my wife and her friends (all about Chang's age and social class), I can vouch for its general validity.

My apologies (except to kragen) for the long and somewhat contentious post, but I hope you can understand the intensity of my emotion on this. The people who suffered these horrors need a voice, not lies.

Fuck communism.

Thank you very much! I'm sorry I missed the distinction between "loyalty to the party" and "loyalty to the country" or patriotism. I think you have illustrated better than I ever could that China in the 1960s had much bigger problems than cram school.

From your post I think I might have offended you but I am not sure how. Please accept my apologies.

kragen -- Very classy of you to write what you just wrote. My compliments.

>> From your post I think I might have offended you but I am not sure how.

I was reacting to the fact that your original post contained lots of detailed knowledge of recent Chinese educational history, but evidenced no sense of China's recent politics. I took this as a sign of disingeniousness. I'm happy to see that I was wrong.

>> "loyalty to the country" or patriotism

Patriotism is very unpopular among today's bien pensants, partly because it's widely conflated (both by supporters and critics) with nationalism. They're very different, I think. Patriotism is simply love of country. That means wanting the best for it and its people and carries no implication of wanting less for any other country. In fact, since free and wealthy countries are not a burden on others, part of patriotism becomes actively wanting the best for other countries as well, since (via trade and reduction of conflict) our country becomes better off as well.

Nationalism is comparative. It's "we're better than you", or "we will be better than you" or "we will be better than you, even if we have to stomp your brains out". This almost always leads to bad things happening to both countries, the opposite of what any true patriot wants.

>> I'm sorry I missed the distinction between "loyalty to the party" and "loyalty to the country" or patriotism.

Political parties will always, to some extent, put their own interests ahead of those of the country. When there is no representative government (as in Mao's China), the pressure to put the country's interests first (i.e., patriotism) is largely severed.

>> Please accept my apologies.

No need to apologize to me. My suffering has been limited to listening to the stories of my wife and her friends (or more exactly, the friends who survived).

I couldn't agree more.

Forcing oneself to do tasks is a pretty sure way to shut down creativity.

I'm currently [one of] the best physics students in the UK and I'd pay anything to have had an uprising like that,

Sure, because you are (unrealistically) imagining yourself compelled to excel at your current aspiration. Consider instead the case where you were forced to put in 10000 hours becoming a master concertina player.

* 1) A productive society is one with experts. (2) Expertise is only accomplished with relentless practice. (C) The most productive society will be accomplished if citizens are made to constantly work at their discipline.*

Who do you admire and look up to? Did they have childhoods chained to the oar, compelled to excel with discipline through fear? Is that how they came to achieve amazing things?

I doubt it. I'm not a physicist at all, but I know at least that Richard Feynman and Freeman Dyson did not.

I'm a westerner working in China for years and hiring computer science graduates from the top tier universities. The quality of their education is shockingly poor. The Chinese education system is destructive and collectivist, promoting conformity of thought and narrowness of vision. Students graduate in to a world where connections, wealth, accident of birth and not talent determine your success in life.

You should be glad you didn't grow up in such a system. Be happy you have a shot at participating in something of a meritocracy, be it academic or corporate.

I'm uncertain as to how your comment is upmodded so much with statements like this:

'Students graduate in to a world where connections, wealth, accident of birth and not talent determine your success in life.'

This is clearly true everywhere in the world, and if you meant to say that this is MORE true in China, then you better rethink because there is far more opportunity there right now compared to most places in the world. Might I suggest a few reasons why you cannot higher the 'best' cs graduates:

The best will go where the money is, are you offering enough money? A lot will go overseas. Another good reason is CS is not where the money is at in China. You must also remember that IT is a new field in China, and not long ago a computer and the internet was a luxury, ditto for the education of CS.

I am a Chinese who moved to the Australia when I was 9, the education system here seemed to me like kindergarten at the start, it was just play all day and do nothing. This moved to Chinese primary school year 4 level at the start of high school.

Anyway, although I attended one of the top public schools (my year was very strong), it provides no where near the same rigor nor depth of education, and most importantly the majority of students here did not actually want to learn, which was probably the one thing I hated most about this system, nobody cared, what a waste of youth and talent.

Chinese students at the end of high school are amongst the most well educated in the world, not to mention the vast differences in education and life culture, which a lot of westerners are ignorant about.

The big fallacy of the Chinese education system is that its hard to get IN to a university, and once you're there you're pretty much assured graduation (or the mentality is there), this is perhaps the reverse of western society and needs to be fixed.

(1) A productive society is one with experts.

Not according to Henry Ford: http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext05/hnfrd10.txt

If ever I wanted to kill opposition by unfair means I would endow the opposition with experts. [...]

None of our men are "experts." We have most unfortunately found it necessary to get rid of a man as soon as he thinks himself an expert--because no one ever considers himself expert if he really knows his job. A man who knows a job sees so much more to be done than he has done, that he is always pressing forward and never gives up an instant of thought to how good and how efficient he is. Thinking always ahead, thinking always of trying to do more, brings a state of mind in which nothing is impossible. The moment one gets into the "expert" state of mind a great number of things become impossible. [...]

As I have said, we do not hire experts--neither do we hire men on past experiences or for any position other than the lowest. [...]

It is particularly easy for any man who never knows it all to go forward to a higher position with us. [...]

There is not a single man anywhere in the factory who did not simply come in off the street. [...]

there is the pressing to take away the necessity for skill in any job done by any one. The old-time tool hardener was an expert. He had to judge the heating temperatures. It was a hit-or-miss operation. The wonder is that he hit so often. The heat treatment in the hardening of steel is highly important--providing one knows exactly the right heat to apply. That cannot be known by rule-of-thumb. It has to be measured. We introduced a system by which the man at the furnace has nothing at all to do with the heat. He does not see the pyrometer--the instrument which registers the temperature. Coloured electric lights give him his signals. [...]

