And a side note from me as a Pole - online I see many Americans speaking about how cruel Gaokao is, but... It's America that's outlier. I had the same style of exam in Poland to get to uni, and it's the same in the entire EU, and rest of the world. So I have no idea why Gaokao is singled out.
The US has plenty of exams, starting in early primary school. All states have Standards of Learning (SOL) exams every few years on the main subjects. Then, starting in high school, you have a combination of Advanced Placement (AP) subject exams (college level, often granting college credit) or International Baccalaureate (IB) exams, Scholastic Aptitude (SAT) or American College Test (ACT), SAT2 subject exams, and probably a few I've forgotten.
The SAT or ACT are technically the only ones "required" for college, but most of the elite schools expect AP or IB (which tends to give the students a year or two of calculus, a fourth year of foreign language, and some deeper dives into other sciences or social studies).
But, because it's split across so many tests, there's no single "score poorly and your life is ruined" exam.
True, I only listed it because, at least where I live, high schools often do one program or the other. If it's an IB school, you end up taking the APs on your own (ie, there isn't a class focused on that content, though the IB curriculum should, in theory, end up covering the same stuff, at least for the major subjects).
We have the SAT and ACT, and those are objective. The wealthy still pass disproportionately due to better tutoring specifically oriented to those tests. It’s Goodhart’s law.
That's fair, but... What's the alternative? Obviously someone's going to have better academic performance if you have tutors, there's no way around. Still, if you have good academic performance - you have it.
American system feels more unfair when you're given points for extracurriculars like playing instruments or sports, like that's not going to hold poorer children even more (also how's that related to academic performance at all? Unis should not care about unrelated things)
The university will argue that a well-rounded student body improves the experience for everybody. IE, a college that's 100% "nerds" won't be as good as college that's 80% "nerds", 10% "smart jocks", and 10% "band geeks" (or whatever other categories you want).
I probably agree with that, but also acknowledge there's no good way to make that completely objective.
In Europe, university is treated as education for adults, not your entire life. Most universities are not campus resorts like in the US, but just buildings in the city itself, students live a normal life in the city, they rent a apartment or live in a dorm, take public transit to get to places, do sport at a sport place independent of the university, etc. You can live a well rounded life that way. The university is there so you learn your specialization. Of course people make friends there, but it doesn't have to be your entire life, and the university administrators job is not to meddle with people's social lives to make them "interesting", but to allow learning.
Our oldest unis are generally "downtown" or similar - Harvard, Princeton, UVA (sort of - Charlottesville is a really small city), etc. Though most do still have their own dormitory housing, at least for underclassmen.
The large campus-style uni is fairly recent creation - many came out of the land grant system during/after the Civil War. And even as newer unis have been created, they've followed that general design (even though they aren't land grant institutions).
Universities in the US and other countries are not the same, and comparing them is not really fruitful.
US universities do care about extracurriculars and GPA and other things because they aren’t optimizing for raw academic performance, they’re optimizing for various other things like an interesting student body (that attracts donors, professors, and future students), real-world networks, and so on.
No, that’s not even remotely close to what I wrote, at any level. In fact, it’s closer to the opposite, because selecting purely based on an abstract exam has nothing to do with being a real-world adult, whereas extracurriculars, internships, etc. do to some level.
And after graduation they can grind leetcode, and after that they can practice social cues to get in the management class. It's gamed tests all the way down.
> potentially more intelligent than the poorest group
It's easy to think this but its not true. There is just a ton of privilege involved in life. There are groups in India who purely tutor slum kids to the top IITs(the JEE exams in India are very hard).
On average more educated? Yes. More intelligent? Nah I see no data. Given the same access to resources I expect the kid from a poor family and a kid from a rich family to perform similarly.
I do not. Where do unintelligent people exist in your society?
And at a certain point the argument about equal access is entirely hypothetical. For example can’t redo early childhood. So if that impacts your ability then it’s been impacted.
> Where do unintelligent people exist in your society?
Everywhere? Both in rich and poor households.
> For example can’t redo early childhood. So if that impacts your ability then it’s been impacted.
Ah I thought the argument was more about genes(aka born smart) and not something like nutrition.
I think a good thought experiment is Formula 1. Most top F1 racers come from super rich backgrounds. Does that mean that more money == better driver? Its mostly a accessibility problem.
