The Problem of Teaching Physics in Latin America (1963)
Posted22 days agoActive14 days ago
calteches.library.caltech.eduResearchstory
informativeneutral
Debate
20/100
Physics EducationLatin AmericaScience
Key topics
Physics Education
Latin America
Science
Discussion Activity
Very active discussionFirst comment
59s
Peak period
75
12-24h
Avg / period
16.1
Comment distribution129 data points
Loading chart...
Based on 129 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Dec 14, 2025 at 3:47 PM EST
22 days ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Dec 14, 2025 at 3:48 PM EST
59s after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
75 comments in 12-24h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Dec 23, 2025 at 12:32 AM EST
14 days ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
ID: 46266717Type: storyLast synced: 12/15/2025, 5:20:34 PM
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
There is no "True Education" anymore, only the appearance of one with the sole aim of churning out a "Productive Worker"(for a certain definition of the term) for a Economy; no understanding required.
If I understand correctly, this is not the same problem. The problem Feynman was facing was education where the point was to get a credential, not to become useful. (I agree that neither is the same as to actually learn...)
But I do agree that real world physics, like designing an actual electronic circuit, have behaviors that are not modeled by the usual mathematical models. For example, resistors vary widely from their marked resistance. And I was told, when building digital circuits, to make sure it worked with chips faster than the spec, as replacement chips are always faster, never slower.
Resistors are sometimes marked with their variance band (+/-1%, for instance) to account for this.
Engineers take these expected variances into account when designing circuits. If your design is sensitive to a 3% variance in resistor value, you'd better not be specifying gold-banded +/-5% lots.
Capacitors also vary, and degrade over time. Semiconductors also have variances and non-linear hard-to-model behaviors. Behaviors change with heat. Few people worry about it.
Vacuum tubes are known for their wacky behaviors, which are treasured by people who make guitar amplifiers. The Melotron is well known for being highly sensitive to humidity.
And they might not be temperature stable either.
All my engineering exams were open book, open notes, and still >50% failed out by senior year.
Richard Feynman on education in Brazil - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2483976 - April 2011 (73 comments)
The same problems still exist, exacerbated by the prevalence of LLMs and no detection mechanisms whatsoever.
The recipe for disaster.
Is it possible not to bring them up and still have a deep conversation?
I guess that as long as possessing a piece of paper stating "Mr. White passed all hoops we put in front of them" is a baseline requirement for many jobs nowadays, we will always have this problem.
At least in tech, the piece of paper helps but it's mostly about hobby projects, external contributions, past job experiences and referrals which matter the most.
But in more and more countries even just working at a supermarket requires a high degeee, so the non-academically inclined people will try to keep finding ways to pass with as little effort as possible (and any learning takes effort). So, I can't really blame them.
Your sentiment is right but in this case not applicable.
A Teacher who did not really understand what he was teaching can easily have LLMs generate lectures/notes/etc. and pass it along to students without any thought put into it. A Student on his part can simply have LLMs generate answers for all of his problem sets and pass it along to the teacher.
The above would be a disaster for the overall spread of Science in the Society.
1) When they get out of school, no one can stop them from using LLMs. So preventing them from using them now is not a way to teach them how to cope in the future.
2) LLMs are (duh!) often wrong. So treat what the LLMs say as hypotheses, and teach the students how to test those hypotheses. Or if the LLMs are being used to write essays, have the students edit the output for clarity, form, etc. Exams might be given orally, or at least in a situation where the students don't have access to an LLM.
However, this speech generalizes and posits that the problem is not specific to Latin America but to most countries (including so-called developed ones) in the teaching of Physics or any other Science.
Hence the opening para;
The problem of teaching physics in Latin America is only part of the wider problem of teaching physics anywhere. In fact, it is part of the problem of teaching anything anywhere – a problem for which there is no known satisfactory solution.
I think this is highly pertinent today given the use of AI/LLM models for extracting "correct answers" to all of settled (mostly) Science. At least with a textbook you had to expend some thought/effort; with AI tools even that is removed and you literally need know/understand even less than before.
So where does that leave Science Education? How do we reform the Education System?
It is like teaching snowboarding. You can get the pointers but students have to actually do the snowboarding - there is no shortcut.
The same with knowledge and understanding, you can organize material so they don’t end up in unproductive rabbit holes - but they have to work out their understanding on their own.
