Oh yeah for sure, but I think that's the case "in spite of" the trajectory of the educational system.

From my personal experience, people who are successful usually come from highly educated and/or wealthy families. I don't think school plays that much of a role in the grand scheme of things compared to family influences. There's a lot of inertia to society in general.

However, what we lost is that modern educational systems are really bad at identifying and "pulling up" talented kids from poor / under-educated families, because the standards and expectations are so low that you can't differentiate them from their peers.

I wonder if general wider availability of computers means there were more chances a bright kid would be able to get a start in the field regardless of overall education systems.

Plenty of technological innovation came from the Soviet Union. NASA was created as a direct consequence of Sputnik. America knew they were falling behind in space technology and needed an internal jolt to catch up

That might have to do with financial climate (also the reason why there is more innovation in US compared to Europe, at least from the public's perspective).

>But also, look at where almost all technological innovation has happened in the last 50 years

Free market, capital, open borders etc.

During soviet times you research whatever party sees interesting (an exaggeration here) and produce whatever and however Gosplan dictates.

If you don't have to pay for your oil, for example, there is no need to innovate in motors and if all stores are state owned - there is no need in better management, digital goods or networks.

Nobody is fighting for their customers - people just stand in line and at the end of the month you send your books to Gosplan, Statistics etc.

Then 90s. People leaving. Then Putin and Co. People living and while there is a market now - they've managed to recreate old problems still.

The Soviet Union hasn't even existed for 35 of the last 50 years.

Does this say something about innovation requiring only very few innovators (and a lot of more ordinary "sweat workers"? Meaning, so long as the US can pick out, or grow a few innovators, that's fine. It's enough. No need to elevate the mass? A sort of innovators take on Great Man theory? Sincere question/point incase anyone was wondering.

Lagging indicator. Also private schools

that's a bit too delulu... That's just your sampling bias. Of course a media predominantly feature contents in US English gives you impression that most things are happening in the US.

There are innovations and discoveries made and exploited everywhere. How much things seem to be going on relative to your cognitive capacity has not much to do with the reality.

> look at where almost all technological innovation has happened in the last 50 years

I take this to mean:

  1) Communism obliterated the Soviet Union's ability to fund science (or anything else for that matter)

  2) The people driving science forward in the West are educated some other way than strictly according to a "Common Core" quality curriculum

China?

And who made those innovations? Not a lot of Western born and raised people, I'm guessing.

[dead]