Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Our main lecturer, Israeli professor, when asked to solve something that wasn't directly
from last homework question, answered "I do not advance the science near the whiteboard,
go ask TA in reception hours".
Updated 11 Jun View Upvotes
Downvote
Comment
Share
(which are, in turn, not really a walk in a park either, there are plenty of friendlier books).
Same can be said about mathematical analysis books which I encountered. Soviet textbooks
just go straight to the point and throw lots of definitions and formulas at you, without any
preparation. The US textbooks try to explain simple things in more detail, and increase the
complexity as they progress.
The reason for it, I think, is the difference in education systems. In the US, the point of
education system is to teach students, as well as possible. In the USSR, the point was to get
rid of weaker students and have only very good ones left, who would understand the subject
no matter how hardcore the approach to it is. It might be more psychological rather than
intentional, but in Soviet times it was a general sentiment: if you can't do it straight-away,
you are simply not good enough and should do something else. The US system tries to
improve students and then select the best, the Soviet system tried to select the best and then
improve them. The US system tries to make geniuses out of average students, the Soviet
system tried to select geniuses disregarding average students. I might be a bit too
categorical with this, but I don't think it is too far from truth.
Another possible reason, stemming from the above is a lack of competition. In the US, the
education system is adapting to students' need, if the books are not teaching good enough
they get replaced or amended. In the USSR, the textbooks were centrally selected and
approved, and students had to adapt to whatever they were given.
Edit: I also have just recalled this phrase very widely circulated during Soviet times: "We
don't have irreplaceable people". (It actually originated much earlier, and was used by
Woodrow Wilson, but is widely assigned to Stalin, who in fact never said anything like that.
I also believe that the connotation was intended to be different.) This phrase, however, well
demonstrates the psychology of Soviet system. No one cared if you fail, there'll be another
person who'd take your place. In the US, if student is struggling, it is partially a teacher's
fault; in the USSR, it is 100% student's fault.
Updated 9 Apr View Upvotes
Downvote
Comments34+
Share129
See example of the physics textbook I used in my secondary school (16 years old). When
you open it there are just formulas. People who are professors in many ex-communist
countries are barely surviving. Salaries are ridiculously low. So the only reason why they
are bothering with science is their immense love and passion. What kind of reasoning
you can expect from this people? It goes something like this: Math is hard and you are
either cut out to understand it or you better find something else. Also, we only need
formulas on the old recycled paper and students will (have to) understand it
In USA they constantly try to tweak the system to make it user-friendly and they honestly
believe in practical knowledge and that everyone can understand almost anything if you
teach them. Also, education is billion dollar business in USA.
Updated 19 Jul View Upvotes
Downvote
Comments4+
Share
relearning and re-memorizing it every year. Thus while the book seems hard to an outsider,
to me (and probably most Russians who had their education system), they seemed just
normal.
Written 31 Mar View Upvotes
Downvote
Comment
Share
Anonymous
2.9k Views
I think maybe you're referring to the texts that were used at Moscow State University to
teach students in the Mechanics and Mathematics department for instance. These people
were the absolute best students in the USSR(barring that whole discrimination against Jews
fiasco).
Many of them are now tenured professors at most of the major research universities in the
US or Europe. When your standard is to teach to future professors, you go for these books
because they will prepare students to become researchers. Few universities in the US are
training their undergrads with hopes of becoming professors. Hence, they have no need for
specially challenging classes or textbooks.
There are a few that do, and some are notable for making their math department entirely
for people who want to go on to a premier pure math PhD program immediately after, I'll
mention a few of these: Harvard, Princeton, Chicago. If becoming a math professor is your
goal then you want to attend these places generally speaking. If you compare their options
for their students, then you'll see that they don't differ much from what is found in these
Soviet series of books.
Written 1 Apr View Upvotes
Downvote
Comment
Share
Jackson is the standard graduate electromagnetism book. I've heard professors joke about
whether the author could solve all the problems. Pathria is a very intense undergraduate stat
mech book. Same with Shankhar for quantum. For quantum, the most elegant and
mathematically motivated look at the fundamentals of non relativistic qm is perhaps given
by Sakurai.
I studied physics for ten years and I can't say I've ever heard someone ever say that.
Russians rarely have weak math skills like some American students, but that is another
matter.
Written 5 Apr View Upvotes
Downvote
Comment1
Share
pure ones.