Classroom setting is also not really good one unless you have small groups on the same level - larger group and you are just pulling slow ones up and fast ones are getting bored.
~ 40% bookwork. Rote learned facts ~ 30% standard questions. Do in an exam hall standard variants of what was done in class/homework/tutorials. ~ 30% New applications and logical extensions.
I don't know how well they achieved that split, I suspect it was mostly aspirational. Seemed like a reasonable ideal though!
Some basic examples:
- Don’t give test and exam questions that are too similar to examples and problems in the text book and homework. Then they’ll know that learning to generalize is a better pay-off than memorizing the textbook problems, and may choose to change their strategy when studying for exams.
- Reduce the amount of curriculum. By studying in depth instead of in breadth, you have time to focus on how things really work instead of just rushing through material on a surface level, and in my experience that improves understanding more. (But I know many disagree with me on this one.)
- Focus on problem solving as part of the lectures (student-active learning). I’m not an extremist, like some advocating that we shouldn’t lecture at all, but the pedagogical literature is pretty clear that small doses of lectures interspersed with problem solving enhances understanding.
- Try to teach intuition and conceptual models, not just facts. For example, as a student, I really struggled understanding eigenvalues and eigenvectors because our linear algebra textbook defined it by Αv = λv but made no attempt at explaining what it means intuitively and geometrically. Similarly, integration by parts has a simple and beautiful geometric interpretation that makes it obvious why this is correct, but we were only taught the opaque symbolic version in my calculus classes. When I teach myself, I try to lean on such visualizations and intuitive pictures as much as possible, as I think that really enhances «understanding»; not necessarily being able to cough up a solution to a problem you’ve seen before as fast as possible, but being able to generalize that knowledge to problems you haven’t seen before.
But who knows, maybe I’m just biased by how I myself perceive the world. I know there are some people who for example eschew geometric pictures entirely and still do very well. My experience is that most students seem to appreciate the things listed above though.
Students need to take responsibility for themselves and Teachers need to point them in the right direction and help/steer as needed.
A Chinese Martial Arts saying which i keep in mind goes;
To show one the right direction and the right path, oral instructions from a Master are necessary, but mastery of the subject only comes from one's own incessant self-cultivation.
A good authoritative book can be the stand-in for a Master in which case there is more discipline and effort required of the Student.
These days different types of books/videos focusing on different aspects of the same subject are so easily available/affordable that the Teacher/Student can both work together and focus on understanding. A handful of real-world problems modeled and worked through beats pages of mere symbol manipulation. We need to start stressing quality over quantity i.e. deliberate effort via deliberate practice in the right way.
And it is all about the students being disciplined and putting in effort, but toward rote memorization rather then understanding, because that is what teachers told them to do.
I had submitted the original article for discussion since the observations seem to apply to how Physics/Science has been taught/studied in most countries and not just Latin America.
The problem as I see it
1. Professors themselves don’t understand it and are regurgitating pedagogy from books.
2. The material load is so high for your average bachelors degree you’d spend 8 years in school otherwise. I would hazard to say this is necessary and sufficient but schools wouldn’t get funding and our job oriented society would have it so then only the wealthiest could get education (like it was for centuries).
3. Tests are a benchmark and very expensive. You can consider a class’ total value to be loaded on the final exam. I recently wanted to go back to school casually. One of the cheapest universities available wanted 2600 dollars for a partial differential equations course. If I fail the course I lose 2600 dollars since I would need to retake it to proceed to higher mathematics. This alone does not allow a person time to explore - and that’s just one class!
4. Schools are simply a money laundering vehicle that takes money from students and moves it into administrator pockets. Education costs have skyrocketed yet education and pedagogy remains the same. This is money laundering by any other name.
- understanding leads intuition. There’s very little of either, anywhere.
But ;)
At the same time Universities worth their salt also get students that are most likely going to be more self staring. Likely good professors will fail students that need more hand holding because it will be waste of their time.
So there is no magic trick to scale up. Besides getting more people to understand school/university is not going to do hand holding. You will get tools to learn how to learn and curated resources all the other things depend on you.
But it doesn't need to be that hopeless. Learning is a skill and schools can help each individual find the ways working best for them. Starting by not packing gazillion number of people in a class.
