<p>In the just finished world college programming competition, U of Michigan placed 2nd. MIT placed at 27th. Stanford even did not make to the final round. This is the first time since 2008 a US team win a gold medal. A closer look at the top teams reveals dearth of US teams: 4 in top 58 teams. Teams from China and Russia crowded the medal podium. Is MIT student quality declining?</p>
<p>ICPCWiki:</a> History</p>
<p>It really depends on the nature of the competition, what types of students participate, etc. </p>
<p>MIT doesn’t even teach “computer programming” in any direct sense. There are a couple of classes, and you’re as likely to find them outside of the EECS department as within it. </p>
<p>Most colleges teach their comp. sci. programs through a series of classes that are articulated through the use and mastery of specific programming languages…even going so far as to tack the name of the language onto the course name itself. MIT does no such thing. </p>
<p>MIT engineering in general gets similar criticisms as that from the OP. “You have a degree in Mech. E but you can’t fix this tractor?!”</p>
<p>MIT is extremely theory-heavy, often at the expense of practitioner knowledge. It’s a conscious choice. The thought is that theory is hard and practice is, relatively, much easier. MIT grads who can master theory go on to mold their fields rather than simply work within them…and they pick up plenty of practitioner knowledge in their careers. </p>
<p>I’m not saying MIT shouldn’t have done better. I couldn’t say.</p>
<p>This is just a different, insider perspective to consider in forming opinions of whether we’ve lost our edge. </p>
<p>I don’t think we have.</p>
<p>“MIT doesn’t even teach “computer programming” in any direct sense. There are a couple of classes, and you’re as likely to find them outside of the EECS department as within it.”</p>
<p>I don’t think that a valid excuse. MIT does not teach PUTNAM Math. Students still do well on it. Perhaps, students in other countries are better motivated or more talented. Assuming MIT professors are super (based on their scientific productivity), I simply counld not find a valid arguement why MIT team did so bad this year. They don’t care? I doubt it.</p>
<p>All I’m saying is that the proof is in the pudding. There’s a reason why so many countries in the world, including many who did well in this competition, would love to have an MIT of their very own…and in many cases have solicited MIT to help them build one. </p>
<p>MIT’s real world results are undeniable.</p>
<p>The fact that Stanford didn’t place only supports my point. If you’d rather go to Michigan, go for it.</p>
<p>The reputation of MIT comes from the work of MIT faculty members, not the quality of students. This is a student competition. Not just MIT is not doing so well, but the US as a country is not doing well as it should.</p>
<p>That’s the half of the truth convenient to your cause. I suspect you know that. I’ll leave the rest for others.</p>
<p>One of my kids have been to ICPC twice and has coached. He says that the “serious” overseas teams spend MONTHS doing nothing but preparing for this competition, to the exclusion of most everything else. His team takes the competition seriously, but not to that extent. And BTW, S was excited beyond belief at how well UMich did this year. When you get to that level, all the US teams pull for each other.</p>
<p>You may not be aware that this competition was rescheduled from its original date and location – Egypt in late Feb. I would guess that messed with lots of training schedules. In addition, folks recently have been in exams (or are about to be) and have been otherwise preoccupied.</p>
<p>My son tells me that there are undergrads on some of the teams that are 23-24 years old (different progressions from secondary education to college than in the US). My kid competed at age 18 and 19. In addition, college students in other parts of the world apply directly into their majors, as opposed to the US. It makes a difference.</p>
<p>ICPC (and USACO) problems are also HEAVILY math-driven. No forcing code here. Having one good person on your team may get you qualified for worlds, but you will not do well unless all three members have serious depth and experience. The team also only has one computer during the competition, so folks have to divide and conquer various tasks (i.e., one codes, one develops algorithms, and another works on the next problem). Teamwork is essential.</p>
<p>Having seen the progress of a number of high school programmers into top-level competitions at the collegiate level, I would say that they do just fine. :)</p>
<p>MIT’s reputation is likely to survive your criticism. :)</p>