Well I’ll be charitable and interpret == as correlation as we are talking about averages.
From your conclusion you’re telling me wealth is completely random or the capabilities of children is completely random. Neither of those holds up to any scrutiny.
I don’t know what being born in the US has to do with the conversation.
The problem seems to be that intelligence is not entirely heritable; that just because unintelligent people fail to do well financially doesn't mean that their children are doomed to the same fate.
> Not entirely heritable? Or has no genetic correlation?
My understanding is that there is some genetic correlation but it's not a certainty; smart/rich parents can have dumbass kids and vice versa.
It's hard to quantify because a direct "IQ" measurement is fraught with issues and trying to measure by "success" has its own issues. If you've not met a lawyer/doctor/PhD that you'd put in the "dumbass" category, you probably haven't met many.
Yes. There as difference between unfair and unreal; someone who is malnourished when growing up will forever likely be weaker than someone who received a proper sequence of meals.
We should perhaps recognize that and try to compensate for it, and it's not a value judgement on the person so afflicted, but pretending it doesn't exist just confuses matters.
That's been the entire fight over the last 20+ years, does the test identify anything real and if so, what should be done with it (equality of outcomes vs equality of opportunity, e.g.).
I am currently living in Japan, and it seems that they follow the American style exams. I don't know if it is a result of the post-war occupation, or it was already like that before WW2.
Back home in Spain we follow the same style of a single national-level exam that you mentioned though.
Everyone has a tendency to support the system they went through. I've done it numerous times for standardized tests and I went through them. I think the information value of a person who was certified capable by system X recommending system X is probably low.
After all, if you flipped the script and the US used standardized tests and you were then told that China uses a committee of experts that will certify incoming applicants' stated political positions, race, and cultural background in order to "craft a class" (as an admissions officer calls it in SAT Wars) with a carve-out for the children of those who have already attended, you would be informed of the need for meritocracy, the tendency towards nepotism, and the obvious racial biases that will affect individuals in such a system.
Likewise, you would doubtless be informed that the East's more holistic look at the total student is a superior form of student selection since it is driven by a Confucian focus on the gestalt human rather than on the reductive metrics of the West.
What is interesting to me is to hear from those who have succeeded in some system but nonetheless wish it were different.
There's millions of Chinese diaspora who went through relatively zero-sum gaokao and have their kids go through western systems. IMO general consensus will will tell you centralized test will produce superior results but it's so tough / high stakes they won't want to put their kids through it. Many of them are also gaokao flunkies who had alternate pathways in era where with more easy/shady opportunities that are now gated behind actual gaokao performance, and they know statistically their kids can't hack it. So course they want system to be different in the same way US system is different - some nebulous holistic system, aka one where there's ample opportunities for their money to corrupt/capture. TBH last 1000s of years of Chinese history is interrogation of monied merchant class trying to capture (more) merited scholar class, the lessons learned (repeatedly) is venturing away from standardized/merit is just opening up to deregulated corruption.
I don't know how this exam is in China and Poland, but from what I've seen about the south Korean one it is much harsher on the students than the french one, even in my time
Yeah, I definitely didn't do any kind of entrance exam to get into University so unless there have been more recent changes to it it's not needed for all subjects. And its also not needed if you can just filter out bad students via normal exams in the first semesters.
Your single exam performance doesn't forever assign you to a class of people, you still have an opportunity to redo the exam next year or to be successful even without a degree. That's not possible in China nor Korea. Even in Germany flunking a class might ban you from ever retaking it at any other German university.
Because they want to say that China is bad. When, as you say, US is the outlier in inventing strange ways to admit kids to college. I'm from Brazil and the entrance is exam is similar to China, there is a single exam and the note is used to determine which college you can go.
I don’t really find it strange, if anything a slavish obsession to test scores strikes me as strange. School is just an artificial institution like any other, it’s not as if getting good grades is equivalent real-world success or “true” intelligence.
The US also has the best universities in the world, by and large, (even if the regular education system is lacking), so I am pretty skeptical of the idea that raw test scores as the sole criterion would lead to better outcomes.
Raw test scores are a good idea in many countries because it reduces scope for corruption + gives even the poorest kids a chance. Though I would argue there needs to be multiple chances a year and not just 1.
