After talking about the Olympics, I wanted to talk about Olympiad mathematics. Today I happened to see a report again, so I might as well write down a few thoughts.
When I was talking about the Olympics, I was also reflecting on myself: is my enthusiastic support for the Olympics related to my own Olympiad-math experience? The answer is yes. When I have recalled my growing-up years, I have also mentioned many times how important Olympiad mathematics was to me. My experience with Olympiad math not only helped me get into school on recommendation all the way, but, more importantly, gave me the exhilaration of peering into truth and the sense of accomplishment that comes from self-transcendence. These irreplaceable experiences have had a direct influence on my present philosophical ideas, to the point that I feel I can understand the meaning of Plato’s “no entry without geometry” (“不通几何不得入内”).
In any case, at least for some people, Olympiad mathematics is a good thing. That report, or other criticisms of a similar sort, does not deny this point. What goes wrong is the Chinese predicament of “Olympiad math for the whole nation.” The Olympiad-math system is criticized mainly on two counts: first, the training-camp system. Olympiad-math students have to take part in intensive training outside class, and even while in school they are often divided into a special class for concentrated teaching. This specialized form of education is what leaves many parents of “ordinary students” most dissatisfied; second, nationwide mobilization. This situation had not yet formed in the days when I was in school. At that time, only a minority studied Olympiad math. Because we students who got into Olympiad math earlier achieved very good results and obtained the best paths for further schooling, this “shortcut” became increasingly conspicuous. In the end, all those parents unwilling to lose the opportunity swarmed onto this road, producing the situation of Olympiad math for the whole nation, so that the kind of situation mentioned in the report appeared:
“Olympiad math is a course that lets most children prove, over and over again, that they are fools.” Only 5% of exceptionally intelligent children are suited to studying Olympiad math, yet “Olympiad math for the whole nation” turns 95% of students into sparring partners. This not only destroys the beauty of mathematics, but also deprives children of confidence and happiness.
But where exactly does the problem lie? Is it because Olympiad math should not be tied to school advancement? The problem is not that simple. If, as the report above says, Olympiad math really can screen out those of exceptional intelligence, then isn’t tying it to school advancement exactly appropriate? Of course, school advancement does not require only intelligence, but the so-called all-around development of morality, intellect, and physique still has to involve some screening by intelligence after all. If one can have preferential treatment in advancement for exceptional physical ability (student-athletes), exceptional artistic talent, or even exceptional morality (the so-called “three-good students” and the like), then why can’t exceptional intelligence count as well?
The intensive training for Olympiad math is in fact similar to the national system used to prepare for the Olympics. Both are designed to select a small number of children with “exceptional” potential, train them intensively, and after cruel competition and elimination, let some of the ones who stand out enjoy various favorable conditions. Of course, we can criticize both Olympiad math and the Olympics at the same time, and oppose both the system of Olympiad-math elite classes and that of student-athletes; but first we should notice the very different treatment these two similar systems receive in people’s minds. The intensive-training system for the Olympics is often criticized as cruel, and policy support for the national system, as well as parents who “sell” their children to sports schools, are seen as motivated purely by profit. No matter how much the national system may “mobilize the whole nation,” there has still never been a situation of the whole nation doing the Olympics. Even though sports students also enjoy special treatment in class assignment and school advancement, parents have never swarmed to send their children to sports schools, much less forced training on their children regardless of whether their physical condition is suitable. Yet Olympiad math has produced precisely such a predicament. Parents who spare no effort to send their children to Olympiad-math classes are not seen as profit-driven; they are seen as hoping their sons will become dragons. And regardless of their own children’s aptitude, they want them to undergo the strictest Olympiad-math training, right up until they are repeatedly frustrated, blocked, and smash headlong into walls.
The parents’ logic is: don’t let the child lose at the starting line. After all, whether a child has the aptitude for Olympiad math is something you can’t know without trying. Of course, I support allowing every child in elementary school to dabble in Olympiad math briefly, to see whether they have any interest and potential. This is like how, when children are young, parents can take them to learn calligraphy, learn art, learn this or that, and create more possibilities for development in a relaxed atmosphere. But such experiments should not go too far. If a child both learns poorly and is unwilling to learn, then forcing them to continue is not really appropriate.
What drives parents to keep forcing those children who do not do well at Olympiad math to continue studying it is undoubtedly the fact that Olympiad math is directly tied to opportunities for school advancement. As for special training in sports, arts, and the like, although it can also be tied to advancement, it is not so much a side road as a wrong road: it leads in a direction different from ordinary school advancement. But the Olympiad-math road is a “shortcut.” If successful, it may let one bypass many of the bumps and hardships of exam-oriented competition and run ahead of the other classmates.
