programjames

Elsewhere in this thread, someone links to this NYT article:

"Chinese Universities Surge in Global Rankings as U.S. Schools Slip"

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/15/us/harvard-global-ranking...

They say Chinese elite universities are surpassing American ones in research and funding, and that 20% fewer international students enrolled in American universities in 2025. Though, of course, that was right after Trump took away Harvard student visas.

My experience at an American university (in the early 2020s) was that the native Americans were much less impressive than the international students, and the professors were mildly annoyed at them compared to previous generations of students they had taught. I think this is a common experience at American universities nowadays—I mean, what else would you expect with the primary/secondary school decline?—but I do not have any hard data to show you. I think you can find a lot of similar anecodotes on r/professors, though it seems to be more of a complain-subreddit than representative of all professors.

I think it is difficult to find data on this, as there are not many international assessments at the university level. You can look at research output, but research is kind of bullshit these days, and even if it weren't, it would be skewed by the older generations. You can look at international competitions, but does America do poorly in the ICPC because they're worse, or because they don't care? Brigham Young University (a small-fry religious school in Utah, USA) got a bronze medal a decade ago, significantly better than their other universities. If you investigate a little further, you'll find this university did decent at the Putnam around the same time, so they probably just had a few students who really tried hard. It's known that MIT dominates the Putnam, but that is now literally a self-fulfilling prophecy. I know many math people who chose MIT above other schools because it is the place Putnam winners go.

One thing you can look at is the graduate body composition. At elite universities, around 40% of graduate students are foreigners (compared to 30% 50 years ago). Across all universities, nearly half of PhDs are awarded to foreigners. However, this does not really prove American undergraduate students are falling behind, and it mildly supports the case that American universities maintain their prestige. I actually believe American universities do still maintain their prestige, just that they are more of a paper tiger than Americans like to believe. Almost like MIT with the Putnam, everyone goes to America because everyone goes to America.

Well, that plus a ton of investor money floating around. The dollar hegemony is still going strong, and while the invasion of Venezuela shows it might be a little weaker than the average American hopes, they're not going to let it go away without a fight.

> There was a long entrenched culture that in the US you could turn your intelligence into positive change and get rich doing it.

Yes, this is still true, and why immigration to America maintained its previous momentum. It was often easier to get a student visa than a different immigration visa, so for the past 30 years or so that has been the primary route, and in turn has raised the prestige of American universities.

However, if you look at the American-born population, their students are not impressive. Quite the opposite, for how much funding their education gets. And—by federal interest—only ~10% of the undergraduate student body can be foreigners. Professors at American universities routinely complain about their students' low standards. Things are not the same as they were ten years ago, let alone thirty or fifty years ago.

I think international sentiment has not shifted to the point that this is common knowledge—that if people want to go international, they better attend a school in China or Switzerland—but it would have happened in a few years with or without Trump, and the decline would be as apparent as the primary and secondary school decline has been.

That is true. It is also true that their primary and secondary schools were quickly dropping in rank relative to other countries in the 2010s, and their universities were following in the COVID/post-COVID era.

Not really, there's been a pretty effective culture war saying, "STEM degrees are actually useless, you need to know how to have a human connection." Only around 25% of Bachelor's and Master's degrees are in STEM fields, though it shoots up to 65% of PhDs. It seems to be pointing towards most people not supporting STEM, and advocating for students to not go into STEM, despite having some of the most lucrative (in expected value) majors.

Seems like an arrogant American take. The United States primary and secondary schools are middling at best, and that has been showing through to its universities. Foreigners were already choosing Chinese universities. It's not like the recent administration could just "keep pulling", what do they have to appeal with? Obviously shutting off the flow of any and all talent is stupid, but it's a little arrogant to pretend it was not already diverting to better systems.

I think you can try maximizing the free energy E[reward] + temperature*entropy?

There typically are, but sometimes the technical solution is bad for those in power, or they're unaware of it, or it hasn't been discovered yet.

Here are three reasons you want to be able to calculate the volume change for arbitrary parallelpipeds:

- If det M = 0, then M is not invertible. Knowing this is useful for all kinds of reasons. It means you cannot solve an equation like Mx = b by taking the inverse ("dividing") on both sides, x = M \ b. It means you can find the eigenvalues of a matrix by rearranging Mx = λx <--> (M-λI)x = 0 <--> det M-λI = 0, which is a polynomial equation.

- Rotations are volume-preserving, so the rotation group can be expressed as the matrices where det M = 1 (well, the component connected to the identity). This is useful for theoretical physics, where they're playing around with such groups and need representations they can do things with.