Wow! So advanced! Does the rest of the world do the same with jobs (a single exam to determine if you get hired to any company), or does it invent strange ways to interview and hire applicants well?
That you can't transfer large sum of money because money laundering rule.
and you can't break it into smaller pieces either because that is called "structuring" and is a crime?
He is meaning “money” = cash, and in practice he is correct. The mere possession of large amount of cash is a crime - a crime charged against the money itself in a bizarre twist of the law to end run constitutional concerns - and one which year by year it is getting harder to fight.
In the pre-banking era you could get robbed, killed, taxed to death, made to fight in a war, etc. That's all still true, but now most of your resources (savings) will be stuck in a place where there is no need for violence to cause you to lose all of it.
The way we normally deal with all these problems as a society is to apply force (via police, courts) to ensure that everyone has certain 'rights'.
The problem today is that while you have certain rights, like fairly strong rights to private property interests in real estate and such, we generally have very weak private property rights in financial properties. This is a problem world-wide. We need to fix this in our countries.
We won't know for a while but I don't imagine there will be mass civilian graves, abducted children, or the intent to annex the country. This is probably more about oil and deposing Maduro.
"This is more about oil and deposing Maduro."
Scary how overt these 'operations' are these days. 50 years ago governments would try hide stuff like this. Someone said 'lack of shame' is very concerning with governments of today. Wonder if this is a reflection of where we as a humanity are heading.
Putin has always been very clear about conquering Ukraine and eliminating anything Ukrainian, including its statehood. Tons of public writing, won't shut up about his fake history of the region, etc. Putin is as clear about his intentions as Hitler was about his intentions.
Could you point to some sources please? Every time I see Putin talk on Ukraine, he clearly expresses the very opposite, so I'd like to see where he's said otherwise.
I can't honestly claim to have paid attention to the whole interview and followed all of his rambling, but he seemed to express in the Tucker interview that he views Ukraine as traditional/rightful Russian territory. Tucker was trying to lead Putin into the claim that the invasion was prompted by NATO doing NATO things (which is the talking point favored by right-aligned American commenters, who want to somehow blame Obama/Biden foreign policy for the war), but Putin just wanted to talk about shit that happened centuries ago.
But it is being proposed. What do you think Elon is doing when he tweets support for remigration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remigration), which is literally ethnic cleansing? Or when the DHS posts memes in public proposing to deport 100 million people (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/dhs-100-million-deportations-...)? These are acts of ethnic cleansing being normalized before it actually happens. Let’s not ignore it. Instead, let’s vote out every single GOP politician that supports this or stays silent about it.
How well would you say it has been working out so far, to steelman Republican policies and attempt to find common ground and compromise? Personally I was doing so up until ~June of 2020 and all I really got for it was a lot of grief with still no recognition that I understand and care about many of the things they claim to care about. And society wide? Well, here we are.
Ethnic Cleansing is a policy of rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove persons of given groups from the area. You seem to be using a commonly cited inaccurate definition of genocide instead of the broader term “ethnic cleansing”, but note that even genocide does not require killing as the means, as it is defined (in the 1948 Genocide Convention) as any combination of one or more of seven different acts (one of which is killing members of the group) when undertaken with the specific intent to destroy the given racial, ethnic, national, or religious group.
TIL that neighborhood crime causing white flight is actually ethnic cleansing.
No, that's probably not ethnic cleansing, since the white people who fled to the suburbs were in a position of privilege and wanted to give up their homes. The American government practices ethnic cleansing, as you assert, so and for some reason they just made it illegal to do it in their own cities for the benifit of the most privileged ethnic demographic. Perplexing.
> Ethnic Cleansing is a policy of rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove persons of given groups from the area
So removing non-white Hispanics from America would count? What if the goal isn't to render the area ethnically homogenous?
> So removing non-white Hispanics from America would count?
Obviously that’s the argument put forth. Why phrase it as a question?
> What if the goal isn't to render the area ethnically homogenous?
A fair point, since a favorite argument of the regime and now protected legal doctrine is “the bad thing happened but it’s ok because we didn’t mean it like that”.
Except that doesn’t apply in this case since the goal is explicitly stated.
