Why Are Soviet Mathematics
Content
Why are Soviet mathematics/physics
textbooks so insanely hardcore in
comparison to US textbooks?
One extra point (in general I agree with Alex Sergeev). I studied both in Russia and Israel
(Technion - Israel analog of MIT - AFAIK Israel high education system is much closer to
USA, many professors worked at some time in their careers in leading USA universities,
many students do their docs / postdocs in USA etc). While textbooks generally speaking
were better and "easier", and courses materials were presented slower in Israel, teaching
capabilities of professors and teaching assistants were much better in Russia.
In 4 years in Technion I had 1 brilliant lector, handful were good, most were mediocre or
just very bad (from the teaching point of view - they were very good as scientists, published
many new stuff, most were rather pleasant to deal with as men, etc). We had video library
where in case of bad luck / bad lector we could watch prerecorded lectures done in the past
by the "better" professor.
In Russia I had a couple of rather bad (for auxiliary stuff, that I couldn't understand why we
had to study anyway) professors, rest were brilliant or very good. Much better than in
Israel. For most courses our professors were also our teaching assistants (it was unusual
even in our university, but I studied the most "scientific-like" field in engineering university
- electrophysics - so apparently they wanted to give us some boost). I assume their
scientific level was much worse than in Israel, we almost had no computers, our
laboratories were outfitted with technology that was obsolete in the West (but allowed us to
learn our future profession).
We studied using those "hardcore" books, but we got very well prepared lectures, from
professors that knew how to explain and cared you understood them. Still, from a group of
around 20 persons, in the first year only 2 got "A" on maths, around half got "barely C", 4
got "B, rest dropped (apparently moved to another university or faculty).
May be not related, but still - on differential equations (must-to-do course for Maths, CS
and probably others in Technion) there were several lectures in parallel - due to large
number of students in the course.
Almost all who could fit in the room tried to participate in the lecture of some old (60+)
guy, new immigrant from Russia, who barely spoke Hebrew (for me it was hard to
understand him because my Hebrew wasn't best at that time as well). Why ? He was
prepared for every lecture, he wrote the material for himself (in Hebrew) in Russian letters,
he was ready to answer any question ("What is the solution of this equation, and how it is
different from the one you explained in last lecture"), and you could practically see how he
translated for himself the question to Russian, got a solution and explanation immediately,
then slowly translated it to Hebrew and with thick accent explained it to the student. He
was ready to solve anything that you throw at him, and usually using several different
techniques, demonstrating when it is better to use which one.
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
Vladimir Novakovski, US IPhO team 2001
33.2k Views • Upvoted by Sam Sinai, Ph.D student in Mathematical Biology
Vladimir has 100+ answers in Mathematics.
It's not just math and physics -- the education system in the USSR was like that in general.
In other areas like literature, chess, figure skating, ballet, etc., there was the same pattern of
making sure the top students are challenged and can grow into leaders while making the
course pretty much inaccessible for everyone else.
By contrast, in the US system, everyone gets something out of the course, but the top
students may need to rely on activities outside of school if they want to develop their
talents.
I think that the Soviet system makes sense if you make the assumption that everyone has
one particular talent and as long as the education system covers enough areas that your
strengths will shine somewhere, then you will develop into a leader in that area. This is
consistent with the overall approach of the government matching people to careers and
having little option for trying something different later in life. Getting a reasonable general
education, giving you the optionality to experiment with careers later on, is more consistent
with American values.
Written 10 May • View Upvotes
Downvote
Comments3+
Share
Alex Sergeev, PhD in Physics
230.5k Views • Upvoted by Sam Sinai, Ph.D student in Mathematical Biology
Alex has 100+ answers in Physics.
As I understand from reading comments, the OP means not school textbooks, but university
textbooks, in particular Landau-Lifshitz was mentioned. In such case, I have to disagree
with most answers presented.
Firstly, yes, they are indeed noticeably more hardcore than courses of a similar level in the
US. Enough to compare two classic courses: Landau-Lifshitz and Feynman Lectures
(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
Mark Brimson, Project Manager, interested in learning new things
15.7k Views • Upvoted by David Joyce, Professor of Mathematics at Clark University
It is not just Soviet books. I find it the case with many other European countries. Now, I
don’t have data so this is purely “anecdotal evidence”. Everyone I know who came from
Europe to study in US in primary and secondary school was amazed how easy
mathematics, physics and chemistry was. It is not strange that you have average student
from Russia who is acing all tests. As someone already mentioned, studying in many
European countries is NOT meant to be fun. It is meant to be hard and boring. Scientific
facts are in many European countries (especially ex-Communist countries) presented in the
most boring and raw way, without progressive elaboration and schemes with colors.
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
Stéphane Touzé • Request Bio
2.9k Views
The soviet system for teaching mathematics/physics/engineering (which I don't know
about) seems to be quite similar to the French system (which I do know about) in two
respects :
- on practical terms, it attempts at selecting/ranking students based on raw mathematical
ability ;
- in terms of pedagogy, it aims at giving students a VERY rigorous mathematical
framework, which is then applied extensively in engineering courses. As a result,
engineering courses in FR/USSR are usually much more formal in terms of mathematics
compared to the US.