Having been taught in different systems that emphasize understanding vs memorization, I'd have to disagree. The teachers and the overall academic system can encourage, test for, and reward rote memorization. Or it can encourage, test for, and reward problem-solving, critical thinking, and understanding.
Everything from the way teachers lecture, to assigned reading, to assignments, to tests will influence how students think and what they optimize for. There will always be exceptions who forge their own path, but most students like most people just go with the flow.
Problem sets with feedback.
https://www.drjez.com/uco/Misc/Feynman.htm
https://archive.org/details/surelyyourejokin0000feyn/page/21... (starts on page 11)
and not the fact that the US has spent 150+ years destabilizing that part of the world.
LATAM started from the get go being awfully disrupted from the 1500s and in catastrophic ways. Also, we don't call any of those areas Latin X. It shows how much impact the conquerors had that it even defines how we can the region to this day.
I don't think it is. Europe was full of wars, civil wars, conquest, occupation, and suppression and destabilization of competing nations for all that time, for example.
It's a brutal dictatorship very similar to Iran. Let's all keep that in mind.
https://www.amnesty.de/sites/default/files/2025-03/030_2025_...
> The ages of the inmates ranged from 16 to over 60
How have they shown that? I think they've showed that they won't stop the war, but that's not at all the same as anticipating or countering the sanctions. Since they couldn't anticipate the war lasting longer than a week I think we can safely say they didn't anticipate having an ongoing war AND sanctions.
No, I'm talking about Latin America in general though. And yes it is certainly true there was colonialism, destabilization, economic coercion, and all that from large powers. I don't deny that. The examples I gave fit exactly the same description though. There was no "vast ocean" between the Ottoman Empire and Europe where it was throwing its weight around for centuries. Nor was there a vast (or any) ocean between China and colonial European powers, or later Japan.
So if "vast oceans" are part of your thesis, you are going to have to explain and define that far better, with a lot more supporting evidence and reason for your claims.
You can vaguely handwave and pontificate about differences between other examples and just assert without any real evidence or reasoning that must have been the cause of it. But like I said, that's just not scientific or even compelling in the slightest, really.
Ecuador 2010, Honduras 2009, Venezuela 2002, Haiti 1994, Nicaragua, Guatemala, and El Salvador until 1990, Panama 1989, Grenada 1983, Bolivia 1980, Chile 1973, Dominican Republic 1965, Cuba 1961, Guatemala 1954, and so on until the territorial destruction of Mexico in 1848: all of them wars, coup attempts, occupations, protection of U.S. corporate interests, installation of military dictatorships, assassinations of heads of government, etc.
These are recent events that naturally have a massive impact on the political and economic development of the nations concerned. And you want to equate that with the fact that the Turks were in Vienna at some point or that a nation of 1.41 billion Chinese has now recovered somewhat from European colonialism. Sorry, but that's ridiculous. The US bears significant responsibility for the poor political and economic situation in many Latin American countries. You don't have to agree with this assessment. But to pretend that there aren't a multitude of valid arguments for it is either ignorant or disingenuous.
No. It absolutely is not. It's just laughable.
> I don't wear a lab coat, and neither do you. You should take a look at yourself in that regard. You can't accuse me of lacking standards that you yourself don't live up to.
You are on the side of attempting to explain it away with "US interference". It's not whether I am scientific or not, lol.
> Ecuador 2010, Honduras 2009, Venezuela 2002, Haiti 1994, Nicaragua, Guatemala, and El Salvador until 1990, Panama 1989, Grenada 1983, Bolivia 1980, Chile 1973, Dominican Republic 1965, Cuba 1961, Guatemala 1954, and so on until the territorial destruction of Mexico in 1848: all of them wars, coup attempts, occupations, protection of U.S. corporate interests, installation of military dictatorships, attempted assassinations of heads of government, etc.
Europe and China had massive wars. Coup attempts, assassinations, military dictatorships, etc. in the last century.
Yeah except for that time that Japan tried to conquer them while they were in a civil war.
If you feel like enlightening us how China fared worse than LATAM or you can avoid being all snarky like that.
And every place actively destabilized by an empire is definitely unstable.
The amount of coups directly planned and executed or supported by the US military/intelligence/lobbying apparatus in south America and the rest of the world is incredible.
And then the presidents have the audacity to say that it is the right and responsibility of the locals to govern (as said by biden on Afghanistan exit).