Yes, there were elections where at most only 18M people voted, compared to the 24M people that voted when the pro-Russian candidate won, in 2010. Because there were almost no ballot station in those regions leaning more towards Russia. Yet the government didn't think that was a problem at all; in fact, it was good for them (imagine if Trump could just make that people in some blue states couldn't vote). All this in a climate with banned parties and where all the media was controlled by the "Maidan" parties.
So it doesn't look the situation in Ukraine was very democratic either.
If he would barely speak Ukrainian, communicate mostly in Polish instead of Ukrainian, sacrifice his country’s interests in favor of Poland for 15 billion instead of following EU integration path, then yes – he was a Polish puppet all along.
Well, Zelensky actually barely speaks Ukrainian. He communicates mostly in Russian. As for his country's interests, we'd better wait to see how Ukraine is after all this finishes, and who are the biggest beneficiaries, in comparison to how it was when his term began.
> Why am I seeing footage of Chinooks if it's only a bombing? Those are troop-carriers
Based on what we're being told now, this was an extraction. (Slash detention. Slash kidnapping. In any case, requiring troop transport and extraction.)
It's so much easier to keep score these days. Up until the 90s, you were tube-fed the news from your TV (pun intended). You would have to go out of your way to read anything contrary to the sanctioned narrative or to see the effects of your country's policies and actions.
These days everything is live-streamed. So, anyone with an inquiring mind can lookup different sources and make their own conclusions.
But I fear this won't be for long. It is slowly becoming clear that the AI rally is less about productivity and more about mass surveillance and controlling online dissent globally [1].
Well considering Taiwan's independence and Putin's absolute obsession over NATO, it seems like the score ought to reflect the whole story. I'm not saying it's great, but it's gotta be better than historical comparables.
I am against China attacking Taiwan, I am against Russia attacking Ukraine, but I am also against Ukraine wanting to join NATO. The war started because of NATO and the US, and it almost fucked us over here in Germany when the US helped the Ukrainians blow up Nord Stream.
I am against any offensive action which leads to the misery and impoverishment of people, for some stupid power games of power hungry idiots.
I am sorry, you are blaming the United States for Russia invading Ukraine? Because Ukraine wanted to join a defensive alliance to protect themselves from a country that invaded them in 2014 and tried to keep their puppet in power before Maidan punted him?
"Bro please just look at the expansion map. I swear bro the war started because of NATO and the US. It’s not an invasion bro it’s a forced reaction to unipolar hegemony. Just one more provocation and the bear had to bite back. Please bro just admit it's a proxy war. I promise bro if the West just stayed out of the sphere of influence everything would be fine."
This tribalism that you display is exactly the reason that we end up in situations that we have. Do not pledge tribal allegiance to anyone. Pledge allegiance to critical thinking.
> How does this differ from Russia invading Ukraine?
As a Ukrainian I would assume US forces don't intend to conduct a campaign of mass murder, rape and looting, and US government overall doesn't plan genocide and erasure of national identity of Venezuela together with annexation of its territories?
OP's question was about how the current Russian invasion of Ukraine is different, not about some grand total score of infractions by major powers in 20th century. Overall I find this opinion of many western liberals that it is only fair for Russia to murder some Ukrainians, loot their homes and rape their women because US did some bad things before quite perplexing.
That wasn't my point. My specific argument is about US operational policy on the ground in similar engagements. Based on precident, we would expect them to engage in the behavior the commentor indicts.
I dream that neither of these imperial powers - Russia or the US - will be allowed to inflict imperial violence, but I wouldn't be mistaken and assume that this military action will be any different than, say, JSOC in Iraq.
Do you expect US soldiers to systematically loot homes on occupied territories? Or arbitrary murder anyone speaking language they don't like or found to be subscribed to Telegram channels they don't approve of on mass scale? Do the US plan to conduct genocide and annex Venezuela in your opinion?
The conduct of VSRF in Ukraine could perhaps be compared to the US conduct in Vietnam but definitely not in Iraq.
In Iraq, JSOC operational doctrine was literally to target assassination campaigns based on 'nodal analysis' from contacts lifted from cellphones; if telegram had existed, they certainly would have used it too.
Famously, they didn't have enough Arabic translators, so Delta Force was often taking targets entirely based on reported association. They couldn't target based on language because they couldn't even tell what language locals were speaking most of the time.