Seriously, if you compare engineering courses in the US vs. FR/USSR, you'll likely notice
that that the content is very similar but the mathematical "packaging" is more intense in
FR/USSR.
These are just two different approaches in terms of pedagogy, and both have their own
merit.
Written 8 Apr • View Upvotes
Downvote
Comment
Share
Anna Shustrova • Request Bio
116.6k Views • Upvoted by Anurag Bishnoi, Ph.D. student in Mathematics at Ghent
University.
Though I was born later I had a lot of old teachers who were trained in USSR so I'll try to
answer. All these soviet teachers have one common feature: they appreciate deep
understanding much more than anything else. You will never impress them by memorizing
long formulas but they will be happy if you derive them from simple well-known. They
believe that science is more than facts and patterns. Everything should be explained and
proved. You should understand how one fact follows from another and (ideally) you should
be able to continue. It helps to see the whole picture and to find the shortest ways to solve
problems. Soviet textbooks work on the same principles.
Updated 1 Apr • View Upvotes
Downvote
Comments29+
Share18
Anton Zakharov, Software Engineer
10.6k Views
Having been born and have studied 5 years in soviet education system, i would say the
education of all levels was more demanding. Main reason is mostly because parents valued
education alot, and thus spend great deal of time with their kids helping them to learn. We
also had much more homework to do.
As for mathematics, teaching was merciless. If you wanted to pass you needed to
understand. Once you understand, every year you simply add to your knowledge, instead of
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
Mike Mian, I have a library card - old school.
7k Views
I think Alex Sergeev discussion about the philosophy is closest to the mark. In the US
education is a business while in USSR education is a social service.
This means US universities aim to maximize revenue through management of their brand
value (typically measured as selectivity - what percentage of students they can reject and
still fill the campus) and student satisfaction/expectation. These are typically opposing
forces as students rank staff based on grades they receive.
In Russia the goal of the education system is to find the most capable and filter down the
student body reducing the cost. Educators present the required course material highlighting
any nuanced subtleties that could trip up the informed and they are not ranked by the
student body but by their peers, so brevity tends to be preferred.
I have a Russian friend who taught maths at a US university and was flummoxed when she
was reprimanded by the department head when students complained she graded too hard.
Her opinion was that the students were lazy.
Written 2 Apr • 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
Boris Chuprin • Request Bio
2.2k Views
Answer is simple: In US, higher education is a business, in USSR it is a privilege.
In USSR education was free, and if you studied reasonably well you could also get a
stipend so you didn't even have to work until you get your diploma. You could also avoid or
postpone mandatory military service.
So, the competition was high and the teaching materials just reflected that.
Why would government pay for your education if you are not capable enough and there are
dozens waiting to take your place?
In US, they don't really want you to quit, because you pay for your education.
There's another reason. Soviet theoretical physics school is sort of unique. Landau was a
savant, a perfectionist and eventually shaped the whole community after himself. And only
the brightest were allowed to join.
Those physicists were treated really well, because atomic bombs, rockets and radars were
in high demand.
With some other sciences the situation was much, much worse.
Written 5 Apr • View Upvotes
Downvote
Comment
Share
Nir Friedman • Request Bio
2.8k Views
This question is indulging in some question begging, and I find it annoying that it's not
being challenged. I've come across Russian textbooks, mostly in the form of Landau and
Lifschitz. There are plenty of examples of textbooks where the top books, both in
explanation and in difficulty, are not Russian.
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
Dmitry Shkolnik • Request Bio
2.5k Views
Just to add one economic reason to what was said before...
The textbooks in Soviet Union were heavily subsidized by state. In lot of the cases you
even couldn't go to the store and buy it, you had to get it through school/university library
(and return after course final exam, otherwise you wouldn't be allowed to get books for the
next year).
The textbooks were printed on a poor quality thin gray paper, and there was a push to keep
texts shorter just to keep books cheaper (add here that text in Russian is approx. 1.4 longer
than its English translation). From other hand, the pay for people's time was quite low, so
they could have lecturers and TAs providing more examples, explanation and details.
I remember, when I got my first year set of textbooks from MSU library, there were 20+
poorly printed books, and one state-of-the-art printed "Mathematical Analysis" by
Sadovnichy (then vice-rector, now rector of MSU) and some Bulgarian guy.
Written 3 Apr • View Upvotes
Downvote
Comments3+
Share
Anatoliy Platonov • Request Bio
6.6k Views • Upvoted by David Joyce, Professor of Mathematics at Clark University
fhe discussion is not absolutely correct – we did not define the term “mathematics”. There
are two mutually connected but relatively independent mathematics: the “applied” and
“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
Jon Harrop, CEO Flying Frog Consultancy
2.3k Views
I did physics in academia at the University of Cambridge alongside many people from both
the US and Russia. People in the US strived to explain things in simple terms and include
practical relevance. Almost every Russian I encountered strived to make easy things sound
hard in an attempt to impress people. The difference is exacerbated by US students being
relatively behind in their studies during their first undergraduate degree. For us, the
Feynman lectures were a pleasant walk in the park whereas Landau and Lifshitz was
extremely dry and boring.
Written 6 Apr • View Upvotes
Downvote
Comment1
Share
Yuriy Suslov, I read a lot
2.3k Views
USSR students, like US businesses, were allowed to fail. And get up again, as higher
education was free, you could try at it several times, and there were several systems
allowing for easy retries - you could take out academical vacations, or retry the whole year
of study, if you failed to pass the exams.
In top/elite institutions, students were also expected (and taught how to) work on their own,
to, as Anna Shustrova correctly mentions, to improve their deep understanding. Those
hardcore textbooks are explicitly targeted at the deep understanding end of learning, every
statement is provided with a rigorous proof in terms of statements a level below in
complexity and difficulty. Basically, such a text book covers a level of difficulty it is
squarely aimed at, and two other levels, one right below it (by providing some reference
material and a discussion of facts considered "basic" by the targeted level of difficulty) and
one right above it (by providing specifically marked sections of advanced material for
stronger students). And every text book clearly listed its difficulty level in the introduction,
so if you do not understand what's in the book, you really shouldn't read it, you aren't yet
ready, and should try at something of a lower difficulty level. This is a lot like the US
system of marking classes, CS 101, CS 201, CS 301, etc. So, due to the reliance on the
autonomous work and this being the Soviet Russia, the text book made the course, not the
course made the text book.
One more thing I should mention is that students had most of their needs provided for by
state. They had free housing, free study materials, cheap food, and a stipend paid out to
them which was enough to cover a basic lifestyle. Students basically were expected not to
work, unless this was a part of their study (called 'practice'), or a part of their scientific
carreer (well, and some forced labor in the agriculture).
Written 15 Apr • View Upvotes
Downvote
Comment
Share
Ciprian Elliu Ivanof • Request Bio
50.2k Views • Upvoted by Vladimir Novakovski, US IPhO team 2001
The USSR and the US had different reasons to teach mathematics.
Soviet views of Communism as the ultimate technocracy meant that technical fields
(preferable mathematically provable ones) were highly privileged. Mathematics was a
requirement for many jobs that didn't even involve them (like naval officers). To the USSR,
mathematics was an extreme requirement for society and taught with the mercilessness of a
traditional society sensing survival at stake.
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
Saeed Doroudiani, Polymer Scientist and Engineer
1.2k Views
Simply because the education had a great priority in that system, so they were allocating
big budget on education, including textbooks. While I was not living in Soviets, but in
1960s and early 1970s years those textbooks and practice books published by Mir
Publishers of Soviet were so helpful for me and other students to study math (trig, algebra,
calculus, Olympiads, etc) and physics. They were all translated very well in English. Those
"hardcore" books were available in many countries at very low price. While they were
affordable for me as a high school students to buy all of them from my very limited pocket
money, but at that time I heard that they were available free in some parts of Africa and
Asia.
So, the answer to the above question of "why", was the huge budget behind education for
public; not only public of Soviets citizens, but also foreign countries. Education had
priority in the USSR system, whereas cold war was forcing them (and Western countries as
well) to spend high percentage of their revenue for military.
Edit: While the main topic of the question is about the binding quality of text books not
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
Jugurtha Hadjar • Request Bio
25.2k Views
It's a matter of perspective, I'd say.
From my perspective, it's not USSR books that are hardcore, it's US books that are way too
cluttered.
Here's why:
Let's suppose you're in third year in University, and in third year, you need to know topic
'F'. To understand 'F', you studied A and B in your first and second year. It is without saying
that A and B were understood building on High-School knowledge C, D, and E...
A US book will tell you that you're going to learn F. Then the authors will oblige and
remind you about A, B, C, D, and E. 900 pages. You skip 700 to read the 200 that matter.
By the time you get to the F (ing) point, you're tired.
A USSR book will address F. 200 pages that matter. You actually read them.
US books are like the "Previously on .." in TV shows: avid viewers skip that part as it's
only for people who aren't serious, who are disconnected from the topic or with short
attention span
USSR books assume that you should know what's prerequisite. The assumption is so strong
that they don't even *tell* you about what *is* prerequisite knowledge: if you don't
understand, then you shouldn't have picked that book in the first place and should work on
whatever you skipped in your life thinking you're a smart a**.. And if you do have it, then
it's useless to talk about it because it's a waste of paper to talk about what's already known.
Really, US books are the hard ones to read. They're like that friend everyone has: He'll say
that his grand-mother received a package, then bifurcate to talk about the postman who
brought it, then describe what the postman was wearing, then remember he has a friend
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
Jean Dupont • Request Bio
1k Views
French and russian mentality with respect to maths have a lot in common. Books are known
for being dense and hard to assimilate, making some books impossible to attack in a selflearner perspective.
This might be linked to the structure of their educational system, based on elite public
school, as, as said Alex, the goal is to eliminate the weaker in order to keep the cream of the
crop.
I would simply add that, in case of France, this creates extremely conformist students which
are just targeting the best grade without taking any distance with respect to the topic they
are studying.
At professional scale, these people, totally disgusted by their discipline, tend to forget their
technical background and concentrate on their career. It leads to situation when people act
like technical monkeys and remain extremely conformist from a technical perspective
because they do not have good fundamentals on their discipline.
On research perspective, only a few people have the cognitive and contextual facilities to
take that distance, and potential innovate.
I personally took the decision to finish my degree abroad because I was fed up with that
mind state.
And what I understood with years, is that something that appears incredibly complicated at
first glance might seem absolutely natural several month later.