> century-level timescales
Doesn't sound very scientific or predictive.
I don't know, and I cannot know. I can only hope.
Latin America is bigger than Cuba and Chile...
The habit to blame the US/Europe/Jews for everything bad in the world and give a total pass to any other ethnic/political group for their transgressions seems pretty lazy at best, and actively dangerous at worst.
I'm not sure who you're arguing with in your head, but that kind of strawman should stay there rather than being brought into a public forum. Nobody has made any claims even remotely similar to those.
> and not the fact that the US has spent 150+ years destabilizing that part of the world.
That's pretty clearly the same thing.
> blame the US/Europe/Jews for everything bad in the world and give a total pass to any other ethnic/political group for their transgressions
Europeans other than the Spanish and Portuguese have little relevance to Latin America, especially in a modern context. Jews haven't been mentioned by anyone. Would you care to elaborate?
But it sure feels nice to blame your enemies instead, doesn't it? Let's all pat each other on the back that we're the victims, and only if... and leave it at that.
Way to show you really, really don't understand the politics of Latin America and who funds the various interests that run the show.
Education in the older epoch that his informers mention, was much smaller in scale. Brazil's illiteracy was at ~65% in 1930, at just <50% by 1960, if I remember correctly. So both common schools and secondary education (college/university) were expanding at the time. And that's the reason.
If you expand education, quality inevitably drops. The lower social strata that are reached by education won't get as good teachers as earlier. You may be able to write good schoolbooks, like mathematicians in the USSR did, but there's still last mile problem, the teacher. Most teachers are not bright enthusiasts, often times they're underpaid and burnt out after ages of teaching. The few enthusiasts and visionaries, are exceptions -- at least this is what I read from one recent study -- and their recipies aren't reproducible.
From what I've read, better universities usually have less students per teacher. This way a teacher can engage better and actually care what the student does. This requires more money poured in the system and less corruption. For non-Western countries, this actually shouldn't be a big problem, they're spending smaller share of GDP on education.
I think it varies a lot from even year to year. For the same course, some teacher might be really optimistic and produces little explanations and tests with very hard problems, while next year there's a teacher who is very good at explaining issues and the tests are a bit less "gotcha" like. Even a single teaching assistant or a friend explaining some key concept in a way it clicks for the student can make a huge difference.
Or maybe you have different formal levels, ie university, technical school, so on, these vary by country and don't have full 1:1 mapping to each other. These also evolve over time.
Or inside one university, you have various levels. Some departments might be small and really hard to get to, either via exams, or proof of previous study ability like high grades. And there then you can expect more from the students.
So one big issue is to get the people sorted into the right places. Also if a person's performance or preference changes over time, they should be able to switch.
No, it shows that the country is poor - the desire to pay higher salaries was always there, but it's hard. People in rich countries think money grows on trees because for them, it kind of does.
And this is why development advice from "intellectuals" in rich countries is worthless.
Some countries sell primary goods and other countries manufacture them.
But it turns out it's the manufacturing industry the one that trickles wealth the most, raises salaries and improves education overall.
China knew this. And used all its non-democratic powers to make their country a manufacturing superpower.
A country that only extract natural resources can't hold a numerous population. And if it does, a big % of them is doomed to a life of misery.
You'd think it would make you rich; instead it makes you miners, and ripe for invasion.
It’s exam. The professor enters the room and tells students there will be 3 exams.
One extremely hard all books allowed, it’s either pass with top grade or fail, nothing in between.
One hard, one book allowed, it’s either pass with moderate grade or fail, nothing in between.
One moderate, no book allowed, but if you know the books you can pass, it’s passing grade or fail.
Students are told to sort according to the exam they want to take. Very hard to the right, hard in the middle, moderate to the left.
Once students are sorted the professor says: „ Right pass. Middle come back next year. Left go home, Russia does not need you.“
'In this anecdote it is said that once upon a time on the cornice of a high horse sat two sparrows, one old, the other young.'
'They were discussing an event which had become the "burning question of the day" among the sparrows, and which had resulted from the mullah's housekeeper having just previously thrown out of a window, on to a place where the sparrows gathered to play, something looking like left-over porridge, but which turned out to be chopped cork; and several of the young and yet inexperienced sparrow sat, almost burst.'
