|
We may be discussing different things, but I don't agree with your assertion that specialization comes later in educational systems outside the US. I lived in france when I was 12-13 (and attended French schools), and at the end of 3eme, I filled out a form indicating whether I intended to focus further science/math or letters. My dad wanted science/math, I wanted letters, the whole thing was resolved when we went back to the US. In college, I spent a year at trinity (in Ireland), and I found that "majors" focused almost exclusively on one subject. Medicine and Law were done at the undergrad level, starting at age 18 or so (though they lasted longer than a typical bachelor's degree in the US). Math students studied math almost exclusively - to the extent that they branched out, it might be physics or CS. The "general undergraduate requirements" were far more considerable in the US. Lastly, as a grad student here in the US (at UC Berkeley in Industrial Engineering), I definitely noticed that much of the initial coursework appeared to be review for the international students. This may partly be due to strong math education overseas, but I also think that the earlier specialization had a lot to do with it - when you only focus on math as an undergrad, you can do a lot more of it. I actually think this may turn out to be a big problem for students who came up through the US - I see some merit to our more generalized system (I think Paul Graham referred to it as a "late binding" educational approach in an essay). But in grad programs with high attrition rates, the US educated students may be at a disadvantage the first couple of years even if they are very talented. EDIT - It occurred to me what you might be saying here... students may specialize in a subject earlier overseas, but the curriculum for that subject is much more standardized than it would be in the US. I can see how that would be the case. |