There are several layers of understanding in mathematics and physics, and if you don't give
this time to think actively about some deep notions, you can not really understand the
underlying mechanics behind the scene.
And from time to time, very simple like balls in topology makes you seem natural even
extremely abstract notions.
As a conclusion, I do not respect that kind of system.
Written 13 Apr • View Upvotes
Downvote
Comments1+
Share
Frederick Bartlett, Writer, Editor, Typographer, Book Designer
10.6k Views
Back in the mid-80s, I was the editor of a Russian-English translation program for an
American publisher., mainly in physics and mathematics. I got to meet and chat with many
well-known Soviet academics -- Zel'dovich and Akhiezer were the most prominent -- and
with many Russian-speaking Americans.
The topic of different approaches to education came up regularly. Any kid from a top Soviet
high school would be expected to run rings around any but the best students at the best
American universities. No one disagreed with this.
The difference came in graduate school, by which time the differences in purely technical
skill and knowledge had evened out -- and there, the American system shone. American
graduate schools encouraged a kind of imaginative intellectual freedom that was extremely
rare in the USSR.
I confess that I don't see why we Americans can't excel at both ends of the spectrum ....
Written 26 Aug • View Upvotes
Downvote
Comment1
Share
Varisa Hajdarpashic, Clasically trained musician with an interest in science, astronomy,
robotics ...
6k Views
We used to have a Soviet education system when I was a kid in my country, and had old
books and soviet class professors. The books had lengthly but pretty straight forward
explanations, and also from what my parents have told me, university level books on such
subjects like math, physics, astronomy were really difficult and they were setting a
standard, that if you could not learn the subject, you shouldn't be studying that field. Unlike
now where most of the education system is transformed to resemble the US system and is a
business more than a national service, we have education that is watered down and almost
anyone can get a degree on anything. ( many students, lots of money)
To say I remember better what I was taught in 5 th grade by a soviet system than what I
remember from my last year of university of a 'new and improved' education system is an
understatement.
By the way I'm from a former Yugoslavian state, and the regiment was much the same as in
soviet Russia.
Written 2 Apr • View Upvotes
Downvote
Comment
Share
George Gonzalez, Four semesters of Physics! Passed all of them!
2.7k Views • George has 1,540+ answers in Physics.
Some US colleges have math classes for math majors, and math classes for majors that just
use math and math classes for soft sciences.
In the math class for math majors they tend to derive and prove everything, from scratch,
the professors are more than happy to do this, and its a wonderful thing, if you appreciate
the mathematical method and proofs and will someday be writing your own proofs.
In the math class for majors that just use math, they skip over much more lightly over
proving the basics, they either spend two minutes on the proofs or they say "just accept
these twelve things about limits".
In the math classes for soft sciences, they very lightly go over the concepts of slopes and
differentiation and areas under a curve and integration, but you can pass the class without
having to be able to integrate 2x.
Ideally you'd have everybody being able to appreciate every nuance of proving every little
thing, but it's perhaps more realistic to triage the math curricula this way.
Written 1 Apr • View Upvotes
Downvote
Comment
Share
Yaggan Leeuw, Medical Doctor
846 Views
Though I studied medicine in the USSR, mathematics was a subject you had to pass, and
pass well in medical school. Possibly the difficult part was mastering the Russian language,
enabling one to have a good command of the subject. USSR university teacher were strong
in the foundations of their sciences. Great attention is attached to abstract and theoretical
understanding. Thus, years latter on attending a post-graduate MSc at University of
London I found a discipline such as immunology easy and very logical. So, mastering
Russian, which I still speak and read and medical science, helped my understanding that
there no limits to the human mind.
Written 26 Apr • View Upvotes
Downvote
Comment
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
Alexey Piskarev, born in the USSR
3.7k Views
The question should be the contrary: why US textbooks are so feeble.
Soviet authorities believed that a young person should learn and know as much as he
probably could. Why waste the time when your brain is capable of comprehending?
Student is the one who is responsible for the future of his own, of people around him and of
the entire country. That's why he must master more than just primary calculus.
Written 30 Mar • View Upvotes
Downvote
Comments2+
Share
Rich Pezzullo • Request Bio
1.3k Views
Having known some Russian teachers who taught in the Soviet era, I need to disagree with
Dr. Sergeev. He maintains that "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."
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
Ian Miller, Independent physical scientist, author
8.9k Views
I don't understand the "insanely hardcore". In my younger days, I taught myself a lot of
physics from Soviet textbooks, admittedly translated to English but published in Moscow,
and I found them eminently suitable, clear, and reasonably rigorous. What more would you
want?
Written 17 Feb, 2015 • View Upvotes
Downvote
Comments4+
Share
Ignat Soroko • Request Bio
1.3k Views
It is expected that a student in Russia applies him/herself and studies hard. In America it is
unrealistic to expect that, as students "payed money" so that professors entertain them. So
the textbooks are dumbed down as much as possible, disguising this feature as being 'more
accessible'.
Written 4 Apr • View Upvotes
Downvote
Comments2+
Share
Aymane el Fardi, PhD student (Mathematical Analysis)
537 Views
I agree with Mr Ian Miller. I appreciate reading books from the Mir edition. I used the
Smirnov's "Cours de mathematiques superieure" for a long time. and now for my research I
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.
textbooks so insanely hardcore in
comparison to US textbooks?