The reason the path of Olympiad math corresponds so closely to the originally planned route of exam-oriented education is not a problem with Olympiad math itself, but is determined by the present state of exam-oriented education. Olympiad math selects the 5% of students with “exceptional intelligence”—and here intelligence is in fact just mathematical and scientific ability—but this ability is precisely also the core requirement of the entire present education and school-advancement system. Although it loudly proclaims all-around development in morality, intellect, and physique, “learning math, physics, and chemistry well” has always been the fundamental task.
This is not entirely a Chinese problem, but is related to the whole rationalist modern culture since the Enlightenment. Modern people take mathematical and scientific knowledge as the center of human knowledge, the center of the education system, and even the soul of the social order. Although the idea that everyone is equal originates in the theological notion of natural rights, it ultimately takes shape around human “intelligence.”
In terms of physical constitution, people are obviously born different, but modern people believe that in terms of rational capacity, human beings are equal. In a sense, this belief is precisely the gift of mathematical and scientific knowledge: modern axiomatic and mechanized mathematical science is based on a universal logic rule. In principle, once one understands the premises and the rules of deduction, then everything inferred from them can be understood and accepted by everyone. Basic education, with mathematical and scientific knowledge as its backbone, has become a necessary prerequisite for participation in civic life.
Ironically, the very same mathematical and scientific knowledge is also precisely the field that best reveals innate differences. Especially with a skill like Olympiad math, if someone has not yet “gotten it,” then no amount of rote memorization can possibly keep them up.
But people can accept statements such as being born frail in body, or lacking artistic genes from birth; what they find almost impossible to accept is the idea of being born short on intelligence. Even if people do, after all, admit that differences in learning talent really do exist, they would still rather believe that the early bird catches the worm and that diligence can make up for clumsiness; they believe that children with somewhat poorer natural endowment can still learn Olympiad math well through hard study and practice. Of course, no one would deny the saying that diligence can make up for clumsiness, just as it is certainly possible for someone born physically frail to become an outstanding athlete through hard training. It is also possible to use a sea of exercises to let any ordinary student keep up with Olympiad-math training, or even stand out. Human beings are highly plastic. But the question is, if one has neither talent nor interest, why insist on spending enormous effort and taking great risks to train so hard?
The reason, of course, lies in the ratio of gain to risk. Even if studying Olympiad math ends in hitting a wall, it does not prevent one from returning at any time to the normal path of school advancement and exam competition; after all, it will still be of some help to the study of mathematical and scientific subjects. As for whether the child’s mind is wounded, parents do not care very much. The educational style prevalent in China is in any case a scolding style; it is everyday business to let children suffer setbacks.
Therefore, the problem with Olympiad math is in fact the problem of ordinary education. First, the path of school advancement and exam competition is the only one that truly counts; apart from moving up step by step from elementary to middle to university, all other options—technical, artistic, sports-related paths, and so on—are either optional side branches or heretical wrong roads. As a result, in order to seize a position on this one and only main road, parents have no choice but to stop at nothing. Second, this ordinary path of school advancement overemphasizes mathematical and scientific ability, making it too parallel to the Olympiad-math road, so that the latter can become a shortcut running ahead. Finally, the Olympiad-math road itself is highly risky: the elimination rate is extremely high, and the blow of frustration is also very great. It is like a rough road fit only for a small number of off-road vehicles. Ordinary cars may also be able to get through, but the risk is too great, and after frustration the cost should in principle outweigh the benefit. Yet the problem is that China’s present “main roads” are equally rough, uneven, and full of hardship, with elimination rates and the risk of frustration no less severe, so that the high-risk nature of the Olympiad-math road is obscured.
So if one merely bans Olympiad math, while the features of ordinary education remain unchanged, the result can only be counterproductive. Children’s burden of study and the brutality of competition will not be reduced; abolishing key middle schools and the like will at most concentrate all pressure onto the single narrow bridge of the college entrance exam. Prohibiting all kinds of side roads and shortcuts may, on the surface, preserve a kind of fairness, but this fairness is built upon a one-sided rationalist faith and suppresses the diversity of human development.
What needs reform is not Olympiad math, but exam-oriented education. And reforming exam-oriented education is not simply a matter of changing the form and content of the college entrance exam every few days. Of course, if what the college entrance exam tests changes, the methods and content of teaching will also be forced to change. This is a kind of pressure-from-below mechanism. But the reason this pressure-from-below works is precisely that it is established under the logic of exam-oriented education; as long as the point that everything is aimed at examinations does not change, then however you change it, it will be meaningless. To truly change the mechanical pattern of exam-oriented education, what needs reform is not the way students are assessed by the college entrance exam and other tests, but the way schools and teachers are assessed. Schools should become famous for campus culture rather than college-admission rates, and teachers should also be measured by students’ respect and affection rather than the class average score. Eliminate all top-down rankings and evaluations, and strengthen bottom-up autonomy for schools and teachers—this is the proper policy for education reform.
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply