Why are Soviet math textbooks so hardcore in comparison to US textbooks? (2017) • Hacker News Board

Re: Why are Soviet math textbooks so hardcore in comparison to US textbooks? (2017)

#261

Post by mbeex » Wed, Apr 22, 2020, 7:35 AM UTC

MR4D wrote: post #101

Retric wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO, the point of textbooks is to educate people on some topic so making them as easy as possible seems like the correct choice. Outside of competitions, the value most people get from those courses is what them remember in 5+ years when their working not really the kind of symbol manipulation that makes can make things opaque. That said, soviet style education produced a lot of great mathematicians especially relati…

Somewhat cynically, I think the point of many textbooks is to make money for the authors. There is no reason why a calculus book needs to cost $200 (in the 1990’s) and get refreshed every 2-3 years. That subject has been known for hundreds of years and they rob poor engineering and science student of that $200. Sorry, I just have a bad taste in my mouth from crap like that in undergrad. Not saying you’re wrong, just…

Books form an interesting part of this HN posting anyway: I'm from East Germany and at that time I got much of the mathematical scientific literature as quite cheap (regarded to money, even workmanship, but not to content) russian translations from the Soviet Union. They were also quite fast in producing these, very close to the original publication (*).

The pricing model of the current locked-in science publication sector is completely ridiculous, counter-productive and even unjustified (research in many countries is supported by taxes, than the result should be free to the public). But luckily this changes with open access - legal and not yet legal.

edit: and not to forget, in some areas the soviet school of mathematics (meant as specific incarnation of mathematics as a discipline in the country) was excellent in itself.

Re: Why are Soviet math textbooks so hardcore in comparison to US textbooks? (2017)

#262

Post by Symbiote » Wed, Apr 22, 2020, 7:36 AM UTC

crazygringo wrote: post #136

geomark wrote: post #32

Here is an interesting paper [1](PDF) by a Russian mathematician who has taught mathematics in Russia, USA and Brazil. He compares the "very successful usage of word problems in Russia and contradictory, inefficient and often immature treatment of word problems in USA." [1] http://toomandre.com/travel/sweden05/WP-SWEDEN-NEW.pdf

Huh. That doesn't really match my American experience at all. True, in elementary school I don't recall any word problems -- because everything was practical arithmetic through sixth grade. I think sixth grade was long division? But seventh grade was algebra, and all the Russian examples of word problems look like the stuff we got all the time, seventh grade through eleventh grade. Twelfth grade was calculus, and I s…

[1] has some word problem examples for every year of primary school in England. Year 1 is age 5-6:

"Chris is going to buy a cake for his mum which costs 80p. How many 20p coins would he need to do this?"

I remember lots of these "coin problems" when I was 5 or 6, since we had plastic money to help understanding, but I don't remember other problems.

If I'm equating the grades correctly, the Russian problems appear to be about 1-2 years "harder" than the English problems, at least around age 9-10 (Russian grade 4, English year 5).

https://thirdspacelearning.com/blog/maths-word-problems-expl...

Re: Why are Soviet math textbooks so hardcore in comparison to US textbooks? (2017)

#263

Post by kccqzy » Wed, Apr 22, 2020, 7:36 AM UTC

nostrademons wrote: post #159

hangonhn wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes! I was about to say something similar about China as well. In China, and maybe other former Communist countries as well, kids with talents or what seems like talents are identified very early on and only those with such aptitudes are given the resources and put on a track to nurture those talents. Same thing with sports too! My guess is that China probably borrowed a lot from the USSR in their programs and philos…

I wonder how much the respective cultures and politico-economic systems of those states play into that. My dad was similarly hyper-tracked: he entered grade school at 7 and graduated at 16 (he grew up in the Philippines, but as part of the expat Filipino-Chinese community, and went to Chinese schools). When my dad tried similarly hyper-tracking me academically (suburban Boston), I got beat up, physically, by my peers…

> I got beat up, physically, by my peers

This is a problem. Regardless of whether hyper-tracking is beneficial, no kid should have to suffer from this kind of bullying. I don't know why bullying in the U.S. is (or seems to be) so much worse than other countries.

