nation, sub-country or other political entity invests money and effort in educating 
children. One strategy is to focus more money and better teachers on the top 
students in hopes they will provide huge paybacks. In the extreme, there is only 
		  one universe, so one need only produce one Newton. For many centuries 
		  Cambridge and Oxford, with average enrollments of 12,000 
		  undergraduates each 
		  (today), were expected to produce the bulk of the next 
		  generation of English 
scientists, doctors, engineers and politicians. As England's population grew toward 60 million a collection of universities provided access to higher education for 
increasing numbers of students. This strategy of focusing on the top several 
percent has been used for centuries in Europe and is fairly popular all across 
Planet Earth. Today, China, with a population of  1.337 billion, graduates SEVEN 
MILLION college students each year and produced almost 60,000 PhDs. That 
would not count students who study overseas. That number of college graduates 
accounts for about 20% percent of that age group. Everyone else (the Remainder of 
the Chinese) gets the absolute minimum education.
Today, two issues roiling northern Africa and southwestern Asia are access to 
higher education AND jobs for graduates.   
The contrasting strategy is the American approach: try to educate almost everyone 
equally as much as possible. In an age where American spending on education - 
both for primary and high school as well as college - is changing dramatically, we 
assert that there is currently very little margin for error when it comes to selecting 
educational policies.
A question from a recent Chinese government civil service exam: given the series
1, 6, 20, 56, 144, the next number is: (A) 256; (B) 312; (C) 352; (D) 384. Clearly,
we would need to be looking for a higher-order polynomial or perhaps some sort of 
exponential equation. A more interesting consideration is what the question is 
testing. The formula we want is (2n+1)*(2^n), and, for n=5, the result is 352. Those 
taking the exam in China have to answer about one question per minute. If there is 
no penalty for guessing (so only right answers are counted) there still isn't an 
obvious way to eliminate any of the four choices. So, unless one has spent time 
memorizing lots of integer sequences, this question looks to be a tough one. We'd 
be curious how many answered the question at all, and how many were correct. A 
problem in statistics is discerning how many answers were just random guesses as 
opposed to wrong formula, right formula but calculation error ...  
      
      
      Around the office we refer to the Chinese Remainder 
Theorem in the context of education as an answer to how a