'While talking about the old sparrow, suddenly ruffling himself up, began with a pained grimace to search under his wing for the fleas tormenting him, and which in general breed on underfed sparrows; and having caught one, he said with a deep sigh:
'"Times have changed very much -- there is no longer a living to be had for our fraternity.
'"In the old days we used to sit, just as now, somewhere upon a roof, quietly dozing, when suddenly down in the street there would be heard a noise, a rattling and a rumbling, and soon after an odour would be diffused, at which everything inside us would begin to rejoice; because we felt fully certain that when we flew down and searched the places where all that happened, we would find satisfaction for our essential needs.
'"But nowadays there is plenty and to spare of noise and rattlings, and all sorts of rumblings, and again and again an odour is also diffused, but an odour which it is almost impossible to endure; and when sometimes, by force of old habit, we fly down during a moment's lull to seek something substantial for ourselves, then seach as we may with tense attention, we find nothing at all except some nauseous drops of burned oil."
Somebody named GI Gurdjieff wrote a book "Meetings with Remarkable Men" in 1923, and in that book there was a kind of story in the introduction. That story attempted to distnguish between two different ways of life: a Western, "knowing" way and an Eastern "being" way.
The story basically involves a young sparrow eating cork which he thought was leftover thrown-out porridge and gets sick. Then an old sparrow says that in the old days, whenever a horse pooped you could always be sure to get undigested oats from it, but now when a car lets anything out, there is nothing to be had.
I guess the symbolism is that Gurdjieff was saying that the modern culture is deceptive in the sense that the "new" cork is not the same as the "old" porridge. So modern (Western) culture is poison, old (Eastern) culture provides sustenance.
And the connection to the posted article is that the "cork" is like the textbook definitions that Feynman described, while the "porridge" is like "true understanding/incorporation" of knowledge.
Is that what you were getting at?
> At the end of the 20th century, a large “science gap” still exists between Latin America and the developed countries of the North.
> The description is not intended to be a complete analysis, but may give a sense of the significant development that has occurred in the past half century and of what might be needed to make the 21st century a flourishing epoch for science in Latin America .
> The most developed group includes Brazil, Mexico, and Argentina, which have, respectively, about 3000, 2200, and 2000 PhDs involved in physics research.
https://physicstoday.aip.org/features/physics-in-latin-ameri...
https://aip.brightspotcdn.com/PTO.v53.i10.38_1.online.pdf
Feynman, of course, always had confidence in the ability of the people of Latin America to do good physics. In fact his mentor Manuel Sandoval Vallarta was born in Mexico and emigrated to the US to study at MIT. Emigration to the US or Europe is typical of successful physicists from Latin America, including Juan Maldacena, a theorist from Argentina who discovered the AdS/CFT correspondence and has been a professor at the Institute for Advanced Study since 2001.
Anecdotally, I think Europe has more opportunities these days. My friend Gustavo, a high energy theorist from Brazil, got his PhD in the US but now works at the Oskar Klein Centre for Cosmo Particle Physics (OKC) in Stockholm.
When you first turn on the hot water tap in most homes, the water that comes out is cold. After some period of time, hotter water starts to come out. My mom used to describe this as "waiting for the water to warm up".
For decades, I didn't consider the mechanism behind this. That is that there is water in the pipes between the home water heater and the tap. That water can't retain its heat without any further heat input, and gradually loses heat and comes into near-equilibrium with the temperature of the rest of the house. The hot water inside the water heater tank, on the other hand, is constantly being reheated as necessary by a heating element.
When you turn on the tap, after not having used it for some time, you're waiting for cold water from the pipes to be flushed out through the tap and be replaced with freshly heated water from the tank. Once this happens, the water coming out of the tap will be hot because it's been heated recently enough.
I probably didn't realize this until I was about 30 years old, and then I thought of Feynman's anecdote of his students not connecting their theoretical knowledge to understand the mechanism of a real physical situation. It seems I wasn't curious enough as a child to apply my own knowledge to the mechanism of the hot water tap!
It's puzzling why no one in the civilised world adopted this idea :/
Hot water recirculating pump. https://www.familyhandyman.com/article/hot-water-recirculati...
I think it was through natural convection/circulation - the hot water expanded in the tank and pushed it through the recirculating loop?
So maybe there's a good-enough solution that doesn't require a pump, just a return loop.