One extra point (in general I agree with Alex Sergeev). I studied both in Russia and Israel
(Technion - Israel analog of MIT - AFAIK Israel high education system is much closer to
USA, many professors worked at some time in their careers in leading USA universities,
many students do their docs / postdocs in USA etc). While textbooks generally speaking
were better and "easier", and courses materials were presented slower in Israel, teaching
capabilities of professors and teaching assistants were much better in Russia.
In 4 years in Technion I had 1 brilliant lector, handful were good, most were mediocre or
just very bad (from the teaching point of view - they were very good as scientists, published
many new stuff, most were rather pleasant to deal with as men, etc). We had video library
where in case of bad luck / bad lector we could watch prerecorded lectures done in the past
by the "better" professor.
In Russia I had a couple of rather bad (for auxiliary stuff, that I couldn't understand why we
had to study anyway) professors, rest were brilliant or very good. Much better than in
Israel. For most courses our professors were also our teaching assistants (it was unusual
even in our university, but I studied the most "scientific-like" field in engineering university
- electrophysics - so apparently they wanted to give us some boost). I assume their
scientific level was much worse than in Israel, we almost had no computers, our
laboratories were outfitted with technology that was obsolete in the West (but allowed us to
learn our future profession).
We studied using those "hardcore" books, but we got very well prepared lectures, from
professors that knew how to explain and cared you understood them. Still, from a group of
around 20 persons, in the first year only 2 got "A" on maths, around half got "barely C", 4
got "B, rest dropped (apparently moved to another university or faculty).
May be not related, but still - on differential equations (must-to-do course for Maths, CS
and probably others in Technion) there were several lectures in parallel - due to large
number of students in the course.
Almost all who could fit in the room tried to participate in the lecture of some old (60+)
guy, new immigrant from Russia, who barely spoke Hebrew (for me it was hard to
understand him because my Hebrew wasn't best at that time as well). Why ? He was
prepared for every lecture, he wrote the material for himself (in Hebrew) in Russian letters,
he was ready to answer any question ("What is the solution of this equation, and how it is
different from the one you explained in last lecture"), and you could practically see how he
translated for himself the question to Russian, got a solution and explanation immediately,
then slowly translated it to Hebrew and with thick accent explained it to the student. He
was ready to solve anything that you throw at him, and usually using several different
techniques, demonstrating when it is better to use which one.
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
Vladimir Novakovski, US IPhO team 2001
33.2k Views • Upvoted by Sam Sinai, Ph.D student in Mathematical Biology
Vladimir has 100+ answers in Mathematics.
It's not just math and physics -- the education system in the USSR was like that in general.
In other areas like literature, chess, figure skating, ballet, etc., there was the same pattern of
making sure the top students are challenged and can grow into leaders while making the
course pretty much inaccessible for everyone else.
By contrast, in the US system, everyone gets something out of the course, but the top
students may need to rely on activities outside of school if they want to develop their
talents.
I think that the Soviet system makes sense if you make the assumption that everyone has
one particular talent and as long as the education system covers enough areas that your
strengths will shine somewhere, then you will develop into a leader in that area. This is
consistent with the overall approach of the government matching people to careers and
having little option for trying something different later in life. Getting a reasonable general
education, giving you the optionality to experiment with careers later on, is more consistent
with American values.
Written 10 May • View Upvotes
Downvote
Comments3+
Share
Alex Sergeev, PhD in Physics
230.5k Views • Upvoted by Sam Sinai, Ph.D student in Mathematical Biology
Alex has 100+ answers in Physics.
As I understand from reading comments, the OP means not school textbooks, but university
textbooks, in particular Landau-Lifshitz was mentioned. In such case, I have to disagree
with most answers presented.
Firstly, yes, they are indeed noticeably more hardcore than courses of a similar level in the
US. Enough to compare two classic courses: Landau-Lifshitz and Feynman Lectures
(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
Mark Brimson, Project Manager, interested in learning new things
15.7k Views • Upvoted by David Joyce, Professor of Mathematics at Clark University
It is not just Soviet books. I find it the case with many other European countries. Now, I
don’t have data so this is purely “anecdotal evidence”. Everyone I know who came from
Europe to study in US in primary and secondary school was amazed how easy
mathematics, physics and chemistry was. It is not strange that you have average student
from Russia who is acing all tests. As someone already mentioned, studying in many
European countries is NOT meant to be fun. It is meant to be hard and boring. Scientific
facts are in many European countries (especially ex-Communist countries) presented in the
most boring and raw way, without progressive elaboration and schemes with colors.
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
Stéphane Touzé • Request Bio
2.9k Views
The soviet system for teaching mathematics/physics/engineering (which I don't know
about) seems to be quite similar to the French system (which I do know about) in two
respects :
- on practical terms, it attempts at selecting/ranking students based on raw mathematical
ability ;
- in terms of pedagogy, it aims at giving students a VERY rigorous mathematical
framework, which is then applied extensively in engineering courses. As a result,
engineering courses in FR/USSR are usually much more formal in terms of mathematics
compared to the US.
Seriously, if you compare engineering courses in the US vs. FR/USSR, you'll likely notice
that that the content is very similar but the mathematical "packaging" is more intense in
FR/USSR.
