I would like to point out for context that the author, Jordan Lasker, is a eugenist derided for shoddy science, falsely using university affiliations, and racist commentary.
I do not write this to contradict particular claims in the article above, but @cremieux should be read cautiously.
He should also be derided for terrible writing. It's not until the 24th paragraph (of 30 total) that we encounter something resembling a thesis.
> With all the pieces on the board, the key to Romania’s Olympiad success is three-fold: put the best students in the same classrooms, put the best teachers with the best students, and then incentivize schools, teachers, and students each to win Olympiads.
This could have been much shorter, but then the reader might notice the abject lack of supporting evidence for these central claims. I don't blame the author for burying them at the end.
I have no idea about author's background or about his other writings, but the conclusion quoted by you seems absolutely correct.
I do not understand why you say that it lacks supporting evidence.
Before this conclusion, the author has explained the system of national exams and of distribution into high schools and inside high schools, that ensures that the best students are grouped together and also that the best teachers are assigned to them.
There is no doubt that even if the average level of education is bad, this system guarantees that the best become very good and much better than students with similar native qualities who have stayed in high school in the middle of less capable colleagues, while being not taught things deemed too difficult for the general population. Moreover, the author has mentioned that the state provides rewards for good results at the International Olympiads, both for teachers and for students.
I do not see what more evidence could be brought. In my opinion the conclusion of the author is well supported and it explains why these students compete successfully against students from much bigger countries.
So talking about eugenics in a positive way equals racist commentary?
I have a genetic mutation (de novo) that leads to a disability and that I don't want to pass on. Natural approach: Die, due to the lack of therapeutic modalities. No chance of offspring. With the help of medicine, I am alive. Now, to prevent passing on mutated genes but still have children, I could use something like IVF and reproductive genetics. This is textbook eugenics(?)
Obviously I disapprove of the stereotypical eugenics of the century. Ranging from Germans murdering disabled children to Danes forcing Greenland women on birth control.
This definitely adds a grain of salt, but as far as I can tell, none of that shows in the article, especially in the final paragraphs explaining how the elitist system is overall bad for the country. But it does make me wonder about possible hidden flaws in the methodology (I'm still confused at some of the earlier statistics contradicting the claims made later)
> Yet another possibility is that Romania has an undersampled ethnic group that overperforms, but whose schools aren’t tested very well. The only group this might be is Romanian Jews and using them as an explanation is problematic for two reasons. The first is that there are too few to realistically explain Romanian Olympiad performance. The second is that we know the identities of Olympiad participants from Romania, and they don’t seem to be Jewish.
This struck me as…odd…before I even saw the parent comment.
This one is not odd and was worth mentioning before rejecting. Just look at American IMO team of 2024, in which most team members have Asian ancestry - some ethnic groups may indeed perform better than others. Picking Jews for this matter wasn’t unreasonable if you know the history of Eastern Europe.
The general vibe of this magazine: support mainstreaming of eugenics ideas (and now eigenicists), the ubermensch / great man theory of history, and other ideas that we’ve largely shied away from for the last 75 years.
Sure, but knowing the intention and bias of the author is sometimes more important than other times. For example, it doesn’t really matter what the bias is of the person giving you the weather report; the weather either is or isn’t accurate, based on the data.
The author of an article about how an education system is or should be structured, however, very much matters.
Yes, a numerate population as assessed by national averages matters. A more numerate population reasons better about economic policies and may vote more wisely. Numeracy is closely tied to the ability to work in a variety of occupations. If we consider probability and statistics, the implications are especially salient.
>A more numerate population reasons better about economic policies and may vote more wisely.
People with good STEM education, even with PhDs in that field aren’t necessarily competent voters and good decision makers outside of area of their interests. Understanding economic policies is still an effort that many aren’t willing to take.
This seems to me more like a reasonable hypothesis than a foregone conclusion.
Personally I suspect there's a floor (can read a chart, understands growth rates and compounding in general) which the public need to assess arguments constructed by specialists, while the rest is mostly understanding ideology.
The reason I believe that is, I think I can pretty much predict 100% of the conclusion of most articles written for the public by knowing the names & affiliations of the authors and the topic. The only uncertainty is what sources and statistics they will pick to reach the conclusion required by their ideology.
A numerate and literate population matters for many reasons, but in theory it’s possible to field a strong team for the Olympiad despite an abysmal national average literacy level. Just look at North Korea for example. They’ve got a “fat right tail” of sophisticated hackers but on average their literacy is terrible.
This is a great start to an evidence database. The next step should be adding evidence and contextual details explaining why each claim is true, perhaps in a table.
I recently used this archive for a course paper and it only took 1-2 days of training and paperwork to get approved.
I don't strictly need this archive anymore, but I recall when the federal layoffs were first being announced that staff were down about it.
As a first-time archives user, this is a major loss to the research community. I met people who flew in from around the country for various projects, working on their graduate degrees and consulting here.
When I used the facilities, I saw signs in multiple areas about people who were caught stealing records and warnings that the consequences are significant (federal crime). But this action is senseless. Their security is very tight with scanning before entering, restrictions on materials and bags that can be brought upstairs, and people monitoring to ensure that special procedures are followed. These places are understaffed and underappreciated. Funding should increase for these national treasures.
"Although darkness has long been associated with insecurity, the link remains speculative. I fill the gap by examining the effect of solar eclipses on political violence. Expanding on psychological theories, I hypothesize that eclipse-induced darkness evokes fear, which in turn is misattributed to outgroups, thereby triggering violence. I contrast this argument with a tactical explanation, suggesting that the darkness allows insurgents to secretly kill civilians. I test these hypotheses by exploiting exogenous variations in the dates and locations of solar eclipses for 1997–2022 in Africa. The analysis indicates a spike in violence on the days of solar eclipses. To explore the mechanisms, I examine the initiators and original texts of violent events, weather conditions, ethnic folklore, and individual-level surveys. The analyses consistently support the tactical rather than psychological explanation. These findings warn against assuming that “irrational” African people overreacted to eclipses; insurgents rationally used darkness for their purposes."
I do not write this to contradict particular claims in the article above, but @cremieux should be read cautiously.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Lasker