5 ms·

I think the crucial insight in this essay is glossed over; the author allots only a few lines to an explanation of how the other graduate students didn't need t

I think the crucial insight in this essay is glossed over; the author allots only a few lines to an explanation of how the other graduate students didn't need to work as hard as he did to understand the fundamental concepts relevant to his project. This, I believe, is the heart of his issue. He comes to the conclusion that "he quit" or "he didn't know what to work on", but it appears to me that he simply wasn't as high-caliber as the other students, and only persevered for as long as he did largely due to stubbornness and his tremendous work ethic. (Also, he mentions the other students' more-rigorous mathematical backgrounds, but he does not mention their IQ [1].) Immigrant outperformance of native-English-speaking students is a complicated topic; the way I choose to look at it is in terms of population competition. India has 1.3B, China has 1.4B, the U.S. has 0.33B. Assuming that the IQ distributions are exactly equal (ehh), for every one 130 IQ American, there are 4 130 IQ Indians, and 4 130 IQ Chinese. If they all compete for one spot at an American university, the Indians and Chinese will have to work much, much harder to win the "top spot from <nation>" than the American will. A look at the questions and scores for entrance exams in undergraduate physics and math for the India Institute of Technology vs. a look at the questions and scores for entrance exams in physics in math for Stanford should confirm this vast gap in curriculum and competition. Any cursory examination of formal education in terms of course complexity, workload, and exam importance of Korea, China, Japan, etc. vs. the U.S. or other western countries should also lay bare the incredible gap in preparation and competition. As I like to explain to those who support a "global meritocracy" for college admissions, the implementation of their plan would result in a majority Asian student body at every single university in the U.S. The author's work ethic is tremendous- I have never worked anywhere near as hard as he did for that sustained period of time. But the fact of the matter is that a higher-IQ, more-prepared student would not have needed to struggle as hard as he did, and from his description of the foreign students that surpassed him, they didn't. I suspect he would have been happier if he'd accepted his lot much earlier and leaned into a higher-paying, less-hours career and studied physics in his free time. Another question- did he refuse to quit because he loved physics, or did he refuse to quit because his vision of his life was overly focused on holding the identity of "guy who works on theoretical physics"? [1] Many people dislike using IQ to measure anything, and its most stringent detractors say that it is a meaningless metric. It is worth pointing out that while IQ is a completely made-up metric, it is a specific measure of memory and abstract reasoning as applied to western-style logic puzzles and patterns. This makes it a useful metric when trying to evaluate one's ability to study and perform western-style math or physics, which are giant collections of western-style logic puzzles and patterns. Many people who believe that IQ does not predict anything have never had the opportunity to spend a lot of time interacting with someone who is so much higher-IQ than they are that it shows in regular interactions. I am regularly shocked at how much more quickly my extremely smart friends can pick up and memorize concepts than I can.