These are just two different approaches in terms of pedagogy, and both have their own
merit.
Written 8 Apr • View Upvotes
Downvote
Comment
Share
Anna Shustrova • Request Bio
116.6k Views • Upvoted by Anurag Bishnoi, Ph.D. student in Mathematics at Ghent
University.
Though I was born later I had a lot of old teachers who were trained in USSR so I'll try to
answer. All these soviet teachers have one common feature: they appreciate deep
understanding much more than anything else. You will never impress them by memorizing
long formulas but they will be happy if you derive them from simple well-known. They
believe that science is more than facts and patterns. Everything should be explained and
proved. You should understand how one fact follows from another and (ideally) you should
be able to continue. It helps to see the whole picture and to find the shortest ways to solve
problems. Soviet textbooks work on the same principles.
Updated 1 Apr • View Upvotes
Downvote
Comments29+
Share18
Anton Zakharov, Software Engineer
10.6k Views
Having been born and have studied 5 years in soviet education system, i would say the
education of all levels was more demanding. Main reason is mostly because parents valued
education alot, and thus spend great deal of time with their kids helping them to learn. We
also had much more homework to do.
As for mathematics, teaching was merciless. If you wanted to pass you needed to
understand. Once you understand, every year you simply add to your knowledge, instead of
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
Mike Mian, I have a library card - old school.
7k Views
I think Alex Sergeev discussion about the philosophy is closest to the mark. In the US
education is a business while in USSR education is a social service.
This means US universities aim to maximize revenue through management of their brand
value (typically measured as selectivity - what percentage of students they can reject and
still fill the campus) and student satisfaction/expectation. These are typically opposing
forces as students rank staff based on grades they receive.
In Russia the goal of the education system is to find the most capable and filter down the
student body reducing the cost. Educators present the required course material highlighting
any nuanced subtleties that could trip up the informed and they are not ranked by the
student body but by their peers, so brevity tends to be preferred.
I have a Russian friend who taught maths at a US university and was flummoxed when she
was reprimanded by the department head when students complained she graded too hard.
Her opinion was that the students were lazy.
Written 2 Apr • 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
Boris Chuprin • Request Bio
2.2k Views
Answer is simple: In US, higher education is a business, in USSR it is a privilege.
In USSR education was free, and if you studied reasonably well you could also get a
stipend so you didn't even have to work until you get your diploma. You could also avoid or
postpone mandatory military service.
So, the competition was high and the teaching materials just reflected that.
Why would government pay for your education if you are not capable enough and there are
dozens waiting to take your place?
In US, they don't really want you to quit, because you pay for your education.
There's another reason. Soviet theoretical physics school is sort of unique. Landau was a
savant, a perfectionist and eventually shaped the whole community after himself. And only
the brightest were allowed to join.
Those physicists were treated really well, because atomic bombs, rockets and radars were
in high demand.
With some other sciences the situation was much, much worse.
Written 5 Apr • View Upvotes
Downvote
Comment
Share
Nir Friedman • Request Bio
2.8k Views
This question is indulging in some question begging, and I find it annoying that it's not
being challenged. I've come across Russian textbooks, mostly in the form of Landau and
Lifschitz. There are plenty of examples of textbooks where the top books, both in
explanation and in difficulty, are not Russian.
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
Dmitry Shkolnik • Request Bio
2.5k Views
Just to add one economic reason to what was said before...
The textbooks in Soviet Union were heavily subsidized by state. In lot of the cases you
even couldn't go to the store and buy it, you had to get it through school/university library
(and return after course final exam, otherwise you wouldn't be allowed to get books for the
next year).
The textbooks were printed on a poor quality thin gray paper, and there was a push to keep
texts shorter just to keep books cheaper (add here that text in Russian is approx. 1.4 longer
than its English translation). From other hand, the pay for people's time was quite low, so
they could have lecturers and TAs providing more examples, explanation and details.
I remember, when I got my first year set of textbooks from MSU library, there were 20+
poorly printed books, and one state-of-the-art printed "Mathematical Analysis" by
Sadovnichy (then vice-rector, now rector of MSU) and some Bulgarian guy.
Written 3 Apr • View Upvotes
Downvote
Comments3+
Share
Anatoliy Platonov • Request Bio
6.6k Views • Upvoted by David Joyce, Professor of Mathematics at Clark University
fhe discussion is not absolutely correct – we did not define the term “mathematics”. There
are two mutually connected but relatively independent mathematics: the “applied” and
“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
Jon Harrop, CEO Flying Frog Consultancy
2.3k Views
I did physics in academia at the University of Cambridge alongside many people from both
the US and Russia. People in the US strived to explain things in simple terms and include
practical relevance. Almost every Russian I encountered strived to make easy things sound
hard in an attempt to impress people. The difference is exacerbated by US students being
relatively behind in their studies during their first undergraduate degree. For us, the
Feynman lectures were a pleasant walk in the park whereas Landau and Lifshitz was
extremely dry and boring.
Written 6 Apr • View Upvotes
Downvote
Comment1
Share
Yuriy Suslov, I read a lot
2.3k Views
USSR students, like US businesses, were allowed to fail. And get up again, as higher
education was free, you could try at it several times, and there were several systems
allowing for easy retries - you could take out academical vacations, or retry the whole year
of study, if you failed to pass the exams.