- In information theory, the differential entropy (or average amount of bits it takes to describe a particular point in a continuous probability distribution) increases if you spread out the distribution, and decreases if you squeeze it together by exactly log |det M| for a linear transformation. A nonlinear transformation can be linearized with its gradient. This is useful for image compression (and thus generation) with normalizing flow neural networks.

You are not even talking about the article at this point. "All it takes is for one to work out" is TFT. You are instead saying, "be stoic in the things you cannot effect." The latter is much more defensible, and something I endorse. But if you hold the latter, then all it takes is for none to work out. You would accept none, even if you would prefer one, two, or ten. Your comment is a classic motte-and-bailey defense.

Again, I think you don't understand: your "healthy mindset" here is a vice. I do not think it is healthy to drink away your woes. I also do not think it is healthy to cope by treating your life like a big lottery. As I have said several times, the reason I do not consider it healthy is it does not actually help you get what you want, and statistically will leave most people worse off. Finally, from a societal perspective, just like drunk driving hurts everyone around you, this coping behavior also hurts everyone around you.

I would be okay with people spreading beliefs that only hold themselves back, especially if it made them happier. However, I draw the line when they endorse antisocial behavior. I've personally been negatively effected by these hustlers' acions. Almost everyone has, whether or not they can articulate why it seems impossible to get interviewed for a job these days.

Lol, yes. If you're a selfish egoist, you probably don't want to convert others to your philosophy.

I think it's possible to punish people who are taking these selfish actions, and I think universities should. Maybe they should make a secret database where they list the people who applied to their university, and subtract off points for every other university they applied to. Or, recruiting agencies can mark down candidates for every other job they are applying to. I don't think they do, and this isn't the startup I want to make or area I want to devote my life to, it just sucks that people are being rewarded for playing negative-sum games.

What do you mean by "a healthy mindset"? It isn't healthy for society. It isn't healthy in the world where everyone has this mindset. It isn't healthy to treat your life as a lottery, hoping for a winning ticket instead of creating that ticket yourself. The fact that you consider applications to be uncertainties in life is very telling. You can make them much less uncertain, if you stop thinking of them like a lottery and start doing the things that prove you are valuable to others.

Did you know that USAMO qualifiers have >50% rate of admission to MIT? IMO gold medalists have >80% acceptance rate, and it's only so low because international admissions is limited to 10% of the student body. Life is only a lottery if you have an unhealthy mindset holding you back from improving yourself. Just because university admissions involve a lot of luck at the bottom does not mean you have to limit yourself to a bottom feeder spraying and praying to get in.

You lost something when every other person started doing the same thing. Now you have to write or review ten applications instead of one. Now you're going to get paid less because it cost $20k to hire you instead of $2k. Now your company is going to be filled with like-minded people, "hustlers", who do not know how to improve things themselves, just spray and pray until someone mistakenly rewards them.

Seems like a momumental waste of energy being pushed as "hustling". Applying to college should be cooperative between you and the admissions office: asking, are we a good fit? Applying in the hope they mess up and admit you when they're really better off rejecting you is so antisocial.

Admissions are sort-of Pareto distributed, so most people admitted were on the edge of being rejected. Since there is a bit of noise in the process, this is why any one individual applying to 10x as many places of a similar tier will be more likely to get into one. But then when everyone does it, no one is more or less likely to get in except those that are actually cooperating with the admissions office. You're burning down the commons for a fleeting bit of warmth. Might I suggest installing a furnace in your house instead?

Wow, I really dislike this framing of life as a lottery. Yes, people can get lucky. You could win the lottery. Statistically, someone else will hold the winning ticket, every time. It's even worse, because graduate school admissions and startup success are correlated between attempts. If you bring a shotgun but you're not even aiming at the target, you're never going to hit it.

Sorry, I should make it more clear when I'm being sarcastic. I tried to juxtapose these two clauses as close as I could:

> (1) education is just a ranking game

> (2) since the point of education is to help people learn

I feel like people who actually believe your situation was for the best must have a certain level of cognitive dissonance. Either that, or they just don't actually care about you and feel alright with hurting you for a chance of a slight gain for the people they do care about.

It's also a pretty hard sell to claim these kinds of situations are the best for society. If you could produce 2x as many billionaires by expelling the bottom 10% of the population from the education system (and imprisoning them for life), that would be better for society (financially). It might be worse for social reasons, but I kind of find that hard to believe.

