And again, I'm not arguing that Olympiads aren't a signaling mechanism for recruitment in Western universities. They obviously are. What I'm not convinced of is that this track, Olympiad + top Western university is... 2/
And again, I'm not arguing that Olympiads aren't a signaling mechanism for recruitment in Western universities. They obviously are. What I'm not convinced of is that this track, Olympiad + top Western university is... 2/
... a "cursus honorum" which produces scientific elites MORE EFFICIENTLY (statistically speaking) than Western educational tracks which are more inclusive. 3/3
One more thing, using mathematics alone, because access to data is easier my argument still stands. Romania has an excellent track record at IMO, but no Fields medal, no Abel award, a flimsy number of top tier highly cited mathematicians even among expat IMO participants or awardees.
Sure, but Romania is a country of 20 million people with very low educational attainment by most standards. I'm not sure that in expectation, if you randomly draw Fields medal winners, you would expect Romania to have one.
Yes, finding an adequate metric is problematic.
In fact conditional on Western unis existing and being very selective, it does seem like it could be a good strategy to just max out on signaling high ability via Olympiads in order to insure that a lot of HS students get admitted. Then, they egt the best possible education.
"Good" in what way? In order to produce scientific elites? Let's say it's true, although I'm not 100% convinced. How would those elites benefit society? The case of the Magurele laser shows that even with massive EU money pumped in a Romanian research project, the results are sub-mediocre. 1/
Ironically, the strategy might actually work MUCH better for humanities. 2/
I had to look up the "Magurele laser", I have to admit. The name is so good, it sounds made up. It almost sounds like "Falansterul de la Scăieni", or something like that.
I don't disagree with you. I'm just saying the current system, if you buy my argument, does maximize something. Namely, admissions to top schools abroad. There are reasons why this may be desirable. I'm not arguing that it's socially optimal, of course. I'm just saying there is a logic to it.
It is a reasonable assumption: acceptance in top schools abroad. I don't necessarily think this means that a scientific "elite" emerges from this process, but it's a point of detail. More importantly: if the system maximizes acceptance in top schools abroad is it by design or by chance? 1/
In other words, was this the result of a top-down strategy or is it a bottom-up evolution which occurred under pressure from parents and teachers? 2/2
A thought: a really nice book I read "Peasants under siege" made the case that the Romanian peasant mentality (and let's be honest, we were a country of peasants until recently) is that hard work = success. Outrage at kulaks didn't really work in Romania.
cont'd from before (kulaks): I think viewing exam success as meritocratic is embedded in the mentality and will be difficult to dislodge. Whenever I talk to Romanians, they find the current system "fair".
Agree with all your 3 comments. Side note: I chuckled when I saw this⬇️ on a Romanian platform yesterday.
That's a very good and tough question. I am leaning towards "by chance", because this system has been in place in times when studying abroad was either 1. impossible, or 2. was not as difficult as today.
I agree. Counterfactuals are very hard... Especially when the two comparison groups (Western countries vs Romania) are different on so many dimensions... But when you have resources that are very rationed, like in Romania, if your goal is to produce elites, it might actually be quite efficient.