In top/elite institutions, students were also expected (and taught how to) work on their own,
to, as Anna Shustrova correctly mentions, to improve their deep understanding. Those
hardcore textbooks are explicitly targeted at the deep understanding end of learning, every
statement is provided with a rigorous proof in terms of statements a level below in
complexity and difficulty. Basically, such a text book covers a level of difficulty it is
squarely aimed at, and two other levels, one right below it (by providing some reference
material and a discussion of facts considered "basic" by the targeted level of difficulty) and
one right above it (by providing specifically marked sections of advanced material for
stronger students). And every text book clearly listed its difficulty level in the introduction,
so if you do not understand what's in the book, you really shouldn't read it, you aren't yet
ready, and should try at something of a lower difficulty level. This is a lot like the US
system of marking classes, CS 101, CS 201, CS 301, etc. So, due to the reliance on the
autonomous work and this being the Soviet Russia, the text book made the course, not the
course made the text book.
One more thing I should mention is that students had most of their needs provided for by
state. They had free housing, free study materials, cheap food, and a stipend paid out to
them which was enough to cover a basic lifestyle. Students basically were expected not to
work, unless this was a part of their study (called 'practice'), or a part of their scientific
carreer (well, and some forced labor in the agriculture).
Written 15 Apr • View Upvotes
Downvote
Comment
Share
Ciprian Elliu Ivanof • Request Bio
50.2k Views • Upvoted by Vladimir Novakovski, US IPhO team 2001
The USSR and the US had different reasons to teach mathematics.
Soviet views of Communism as the ultimate technocracy meant that technical fields
(preferable mathematically provable ones) were highly privileged. Mathematics was a
requirement for many jobs that didn't even involve them (like naval officers). To the USSR,
mathematics was an extreme requirement for society and taught with the mercilessness of a
traditional society sensing survival at stake.
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
Saeed Doroudiani, Polymer Scientist and Engineer
1.2k Views
Simply because the education had a great priority in that system, so they were allocating
big budget on education, including textbooks. While I was not living in Soviets, but in
1960s and early 1970s years those textbooks and practice books published by Mir
Publishers of Soviet were so helpful for me and other students to study math (trig, algebra,
calculus, Olympiads, etc) and physics. They were all translated very well in English. Those
"hardcore" books were available in many countries at very low price. While they were
affordable for me as a high school students to buy all of them from my very limited pocket
money, but at that time I heard that they were available free in some parts of Africa and
Asia.
So, the answer to the above question of "why", was the huge budget behind education for
public; not only public of Soviets citizens, but also foreign countries. Education had
priority in the USSR system, whereas cold war was forcing them (and Western countries as
well) to spend high percentage of their revenue for military.
Edit: While the main topic of the question is about the binding quality of text books not
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
Jugurtha Hadjar • Request Bio
25.2k Views
It's a matter of perspective, I'd say.
From my perspective, it's not USSR books that are hardcore, it's US books that are way too
cluttered.
Here's why:
Let's suppose you're in third year in University, and in third year, you need to know topic
'F'. To understand 'F', you studied A and B in your first and second year. It is without saying
that A and B were understood building on High-School knowledge C, D, and E...
A US book will tell you that you're going to learn F. Then the authors will oblige and
remind you about A, B, C, D, and E. 900 pages. You skip 700 to read the 200 that matter.
By the time you get to the F (ing) point, you're tired.
A USSR book will address F. 200 pages that matter. You actually read them.
US books are like the "Previously on .." in TV shows: avid viewers skip that part as it's
only for people who aren't serious, who are disconnected from the topic or with short
attention span
USSR books assume that you should know what's prerequisite. The assumption is so strong
that they don't even *tell* you about what *is* prerequisite knowledge: if you don't
understand, then you shouldn't have picked that book in the first place and should work on
whatever you skipped in your life thinking you're a smart a**.. And if you do have it, then
it's useless to talk about it because it's a waste of paper to talk about what's already known.
Really, US books are the hard ones to read. They're like that friend everyone has: He'll say
that his grand-mother received a package, then bifurcate to talk about the postman who
brought it, then describe what the postman was wearing, then remember he has a friend
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
Jean Dupont • Request Bio
1k Views
French and russian mentality with respect to maths have a lot in common. Books are known
for being dense and hard to assimilate, making some books impossible to attack in a selflearner perspective.
This might be linked to the structure of their educational system, based on elite public
school, as, as said Alex, the goal is to eliminate the weaker in order to keep the cream of the
crop.
I would simply add that, in case of France, this creates extremely conformist students which
are just targeting the best grade without taking any distance with respect to the topic they
are studying.
At professional scale, these people, totally disgusted by their discipline, tend to forget their
technical background and concentrate on their career. It leads to situation when people act
like technical monkeys and remain extremely conformist from a technical perspective
because they do not have good fundamentals on their discipline.
On research perspective, only a few people have the cognitive and contextual facilities to
take that distance, and potential innovate.
I personally took the decision to finish my degree abroad because I was fed up with that
mind state.
And what I understood with years, is that something that appears incredibly complicated at
first glance might seem absolutely natural several month later.
