The sun is shining because oil is burning there - Russian teachers about students in the West

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

Only the lazy did not try to compare Russian higher educational institutions with Western ones. Judging by the ratings, the score is not in our favor. But is foreign education always better than domestic education, what are its strengths and weaknesses, and how is it possible to turn illiterate applicants into intelligent graduate students? Russian scientists teaching in the West spoke about this and much more.

"They don't know the multiplication table."

I graduated from the Physics Department of Moscow State University in 1991 and graduate school in 1994. Postgraduate studies included teaching practice, conducting seminars and taking exams in physics for students of the Faculty of Mechanics and Mathematics of Moscow State University. He finished his second graduate school in New York, was a postdoc in Seattle, Princeton, Canada. He taught general and theoretical physics to all categories of students, from freshmen to postdocs, took entrance exams, lectured at schools in Great Britain, and participated in the development of educational programs at different levels in physics. If we take into account the kindergarten (and it was there that I got my first ideas about abstract geometric concepts), then my academic experience to this day consists of two equal periods: 22 years in the USSR-Russia and 22 years in Western countries.

The Western system of science education, right down to the postgraduate level, is now in a deplorable state. Physics applicants from Oxford University who have already passed the preliminary selection can, without batting an eye, declare that the sun is shining because oil is burning there. Some 14-year-old schoolchildren do not know the multiplication table, and graduates of the Oxford Physics Department have not always heard about the existence of functions of a complex variable (a section of mathematical analysis studied in the first year).

The first thing that catches the eye in the academic sphere in the West is the appalling weakness of preschool and school education compared to post-Soviet counterparts. At the entrance exams to the Faculty of Physics (Oxford conducts its own exams), it is quite clear where the applicants studied - in one of the Western countries or in the countries of the former socialist community (for example, Poland), where it was not possible to finally ditch the conquests of socialism in the educational sphere … With equal talent, the latter are a cut above in terms of the quantity and quality of knowledge.

Oxford

We have a very big competition at Oxford, and we can choose the strongest. But for the last ten years we have been forced to teach something like an educational program for new students, otherwise some will not be able to master the first year program. I once read such a course for students of the mathematics (!) Faculty, though not Oxford, but Southampton University (it also has a high rating). I was given an outline of these lectures, the first chapter was called "Fractions". I note that at least one of the elite English schools with a physics and mathematics bias uses American university textbooks, which give knowledge roughly corresponding to a good Soviet school without any specialization.

If we talk about Western physics and mathematics education, then the main drawback of the university level is, in my opinion, in its fragmentation, lack of integral integrity and a relatively low level. I am now comparing it with my experience in the USSR. It's more difficult for me to talk about what is happening in Russia now, although I really hope that the core of the curriculum has been preserved.

Oxford students study physics for four years. The last year can be disregarded, since he is completely occupied with some kind of project (analogue of a term paper) and a couple of survey courses. The academic year is divided into three semesters. New material is covered in the first two, and the third is devoted to repetition. In other words, during the entire period of study, students receive new knowledge within one calendar year. At the Physics Department of Moscow State University, training lasts five and a half years (the last six months are spent on preparing a thesis). That's roughly 150 weeks of study - three times that of Oxford. So it shouldn't come as a surprise that many Oxford graduates have never heard of the Boltzmann equation and other curious things.

In the USSR, the standard university course in physics assumed two directions: first - courses in general physics (mechanics, electricity, etc.), mathematical disciplines were read at the same time, then, after one and a half to two years, when mathematical training already allowed, everything went on the second round, but already at the level of theoretical physics. In Oxford there is no time for this, and the level of applicants does not allow it. So only general physics courses are taught. They are trying to partially compensate for the insufficient level of basic education at one-year (paid) courses of increased complexity.

The weak point of the Soviet educational system was, in my opinion, the “postgraduate study - professional activity” section. The level of postgraduate studies in the West as a whole is much higher than in Russia, and this is due to the good organization of the scientific research itself, including the strict selection of personnel. The principle "strong scientists - strong graduate school, and everything else will follow" works. Roughly speaking, in the West, a novice scientist needs to go through a fine sieve, where he may be rejected, and from us they will regret and take. A good man.

As for the criteria for assessing the activities of scientific workers in the West, the main role is played by periodic attestations, anonymous assessments of research activities by colleagues from other scientific groups of the same subject. Funding depends on it. If a person has worked sluggishly in the last five years, has not done anything worthwhile, then money for postdocs, equipment, travel, etc. they won't give him. At the same time, the standard salary (quite decent) is preserved. The number of publications and other scientometrics do not play a decisive role, the essence of the matter is important.

Let me emphasize: basic physics and mathematics education in the USSR from kindergarten to senior university courses, inclusive, is the gold standard of the highest standard. The system, of course, is imperfect, but I have not seen anything better in 22 years of my academic travels around the world. But all this does not seem to be realized in Russia.