<p>“My son tells me that there are undergrads on some of the teams that are 23-24 years old (different progressions from secondary education to college than in the US). My kid competed at age 18 and 19.”</p>
<p>The Michigan team has a Ph.D. student in it. I am not sure whether there is a Chinese import in their team. There is no unfair age competition. The competition is a big deal (at least from U of Michigan standpoint). <a href=“Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at the University of Michigan”>Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at the University of Michigan;
<p>“MIT’s reputation is likely to survive your criticism.”</p>
<p>I do not criticise MIT reputation.</p>
<p>Dude, this is a computer programming competition. The results of this hardly reps. the the quality of the students moreso than preparation. I’m pretty sure MIT and other US. institutions of higher education perform well in many other areas of science and math. It’s not like we are falling behind in innovation. Perhaps check out the research happening at MIT and the coursework. I’ve checked out MIT’s coursework via OpenCourseWare and I am really impressed and more institutions should approach science courses in such a manner. Their work (as indicated by exams and p-sets) really emphasize being able to think critically about science which is a rare quality at many pre-dominantly science and engineering schools (Georgia Tech is across town, and they stick to the more traditional “rule-based” type approach to science and engineering w/exception of BME. In fact I would claim that we even teach natural sciences better than Tech and we don’t even have engineering). MIT students may not be able to perform perfectly in some programming competition, but they will be able to think and “create” (as opposed to implement) great ideas and solutions b/c of the nature of their education (which is very rigorous, but well-designed in my opinion).<br>
I recently watched 2millionminutes which attempted to compare us to China and India. Guess what you see at on of the Chinese HS displayed. You see the students taking a freaking multiple choice Calculus exam (I mean the whole thing was scantron, no written problems solving section), something I never experienced even at my " lowly inner-cityish HS"(this is aside from the fact that the Chinese student actually believed that high schools in American do not teach calc. That’s funny considering I took honors and AP+ several AP and honors science courses) I don’t know if this is normal, but it seems as if the international students (here at Emory) try to avoid sections of science courses that require a higher level of thinking that goes beyond being able to simply circle a letter or provide a one-word answer. Anything requiring “thinking out of the box” (as required in several biology and chem. sections, rather it be intro. or upperlevel) in science courses seems to scare them more than it scares the rest of the students.<br>
For example: They avoid the teacher like who gives the following caliber of organic chemistry exams like the plague even though only one portion of his exams are particularly challenging.
<a href=“https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B456FmeCw42BMjNjNjE5OTQtNTBjOS00MzQzLThjNDItZjc4M2RlNGJiOTAz&hl=en_US[/url]”>https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B456FmeCw42BMjNjNjE5OTQtNTBjOS00MzQzLThjNDItZjc4M2RlNGJiOTAz&hl=en_US</a></p>
<p>Many of the international students (often Asian or Indian) straight up ask advisers their freshmen year “who are the easiest professors or classes to take for pre-med?” They are asking another (normally science) professor who is easiest for a course. I haven’t really heard of U.S. students having the nerve to do this. I’ve heard this from more than one prof. also, so it must not be an isolated case. If they are so well prepped, what are they afraid of? All of the science courses should be extremely easy to them the way you speak of the US losing its edge. Also, a lot of them don’t perform anyway near as well as expected perhaps for the reasons cited above. Not even our supposedly better international friends are perfect. Our HS curriculum may be significantly easier, but it seems as if the playing field is somewhat leveled, especially at top universities for some reason.</p>
<p>MIT’s performance in the Putnam suggests that the top people at MIT are still the best in the world. And even though Putnam is limited to North America, the MIT participants did very well in the international math olympiads in high school.</p>
<p>First of all, the programming competition isn’t taken as seriously here. It’s not like the math competitions. Who knows if MIT’s best programmers train for it or even participate.