Re: Why are Soviet math textbooks so hardcore in comparison to US textbooks? (2017)

#264

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Apr 22, 2020, 7:37 AM UTC

WillPostForFood wrote: post #181

knzhou wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are now , not so much 40 years ago. Even today, a lot of the STEM enrichment programs in the US have roots in the USSR. Hell, a big fraction of the physics problems I assign when tutoring these days were written by Russians in the 80s, because they're just that good.

That's the opposite of what I've seen in California. There used to be a big focus on tracking, gifted programs and "accelerated math", but it is now perceived as inequitable. Gifted programs were cancelled, tracks eliminated, and accelerated math discouraged (you can skip a year if you study outside school, but it is discouraged). The focus is getting everyone to some minimal level, and no attention on the high perfo…

[deleted]

Re: Why are Soviet math textbooks so hardcore in comparison to US textbooks? (2017)

#265

Post by burpsnard » Wed, Apr 22, 2020, 7:37 AM UTC

de_watcher wrote: post #218

Endlessly wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curious, what do you and your peers that were feed into a well defined path so early make of it now understanding that is not how all children reach advanced skills in mathematics?

Most of the children don't want, don't care or just plain stupid to be able to grasp the subjects. It makes sense to isolate together those who can. The special schools don't do anything special, they just cut down the distractions, shift 0.5-2 university years into the school and spice things up with some competitive math/physics/programming/chemistry/biology/geography/etc.

Im crap at math, but annoyed at why. Read about math teaching, and what I found was that there's nothing that correlates with math ability except interest and encouragement (and general iq). There's no genes, brain scans, blood tests, or behavioral signs at preschool age that can predict math success. Teacher ability and enthusiasm likely plays a role.

Re: Why are Soviet math textbooks so hardcore in comparison to US textbooks? (2017)

#266

Post by TeMPOraL » Wed, Apr 22, 2020, 7:42 AM UTC

jimmaswell wrote: post #64

chii wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It was very operational, you calculate, you manipulate concrete data it's interesting that some academic approaches focus on the theoretical framework and conceptual depth, with the underlying assumption that the student would "get" it once the fundamentals are understood. The other approach, mostly in the asian schools, teach rote and speed in mechanical/mental manipulation. For example, a student would do 1000 qu…

The rote learner learned nothing more than the ability to regurgitate a mechanical process while the academic learner learned understanding, in my view. You have to work through some examples to solidify it but that should be totally secondary to understanding the meaning and concepts. Like a physics teacher of mine put it, rote math learning is like teaching sea lions to honk horns for fish - students give the right…

Applying reasoning to a similar but more familiar domain is a good sanity check for said reasoning. Let's then apply what you said to programming. Would you say that the "academic learner" who read a lot of CS and programming books but haven't written a single program on an actual computer learned understanding, while a "rote learner" who keeps going through hundreds of small programming exercises learned to "regurgitate a mechanical process"? Doesn't pass the sniff test to me.

The way I see it, doing the thing gives you ample opportunity to figure out theory on your own - repeating a menial task prompts the brain to invent shortcuts. Meanwhile I can't imagine someone learning only theory to not fail spectacularly at practical tasks - because theory doesn't capture everything; there are lots of practical, intangible things that crop up when you start doing the work. On top of that, it's easy to feel you understand something without actually understanding it.

The best way, IMO, is what philipov's father said - you have to alternate between theory and practice. It's how you can build understanding faster while continuously validating it.

Re: Why are Soviet math textbooks so hardcore in comparison to US textbooks? (2017)

#267

Post by concordDance » Wed, Apr 22, 2020, 7:44 AM UTC

bsanr2 wrote: post #158

malandrew wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Such a program will never happen in America again because some people will complain about privilege-this and equity-that. America is basically living Vonnegut’s Harrison Bergeron already and dooming itself to mediocrity if is doesn’t realize the damage being done and correct things. What happened with NYC’s gifted and talented programs was a perfect example of this idiocy.