Difference is well expressed by popular (may be not only in Russia) joke: Pure
mathematics solves what it can as it should be, and applied mathematics solves what it
should as it can be.
I.e. , the pure one develops itself, likes axiomatic and absolute precision in derivations,
and has no special interest to applications. The applied one uses mathematics
instrumentally, and courageously applies it to the practical tasks only trying not to make
terrible mistakes, and has no special interest to the pure mathematics.
The representatives of both sides prefer not to speak although definite mutual interest
exists.
Teaching the engineers in top Russian technical universities begins from a good piece of
fundamental mathematics with explanation and training the students how it works in
applied tasks. The result of their efforts directly depends on the attention to mathematics in
schools and society.
This also determines the percent of future pure mathematicians - they are very small part of
population.
P.S. This difference determines the level of "readibility" of textbooks. Both pure and
applied mathematicians have own almost not overlapping libraries, and have no wish to
look at these of "almost colleagues". The same concerns the approaches to teaching the
students.
Written 15 Mar, 2015 View Upvotes
Downvote
Comments1+
Share
Mathematics skills require lots of preparation and lots of support for the budding
mathematician. The USSR hijacked their entire educational system for the (resulting in
perhaps less serious social sciences) hard sciences. Many jobs not entailing actual
mathematical knowledge beyond derivatives were filled with mathematical requirements so
that there was not just a massive number of people trying to cram math but also lots of
people whose sincere mathematical curiosity needed to be differentiated from careerists.
When writing textbooks for teachers who need to identify prodigies, you need challenging
problems.
The US wanted more engineers but did not have the ideological need to prove things
mathematically or the utter control over society that would make more stringent public
math education possible. Since the public school system was geared towards providing
babysitting and minimal certifications for students before college, that conflicted with the
effort to improve math education. Private schools have far more variability in the US and
many of them likely focused on serious teaching comparable to their Soviet counterparts.
The US teachers were under more pressure to use the textbook and were also under more
pressure to help least capable students instead of the most capable (the USSR was the
reverse). The textbooks in the US tend to be about the minimally literate citizen, not the
future defense engineer.
Written 9 Feb, 2015 View Upvotes
Downvote
Comments7+
Share
contents, but I read in some comments that math books published in USSR were hard to
study. My experience was entirely opposite to this, as the books were so easy to follow and
great for self learning. As I was tutoring math and physics when I was in high school (and
later years), I needed sources that help me to help students in trouble with math to
understand concepts, such as limits, functions, and derivatives. These books coming from
USSR were so helpful for me to the job, both to my understanding the concepts more
deeply and to teach them to ordinary students.
Updated 12 May View Upvotes
Downvote
Comment1
Share
who works at the company that manufactures postmen clothes, talk about the fire that took
place inside their building, then remember his friend who was a fireman, then remember he
confused him with another one and his friend wasn't a fireman and it's the other friend who
is, and the first friend is a mall cop, then go in a comparison between mall cops and real
cops, then real cops and firemen... And all you want to know is what the darn package his
grand mother received contains.
The kind that would "give an Aspirin a headache".
Written 11 May View Upvotes
Downvote
Comments2+
Share
Share
Downvote
Comment
Share
Share
Anonymous
1k Views
I would say the question should be:
Why are US mathematics/physics textbooks so insanely easy in comparison to Soviet
textbooks?
I find the Soviet textbooks at exactly the right "hardcore" level given the subjects and the
goal, that is, to really learn by developing a long-term deep and foundational understanding.
On the other hand, many US textbooks are too simple for subjects like math and physics,
and such books require unnecessary memorization without focusing on deep understanding
because they are written for the sake of obtaining a good grade in the short run.
Written 9 Apr View Upvotes
Downvote
Comment
Share
In the USSR, I was told, if the student failed to learn, it was the teacher's failure - and
failure was not tolerated.
If it required special tutoring, visits to the student's home, creation of additional materials it all landed on the teacher to get it done. Getting fired as a teacher meant being moved to a
laborers job, and they were highly motivated NOT to fail.
Written 9 Apr View Upvotes
Downvote
Comment1
Share
am using books from the same publishing house about special functions. I find their style
brief, compact and rigorous. I agree that it is hart for a first reader but I think their style is
good to use it as a reference and for quick returning to formulas.