Most tests are artificial so I'll grant you that, but I don't think it's right to categorize the olympiads as an "exam", even less so a "meaningless" one.
Olympiads are contests, and it's not like contestants participate in them for the same reasons people take exams. It's more of an excuse for skilled students to challenge themselves (and each other) with the hardest problems that the brightest minds (at that age) could be expected to solve.
It's definitely not for everyone, but then, not everyone gets to participate. For those who have a chance to participate officially, I doubt anyone would think it is "meaningless" to do so. I'm not a "competitive" type of person, but I still consider it a valuable experience if only as a chance to test one's limit at a subject one is reasonably good at. I also like to think that the experience significantly influence one's future life choices too. (FWIW: after that I basically decided to avoid dealing with brain teasers and advanced algorithms wherever possible, and got a degree in law instead of CS. Not the typical outcome, but impactful nonetheless. I work as a software engineer now, because as we all know, 99% of software jobs don't need that stuff 99% of the time.)
If you thought olympiads were an "exam" to show off to others how good you are at the subject, then I'd agree it's not meaningful in that aspect. Though this is HN, it's still a very small minority who actually run around flaunting their olympiad medals or Putnams.
Disclaimer: I was a contestant in IOI many years ago. Was so average that I basically quit the game as described above. (In case anyone wonders, no I did not win the Putnam.)
> https://www.imo-official.org/
Most tests are artificial so I'll grant you that, but I don't think it's right to categorize the olympiads as an "exam", even less so a "meaningless" one.
Olympiads are contests, and it's not like contestants participate in them for the same reasons people take exams. It's more of an excuse for skilled students to challenge themselves (and each other) with the hardest problems that the brightest minds (at that age) could be expected to solve.
It's definitely not for everyone, but then, not everyone gets to participate. For those who have a chance to participate officially, I doubt anyone would think it is "meaningless" to do so. I'm not a "competitive" type of person, but I still consider it a valuable experience if only as a chance to test one's limit at a subject one is reasonably good at. I also like to think that the experience significantly influence one's future life choices too. (FWIW: after that I basically decided to avoid dealing with brain teasers and advanced algorithms wherever possible, and got a degree in law instead of CS. Not the typical outcome, but impactful nonetheless. I work as a software engineer now, because as we all know, 99% of software jobs don't need that stuff 99% of the time.)
If you thought olympiads were an "exam" to show off to others how good you are at the subject, then I'd agree it's not meaningful in that aspect. Though this is HN, it's still a very small minority who actually run around flaunting their olympiad medals or Putnams.
Disclaimer: I was a contestant in IOI many years ago. Was so average that I basically quit the game as described above. (In case anyone wonders, no I did not win the Putnam.)