Unfortunately, our systems must reflect the fact that our "reluctance" to provide truly equal opportunity in early learning and grade school precludes any claim to meritocracy. We have hobbled ourselves, but not in the way you seem to be imagining: saddled with poverty and anxiety, history and double consciousness, our Harrison Bergerons don't trouble the children of parents terrified of a truly level playing field.…

Don't forget genetics.

To have true equality we will need to bring genetic engineering to the masses. Human genetic augmentation seems criminally underfunded and over-restricted to me.

Re: Why are Soviet math textbooks so hardcore in comparison to US textbooks? (2017)

#268

Post by missosoup » Wed, Apr 22, 2020, 7:46 AM UTC

lsh123 wrote: post #80

Disclaimer: I graduated from one of the top math high schools in Moscow in early 90s, I have MS in Math from Moscow State University, and a half finished PhD from the same place. I think on average the difference between a high school student from Russia and US is negligible. Either country doesn’t really require much to finish school and many kids just do the tests without understanding what is going on. What separa…

> I think on average the difference between a high school student from Russia and US is negligible

I went to high school in Russia and then moved to Australia. The difference was immense. It felt like i just dropped 2 year levels. Even the accelerated programs were hopelessly behind the regular curriculum for my age group in Russia. AU/US high school students can't possibly compete against RU or CN high school students. The gap only begins closing around year 11/12, sometimes not until tertiary education.

One of the major factors is this weird anti-intellectualism culture that just doesn't exist in Russia. Doing well at your subjects in Russia put you in the cool group. Doing well at your subjects in AU got you labelled as a nerd. This permeates western culture across the board, hence domestically popular tv shows like Big Bang Theory which have 0 audience in countries that value intellect. I hear the culture of marginalising smart kids is somewhat changing lately though.

The other factor is that westerners really love to coddle and infantalise their children. A 12 year old in Russia is basically treated as a small adult with the associated respect and responsibilities. A 12 year old here is treated (and behaves) like a large baby.

Re: Why are Soviet math textbooks so hardcore in comparison to US textbooks? (2017)

#269

Post by Tade0 » Wed, Apr 22, 2020, 7:48 AM UTC

My friend went to one of the best high schools in my country (Poland), where students would, on their own accord, practice using old Soviet math textbooks.

I got my hands on one of them where the task stated was usually something short, like: "доказать тождество", followed by a set of rather insane(at least for a highschooler) equations.

That bit about a dearth of equipment is true in most eastern block countries by the way. Case in point: the other day I asked my younger cousin, who's currently doing his master's, if they still use those multimeters with nixie tube displays like I did ten years ago.

They do.

Re: Why are Soviet math textbooks so hardcore in comparison to US textbooks? (2017)

#270

Post by nestorD » Wed, Apr 22, 2020, 7:49 AM UTC

realbarack wrote: post #94

julianeon wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like it's worth pointing out here, for Americans who don't know better (no blame implied), that the French have one of the best mathematical pipelines in the world. They have almost as many Nobels (13 vs. 11) despite having 1/5 the population. Guardian article about them here: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/may/31/europa-french-... So please don't think France is a backwater that just doesn't know how…

A paraphrased anecdote I heard about French math education: "In America, they start by teaching you how to add two numbers, then once you've mastered that you learn to subtract, then once you've got that down you learn to multiply and divide and so forth. In France they tell you: this is an arithmetic object. The operations on it are add, subtract, multiply, and divide. It's simple! It's a good way of cranking out a…

Note that this was true at a time (some of my math teachers learned group theory in middle school) but that nowadays math education is much less abstract until the end of highschool.

At this point there is a specialized track (preparatory classes) to get into the most prestigious engeneering and buisness schools that will have you cram mathematics / physics / computeur science / english / a mix of litterature of philosophy in two or three years.

The student then get into the various school according to their grades on a serie of national exams.

This track is very competitive (and as such often decried) but I believe that it is a very efficient way to get the top talents to the top institutions with a maximum of learning on the way (also note that this education is free and that the very best school will even pay you).

Note that a student can also choose to get to college and ignore this track.