The length of time required to become proficient in the various occupations is about as follows: 43 per cent. of all the jobs require not over one day of training; 36 per cent. require from one day to one week; 6 per cent. require from one to two weeks; 14 per cent. require from one month to one year; one per cent. require from one to six years. The last jobs require great skill--as in tool making and die sinking.

It makes sense that if you measure success by the same yardstick that drives education, the more highly educated will win. The Physics Olympiad is testing basically the same skills that a typical high-school physics education in China teaches. Naturally they'd do well at it.

The question is whether those skills are what makes a successful physicist. And I'd guess that they're only a small subset of the skills necessary for original research. Yeah, they're a necessary condition, but they're very far from a sufficient one - and perhaps some of the time spent on drill would be better off directed towards working on those other skills like creativity.

Thank you for responding nostrademons.

I'll answer your second point as concisely as possible. First, I don't intend to demean creativity; in fact, I intend - at the moment, of course - to pursue a career in the philosophy of science. And philosophy, I hope we all agree, holds creativity and originality at its epicenter.

I merely state, as you do, that mastering the basic skills of physics is a "necessary condition" to becoming a great physicist. I, however, put a reasonable threshold of 10,000 hours on this mastery.

I intend to defend the position that these 10,000 of practice should be worked through as quickly as possible and as early as possible; alike how the Chinese high school system works. I think this is a reasonable position to take.

Note: I don't intend to comment on the positives/negatives Chinese education past this high school, i.e., university.

> I intend to defend the position that these 10,000 of practice should be worked through as quickly as possible and as early as possible; alike how the Chinese high school system works. I think this is a reasonable position to take.

That's actually the part I have a problem with...

I was a physics major for most of college. There were 3 of us (Rachel, Nathaniel, and myself) in my entering class that entered with a full year of AP credits, i.e. we had studied & practiced a lot beforehand and came in with good skills. We all had big ambitions: Rachel wanted to be a researcher for NASA at JPL, Nathaniel and I wanted to be hotshot theoretical physicists that made fundamental contributions to knowledge.

Rachel dropped the major at the beginning of her sophomore year. She graduated with a geology/music double major, wanted to work for USGS for a while, actually worked there and discovered it wasn't all that great, and is now happily doing a Ph.D in geology.

I dropped the major midway through sophomore year, picked it up again junior year, and dropped it for good in my last semester. I graduated with a degree in CS, worked for a startup, founded a startup, and am now happily working for Google.

Nathaniel finished the major, went to grad school, took a sabbatical from grad school where he worked in a bakery, and is now back in grad school. He plans to finish his physics Ph.D, but now wants to be a baker after receiving it.

Meanwhile, the folks who are successfully doing physics Ph.Ds often came in with no prior experience.

The problem with the Chinese system is it leaves no room for being wrong about your direction. When I was 18, I was certain I wanted to be a theoretical physicist. When I was 24, I was certain I wanted to do startups. In neither case would I have guessed that I'd end up at a gigantic software company.

> it leaves no room for being wrong

Precisely and concisely the problem. Now, I am particularly interested in some discussion (somewhere else) on how or whether a "best of both worlds" is possible. Knowing that there are education specialists in both cultures, I can only think that 1. it is unsolvable and everything is compromise, 2. there are fundamental cultural incompatibilities, or 3. the specialists are clueless.

I come from India, a country that does really well in the IPhO and the IChO. Most finalists coming from here treat these olympiads as training for entrance examinations.

It is no surprise that Indians do not show this stellar a performance in the IMO: the math sections of entrance examinations have little in common with IMO problems (exclusively multiple-choice, heavy on calculus; no Euclidean geometry and number theory).

The IOI situation is quite embarrassing. I've been invited to the national training camp. Most of my fellow competitors don't know jack about algorithms. They aren't even aware of some basic STL functions. Some wrote an O(n^2) sorting algorithm in the qualifying rounds, others memorized a quicksort implementation. But they seem to be good problem solvers, or perhaps a little mathematically-inclined; one of the problems for qualifying involved coming up with a recurrence in two variables and then optimizing the program with DP. Nevertheless, people should expect a lot more from a large country recognized as an "IT hub".

You can't generate passion and creativity by squeezing 10,000 hours of [forced] practice into someone (especially really young kids). It also leaves little time to explore ('find what you love'). Passion, creativity AND skills (in a lot of cases the first two lead to skills anyway) is what drives people to do amazing things. I'm glad you found your passion, I think most of us here did; but without it we couldn't do [so well] what we're doing now.

Sounds like a great method to produce a mechanic but not a creator, i.e. an American Idol winner rather than a Bob Dylan.

My reply to wwalker3, hopefully, also, answers your concerns.

Sure, makes some sense. What interesting questions/problems are you looking at these days?

>who won? China, as usual.

I'll need to hear more details than that; China is the largest country in the world.

Don't forget, if everyone achieves expertise, the average person's productivity will still be in the middle of the pack.

The American system puts a great deal more money per capita into education than China. Therefore, in money terms, the success of Chinese students to become select cadres comes only through their own hard work and an excess of good luck, not to be attributed to the Chinese education system.

In order to do that they have to stream very early on, far before the Olympiads. I'm not sure what they use to stream but the proxy used in the west, math tests, are more an indicator of how well you can follow instructions.

Undoubtedly China is going to end up with a large number of very technically competent physicists I'm just wondering if they lost a few who could be Nobels along the way.

> I'm just wondering if they lost a few who could be Nobels along the way.

I don't think studying for an olympiad impedes this. Terrence Tao (Australian, to be clear), dominated math olympiads, went on to make fundamental contributions to math and won a Fields medal.