4 ms·

Elite schools are worthwhile if it isn't in it for the money like most (all?) elite schools in the US. In that regard the Soviet system were far superior.

by Dah00n 6y ago

jollybean 6y ago
No, the Soviet System was a complete failure from top to bottom, producing some great scientists is nice but a side show. Using standardized tests from 14-21 to select leadership feels very meritocratic, but it's also very crude. Also there is the ugly notion that maybe the best way to lead a nation is not purely meritocratic. American Ivy League, despite their follies, produce a ton of very high calibre people. So does the 2cnd tier and below that, it's possible to get a very decent education but less guarantees of exceptional outcomes. Some industries are full of Ivy League grads but many are not.
- vl 6y ago
  Well, I agree that Soviet Union was failure from top to bottom (non-market economy and dictatorship can get you just so far). But with this said, it was possible to get excellent education in Soviet Union, and (with a lot of hard work) it was available to anyone.
- bawolff 6y ago
  Producing great scientists is a failure? Maybe we should aim to fail more.
  - jollybean 5y ago
    Yes, if all you do is produce some good scientists, win a few gold medals, and your people starve in oppression and poverty, that is a pretty big failure. Also, throughout that time and even now the US produces amazing scientists and also has the means for them to 'do stuff'. FYI I'm not American, I understand these things are far from perfect. I'm mostly harking back to the notion of 'standardized test and ABC school as elite' is probably not so good. America is open enough that even though some industries are chock-a-block Ivy League, many are not.
    - bawolff 5y ago
      I'm not saying that the soviet union was a paradise, far from it, just that its weird for someone to describe creating good scientists as a "failure" when talking about educational systems. That's not to say that it might not have other flaws, i just struggle to see how creating scientists itself is a flaw.

Elite schools are worthwhile if it isn't in it for the money like most (all?) elite schools in the US. In that regard the Soviet system were far superior.

by Dah00n 6y ago

Elite schools are worthwhile if it isn't in it for the money like most (all?) elite schools in the US. In that regard the Soviet system were far superior.

jollybean 6y ago

No, the Soviet System was a complete failure from top to bottom, producing some great scientists is nice but a side show. Using standardized tests from 14-21 to select leadership feels very meritocratic, but it's also very crude. Also there is the ugly notion that maybe the best way to lead a nation is not purely meritocratic. American Ivy League, despite their follies, produce a ton of very high calibre people. So does the 2cnd tier and below that, it's possible to get a very decent education but less guarantees of exceptional outcomes. Some industries are full of Ivy League grads but many are not.

vl 6y ago
Well, I agree that Soviet Union was failure from top to bottom (non-market economy and dictatorship can get you just so far). But with this said, it was possible to get excellent education in Soviet Union, and (with a lot of hard work) it was available to anyone.
bawolff 6y ago
Producing great scientists is a failure? Maybe we should aim to fail more.
- jollybean 5y ago
  Yes, if all you do is produce some good scientists, win a few gold medals, and your people starve in oppression and poverty, that is a pretty big failure. Also, throughout that time and even now the US produces amazing scientists and also has the means for them to 'do stuff'. FYI I'm not American, I understand these things are far from perfect. I'm mostly harking back to the notion of 'standardized test and ABC school as elite' is probably not so good. America is open enough that even though some industries are chock-a-block Ivy League, many are not.
  - bawolff 5y ago
    I'm not saying that the soviet union was a paradise, far from it, just that its weird for someone to describe creating good scientists as a "failure" when talking about educational systems. That's not to say that it might not have other flaws, i just struggle to see how creating scientists itself is a flaw.