The defeat of Chinese students at the hands of their US counterparts at this year's International Mathematical Olympiad has sparked a public discussion. But this is not the first time that China has lost in the IMO - this is China's sixth loss in the 25 years it has been participating in the contest.

The loss has prompted some to say the authorities should pay greater attention to Olympiad math by, for instance, restoring its original status. But there is confusion here. What the education authorities can manage is "nationwide Olympiad math training" in elementary schools, which is totally different from the IMO, a top international math contest for high school students.

Many math experts agree that rigorous Olympiad math training in elementary schools has nothing to do with cultivating mathematical thinking. Instead, it can spoil students' interest in the subject. And, with the education authorities making progress toward a balanced compulsory education system, the nationwide fever for Olympiad math is subsiding.

Good math knowledge in the US is polarized. In China, on the other hand, not only many shopkeepers and street vendors are good at mental math, but also the math scores Chinese students achieved in the Program for International Student Assessment are much higher than their American peers. Despite this, however, the number of top-notch Chinese math talents with international recognition is pitifully small, and this is what economist and Tsinghua University professor Qian Yingyi summarized as "high average yet small difference".

Perhaps our education system confuses between education for talented and ordinary students. Perhaps the differential education system of the US is a lesson for us: Math tests for ordinary students are less difficult to prevent them from becoming obstacles in their academic progress and, simultaneously, through extracurricular activities and training in middle schools, opportunities are created for those particularly interested in math to further develop their talents.

Go to Forum >>0 Comment(s)