I’ve looked at the programming competition, and it seems like a great idea, but I wouldn’t use it to downgrade student quality. Unless it’s the Putnam, MIT undergrads are not going to spend time training for some contest.</p>
<p>MIT does have some informal programming classes during the IAP (independent activity period in January). Besides, MIT has its own programming competition. My son had fun with this competition in the last 2 years:</p>
<p>[Battlecode</a> - AI Programming Competition](<a href=“http://www.battlecode.org/]Battlecode”>http://www.battlecode.org/)</p>
<p>It pays too!</p>
<p>“MIT’s performance in the Putnam suggests that the top people at MIT are still the best in the world. And even though Putnam is limited to North America, the MIT participants did very well in the international math olympiads in high school.”</p>
<p>I am not optimistic about this. ACM is initially a North American affair. After it was expanded to include worldwide students, we quickly lost our edge. I read an article a while ago claiming that China could send up to 40 students capable of obtaining gold medal in IMO in a given year if they were allowed. If Putnam math allows worldwide students to participate, similar scenario such as ACM may emerge.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think this is true, many of the top competitors in USACO/IOI that come to MIT don’t seem to worry about the ACM. They don’t have very good publicity (I personally had a very difficult time finding about the contest my freshman year even when I was being proactive, and this past year, I didn’t even bother.) Additionally, it requires a much bigger commitment than the Putnam, since ACM has multiple rounds and requires travel, while the Putnam is just taken on a random Saturday, at MIT. Also, MIT has a freshman seminar for preparing for the Putnam, while no similar thing exists for ACM.</p>
<p>If you look at contests like the IOI and the IMO, the US generally does very well. China consistently dominates in both competitions, but I’m sure if their process is something we want to emulate.</p>
<p>Also, a few things - BattleCode has a pretty different focus from contests like ACM, IOI, etc., except for the freshman seminar I mentioned above, I don’t think most people even really prepare for the Putnam, programming contests of this nature does require some level of creativity, at least, more than you would expect, and MIT does offer classes that are pretty useful for these contests - specifically 6.006, 6.046, and and 6.854.</p>
<p>Edit: So it seems that two of this year’s team members were multiple-time gold medalists at the IOI. I think it’s likely that they just had a bad day in this year’s contest. And they still got 5 problems.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m sure you would agree that having both skills is desirable. And just because someone is skilled at implementation to the extreme doesn’t mean they can’t also be able to create.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is a mentality in entrance-exam driven admissions systems at various countries that seems to create this phenomenon. This doesn’t mean that the talent of creative problem solvers is lacking.</p>
<p>A reasonably talented American student (your average Ivy League student) probably avoids having to think too hard about math problems too. They probably have worked the system hard to get where they are. So I can’t really blame a majority of internationals to take the ‘practical’ mentality that so and so is exactly what needs to be done to move forward in the system, so do it.</p>
<p>The <em>very best</em> internationals surely wouldn’t avoid the hard problems, because they’re busy winning international medals. I think those are the cases we want to talk about in this thread.</p>
<p>Fair enough, I recognize this. I do indeed see many American students practice the same tactics (but it seems to be less open or less pervasive).
The OP, however, seems to be claiming that they are, in general, better off than students in the US, not just the “very best” international students. A good question from me would be: At MIT where most of the professors require ability to solve difficult problems and think critically. I say this in light of the idea that there should be no way that the disparity between professors’ standards can vary as widely there as they do here, the OpenCourseWare stuff kind of supports this. There seems to be a similar approach or level of rigor across most profs. w/in one course or discipline.
Is it very fair or safe to assume that the International students are outperforming the US students? I really do think the nature of a legit science education that actually stresses the critical thinking aspect may possibly level the playing field (is this a European/American thing, or do they have it? If they have it, I can’t tell if they do it better). That’s the point I’m trying to make. I’m wondering why students supposedly superior to the rest of the student body resort (or need to) to similar tactics. At Emory, the better teachers actually tend to give harder exams, but students in said courses actually end up w/higher grades than other sections w/weaker teaching and easier exams. However, it seems that no one (but the best students willing to challenge themselves) cares. They go onto the course conference and look at the back exams and say: “I don’t want to/can’t do all of that.”<br>
And again, I add that the international students seem to struggle just as much if not more than the others in such courses (I’ve seen as I’m a tutor for some of the difficult sections).