There are several layers of understanding in mathematics and physics, and if you don't give
this time to think actively about some deep notions, you can not really understand the
underlying mechanics behind the scene.
And from time to time, very simple like balls in topology makes you seem natural even
extremely abstract notions.
As a conclusion, I do not respect that kind of system.
Written 13 Apr • View Upvotes
Downvote
Comments1+
Share
Frederick Bartlett, Writer, Editor, Typographer, Book Designer
10.6k Views
Back in the mid-80s, I was the editor of a Russian-English translation program for an
American publisher., mainly in physics and mathematics. I got to meet and chat with many
well-known Soviet academics -- Zel'dovich and Akhiezer were the most prominent -- and
with many Russian-speaking Americans.
The topic of different approaches to education came up regularly. Any kid from a top Soviet
high school would be expected to run rings around any but the best students at the best
American universities. No one disagreed with this.
The difference came in graduate school, by which time the differences in purely technical
skill and knowledge had evened out -- and there, the American system shone. American
graduate schools encouraged a kind of imaginative intellectual freedom that was extremely
rare in the USSR.
I confess that I don't see why we Americans can't excel at both ends of the spectrum ....
Written 26 Aug • View Upvotes
Downvote
Comment1
Share
Varisa Hajdarpashic, Clasically trained musician with an interest in science, astronomy,
robotics ...
6k Views
We used to have a Soviet education system when I was a kid in my country, and had old
books and soviet class professors. The books had lengthly but pretty straight forward
explanations, and also from what my parents have told me, university level books on such
subjects like math, physics, astronomy were really difficult and they were setting a
standard, that if you could not learn the subject, you shouldn't be studying that field. Unlike
now where most of the education system is transformed to resemble the US system and is a
business more than a national service, we have education that is watered down and almost
anyone can get a degree on anything. ( many students, lots of money)
To say I remember better what I was taught in 5 th grade by a soviet system than what I
remember from my last year of university of a 'new and improved' education system is an
understatement.
By the way I'm from a former Yugoslavian state, and the regiment was much the same as in
soviet Russia.
Written 2 Apr • View Upvotes
Downvote
Comment
Share
George Gonzalez, Four semesters of Physics! Passed all of them!
2.7k Views • George has 1,540+ answers in Physics.
Some US colleges have math classes for math majors, and math classes for majors that just
use math and math classes for soft sciences.
In the math class for math majors they tend to derive and prove everything, from scratch,
the professors are more than happy to do this, and its a wonderful thing, if you appreciate
the mathematical method and proofs and will someday be writing your own proofs.
In the math class for majors that just use math, they skip over much more lightly over
proving the basics, they either spend two minutes on the proofs or they say "just accept
these twelve things about limits".
In the math classes for soft sciences, they very lightly go over the concepts of slopes and
differentiation and areas under a curve and integration, but you can pass the class without
having to be able to integrate 2x.
Ideally you'd have everybody being able to appreciate every nuance of proving every little
thing, but it's perhaps more realistic to triage the math curricula this way.
Written 1 Apr • View Upvotes
Downvote
Comment
Share
Yaggan Leeuw, Medical Doctor
846 Views
Though I studied medicine in the USSR, mathematics was a subject you had to pass, and
pass well in medical school. Possibly the difficult part was mastering the Russian language,
enabling one to have a good command of the subject. USSR university teacher were strong
in the foundations of their sciences. Great attention is attached to abstract and theoretical
understanding. Thus, years latter on attending a post-graduate MSc at University of
London I found a discipline such as immunology easy and very logical. So, mastering
Russian, which I still speak and read and medical science, helped my understanding that
there no limits to the human mind.
Written 26 Apr • View Upvotes
Downvote
Comment
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
Alexey Piskarev, born in the USSR
3.7k Views
The question should be the contrary: why US textbooks are so feeble.
Soviet authorities believed that a young person should learn and know as much as he
probably could. Why waste the time when your brain is capable of comprehending?
Student is the one who is responsible for the future of his own, of people around him and of
the entire country. That's why he must master more than just primary calculus.
Written 30 Mar • View Upvotes
Downvote
Comments2+
Share
Rich Pezzullo • Request Bio
1.3k Views
Having known some Russian teachers who taught in the Soviet era, I need to disagree with
Dr. Sergeev. He maintains that "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."
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
Ian Miller, Independent physical scientist, author
8.9k Views
I don't understand the "insanely hardcore". In my younger days, I taught myself a lot of
physics from Soviet textbooks, admittedly translated to English but published in Moscow,
and I found them eminently suitable, clear, and reasonably rigorous. What more would you
want?
Written 17 Feb, 2015 • View Upvotes
Downvote
Comments4+
Share
Ignat Soroko • Request Bio
1.3k Views
It is expected that a student in Russia applies him/herself and studies hard. In America it is
unrealistic to expect that, as students "payed money" so that professors entertain them. So
the textbooks are dumbed down as much as possible, disguising this feature as being 'more
accessible'.
Written 4 Apr • View Upvotes
Downvote
Comments2+
Share
Aymane el Fardi, PhD student (Mathematical Analysis)
537 Views
I agree with Mr Ian Miller. I appreciate reading books from the Mir edition. I used the
Smirnov's "Cours de mathematiques superieure" for a long time. and now for my research I
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.