Now I have an on-demand water heater with a built-in recirculating pump, so it's instantly hot :)
Places where this was built up, still generally use it today.
In the USA, nobody ever built the district wide heaters. Nor would they be viable in the suburbs that many of us live in. We generally use central air instead of radiators to heat our houses. And the result is that constantly circulating hot water is significantly more expensive for us.
Does that answer your question?
https://www.plumbingsupply.com/recirculating-systems-explain...
https://www.homedepot.com/s/hot%20recirculation?NCNI-5
I was recently in Iceland, and since a lot of heat is geothermal, recirc would probably make sense, but I can't remember having it. Maybe it's the pumping cost? Although natural convection driven by the difference in density between hot and cold water might make up for at least part of that.
Specifically; start with the 2-vol Physics for Entertainment (the breadth of coverage is really good) followed by Mathematics can be Fun, Algebra can be Fun etc.
In high school, physics was mostly based on memorization. There were a few problems but all based on some patterns. None made you think extremely hard.
I also found that many American students (who were extremely good in my experience) seemed to have a much better practical sense.
One of the key steps in the development of a physicist is the transition from solving textbook problems to creating your own problems. In essence, the skill one learns in graduate school is defining/crafting problems that are solvable and interesting. The primordial phase starts in college as one is solving many problems. Initially, the new problems are straightforward extensions of existing ones (e.g. add an air resistance term for parabolic motion). Eventually, one (hopefully) develops good taste and essentially is doing research.
Interestingly, I also find very different attitudes to physics in the west (at least in the US) and other parts of the world. In US universities, physics is still seen in glowing terms. In many other places, physics is what you study if you couldn't do engineering. Young people (well, all people) are impressionable and this subtle bias affects what kind of students end up studying the subject.
Wdym "couldn't do"? Nobody here is studying Physics for the job opportunities but I'd say everybody who makes it past semester 4 genuinely loves Physics otherwise they'd be studying something easier.
computer science/engineering > electrical engineering > mechanical engineering > ... > things like metallurgical engineering > ... > physics (and maybe other sciences)
Some of this is driven by job prospects while some of it is prestige driven because one's major lets one infer one's rough ranking in the entrance tests.
So it's very common to infer that if you weren't studying engineering, you didn't rank very high and barely made it past the cutoff ranks and had to study physics or metallurgical engineering.
When I was younger, I thought these rank-based systems (very common in Asian countries) are better than the fuzzier American system of grades + extracurriculars + reference letters. But my opinion is the opposite now. As soon as ranks are involved, a notion of prestige gets assigned. Once prestige is involved, people will climb over each other to get through the doors and suppress their instincts to earn social credits. I have seen enough people who are successful by traditional metrics but are miserable because they didn't spend time pursuing their interests (modulo concerns about jobs and money).
What places are these?
This reminded me of something from my alma mater.
At my (Canadian) university, there was a running joke that engineering was what you studied if you couldn't get into computer science. In fact, the Engineering and Computer Science faculties would semi-frequently prank each other because they were next to each other, I guess. Each faculty focuses on different things, of course, but the "running joke" was that engineering courses were just easier, not as rigorous, and therefore getting in engineering was seen as easier (and so they had more time to do such elaborate pranks).
Again, I don't think this had any truth to it, but it was just one part of a fun tradition the university had.
Also, this was a long time ago. I'm not sure what the current state of this is now or if it even still exists.
For him to move from math to electrical engineering to physics in Brazil would mean going through this twice. This might make him take some 7 or 8 years to graduate.
I guess this inflexibility makes things easier for the administrators. They know they will have 25 students in the statistics class in 2028 and so know how many teachers to hire to handle that.
Interesting take.
But, since then, Brazil became again a lot more agrarian. Manufacturing is now about 13% of GNP. During all this time of growth and fall of the need for technically trained people teaching and learning in Brazil didn't improve that much.
What Feynman doesn't see is culture, or the plain lack of it. People simply don't care to know that science and rigorous knowledge exist. Very much like rural people in the U.S., most Brazilians are immersed in a tribal religious culture that is suspicious of science and education. That country had a president that, while 700 000 people died of Covid, was campaigning against vaccines, saying that those deaths were not his problem and promoting quack medicine.
The "problem" is simply culture: Latin Americans are just plain ignorant people that don't want to learn science.