I’ll be fair and say that it seems that innovators in the US seem to be excessively exposed to manners in which to both implement and innovate (You’re right, they have both qualities. Do we in general promote this combo. better. Or is this fiction?). I am moreso curious about the difference in the type of education we receive versus those in places such as India or China. Other than the difference in rigor, are there any other differences (you know, is the emphasis on critical thinking and solving complex, app. based problems prevalent)? If there is a difference at the secondary level (HS I guess), does it persist in higher education (Is it safe to assume that higher education is more rigorous in these countries? Is the rigor as meaningful? Different style of rigor than what one would observe at MIT)? </p>
<p>I’m partially just curious, I made the mistake of throwing out some inappropriate generalizations, but I am just wondering the validity of saying we’re so much behind (I’ll perhaps agree at the secondary education level. I’m a person who came from a great magnet/honors program in an otherwise *****ty school. It made a huge difference. I bet such a gap is common here in the US. It shouldn’t be that way. Being in a magnet shouldn’t be life saving almost) when I watch international students struggle or excel just as much as everyone else here. I mean, we’re not an Ivy, but I would say the rigor is at least similar to that of some Ivies. The ones closer to our rank. I’ve compared courses (particularly science courses)existing here and at “X” institution. There isn’t a big difference. Some were harder there (say Brown for example) and some were harder here, and some were harder there (in fact I’ll admit that the chem, especially Ochem. material I’ve seen at most peers is a bit easier. However, many of the bio courses were harder than many of our sections/bio courses).</p>
<p>I’m just addressing the big picture of the idea of us being behind in general, outside of the whole “programming” arena. This competition, again, means they can’t program as well other countries. What about the other aspects of the MIT education (placing 27th does not indicate being educated w/less quality than Chinese students, Carnegie Mellon did well, and so did UMich, and 27 really ain’t horrible). Is it valuable (I’m betting it is) or would it suffice to make science education at top American universities more like that of other countries so that we “catch” up. Will their style of rigor solve the problem (I think it will in HS, but maybe universities have something going for them).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I somehow gathered a different impression. Let me say why - check out what the OP said:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The contrast seems between the top China and Russia performers and the top MIT performers (where MIT is already a top math/science/engineering school in the US).</p>
<p>Now as to your own question, I don’t think it is clear that the very bright students of the US (going to elite schools) are particularly worse off than the international students going to elite schools, of course excluding comparisons between internationals at the top schools and domestic students, since realistically the quota for the former is so much lower it’s a different playing field. Both of them seem to really get their acts together in college, and frankly a lot of testing machine Asian internationals (whose abilities may in part intimidate someone like me) seem to lack direction and ambition after a certain point and just do something streamlined. This is ultimately because having access to world class academic resources at an Ivy, MIT, or a comparably strong international school means what you do during those years in particular shapes you into the mind you will be after. The game isn’t over after high school.</p>
<p>ICPC seems to be an extracurricular activity at some schools, and to involve more of a serious selection process at others. Many of the USACO/IOI folks we know did ICPC freshman/soph year and then moved on to other activities/projects/research. Google, FB and Microsoft do offer some interesting CS challenges, along with various other hothouses and start-ups. 