Graduates of Russian physics and mathematics universities are still highly regarded in the West. This is bad in the sense that the notorious "vacuum cleaner" works, irretrievably sucking up our personnel, in the preparation of which so much effort and money has been invested. But adequate conditions have not been created for them for scientific activity in their native country. And the key word here is "irrevocable".

Live and learn

I have been in Denmark for 20 years, of which 16 have been teaching. The teaching system is much freer here. The student is given the right to decide for himself what subjects he should study. Compulsory subjects are about a third of the large list. I teach several courses. One course is 13 lessons of four full hours, plus homework. How to fill this time, the teacher decides. You can give lectures, you can arrange excursions, conduct laboratory exercises. Or just say: “That's it, there will be no classes today. All - home! Of course, if the teacher does this too often, students will complain or stop coming. What I am trying to say is that freedom is not only for students, but also for teachers. We are, of course, guided to build the course from exercises, hands-on activities and projects. To put it simply, imagine that a task is being explained to you in the first hour. And for the next three hours, you practice solving it.

Of course, I depend on how many students choose my course, but not directly. For example, if less than ten people come to see me, then there will be talk about the need to close the course. And doing a new course is like writing a book. There are more than 30 students in my courses, some more than 50 students. Each course and instructor receives detailed student assessments: was the course helpful, were the teaching materials good, and so on. If in some year, for example, I was rated poorly, the course is discussed at a special council, which gives recommendations on how and what to improve.

Any teacher at the university is half a scientist. Officially, my contract says that I have to do science half of my working time. That is, I have publications, graduate students, research projects. Otherwise, universities cannot imagine life. Of course, my rating depends on the number of scientific publications in journals. But again, not so hard. Even if someone is in absolute minus, it is very difficult to fire him. The last such case was 20 years ago.

It is true that the Russian education system is more academic. But I see that the Danes who want to know more are doing it. Only they always ask themselves the question: "And for what?" The way it was with me - I studied because it was interesting - with Danes it rarely happens.

But almost everyone here knows how to really work. Students are able to independently take a topic, bring it from zero to product, organize an educational space around them, work in a team, etc. They have it in their blood. I don’t presume to judge which system is better. Danish education is structured so that if a person lacks some knowledge, he can finish his studies at any time. For example, a company is switching to a new reporting system - no problem, a secretary or accountant goes to a special weekly course. There are a huge number of different courses - long, short, evening, internet and so on. Various people, from schoolchildren to retirees, receive additional optional education all the time.

Talented people are concentrated in universities

For over 35 years I have taught in different countries: in Russia, America, Great Britain, Switzerland, Canada, Hungary. In comparison with Russia, two fundamental things immediately catch the eye, without which universities cannot work. First, the money. Government funding for the very best makes up a very small portion of their budget. The rest of the universities earn themselves: publishing, grants, even paying for parking. And the second is independence. I remember how the appointment of the rector of the University of Vermont in the USA, where I worked at that time, went. The vacancy was announced wherever possible. At the same time, the teachers of the university itself were not recommended to be nominated. More than 20 candidates were interviewed. Three seemed promising to the commission. They were invited to university hearings where they presented their programs. And then there were secret elections. If someone dared to put in a word for a candidate, he would be accused of corruption. Can you imagine this in Russia?

The quality of education depends on the teaching staff. In Western European countries and America, 90 percent of all science is based in universities, and not in academic institutions, as in Russia. Talented people are concentrated in universities. Students see them up close. Scientists have been attracting children to their research from the first year of study. When students graduate from university, they already have a lot of scientific work experience.

Hungary, where I taught in recent years, is from the socialist camp. But today the Hungarian diploma, including the medical one, is recognized all over the world. Hungary has worked for this for many years. We compared the structure of higher education with Europe and America. We changed the content of Hungarian universities, state legislation.

I compared the curricula of universities in large Russian cities with Hungarian ones (and the Hungarian program is an average European one). But I did not come across universities that could be synchronized with us. Each country has national characteristics of training. And there is no fundamentally big difference in the training of specialists. This is the strength of the European Union. There is an Erasmus student and teacher exchange program. Thanks to her, a student of any university within the European Union can travel to another country and study for a semester. There he will hand over the subjects that he has chosen for himself to study. And at home, the grades he received will be recognized. Likewise, educators can gain new experiences.

Another important point is how knowledge control is carried out in our country. Old films regularly show how, on the night before the exam, students cram and write cheat sheets. Today in a Hungarian university this is a pointless exercise. During the year I can take 3-4 exams. And each of them counts towards the final grade. An oral exam is very rare. It is believed that written work offers a chance for a more objective assessment.

The average workload per teacher in Hungary is ten lectures per week. The university asks to devote about the same amount of time to various meetings and consultations. The teaching position in Hungary is prestigious and well paid. A professor, without deductions, receives on average 120-140 thousand per month in Russian rubles. The average salary in Hungary is about 50 thousand rubles.