This is why I think empathy doesn't scale. It's much easier to point people's empathy towards the person who is ruining their own life, and many others' at school, because they won't have a happy future. It's much harder to point people's empathy towards someone who will likely be successful in the future, even if they're being beat, stabbed, and abused in the present. Especially if they're not even being physically abused, just imprisoned for half their waking hours in a classroom. Empathy is great in very small groups, but not when you're setting policy for hundreds of kids in a school, thousands in the city, or millions across the state. At that point, empathy just ends up hijacked by the worst actors to redirect attention and resources to their own pet causes.

Neither of those are my position. If you're not trying to convince me I'm wrong, that's fine, just realize that Idaho is a one-party state and the Republican Party has the power there to do what they think is right. The only way to influence that is to convince enough people that banning these posters is not right, which I thought was your goal, but I guess political commentary has its own purpose.

You still have yet to actually reply to me and my argument. As I said earlier, you need to improve at this skill if you want to actually convince people their position is wrong.

Talking about the greatness of America has been a theme among Democrats from FDR to JFK, when they spoke about defending and spreading American cultural values like democracy and freedom. It goes back even further to the 1840s with James K. Polk and Manifest Destiny. Banning the MAGA hat in the classroom isn't about political signalling - it's just straight out America hate.

Do you see how silly you sound? Look, here's my issue with you: I've told you my reasons to oppose MAGA hats and welcome posters in the classroom. You refuse to believe those are my reasons. You're calling me a liar, saying I must secretly be withholding some racist motivated reasoning. I get that there are America haters who want to ban MAGA hats, and racists who want to ban these posters. But you're talking to me, not them. If you can only refute people who collectively share two brain cells, then you're probably just wrong on your position.

You have yet to address or even acknowledge the focus of both my comments: this phrase is a common means of signalling party affiliation. I feel like you need to improve in how you approach these kind of discussions, because you're getting nowhere in convincing me when you come across as not even understanding my argument.

If your goal is different, maybe to just socially stigmatize people opposed to worlds you prefer, well I guess you're doing fine with that, but you do see how that's problematic at creating consensus, right? And how, the sane reaction is for me to faux-politely call you a shill or a clown. I don't think this is actually your goal (which is why I deleted my previous reply, it was unnecessarily mean unless this is your goal), I just don't think you've really built up your debate toolbox yet.

Read what I wrote:

> "Everyone is welcome here" is now a callsign for "registered Democrat".

Maybe it's suspicious that this phrase is able to distinguish Republicans from Democrats, but the point isn't the virtue of the parties, it's that it's one of the most common phrases people choose to use to distinguish themselves as Democrats. If you don't want one teacher walking around with a MAGA hat, but don't have the political power to just ban them from schools, you have to make a treaty like, "we'll ban rainbow capes and MAGA hats."

Maybe I'm too tired to write clearly. I meant, the reason parents have ownership over their children (at least in America) is primarily for ideological indoctrination.

It is in fact the best outcome, because education is just a ranking game, and it's not like you will end up ranked lower in your school. Also, since the point of education is to help people learn, your calmer presence and pro-learning attitude may rub off on the worst students, and their chance of ending up jobless and in prison will go down!

The short answer is people stopped caring about metrics measuring learning, and instead how easy they were to game to support their politics, or make them look like a better teacher or superintendent.

And yet, somehow, there are around a million much higher-quality professors. Yes, you need 5x as many teachers. But you don't find 1 in 5 are at the level of a median professor. You should actually expect more than 1 in 5, given they require less vocational training. There is something fundamentally wrong when you move from tertiary to secondary education, but it isn't an issue of supply and demand.

It is pretty hard for one parent to change things for the better, even if just for their child in one classroom. The administration and teachers have so many other things to deal with. It's much harder to change the entire school culture. You can volunteer, and you should!, but you still won't make as large an impact on your child's education as you would hope. In some ways, this is good, because there are lots of crazy parents out there who you don't want making impacts on your child's education, but it's also bad if you're not that crazy parent.

Isn't this exactly what society is built on though? Mutually beneficial interactions borne of choice, not compulsion? And isn't it the sane, rational thing to do to oppose people who compel you to join their community?

> ...a healthy community hand-picked by parents is not "the real world" though, is it?

It's much closer to the real world though, isn't it? Your child is likely going to live most of their life in similar communities to them, not a wide cross section of the public.

I don't want the separatism, but I also want the ability to give my kids a decent education. There ought to be some way to determine which is which. Do you have any ideas?