</p>
<p>There are also plenty of excellent CS students who don’t even bother with competition-level programming. (My math major S wouldn’t go near the Putnam or math competitions in HS, even though he had proofs and analysis in HS. Focused on CS instead.)</p>
<p>Eligibility Requirements:
[ICPCWiki:</a> Regional Rules](<a href=“http://cm.baylor.edu/ICPCWiki/Wiki.jsp?page=Regional%20Rules#section-Regional+Rules-PeriodOfEligibility]ICPCWiki:”>http://cm.baylor.edu/ICPCWiki/Wiki.jsp?page=Regional%20Rules#section-Regional+Rules-PeriodOfEligibility)</p>
<p>Flowchart from 2008 – <a href=“http://icpc.baylor.edu/icpc/Regionals/EligibilityDecisionTree.pdf[/url]”>http://icpc.baylor.edu/icpc/Regionals/EligibilityDecisionTree.pdf</a></p>
<p>Interesting. Anyway, the US overall didn’t do bad at all. UMich came in number two. I don’t think this reflects badly on MIT. Often people underestimate the top state flagship Us and less prestigious places w/engineering programs (both CM and Ann Arbor are known for really solid programs regardless of “prestige” and “student quality”). I’m personally glad to see three universities place that well, given the info. you provide (w/the competition being taken a bit more serious at some other places).<br>
At the secondary level, what do people think of the competition held by intel in LA (or the giant national robotics competition)? Getting more students involved in such activities outside of the classroom (other than sports or the millions of other resume building ECs) may be a solid start. Not to mention, it teaches people to apply knowledge in science (gets away from simply taking mundane exams and doing traditional p-sets) and requires a great deal of innovative spirit. However, I have to wonder if the Intel competition (very high caliber) perhaps unevenly attracts people from certain types of schools/backgrounds. Or to be fair, it may be attracting very motivated students w/better than average resources at their disposal. Like for example, being a motivated student, I now see the advantages of a student living in an upper-middle class suburb in Atlanta (my friends tell me about the millions of things they got to do in HS) vs. me in a lowerclass neighborhood in Savannah where opps. in science for young folks is relatively limited (one would be the shadow and internship I had with gulfstream my senior year). I would probably have been better off as a low-income person in Atlanta where all the major research centers and Universities are. Luckily, summers were my friend and I had family there.
It’s also amazing from my background and perspective that so many students have had extensive CS ability since HS. That must have taken some drive. However, I’ve heard of many good HSs offering such courses beyond the AP Programming course (and now my high school has it as it recently revived its engineering program. Boy how things change).
You MIT students really deserve to be there. I’m more of a natural sciences kind of person (with my obsession with things like cell bio and organic chem. and stuff). However, seems that MIT offers a lot in the way of natural sciences too. I very much like the cirriculum and structure of courses there. I use the OCW stuff to learn additional material mainly in bio, where I feel the cirriculum here is too pre-med oriented and less appropriate for those going into academia. A few profs. are trying to change that though, w/student resistance of course because more courses would become like the courses that I describe people as avoiding. There was an instance last semester where a human phys. tried case-based learning and then planned for short-answer/essay exams (basically a case based exam). The class essentially revolted and pressured him to change it to multiple choice b/c that’s what the other section was doing. Mind you this professor was tenured. Ironically they got a low average on their precious MC exam. Still kind of amazing the power students have hear.</p>
<p>It’s completely dependent on who joins the team to compete. At Stanford, CS students in general don’t care about these sorts of competitions. The most brilliant CS people I know (I’m in CS as well) couldn’t be bothered with them, because they’re busy doing research, taking classes, etc. and so focus their efforts on endeavors that have a better payoff. Will these competitions help them get into grad school or get a better job? No. Will it enrich their understanding of CS, more so than other forms of study would? No. There’s no incentive to compete in these kinds of competitions, other than for fun or some glory, but that just doesn’t cut it when you have better stuff to do. So in the end, the “not-so-good” students in CS compete, for fun. To be honest, I know more than a few brilliant CS undergrads who could do these competition problems in their sleep, and I know that if even the not-as-brilliant CS students competed, they’d place well in these competitions.</p>
<p>I’m also certain that all of the above applies to MIT students as well. They just can’t be bothered with these competitions when they have no real payoff and other activities are more enriching.</p>
<p>(You could say the same about why undergrads at other top math schools don’t place well in the Putnam. Differences in cultures, both across disciplines and across universities. Some students care, some don’t.)</p>