searine 6y ago
>Immigrant outperformance of native-English-speaking students is a complicated topic I wouldn't even say 'outperformance' is an accurate description. I have learned from, taught, and been colleagues with many scientists from across the globe and each education system has its merits and drawbacks. East and south asian education systems highly emphasize quantitative skills. Western education emphasizes critical thinking. The hurdle for many western students is late introduction to higher mathematics, but you are ignoring the hurdle for many eastern students, flexibility and creativity of thinking. Eastern education systems focus heavily on rote memorization, stringent quantitative evaluation, and strict mentor student hierarchies that discourage questioning. I have encountered many colleagues from more structured education systems really struggle with developing their ability to formulate novel lines of inquiry. As this article describes, the difficulty in science isn't just the math, it's about knowing if question you are trying to solve is valid, novel, and adds to the field. You need both to be successful. Unfortunately the author of the article seemed to fail at both, resulting in his exit from science altogether.
- creativeandlazy 6y ago
  Those seem like they could be orthogonal issues. The US system could have more rigor and be more engaging to bright students. The creativity issue could be more a function of wider society than the education system itself. Rajeev came off as a very creative person who somehow filtered out of that kind of a system.
ResearchCode 6y ago
Late exposure to higher mathematics sounds perfectly plausible. Someone getting into sports at 15 is rarely going to compete with those that started at 10, assuming equal innate talent. The same principle applies to academics. Would be nice to see some envelope math on the respective importance of IQ and socioeconomic background/nepotism in academia (many PhDs have parents with PhDs etc).
robocat 6y ago
Your argument using IQ is silly, and not because of political correctness, but because IQ is not the best metric to use if trying to measure success at physics. When trying to compare IQs between countries, there are systematic differences and systematic measurement errors. When we start to talk about extremely skilled people with high IQs, it gets even harder to make sweeping generalisations. The vacuity of your argument shines when you think that by decreasing the IQ cutoff by 4 to 126 will more than quadruple the number of applicants that pass, yet a population IQ difference of 4 is hardly likely to lead to much differentiation in output (because other factors like persistence are wayyyy more important - and limited immigration filters for people - people that tend to be high persistence achievers that tend to succeed in other areas of their lives, like physics!). Just stick to the population numbers - which is all your argument washes down to. Also generally beware of IQ arguments, because at an individual level, the standard error of measurement for IQ is 7: “Therefore, if a person had an IQ of 130, his or her score would be between 123 and 137 points 68% of the time (i.e., there is 68% confidence that the person’s IQ is somewhere between 123 and 137) and between 116 and 144 points 95% of the time.” as per https://www.questarai.com/resources-docs/briefs/Assessment-Brief-Test-Reliability-Indicates-More-than-Just-Consistency.pdf https://www.questarai.com/resources-docs/briefs/Assessment-B... Edited for clarity.

searine 6y ago

>Immigrant outperformance of native-English-speaking students is a complicated topic I wouldn't even say 'outperformance' is an accurate description. I have learned from, taught, and been colleagues with many scientists from across the globe and each education system has its merits and drawbacks. East and south asian education systems highly emphasize quantitative skills. Western education emphasizes critical thinking. The hurdle for many western students is late introduction to higher mathematics, but you are ignoring the hurdle for many eastern students, flexibility and creativity of thinking. Eastern education systems focus heavily on rote memorization, stringent quantitative evaluation, and strict mentor student hierarchies that discourage questioning. I have encountered many colleagues from more structured education systems really struggle with developing their ability to formulate novel lines of inquiry. As this article describes, the difficulty in science isn't just the math, it's about knowing if question you are trying to solve is valid, novel, and adds to the field. You need both to be successful. Unfortunately the author of the article seemed to fail at both, resulting in his exit from science altogether.

creativeandlazy 6y ago
Those seem like they could be orthogonal issues. The US system could have more rigor and be more engaging to bright students. The creativity issue could be more a function of wider society than the education system itself. Rajeev came off as a very creative person who somehow filtered out of that kind of a system.

ResearchCode 6y ago

Late exposure to higher mathematics sounds perfectly plausible. Someone getting into sports at 15 is rarely going to compete with those that started at 10, assuming equal innate talent. The same principle applies to academics. Would be nice to see some envelope math on the respective importance of IQ and socioeconomic background/nepotism in academia (many PhDs have parents with PhDs etc).

robocat 6y ago

Your argument using IQ is silly, and not because of political correctness, but because IQ is not the best metric to use if trying to measure success at physics. When trying to compare IQs between countries, there are systematic differences and systematic measurement errors. When we start to talk about extremely skilled people with high IQs, it gets even harder to make sweeping generalisations. The vacuity of your argument shines when you think that by decreasing the IQ cutoff by 4 to 126 will more than quadruple the number of applicants that pass, yet a population IQ difference of 4 is hardly likely to lead to much differentiation in output (because other factors like persistence are wayyyy more important - and limited immigration filters for people - people that tend to be high persistence achievers that tend to succeed in other areas of their lives, like physics!). Just stick to the population numbers - which is all your argument washes down to. Also generally beware of IQ arguments, because at an individual level, the standard error of measurement for IQ is 7: “Therefore, if a person had an IQ of 130, his or her score would be between 123 and 137 points 68% of the time (i.e., there is 68% confidence that the person’s IQ is somewhere between 123 and 137) and between 116 and 144 points 95% of the time.” as per https://www.questarai.com/resources-docs/briefs/Assessment-Brief-Test-Reliability-Indicates-More-than-Just-Consistency.pdf https://www.questarai.com/resources-docs/briefs/Assessment-B... Edited for clarity.