Russia's goal is to destroy Ukraine as nation and a country, because there's no "Ukrainians", there's no "Ukrainian language", and every country that speaks Russian should be controlled by Russian tsar. That's why they don't care and demolish ("liberate") Ukraine, town after town.
For one the whole country of Ukraine is fighting like hell for almost 4 years following the orders of their elected government to defend their country.
If Russia was on the right, the people of Ukraine would have just hanged Zelenskyy and his gov, instead of sending their children to the meat grinder.
Let’s see if Venezuelans will put their lives on the line to protect the regime.
Military (or part of) can (and historically does) initiate a coup. If civilians are also on board the gov is over in hours. Coups typically fail when people are not on the same page.
Turkey is a great example. Heck Putin also had Wagner knocking his door in Moscow.
> How does this differ from Russia invading Ukraine?
Cynically: maybe Venezuela will get a bit less sympathy because it's a somewhat shittier (see emigration numbers) and less democratic government than Ukraine's. And I suspect we have a more positive view of US troops than Russian troops, despite everything (Abu Ghraib is seen as an aberration and not as the normal way of working).
> How does this differ from Russia invading Ukraine?
Cynically it's different in that Trump hopefully will not going to kill 220,000+ and leave 500,000+ war invalids of US military personnel in process. Though you never know...
A surgical strike that was over before the news broke out vs. a 4-year campaign of plundering with literal criminals, press-ganged foreigners, and chechen blocking detachments, featuring mass rape, executed civilians, abduction and forced reeducation of thousands of children, gross mistreatment of PoW, etc.
Emphasizing that I’m not defending this war at all, but one key difference I’m extremely confident in is that the US will not attempt to annex its favorite regions of Venezuela.
FWIW Russia was initially quite happy with "independent" Ukraine provided that their guy Yanukovich was in charge. It was only when he was ousted that they switched to open invasion tactics.
So from that perspective, I don't think US is really much different, just better at keeping its own puppets in power.
Russia didn’t react to his ouster by demanding a restoration of proper governance, they reacted by sending clandestine troops to seize Crimea in preparation for annexation the next month. Annexing other countries’ sovereign territory is a red line for good reason.
I'm not defending Russia here. Yanukovich was ousted for good reasons (and arguably he carried out a coup first when he reverted the country's constitution). My point is that, if we don't invade other countries only because their leadership does what we want, then we aren't really qualitatively any better.
No. I suppose I’m less confident in that, but I still don’t think it’s very likely. The American oil companies with contracts in Guyana would certainly be unhappy about it and it’s not clear what political benefit anyone in the US could hope to gain.
Offensive aggression has certain leeway; it can be covert so that the aggressor can deny the very fact of aggression. West likes that position very much; it suits its lying nature. Defensive aggression has no such freedom: here the aggression has to be visible.
I was born and grew up in Russia, and all my life I heard people like you telling us that NATO is going to invade any time now. Maybe it's time for you to wake up and realize that this was never a threat to begin with, just a justification for bullying others.
NATO is invading. They just don't do it overtly. You don't think those Chechen "freedom fighters" were, like, independent? It was USA all along. It was not a mistake, some leftover from Cold War or something, some project they forget to close now when Soviet Union broke. It was the policy all the time. There is no way to somehow negotiate it to stop short of surrendering. We have to fight. We do not want to, but there is no other option.
Recently there was a terrorist attack on a concert hall in Moscow and about 150 people were killed. The actual attackers were rather simple-minded Tajik people. No way they could plan such an attack themselves. You do realize that there was someone else? "A quiet American"? (Or maybe a British; doesn't matter.) Some timidly looking guy visited that concert hall before that attack, walked around and made notes. He noted, for example, whether the finishing materials were flammable. He did that reconnaissance in several places and finally picked that concert hall. That fellow belongs to a group that does this kind of things. They have something like a list of cases, teaching materials and lectures. You don't see such people in the news; but they surely do exist.
Thank you for the comment. It's a very good illustration of the kind of paranoia that is prevalent among Russians in general and their rulers in particular, and this is exactly why NATO is necessary and Europeans shouldn't assume that feeding Ukraine to the wolves will help in the long run.
Another difference that has not been mentioned in other comments is that: The US is not completely delusional about its military capabilities and could actually complete this invasion in three days. In fact, it may already be over, as Maduro have been captured.
